Here's a synopsis of the book's outlook:
1. Job is presented as the epitome of godliness in the tradition of Deuteronomy and Psalm 1 ("blameless and upright, a man who fears God and shuns evil")
2. As such, he is the most blessed person in the entire world ("greatest man among all the peoples of the East")
3. God sits in charge of a "heavenly counsel" that apparently the "accuser" (Hebrew - ha-satan - "the satan") is accountable to
4. God points out Job to ha-satan as the epitome of the human race
5. Ha-satan accuses God of having created an inherently flawed system - i.e., his contention is that Job "fears God" only because God rewards him - that he DOES NOT fear God "gratuitously" - in other words, Job doesn't do what is right purely because it is right, and he doesn't love God because loving God is inherently good. He only does it to get stuff.
6. If this were true, the entire arrangement between God and man would be intractably poisoned. God himself would be impugned.
7. God apparently thinks it is NOT the case that Job only fears him to get stuff, so he allows ha-satan to take Job's stuff and his health, to prove his point and exonerate his arrangement.
8. And so the bet is on.
Here's what I find interesting.
1. The suffering of Job apparently is NOT for the sake of "purifying" Job's faith. That is, this is not a test for Job in order to make him a better person. He is "blameless and upright, a man who fears God and shuns evil." It doesn't get better than that ...
2. The suffering of Job is for the sake of vindicating God (stick that in your theological pipe and smoke it)
3. Though it is ha-satan who directly causes the pain of Job, the text is emphatic that when Job attributes the ultimate cause of the suffering to God, he did not sin or speak wrongly of God by charging him with "wrongdoing" or "unsavoriness." He is God, let him do as he pleases. Job, in other words, doesn't blame ha-satan. He looks to God, and maintains his "integrity" by continuing to be devoted to God despite the fact that it is no longer rewarding to him. (We're inching pretty close here to the Psalmist's assertion that God himself is our inheritance)
4. The text passes NO JUDGMENT on the fact that lots of seemingly "innocent" people suffer because of this cosmic wager (Jobs sons and daughters and servants who are killed - heck, let's throw in the cattle too)
5. The moment at which Job errs in the book of Job is when he begins to "justify" himself rather than God. This draws God out of hiding for Job, and Job thus humbled ends where he basically began: "Surely I spoke of things I did not understand." That is, "The suffering sucks. And I want it to be over. And I'll ask God to end it. But when it doesn't end when I want it to end, I'm not going to raise my nose at God to justify myself. I'll only admit that there is MUCH more going on than I can understand. And then I'll worship God who I trust is both good and wise and just, and governs the universe mysteriously according to his goodness, wisdom, and justice."
So much to chew on here ... What do you think?
4 comments:
to much to chew on here... don't even know where to start.
In Gustavo Gutierrez’s magisterial commentary on Job an important dialectic emerges between what he calls “disinterested” religion (i.e. religion that does not find its axiom in a reward/punishment paradigm) and utilitarian religion. He states:
“With this in mind, the satan proposes his wager: ‘lay a finger on his possessions; then, I warrant you, he will curse you to your face.’ Thus the central question of the book of Job is raised at the outset: the role that reward or disinterestedness plays in faith in God and in its consistent implementation. God believes that Job’s uprightness is disinterested, and he therefore accepts the challenge. The author is telling us in this way that a utilitarian religion lacks depth and authenticity; in addition, it has something satanic about it (this is the first appearance of the irony that the author handles so skillfully). The expectation of rewards that is at the heart of the doctrine of retribution vitiates the entire relationship and plays the demonic role of obstacle on the way to God. In self-seeking religion there is no true encounter with God but rather the construction of an idol.”
This would seem to lay the groundwork for why Jesus would say those too-harsh-to-be-taken-literally words of “it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of needle than a rich man to enter heaven,” which sound like fingernails on a chalkboard to our sensitive, consumerist ears. Furthermore, it would seem that John Sobrino is correct when he writes that there is “no salvation outside of the poor.”
The book of Job seems to remind us that it is in those moments when we encounter the suffering in the world and ourselves that we most participate in “true religion,” a religion that participates with Jesus on the cross… the only religion worth resurrecting. This of course is not easy for us to hear in our present state where the demonic structures of advertising and consumerism constantly set up idolic structures that we must constantly try to tare down, which is why we can so often relate to Paul when he says that “those things that I hate, those are things that I so often find myself doing.” Fortunately for us, I believe Mother Teresa was speaking prophetically when she said that “we will never know how much we owe to the poor, for their lives are a constant intersession before God.” Job reminds us that it is because of the “least of these” that salvation is coming and has come.
