Fragment #24

[1994] The stubborn realities of offensive suffering make the temptation to anesthetize ourselves with distractions seem irresistible. Many Cabaret masters of ceremonies are nearby, urging us to flee to experiences where “life is beautiful”. We eventually realize that the relief they offer is shallow, providing no more than a veneer over our insecurity and our troubled conscience. By thinning out the ‘good’ in life as well as turning away from the ‘tragic’ in life, cabarets leave us most removed from reality.

To live and work among the vulnerable requires balance for experiencing both joy and heartache. We begin to recover this balance when the unsatisfactory and empty consequences of despairing resignation or escapism drive us back toward indiscriminately facing life’s varying circumstances. More positively, we need an approach to spirituality and ethics through which we acquire instincts analogous to an old farm animal making its way alone back to the barn or a boxer continuing to answer the bell though dulled by several rounds of fighting. We need an approach to spirituality and ethics that encourages familiarity with a host of witnesses, the recollection of whose faithfulness draws the weary servant back to his/her post. We need an approach to spirituality and ethics by which the search for meaning in offensive life circumstances does not harm the sufferers by destroying their integrity. We need an approach to spirituality and ethics that permits expressions of doubt and confusion when the search for meaning fails.

It seems that many – sufferers as well as those who care for them -- who lose the footing they brought to tragic suffering are not argued out of those ideas/views. Instead, they have seen more than they or their approach to spirituality and ethics can bear. Suffering can eclipse/melt down every concept of ‘God’ with which I am familiar. But an attempt to regain balance must stop short of concluding that the realities of innocent suffering should be avoided. The sufferers cannot so flee.

Every person who dares to be genuinely present with the disadvantaged and dismembered should expect to grow faint. When they do, they face what may be their most crucial spiritual and ethical test. They should affirm what vision they still have, confess their disappointments, and seek for relief. Then, by lack of an alternative that maintains their integrity or by the recollection of encouraging experiences with the disadvantaged and dismembered, they can find the resolve to return to the journey with renewed courage.

Fragment #23

[1994] I have been thinking often -- since a few nights ago when we used Psalm 15 for our evening meal prayer -- about the proposition that “blessed is he who keeps his vow, even if it hurts”.

Fragment #22

[1994] ‘Homo sapiens’ – There should also be variations that would highlight such traits as economics, ethics, technology, being humane, . . . -- all variations in addition to Descartes’ “I think, therefore I am”. The paths are mixed and varied re coming to consciousness/awareness of one’s ‘self’. A path may be harsh/destructive (e.g., rebelling against an abuser). Once aware of one’s ‘self’, then one faces the question of accountability to others.

Fragment #21

[1994] I am essentially ‘liberal’ in that

1. I believe in the core goodness of human beings,
2. I affirm human history and culture,
3. I am committed to unrestricted critical inquiry.

Fragment #20

[1994] A ‘paradigm shift’ is far more than a matter of sifting through options analogous to picking out a suit of clothes or looking for a box in which to mail/store something. Such analogies correspond to searching through (or perhaps creating new) variations within the accepted paradigm. In stark contrast, a ‘paradigm shift’ is far more fundamental and radical.

Fragment #19

[1994] I recently read Reichenbach’s From Copernicus to Einstein. The idea that scientists eventually forget the primitive wonder and become disenchanted with the subject matter has variations in so many other academic/intellectual disciplines. I think possible sources for such disenchantment include familiarity, concentration on the mechanics of the inquiry, time constraints, compartmentalization, lack of reflective skills, fatigue, fear, routine.

I am especially drawn to Reichenbach’s observation – “. . . The significance of Copernicus lies precisely in the fact that he broke with an old belief apparently supported by all immediate sensory experiences. He could do it only because he had at his disposal a considerable amount of accumulated scientific thought and scientific data, only because he himself had followed the road of disillusionment in knowledge before he glimpsed the new and broader perspectives” (pp. 13-14). The experience and concept of being disillusioned have been for me inseparable from my aggressive critique of ‘religion’ and my move toward being ‘with the world face to face’ in order to search for an approach to spirituality and ethics that is anchored in a realistic ‘eyes opened’ consideration of human experience. To be disillusioned is to be moved closer to reality. To be disillusioned is also to suffer a devastating blow to motivation, purpose, courage, resiliency, inspiration. Reconstituting one’s self/center whenever on the other side of being disillusioned is essential to sustaining the search.

