What does it mean for the name ‘God’ to be blessed (1:21)? I see one answer in the story/play’s prologue with the messengers cycling through the royal court with reports that end with accolades. This ‘blessing’ – which I have found to be characteristic of liturgies (e.g., hymns, prayers, sermons) within the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm – reminds me of the conniving daughters in King Lear. Such honoring does not accurately or honestly reflect the depth and breadth of human suffering.
Where, in the development of Jewish thought, does the pre/nonscientific cosmology (1:6ff) assumed in the Job story/play – e.g., angels, ‘God’ enthroned, an Accuser, celestial beings ‘checking things out on the earth’, ‘God’ causing or permitting things to happen on earth, . . . – become presupposed or taken for granted? According to this cosmology, how does ‘God’ know of the tragedies described in the prologue? Does the wording in the prologue suggest any divine empathy for the victims?
I would cast the prologue’s celestial scene with ‘God’ surrounded by an angelic host similar to an ancient royal court. Anyone entering a monarch’s presence had to be introduced and had to have some valid reason to intrude. The prologue’s celestial scene should be cast as a monarch receiving reports of the outcome of battles or as a medical school dean/department chair or as politicians (especially federal) (or perhaps as a Wizard of Id!). The point – the monarch and, therefore, ‘God’ have no intimate or direct familiarity with what is happening ‘below’. From the ‘scrap heap’, Job most often seems to be thinking, “If I could only get his attention . . .” or “If I could only get through the bureaucracy . . .” -- suggesting a ‘God’ analogous to Queen Elizabeth behind the scenes as the English Puritans were systematically contained/crushed all the while thinking the Queen above the bureaucracy was their ally. The whirlwind ‘God’ enters the story/play minus a royal court entourage and appears to have more immediate knowledge of happenings on earth (though there is no suggestion of interest in or empathy toward human suffering).
Was the Accuser’s counter argument that “a human would do anything to save his life” (2:4) an accepted truism in antiquity? Is it now? This proposition invites yet another spectrum. I suspect that the distribution of individuals would be weighted heavily toward the ‘do anything’ end. Medical decision-making in life-threatening situations is but one illuminating place to look for evidence. A demonstration of the validity of the Accuser’s assessment can also be seen clearly at the foreign policy level.
How does the Accuser’s proposition fit with the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm? Would ‘religious’ T/O paradigm theologies – centered by the eventual reduction of all life circumstances to divine will -- justify/encourage attempts by adherents to save their lives? No. For such would finally be seen as defiance and weak faith.
The answers individuals give to “What is more important than saving my life?” reveal each one’s character/integrity. The person (nation) for whom saving one’s life trumps all other considerations is very self-centered, ready to manipulate/exploit all others to achieve his/her end.
What could Job do to save his life? The counsel/pressure the ‘scrap heap Job’ receives from his three close friends reinforces the Accuser’s proposition – even to the point of their knowingly counseling/pressuring him to violate his integrity. They press him to embrace the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm, to fall prostrate before ‘God’ begging for mercy (e.g., 8:5). Elihu presses him to respond to his plight as an opportunity for spiritual refinement intended by ‘God’. The whirlwind ‘God’ humiliates the ‘scrap heap Job’ without addressing his plight.
How should today’s medical/surgical interventions be written into the story/play?
What would the riddle of ‘Jesus’ – i.e., find your life by losing your life – add to the story/play?
Re the intent of Job’s three close friends, Peterson has -- “ . . . to keep company and comfort him” (2:11). Another possibility permitted by the Hebrew wording would be – “to show grief or mourn and to comfort or console”.
Later in the story/play, the ‘scrap heap Job’ speaks of ‘God’ as having no manners (e.g., ‘God’ “snatches”). The prologue makes it no surprise that the ‘scrap heap Job’ would draw this conclusion. I do not think the behavior of ‘God’ (all concepts of ‘God’ in the story/play) can be excused with -- “His ways are not our ways”.
