Job’s three closest friends – Eliphaz, Bildad, and Zophar -- come on stage with the intent to comfort him. Still at some distance, they draw back in horror, unable to recognize him. Sobered, they draw near and sit together with him in silence for several days. A trusting Job -- believing that “when desperate people give up on God Almighty, at least their friends should stick with them” -- ventures to utter in their presence what he has been thinking night and day –
The visibly unnerved three friends are hesitant in their initial reactions. But once released, Job’s brutally honest thoughts surge –
The friends tighten their interpretations of Job’s plight into defensive counter arguments. They remain loyal to the brighter side of conventional wisdom’s coin. Job, however, cannot escape the darker side. The friends, still convinced that ‘God’ consistently rewards the upright and punishes the wicked, deduce that Job has committed some grievous offense. Their counsel –
Job -- certain that he is innocent of any mistakes proportional to such severe discipline -- cannot avoid the terrifying thought that ‘God’ is free to take sadistic delight in torturing people for no reason. Job defends himself against his friends’ charges –
When the exchanges between the ‘scrap heap’ Job and his three close friends play out to a stalemate, a young student impatient with the three friends’ defense of conventional wisdom speaks briefly from the periphery about apparent tragedies refining character. Then, contrary to what Job expects when face to face, ‘God’ dramatically storms on stage to muscle Job to his knees. But before the friends sigh with relief after hearing an intimidated Job mutter to ‘God’ “I’m convinced. You can do anything and everything”, ‘God’ surprisingly validates Job – “I’m fed up. You (the friends) haven’t spoken of me what is right – not the way my friend Job has.” And what had Job spoken? ‘God’ is selfish . . . ‘God’ is distracted . . . ‘God’ is negligent . . . ‘God’ is confused . . . ‘God’ is erratic . . . ‘God’ is psychotic . . . ‘God’ is guilty . . . ‘God’ is lawless . . . ‘God’ is sadistic . . . ‘God’ is ruthless . . . – all true?
And so, the narrator leaves the audience at a critical fork in the road. Will it be the familiar “all’s well that ends well” epilogue? If so, the ‘God’ language of conventional wisdom is left intact. And the ways conventional wisdom had left Job to see ‘God’ from the ‘scrap heap’ are rejected as not just false but heretical. Or will it be the uncharted search for a way of thinking about ‘God’ and life that is radically (i.e., to the root) different from the conventional wisdom within which Job’s charges against ‘God’ cannot be escaped without attacking Job’s integrity?
“Obliterate the day I was born. . . . Why didn’t I die at birth, my first breath out of the womb my last? . . . What’s the point of life when it doesn’t make sense, when God blocks all the roads to meaning? . . . The worst of my fears has come true. What I’ve dreaded most has happened.”
The visibly unnerved three friends are hesitant in their initial reactions. But once released, Job’s brutally honest thoughts surge –
“The arrows of God Almighty are in me – poison arrows – and I’m poisoned all through! . . . I’m given a life that meanders and goes nowhere – months of aimlessness, nights of misery! . . . I can only conclude that God destroys the good right along with the bad. . . . I try to make the best of it, try to brave it out, but you’re too much for me, relentless, like a lion on the prowl. . . . Why treat me like I’m your enemy? Why kick me around like an old tin can? Why beat a dead horse? . . . Your anger tears at me, your teeth rip me to shreds, your eyes burn holes in me – God, my enemy! . . . ”
The friends tighten their interpretations of Job’s plight into defensive counter arguments. They remain loyal to the brighter side of conventional wisdom’s coin. Job, however, cannot escape the darker side. The friends, still convinced that ‘God’ consistently rewards the upright and punishes the wicked, deduce that Job has committed some grievous offense. Their counsel –
“Think. Has a truly innocent person ever ended up on the scrap heap? . . . Does God mess up? Does God Almighty ever get things backward? Do you think it’s because he cares about your purity that he’s disciplining you, putting you on the spot? Hardly. It’s because you’re a first-class moral failure. . . . If I were in your shoes, I’d go straight to God, I’d throw myself on the mercy of God. . . . Give in to God. Come to terms with him and everything will turn out just fine. . . . Even though you’re not much right now, you’ll end up better than ever”.
Job -- certain that he is innocent of any mistakes proportional to such severe discipline -- cannot avoid the terrifying thought that ‘God’ is free to take sadistic delight in torturing people for no reason. Job defends himself against his friends’ charges –
“One look at a hard scene and you shrink in fear. . . . Time after time you jump all over me. Do you have no conscience, abusing me like this? . . . You pretend to tell me what’s wrong with my life, but treat my words of anguish as so much hot air. Look me in the eyes. Do you think I’d lie to your face? Think carefully – my integrity is on the line! . . . If you’re thinking, ‘How can we get through to him? get him to see that his trouble is all his own fault?’ Forget it. Start worrying about yourselves. . . . I refuse to say one word that isn’t true. I refuse to confess to any charge that’s false. I’ll not deny my integrity even if it costs me my life.”
When the exchanges between the ‘scrap heap’ Job and his three close friends play out to a stalemate, a young student impatient with the three friends’ defense of conventional wisdom speaks briefly from the periphery about apparent tragedies refining character. Then, contrary to what Job expects when face to face, ‘God’ dramatically storms on stage to muscle Job to his knees. But before the friends sigh with relief after hearing an intimidated Job mutter to ‘God’ “I’m convinced. You can do anything and everything”, ‘God’ surprisingly validates Job – “I’m fed up. You (the friends) haven’t spoken of me what is right – not the way my friend Job has.” And what had Job spoken? ‘God’ is selfish . . . ‘God’ is distracted . . . ‘God’ is negligent . . . ‘God’ is confused . . . ‘God’ is erratic . . . ‘God’ is psychotic . . . ‘God’ is guilty . . . ‘God’ is lawless . . . ‘God’ is sadistic . . . ‘God’ is ruthless . . . – all true?
And so, the narrator leaves the audience at a critical fork in the road. Will it be the familiar “all’s well that ends well” epilogue? If so, the ‘God’ language of conventional wisdom is left intact. And the ways conventional wisdom had left Job to see ‘God’ from the ‘scrap heap’ are rejected as not just false but heretical. Or will it be the uncharted search for a way of thinking about ‘God’ and life that is radically (i.e., to the root) different from the conventional wisdom within which Job’s charges against ‘God’ cannot be escaped without attacking Job’s integrity?