I now see more clearly the symbolic significance of the invention and history of the telescope. Note: Galileo’s comment to Kepler – “I am very grateful that you have taken interest in my investigations from the very first glance at them and thus have become the first and almost the only person who gives full credence to my contentions; nothing else could be really expected from a man with your keenness and frankness. But what will you say to the noted philosophers of our university who, despite repeated invitations, still refuse to take a look either at the moon or the telescope and so close their eyes to the light of truth?” Galileo then described how another scientist refused to look through the telescope “because it would only confuse him” (p. 23-24).

Nothing shows better the greatness of a scholar’s character than his/her conduct in the face of failure.

Fragment #18

[1994] “We know and submit to dozens of social, economic, and psychological imperatives.” (Cf. Walker Percy by Robert Coles, p. xvi.) How many did Percy think ‘know’? Who are the ‘we’ he had in mind? How many who begin to ‘know’ are changed by that knowledge? How many passively ‘submit’? Can one fully ‘know’ without breaking away from the ‘imperatives’? What rationale/s would justify the decision knowingly and actively to ‘submit’ after being free to envision being together without ‘imperatives’?

Fragment #17

[1993] I have been thinking about three dreams this week. (1) Martin Luther King Day (January 18) reminded me of his ‘I Have a Dream’ speech thirty years ago. (2) In his inaugural address (January 20), President Clinton referenced his life-long dream to be president. (3) Audrey Hepburn, who died this week (January 21), was rescued by a UNICEF-type effort after WWII (she lost family members in the Holocaust). She was a life-long supporter of UNICEF. When asked if she thought there would ever be a time when UNICEF would not be needed, she responded – “That’s my dream.”

Fragment #16

[1994] Metaphor – the Cheshire Cat. [from Alice in Wonderland]

“I wish you wouldn’t keep appearing and vanishing so suddenly; you make one quite giddy!” “All right,” said the Cat; and this time it vanished quite slowly, beginning with the end of the tail, and ending with the grin, which remained some time after the rest of it had gone. “Well! I’ve often seen a cat without a grin,” thought Alice; “but a grin without a cat! It’s the most curious thing I ever saw in all my life!” . . . As Alice observed, “It looked good-natured.” Still it had very long claws and a great many teeth. So she felt she ought to treat the Cat with respect.

The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #30

As a transition signal, Peterson (5:17-18) has “So” (RSV “Behold”). Is Eliphaz drawing his conclusions from his immediately preceding statements? Or does he look back to the beginning of his response to the ‘scrapheap’ Job? ‘Behold’ is a better translation than ‘so’ if the latter implies what follows is a logical deduction from or consequence of what has gone before. Eliphaz changes tactics near the end of his argument. Some have suggested translations such as ‘look’ or ‘listen up’. It seems to me Eliphaz is grasping for something positive to say to the ‘scrapheap’ Job. Perhaps to his surprise, he thinks he has stumbled upon it -- i.e., ‘God’ is making Job a better, stronger person!

Eliphaz shifts to repeated references to ‘you’ (5:17ff). Is he speaking specifically to the ‘scrapheap’ Job? Or is it possible he is climbing oratorical heights, with the ‘scrapheap’ Job falling further and further out of focus? I think the latter.

Eliphaz introduces the “correction”/“discipline” motif to explain the ‘scrapheap’ Job’s plight. Has this line of thought been used previously by Eliphaz? Is this interpretation used subsequently in the story/play? What place does this motif have in the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm? The word for ‘correction’ occurs throughout the story -- 6:25-26 (Job), 9:33 (Job), 13:10, 15 (Job), 15:3 (Eliphaz), 16:21 (Job), 19:5 (Job), 22:4 (Eliphaz), 23:7 (Job), 32:12 (Elihu), 40:2 (‘God’). The word for ‘discipline’ occurs less often -- 20:3 (Zophar), 33:16 (Elihu), though it is found frequently in Proverbs. The ‘religious’ T/O paradigm holds the ‘correction’/‘discipline’ motif as a trump card to explain suffering that seems at odds with the paradigm – e.g., if the ‘scrapheap’ Job is not being punished, perhaps he is being blessed with suffering to make him a better person and prepare him for greater use by and honor from ‘God’.

