What place does Eliphaz’s appeal to dreams (4:12ff) have in the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm? in Wisdom literature? in Jewish theological methods? in Christian theological methods? His appeal to dreams is juxtaposed with his previous appeal to observation. Dreams and supernatural communications carry little weight in Wisdom literature. The most supernatural appearance of ‘God’ to Job in the story/play – i.e., the whirlwind -- is an anomaly in Jewish Wisdom literature. The dreams of Joseph and Daniel are rare in Jewish literature and should be considered atypical. Eliphaz seems to be making a rather desperate appeal. He reminds me of the desperate student I watched at a piano recital who, frustrated and embarrassed by her inability to complete her assigned piece, switched frantically to a few measures of a ‘boogie’ before fleeing tearfully from the piano. Eliphaz no longer speaks/acts as a ‘wise’ man. How should the ‘scrapheap’ Job be cast when reacting to Eliphaz’s appeal to a dream – e.g., a raised eyebrow? a mystified stare?
Eliphaz uses the same word for ‘dread’ (4:14) that the ‘scrapheap’ Job has just used (3:24). The word – which appears several more times in the story/play (13:11, 15:21, 21:9, 22:10, 25:2, 31:23, 39:16, 39:22) -- often refers to the “dread of the Lord” or “fear of the Lord”. Just as often, it refers to abject terror.
The terms ‘righteous’ and ‘pure’ (4:17) are very common terms. Peterson’s “more” captures the Hebrew comparative. Does the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm in fact build around concepts of ‘God’ as ‘righteous’ and ‘pure’? If so, then what do the breadth and depth of innocent/tragic human suffering imply about the definitions of ‘righteous’ and ‘pure’ in reference to ‘God’? If the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm does not in fact build around such concepts, then the ‘God’ of the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm is above accountability and, therefore, represents ‘might makes right’.
If ‘God’ (as understood within the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm) is righteous within relationships, then this ‘God’ certainly operates by different standards than the standards the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm expects humans to follow in their treatment of others. Does the purity attributed to ‘God’ come from being wholly other (i.e., pure because ‘God’ is different, untouched by the world) or is the purity attributed to ‘God’ moral as well? Job’s torturous experiences and the wider/deeper realities of human suffering would seem to say this ‘God’ is neither righteous nor pure by the standards to which the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm expects humans to follow in their treatment of others.
To say that standards for defining righteousness and purity are not applicable to ‘God’ is to take an easy (but, as the ‘scrapheap’ Job realizes, a horrific) way out. Representatives/guardians of the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm grant each other this easy way out. A ‘non-religious’ and ‘with the world face to face’ approach to ethics, spirituality, and theology neither seeks nor accepts an easy way out, but instead turns away from the ‘God’ language of the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm.
The next thoughts from Eliphaz about ‘God’ (4:18-19) -- which suggest remoteness and a lack of care -- further distance humans from ‘God’. What link exists between these thoughts and the preceding references to the superior righteousness and purity of ‘God’? What do these thoughts imply about ‘God’ as understood within the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm? Is the ‘God’ acknowledged within the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm an inconsistent and paranoid despot (eerily similar to King Saul in need of a youthful David with a lyre)?
The Hebrew word for ‘servant’ (4:18) is the same word used to identify Job in the prologue.
Peterson switches (4:20-21) from third-person pronouns to first-person pronouns. However, the third-person is used through 4:21 in the Hebrew text. Who is speaking in the ‘blur’? in a ‘muffled voice’?
Eliphaz uses the same word for ‘dread’ (4:14) that the ‘scrapheap’ Job has just used (3:24). The word – which appears several more times in the story/play (13:11, 15:21, 21:9, 22:10, 25:2, 31:23, 39:16, 39:22) -- often refers to the “dread of the Lord” or “fear of the Lord”. Just as often, it refers to abject terror.
The terms ‘righteous’ and ‘pure’ (4:17) are very common terms. Peterson’s “more” captures the Hebrew comparative. Does the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm in fact build around concepts of ‘God’ as ‘righteous’ and ‘pure’? If so, then what do the breadth and depth of innocent/tragic human suffering imply about the definitions of ‘righteous’ and ‘pure’ in reference to ‘God’? If the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm does not in fact build around such concepts, then the ‘God’ of the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm is above accountability and, therefore, represents ‘might makes right’.
If ‘God’ (as understood within the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm) is righteous within relationships, then this ‘God’ certainly operates by different standards than the standards the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm expects humans to follow in their treatment of others. Does the purity attributed to ‘God’ come from being wholly other (i.e., pure because ‘God’ is different, untouched by the world) or is the purity attributed to ‘God’ moral as well? Job’s torturous experiences and the wider/deeper realities of human suffering would seem to say this ‘God’ is neither righteous nor pure by the standards to which the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm expects humans to follow in their treatment of others.
To say that standards for defining righteousness and purity are not applicable to ‘God’ is to take an easy (but, as the ‘scrapheap’ Job realizes, a horrific) way out. Representatives/guardians of the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm grant each other this easy way out. A ‘non-religious’ and ‘with the world face to face’ approach to ethics, spirituality, and theology neither seeks nor accepts an easy way out, but instead turns away from the ‘God’ language of the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm.
The next thoughts from Eliphaz about ‘God’ (4:18-19) -- which suggest remoteness and a lack of care -- further distance humans from ‘God’. What link exists between these thoughts and the preceding references to the superior righteousness and purity of ‘God’? What do these thoughts imply about ‘God’ as understood within the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm? Is the ‘God’ acknowledged within the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm an inconsistent and paranoid despot (eerily similar to King Saul in need of a youthful David with a lyre)?
The Hebrew word for ‘servant’ (4:18) is the same word used to identify Job in the prologue.
Peterson switches (4:20-21) from third-person pronouns to first-person pronouns. However, the third-person is used through 4:21 in the Hebrew text. Who is speaking in the ‘blur’? in a ‘muffled voice’?
