Eliphaz first turns thinking or remembering (implicitly in 4:7, explicitly in 4:8) toward observing human experience. Does/can the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm tolerate doing so if the observing is indiscriminate rather than selective? disturbing rather than supportive? No. Instead, observing human experience is done through the filter/lens of the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm, resulting in explanations that do not threaten the paradigm. Eliphaz then shifts to the insulation of a dream (4:12ff). When in doubt, switch to special revelation claims.
Eliphaz does not start with “just believe”. However, he and the ‘scrapheap’ Job differ radically re what/how to remember. He tries to redirect the ‘scrapheap’ Job’s focus from dwelling on what he (Eliphaz) considers exceptions that do not fit the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm to dwelling on what he (Eliphaz) considers the reassuring norms of the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm.
The ‘scrapheap’ Job is now a ‘story’ – most likely ‘the story’, a headline -- added to the caravan travelers’ reports. I see the caravan travelers as representing circumspection, more than simply telling heart-warming stories. The caravan travelers have time to think. And they have to accommodate different cultures. How does an Eliphaz hear the caravan travelers’ stories? An answer can be found in how he (Bildad and Zophar as well) turns a deaf ear to the ‘scrapheap’ Job. The ‘scrapheap’ Job remembers and references the caravan travelers’ stories, likely regarding them as even more credible now than before tragedies had struck him.
Radical (i.e., to the root) thinking and remembering are difficult when fatigued, but do not thereby lack integrity.
In the first telling of an experience, a person begins to engage in reconstructing the past experience.
Peterson (4:7) has “truly innocent” (the RSV has “innocent”) and “genuinely upright” (the RSV has “upright”) re the righteous/blessed. The Hebrew word for ‘innocent’ can mean clean, free from guilt, free from obligation, exempt. It occurs elsewhere in Job (9:23, 17:8, 22:19, 22:30, 27:17). The word can describe innocent blood (Deut. 19:10, 27:25) or one exempt from military service (Num. 32:22). The word for ‘upright’ is the same word as in the prologue.
‘Truly’ and ‘genuinely’ seem to capture the way the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm makes its confirmation inevitable – i.e., shifting blame to the pretenders. To be ‘truly innocent’ and ‘genuinely upright’ would be to accept and defend the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm. Peterson reinforces this point with “ever ended up on the scrapheap” (RSV’s ‘perished’) and “ever lose out in the end” (RSV’s ‘cut off’). The Hebrew word for ‘perish’ appears frequently in the story/play (3:3, 4:9, 4:11, 4:20, 6:18, 8:13, 11:20, 18:17, 20:7, 29:13, 30:2, 31:19 are all in the active voice; 12:23, intensive; 14:19, causative). The word is a general word for ‘die’. But ‘cut off’ (cf. 15:28, 22:20 in the active; 6:10, 15:18, 27:11 in the intensive; 20:12 in the causative) has more the meaning of ‘being hidden’. By using these two words together, to perish takes on the idea of vanishing (3:3, 18:7, 30:2).
Peterson’s “scrapheap” gets at the idea of no longer being visible or remembered. What is placed there has no value, is forgotten, and eventually becomes as if never having existed. The ‘scrapheap’ metaphor could be associated with a garbage dump or a landfill, with the pile of scrap material at a construction sight, with discarded food scraps.
Does Eliphaz see Job as tossed aside on ‘the scrapheap’? Would Job use such imagery? Does Job use ‘perished’, ‘cut off’, ‘reap’, ‘consumed’, . . . (4:7-11) to describe his condition? He uses ‘perished’ in cursing the day he was born (3:3), but does not apply the word more directly to himself. The three close friends use ‘perish’ in reference to the fate of those who are evil. The verb ‘consumed’ (7:6, 7:9, 11:20, 17:5, 19:27, 33:21 in the active and 9:22, 21:13, 31:16, 36:11 in the intensive) is never specifically applied by the ‘scrapheap’ Job to himself. Eliphaz places the ‘scrapheap’ Job with the wicked, perhaps among the unknowingly wicked. The ‘scrapheap’ Job understands Eliphaz to be placing him among the wicked. On the other hand, the ‘scrapheap’ Job sees himself among the innocent and, thus, as undeserving of such punishment. He sees himself among the ‘consumed’, but not among the ‘wicked’. He is heading to his wife’s conclusion in the prologue -- “If ‘God’ is going to throw me on the scrapheap for no reason, I may as well die.”
Is Eliphaz thinking of the ‘scrapheap’ Job when he introduces the lion metaphor (4:10-11)? Does the ‘scrapheap’ Job identify with this metaphor? Has he now felt the ‘breath of God’? ‘the blast of his anger’? Are his teeth now broken? Does he now lack the ability to capture prey? Are his cubs now scattered? Job’s victorious roar (descriptive of his pre-‘scrapheap’ community standing) has been silenced. He is now reduced to the plight of a lion that can no longer hunt either for itself or for its cubs, that will soon die alone in the field and return to dust. Or Eliphaz could also be interpreted here as demonstrating how, without full awareness or without intention, the oratory (e.g., hymns, prayers, sermons) of the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm victimizes individual sufferers such as the ‘scrapheap’ Job.
Is Eliphaz saying ‘God’ weakens the lion? Does Wisdom literature (e.g., Proverbs) draw from such observations of nature? Where (if at all) does a Lion King’s ‘circle of life’ or a Charlotte’s Web’s ‘Father Time’ fit the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm?
The ‘breath of God’ in Genesis is life giving. (The Hebrew word in Job 4:9b is in Genesis 1; the word in Job 4:9a is not.) Is ‘the breath of God’ viewed as destructive elsewhere in Jewish or Christian scripture?