A word study for ‘despise’ would be helpful. The word – which carries the idea of being rejected -- occurs a few times in the story/play, most often used by the ‘scrapheap’ Job -- 7:16 (Job), 8:20 (Bildad), 9:21 (Job), 10:3 (Job), 19:18 (Job;), 30:1 (Job), 31:13 (Job).

Why does the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm’s ‘God’ wound or smite? The word translated ‘wound’ means pain. The pain can be either physical or mental. In this text, the causative is used (i.e., to cause pain). The verb form occurs in 14:22 (Job). The word translated ‘smite’ means to wound severely, to shatter. The word also occurs in 26:12 (Job). Eliphaz may have ‘tough love’ in mind. However, I think the ‘scrapheap’ Job is thinking of ‘God’ more in terms of a chronically penitent alcoholic parent who harms when intoxicated. Koheleth (Ecclesiastes) seems to be thinking along similar lines with his conclusion that there is no consistency in whether or not the ‘hand of God’ crushes or cradles what it holds.

Peterson (5:19) uses “disaster” and “calamity” (RSV “trouble”). The Hebrew word means straits or distress. The word occurs also in 27:9 (Job), 7:11 (Job), 15:24 (Eliphaz), 36:16 (Elihu), 36:19 (Elihu), and 38:23 (‘God’) as well as twenty-four times in the Psalms. The word does not appear in the prologue to the story/play.

Is Eliphaz associating (equating?) trouble with evil? What would doing so imply for the concept of ‘God’ in the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm? Is Eliphaz admitting here that the ‘scrapheap’ Job’s tragedies are in essence/fact evil? Perhaps, rather than ontological evil, he considers the ‘scrapheap’ Job’s plight evil because he is in obvious pain. However, the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm attributes both good and evil to ‘God’.

Is Eliphaz (5:20) attributing famine and war to the will of ‘God’ too? How do those loyal to the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm avoid this deduction? This same question applies to all the tragic circumstances referenced by Eliphaz. Does the view attributed to ‘Jesus’ re ‘God’ causing rain to fall on the just and unjust (Matthew 5:43-48) include devastating hurricanes, typhoons, flooding, . . ?

‘Trouble’ (3:17) appears often in the story/play. Here the wicked are blamed for causing trouble. Are there other sources? The ‘scrapheap’ Job focuses on ‘God’ as the source of his trouble. Does the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm lead to this view? Does the ‘scrapheap’ Job or any other character in the story/play draw on the idea of an Accuser as the ultimate source of such trouble?

Is Eliphaz saying a blessed (righteous) person (5:17) never starves in famine or is never wounded/killed in war? His confidence that, regardless of how tragic or ghastly the experience, the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm works leads him to make predictions (5:19ff) that are (especially in the ‘scrapheap’ Job’s presence!) self-evidently false, indefensible, and outlandish. Is he faithfully representing the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm? Some might say Eliphaz is speaking in hyperbole. However, his closing claim – “Yes, this is the way things are, my word of honor!” (Peterson) – seems to me to argue against a hyperbolic interpretation.

Is the Hebrew word for “deliver” (Peterson) or “redeem” (RSV) used elsewhere with a spiritual meaning? The verb means to ransom and occurs in 6:23 (Job) and 33:28 (Elihu). Outside the story/play, the word is used to refer to ‘God’ delivering Israel from Egypt (Deut. 7:8, 13:6), from exile (Jer. 31:11), and in general (Hos. 7:13) as well as delivering specifically individuals (Isa. 29:22).

How can anyone (5:21) “be protected from vicious gossip” (Peterson) or “be hid from the scourge of the tongue” (RSV)? With gossip about the ‘scrapheap’ Job rampant, Eliphaz reveals his conclusion about his close friend.

How can Eliphaz look at the ‘scrapheap’ Job and say -- regardless of the trouble, “the evil can’t touch you” (5:19)? Eliphaz sounds (5:20ff) as if he is singing a hymn (e.g., ‘It Is Well With My Soul’). He sounds as shocking and insensitive as that hymn sounds to me.