I pray that we, like Job, would somehow experience a “true encounter with God… rather than the construction of idol” as we encounter the events and traumas of life. I suppose that this is not just my prayer, as Jesus also prayed for us along these lines:
Jesus Prays for His Disciples (John 17)
6"I have revealed you to those whom you gave me out of the world. They were yours; you gave them to me and they have obeyed your word. 7Now they know that everything you have given me comes from you. 8For I gave them the words you gave me and they accepted them. They knew with certainty that I came from you, and they believed that you sent me. 9I pray for them. I am not praying for the world, but for those you have given me, for they are yours. 10All I have is yours, and all you have is mine. And glory has come to me through them. 11I will remain in the world no longer, but they are still in the world, and I am coming to you. Holy Father, protect them by the power of your name—the name you gave me—so that they may be one as we are one. 12While I was with them, I protected them and kept them safe by that name you gave me. None has been lost except the one doomed to destruction so that Scripture would be fulfilled. 13"I am coming to you now, but I say these things while I am still in the world, so that they may have the full measure of my joy within them. 14I have given them your word and the world has hated them, for they are not of the world any more than I am of the world. 15My prayer is not that you take them out of the world but that you protect them from the evil one. 16They are not of the world, even as I am not of it. 17Sanctify them by the truth; your word is truth. 18As you sent me into the world, I have sent them into the world. 19For them I sanctify myself, that they too may be truly sanctified.
-dan
Dan,
Love your thoughts and definitely appreciate the connection between the theology of Job and the praxis of serving "the least of these" ... It's a connection I hadn't thought of
I suppose one of the tricks in that regard, however, is that engaging the suffering of the world by way of the poor is not an AUTOMATIC pathway to what Gutierrez calls "disinterested" religion ... Paul speaks to this when he says, "If I give all I possess to the poor and surrender my body that I might boast, but have not love, I gain nothing."
What I mean is ...
- Some serve the poor out of a weak and sickly sense that it's an obligation -- i.e., benevolence
- Others serve the poor to try to "create an inroad for the gospel"
- Still others serve the poor because the poor need someone to serve them
- And yet others (and here's where some of us may find ourselves) serve the poor as a way of shaking our fist at the mostly white, consumerist suburbia that threatens to engulf us, taking ourselves and our actions to be a "prophetic symbol" against an "empire" that stifles compassion
There's the sticky point ... We can't serve the poor because we want to be a prophetic symbol. That's utilitarian. And we can't serve them out of our loathing of those who have no compassion, shaking one fist at them while with the other we feed our poor brothers. That's utilitarian as well.
We have to serve them because we care. Because we love. And that's it.
And of course, this may usher in alternative futures and become symbolically prophetic ... But it will never be genuine, real, or in any sense Job-like unless we do it for the love of the poor themselves and the joy of serving them
Job's faith rebukes me on so many levels ...
Andrew,
I agree with you completely. This is why Mother Teresa said, "I try to give to the poor people for love what the rich could get for money. No, I wouldn't touch a leper for a thousand pounds; yet I willingly cure him for the love of God."
In effect, we must work toward complete "disinterest" in all things except for the love of Jesus. This is the same disinterest that Thomas Merton spoke of when he asked, "why should I desire anything that can not bring me God, and why should I fear anything that can not take God away from me."
Once we begin to find ourselves in the love of God, we become free to take or leave the raw materials that the world provides us for the building of the kingdom Jesus spoke about. In a very real sense, we do not find our salvation in solidarity with the marginalized simply because they are thus, but because Jesus has chosen to make himself known in this way. If Jesus should make himself known somewhere else, then that is where we must go. Our end must always be Jesus... the author and finisher of our faith.
Gutierrez's point is that it is through our encounters with suffering and in solidarity with those who now suffer that we find, what Derrida called, the "impossible possibility" of true religion, a religion that seeks God for reasons that lay outside the bounds of rewards or utilitarianism.
I myself do not know if "true religion" exists, for I am often plagued by doubt and perplexed by the suffering in the world, but I do know that if it does exist, it exists in those moments where humanity lays down itself for the love of neighbor by means of its participation in the infinite love of God.
-dan
Post a Comment