The 5:17 text is the first use of ‘almighty’ in reference to ‘God’ in the story/play. Is the ‘God Almighty’ wording distinctive to J, E, P, and/or D?

The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #29

Eliphaz begins with a ‘God’ who acts indiscriminately (5:10) and then moves to a ‘God’ with special interests in “the down and out” (5:11). It is as if ‘God’ is just and, if he veers, he veers toward mercy. But then Eliphaz quickly settles back into the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm’s ‘God’ against evildoers.

Is Eliphaz (5:12ff) suggesting the ‘scrapheap’ Job is the victim of a plot, a conspiracy, an intrigue? But then (5:17ff) he introduces the discipline explanation (i.e., “this is for your good”) for the ‘scrapheap’ Job’s situation. How deep are the roots of this explanation in Jewish thought? What is the etymology/meaning of the Hebrew word translated (by Peterson and the RSV) as “despise”?

Eliphaz argues (5:10-16) ‘God’ is the defender/protector of the “down and out” (RSV “lowly”), “those sinking in grief” (RSV “who mourn”), the “downtrodden” (RSV “fatherless”), and the “needy” (RSV “needy”) against the wiles of “conniving crooks” (RSV “the crafty”) and the “know-it-alls” (RSV “wise”). Is there a clue yet as to where Eliphaz is placing the ‘scrapheap’ Job? Or is he caught up in his oratory, oblivious to how the ‘scrapheap’ Job might be hearing him? I would definitely cast him as caught up in his oratory. If he places the ‘scrapheap’ Job, perhaps a hint is found in his proposition that “the poor have hope, and injustice shuts its mouth” (5:16). The ‘scrapheap’ Job has suffered financial reversals. However, there is no reason to place him among the poor. So Eliphaz may already be deducing that the ‘scrapheap’ Job must be a purveyor of injustices against the poor. The ‘scrapheap’ Job is then one of those crooks and know-it-alls from whose clutches (v. 15) Eliphaz believes ‘God’ saves the poor. Is it possible Eliphaz has been jealous of the prologue Job’s extremely good fortune?

Peterson (5:11b) has “gives firm footing to those sinking in grief” (RSV “those who mourn are lifted to safety”). Peterson captures the essence of the Hebrew wording. But the word ‘safety’ in this text should not be missed. The word stems from the root for ‘salvation’. Eliphaz is challenging the ‘scrapheap’ Job to save himself by becoming lowly in repentance and mourning his sin. The Hebrew wording here is not similar to the 4:4a wording. Note that, for Eliphaz and the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm, repenting and mourning mean confessing guilt (and, therefore, absolving ‘God’) to which ‘God’ responds by again drawing near in a protective (rather than attacking) manner. In other words, repenting and mourning saves one from ‘God’.

The word translated ‘hope’ in 5:16a is the same word translated ‘hope’ in 4:6. This word appears often in the story/play, mostly used by the ‘scrapheap’ Job – 6:8 (Job), 7:6 (Job), 8:13 (Bildad), 11:18, 20 (Zophar), 14:7 (Job), 14:19 (Job), 17:15 (Job), 19:10 (Job), 27:8 (Job), 41:9 (‘God’). In trying to follow the line of thought in 5:10-16, I come away with the following -- Eliphaz begins with a reference to a non-discriminating relation between ‘God’ and human experience he finds suggested in weather patterns (5:10). But he abruptly shifts to and lingers with the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm’s ‘the righteous are blessed; the wicked cursed’ premise. Where do these statements (and the preceding set of statements) leave the ‘scrapheap’ Job -- stricken by fate? among the poor? among those deserving punishment?

The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #28

Eliphaz seems reconciled to the suffering of the collateral victims (e.g., children, employees, neighbors, . . .) in the ‘scrapheap’ Job’s calamities. Thinking this way certainly blunts his attentiveness to the breadth of human suffering.

The word “trouble” appears again (5:6). The Hebrew word occurs several times in the story/play (3:10, 4:8, 5:6, 5:7, 7:3, 11:16, 15:35, 16:2). The word does not appear later in the whirlwind ‘God’ section. Nor is the word used by Elihu or in the epilogue. The word is a favorite for Koheleth in Ecclesiastes, whose use of the word is most often translated ‘toil’ or ‘labor’.

Peterson has “Don’t blame fate when things go wrong -- trouble doesn’t come from nowhere” (5:6). The RSV has “come from the dust” for Peterson’s “fate” and “sprout from the ground” for Peterson’s “nowhere”. Peterson captures the idea. Eliphaz argues trouble does not arise on its own. Trouble is more like a crop that is intentionally sown.

‘Fate’ suggests aimless predetermination or chance. ‘Nowhere’ has cosmological significance. Does the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm have such concepts? Or is Eliphaz denying such concepts? For him and the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm, ‘fate’ and ‘nowhere’ are not realities. All is (divine) cause and (human) effect. Eliphaz traces (5:7) trouble to its origin -- “It’s human!” (Peterson). But “born and bred for trouble” (Peterson) and “born to trouble” (RSV) push the origin of trouble beyond/before individual choice.

I agree we often (but not always) bring trouble on others and ourselves. However, I would argue autonomous human freedom/will is not essential or weight bearing within the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm -- which instead reduces human experiences finally to the intentional or permissive will of ‘God’. Eliphaz seems to be saying, not that humans exercise freedom in damaging ways, but that humans are by nature the source of their trouble. Is Eliphaz attributing trouble and humans being “born and bred for trouble” to ‘God’? Where in Jewish scripture is this view of human nature found? Did ‘the Fall’ originate in Jewish thought or is ‘the Fall’ a Christian idea conceived to put ‘God’ at least one step removed from responsibility for the trouble human beings experience? It is not surprising debate became so intense among the Christian guardians of the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm re whether ‘the Fall’ was truly/essentially an exercise of human freedom. It should be noted that interpreting Genesis 3 as a literal space/time ‘Fall’ from spiritual innocence/completeness implies and necessitates a pre-modern/pre-scientific cosmology.

Does the view expressed in the Psalms (e.g., 51:5) that human beings are born in sin – or, so to speak, with the cards stacked against them – indicate the idea of some sort of ‘Fall’ was in circulation? In Christian scripture, James (1:14-15) places all temptation and sin at the feet of humans. With the cards stacked against human beings, very few (if any) would enjoy a trouble-free life. Is this line of thought not crosswise with the (D)euteronomic ‘religious’ T/O paradigm?

By 5:8ff in the story/play, Eliphaz is completely out of touch with the ‘scrapheap’ Job, whose responses play off Eliphaz’s disconnection by taking so many of his words/metaphors in directions opposite to Eliphaz’s intentions. Eliphaz will not allow the ‘scrapheap’ Job to question ‘God’.

Peterson (5:8-9) has “If I were in your shoes” (RSV “As for me”). Literally, the Hebrew text reads, “But, I, I would seek to God”, with the ‘I’ emphasized. ‘But’ is a very strong transition, indicating “You might do this, but I would do something entirely different, perhaps opposite”. Can Eliphaz possibly imagine/grasp being discarded on a ‘scrapheap’? He mentions no comparable experience/s.

Peterson (5:8-9) has “I’d go straight to God” (RSV “I would seek God”). He seems to be playing off of the 5:1 wording. Peterson has “I’d throw myself on the mercy of God” (RSV “to God I would commit my cause”). The Hebrew wording supports ‘cause’ rather than ‘mercy’. Mercy has not been previously introduced in the story/play. If Eliphaz has mercy in mind, he develops the idea in appeals to nature (5:10), to a safety net for the lowly (5:11, 15-16), and to the demise of the crafty (5:12-14). What place does mercy have in the ‘religious’ T/O theological paradigm? Within the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm, mercy begins with a Genesis 1-2 type reflection on creation (not the more nuanced Ecclesiastes type reflections on creation, to which I assign greater weight). ‘God’ is thought to make life operate in an orderly cause and effect manner. Mercy might also refer to the leeway ‘God’ permits to those living within the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm. For instance, ‘God’ may delay discipline or judgment (e.g., texts that suggest ‘God’ waited centuries before punishing Israel and then Judah).

Eliphaz (5:8-9) calls the acts of ‘God’ “great” (Peterson and RSV) and “unexpected” (RSV “unsearchable”). He claims, “There is no end to his surprises” (RSV “marvelous things without number”). Is Eliphaz saying such acts are illogical or inconsistent within the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm? that ‘God’ errs toward mercy? If so, this point underscores his argument that the ‘scrapheap’ Job deserves his plight and should admit his corruption. Eliphaz will not consider the ‘scrapheap’ Job’s contention that ‘God’ can also be harsher than deserved, lashing out and destroying for no reason.

The reference to “no end” (RSV “without number”) conveys the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm’s confidence that such acts by ‘God’ far outnumber the events or experiences that are anomalous to the paradigm. Given a modern/scientific view of reality, I do not attribute showers (5:10) to the direct/intentional will of ‘God’. Nor do I agree the stories from which divine justice and divine mercy might be inferred far outnumber the stories from which divine injustice and divine cruelty might be inferred. The representatives/guardians of the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm can be counted on to tally the former stories (e.g., experiences that are classified as ‘a God story’). Is there evidence they tally the latter stories? I have not found such evidence. What counts as a story of justice and mercy? of injustice and cruelty? A spectrum would help clarify the variations within these two classifications of stories.

The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #27

How is death viewed within the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm? in Jewish theology? within the story of Job? The ‘scrapheap’ Job’s comments about death (3:13ff) present the first description of death in the story/play. Such descriptions need to be tracked through the story/play. How do these descriptions vary?

Note (Peterson’s wording) “resting in peace”, “asleep”, “feeling no pain”, “in the company of kings and statesmen” . . . – the ‘scrapheap’ Job anticipates none of these experiences associated with the death of the blessed within the variation on the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm he had shared with his close friends.

Eliphaz reminds the ‘scrapheap’ Job he has “spoken words that clarify, encouraged those who were about to quit” (4:3). What about this wording? Is the purpose of “instructing” (RSV) to clarify? Does Peterson’s translation stay within the metaphor of ‘weak hands’? Is Eliphaz associating the ‘scrapheap’ Job with these (4:3-4) conditions literally? figuratively? both?

Eliphaz says ‘God’ is angry (4:9) in response to evil. The ‘scrapheap’ Job sees no evidence in his misery of such anger toward any evil for which he is accountable. Instead, he sees ‘God’ as unjustifiably and intentionally targeting him with disturbing delight.

The 4:17-18 statements in the story/play gets to the crux – i.e., the ‘scrapheap’ Job claims to have been morally consistent whereas ‘God’, he argues, has not. What does it mean, within the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm, to say ‘God’ is righteous if suffering such as the ‘scrapheap’ Job’s suffering without justification is attributed to the intention or permission of ‘God’? Does Eliphaz accurately represent the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm in suggesting that ‘God’ does not trust any being (4:18)? Saying “God is righteous” is anthropomorphic. And Eliphaz’s reference to ‘God’ having servants (attendants?) is clearly sociomorphic.

From 5:1 forward in the story/play, Eliphaz increasingly loses touch with or focus on the “scrapheap’ Job. He leaves the impression (5:1-2) that no one who might hear a call for help from the ‘scrapheap’ Job will respond (similar to reports of individuals being shot or beaten to whom no bystander responds). Who does Eliphaz include with ‘anyone’? Is the reference limited to the “holy angels” (Peterson) or “holy ones” (RSV)? Would he include ‘religious’ functionaries/professionals? And ‘the righteous’ too? Why will no one respond? fear of punishment by association? fear of being collateral victims? After all, the ‘scrapheap’ Job’s house certainly appears to be cursed (5:3).

I think the ‘scrapheap’ Job concludes Eliphaz has him in mind (5:2) with the references to “hot temper” (RSV -- “vexation”) or “jealous anger” (RSV -- “jealousy’) or “fool” (Peterson and RSV). Is there a difference between ‘fool’ and ‘simpleton’? In the context of Wisdom Literature, calling the ‘scrapheap’ Job a fool is a very serious charge. The Hebrew word here for ‘fool’ is not the word common in the Proverbs references to a fool. A ‘simpleton’ is someone easily deceived. Perhaps Eliphaz is trying to be gentle by not using the harsher word for ‘fool’. But he is still slapping the ‘scrapheap’ Job with his own verdict concerning his problems. The harsher word for ‘fool’ never occurs in the story/play. Is that because the author of the dialogues inserted between the prologue and the epilogue realizes the ‘scrapheap’ Job is not a fool in the harsher sense, but in fact speaks courageously what is true?

I find the RSV translation -- “but suddenly I cursed his dwelling” (5:3b) confusing. Peterson has “suddenly their houses are cursed”. The Hebrew word is first person. The word (which first occurs in 3:8) is not a common verb for ‘curse’. Peterson’s translation resolves the confusion.

Is Eliphaz arguing against “putting down roots” (Peterson) or “taking root” (RSV) when blessed? Does the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm warn against or discourage actually “putting down roots” in this life? Are the roots Eliphaz has in mind more theological than social? Is he implying that “putting down roots” leads to one’s house eventually being cursed? Or does “suddenly” indicate he is saying one’s house can be cursed for no reason?

Eliphaz sounds very aristocratic (5:4-5), full of disdain and disrespect for the hungry and the thirsty. The perspective found in Proverbs understands poverty to be a punishment, but also encourages the seeker of wisdom to be generous. The notion that poverty results from disobedience stigmatizes the poor, the diseased, and those who have suffered great loss. Does the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm permit (even promote) the dispositions and corresponding behavior Eliphaz endorses? Yes.

“Their children out in the cold, abused and exploited, with no one to stick up for them” (5:4) -- painfully vivid.

At this point, Eliphaz puts the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm theology and liturgy in front of (and, thereby, eclipses) the harsh realities being experienced by the ‘scrapheap’ Job. Eliphaz looks/sounds ridiculous to me. How does he look/sound to those within the ‘religious’ sphere?

The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #26

The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #26

[The primary references to the text for the Job story/play come from Eugene Peterson’s translation -- The Message of Job. I have copied the section of the story/play to which the postings that follow the text relate – i.e., the concluding statements in the first responses from the ‘scrapheap’ Job’s close friend Eliphaz (5:1-27). Postings #26-#30 follow.]

[Eliphaz continued]

5.1Call for help, Job, if you think anyone will answer! To which of the holy angels will you turn? 2The hot temper of a fool eventually kills him, the jealous anger of a simpleton does her in. 3I’ve seen it myself – seen fools putting down roots, and the, suddenly, their houses are cursed, 4their children out in the cold, abused and exploited, with no one to stick up for them. 5Hungry people off the street plunder their harvests, cleaning them out completely, taking thorns and all, insatiable for everything they have. 6Don’t blame fate when things go wrong – trouble doesn’t come from nowhere. 7It’s human! Mortals are born and bred for trouble, as certainly as sparks fly upward.

8If I were in your shoes, I’d go straight to God, I’d throw myself on the mercy of God. 9After all, he’s famous for great and unexpected acts; there’s no end to his surprises. 10He gives rain, for instance, across the wide earth, sends water to irrigate the fields. 11He raises up the down and out, gives firm footing to those sinking in grief. 12He aborts the schemes of conniving crooks, so that none of their plots come to term. 13He catches the know-it-alls in their conspiracies – all that intricate intrigue swept out with the trash! 14Suddenly they’re disoriented, plunged into darkness; they can’t see to put one foot in front of the other. 15But the downtrodden are saved by God, saved from the murderous plots, saved from the iron fist. 16And so the poor continue to hope while injustice is bound and gagged.

17So, what a blessing when God steps in and corrects you! Mind you, don’t despise the discipline of Almighty God! 18True, he wounds, but he also dresses the wound; the same hand that hurts you, heals you. 19From one disaster after another he delivers you; no matter what the calamity, the evil can’t touch you. 20In famine, he’ll keep you from starving, in war, from being gutted by the sword. 21You’ll be protected from vicious gossip and live fearless through any catastrophe. 22You’ll shrug off disaster and famine, and stroll fearlessly among wild animals. 23You’ll be on good terms with rocks and mountains; wild animals will become your good friends. 24You’ll know that your place on earth is safe; you’ll look over your goods and find nothing amiss. 25You’ll see your children grow up, your family lovely and lissome as orchard grass. 26You’ll arrive at your grave ripe with many good years, like sheaves of golden grain at harvest.

27Yes, this is the way things are – my word of honor! Take it to heart and you won’t go wrong.