Peterson has the whirlwind ‘God’ chide the ‘scrapheap’ Job -- “Now what do you have to say for yourself? Are you going to haul me, the Mighty One, into court and press charges?” (40:1-2). The RSV seems hard to read here. “A faultfinder” seems vague. “Contend” carries the image of a formal charge in court. The idea is instead more that of a frail beggar daring to challenge the integrity of the senior teacher of wisdom at the city gates. And how should “let him answer it” be heard (40:2)? Is the ‘scrapheap’ Job being forced/embarrassed to shut up until he can match the whirlwind ‘God’ item for item in a knowledge test? Or is the ‘scrapheap’ Job being forced/embarrassed to shut up by the whirlwind ‘God’ pulling rank on him?
At best, the whirlwind ‘God’ can look over at the epilogue Job (42:10ff) after the crowded city gates have emptied and tosses him some coins. ‘God’ looks like ‘the Godfather’. The logic seems lost. ‘God’ challenges the ‘scrapheap’ Job’s credentials. ‘God’ disregards the ‘scrapheap’ Job’s credibility as a survivor.
And then the surprise (42:7-9) -- ‘God’ endorses what Job has said from the ‘scrapheap’! With this unanticipated endorsement, the story/play calls for a verdict from each reader/hearer re the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm that is so thoroughly discredited by Job from the ‘scrapheap’.
Peterson has the ‘scrapheap’ Job say, “I should never have opened my mouth” (40:3-5). Here is an echo of the prologue references to Job’s not charging ‘God’ with wrongdoing, to his not blaming ‘God’, to his not sinning “with his lips”. Does Job’s response mean he no longer thinks what he dared to say from the ‘scrapheap’? Or does it mean the ‘scrapheap’ Job realizes the audience with ‘God’ for which he has hoped is useless?
Peterson makes the taunting by the whirlwind ‘God’ clear -- “Do you presume to tell me what I’m doing wrong? Are you calling me a sinner so you can be a saint?” (40:8). The whirlwind ‘God’ disavows any accountability to the likes of the ‘scrapheap’ Job. The whirlwind ‘God’ persists in snubbing the ‘scrapheap’ Job -- “Go ahead, show your stuff. Let’s see what you’re made of, what you can do” (40:10). The whirlwind ‘God’ shifts to an attack on the ‘scrapheap’ Job’s motive. The ‘scrapheap’ Job could easily deflect this challenge back to ‘God’ by countering – “Must I destroy my integrity by admitting guilt so that you can be justified?”
Is there an implicit judgment against the ‘scrapheap’ Job in the reference to “the proud” (40:11-13)? I have read repeatedly the Behemoth and Leviathan sections without experiencing an “Aha, so that’s the point” other than to conclude that the message from the whirlwind ‘God’ is ‘might makes right’. Peterson has ‘God’ contend,
At best, the whirlwind ‘God’ can look over at the epilogue Job (42:10ff) after the crowded city gates have emptied and tosses him some coins. ‘God’ looks like ‘the Godfather’. The logic seems lost. ‘God’ challenges the ‘scrapheap’ Job’s credentials. ‘God’ disregards the ‘scrapheap’ Job’s credibility as a survivor.
And then the surprise (42:7-9) -- ‘God’ endorses what Job has said from the ‘scrapheap’! With this unanticipated endorsement, the story/play calls for a verdict from each reader/hearer re the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm that is so thoroughly discredited by Job from the ‘scrapheap’.
Peterson has the ‘scrapheap’ Job say, “I should never have opened my mouth” (40:3-5). Here is an echo of the prologue references to Job’s not charging ‘God’ with wrongdoing, to his not blaming ‘God’, to his not sinning “with his lips”. Does Job’s response mean he no longer thinks what he dared to say from the ‘scrapheap’? Or does it mean the ‘scrapheap’ Job realizes the audience with ‘God’ for which he has hoped is useless?
Peterson makes the taunting by the whirlwind ‘God’ clear -- “Do you presume to tell me what I’m doing wrong? Are you calling me a sinner so you can be a saint?” (40:8). The whirlwind ‘God’ disavows any accountability to the likes of the ‘scrapheap’ Job. The whirlwind ‘God’ persists in snubbing the ‘scrapheap’ Job -- “Go ahead, show your stuff. Let’s see what you’re made of, what you can do” (40:10). The whirlwind ‘God’ shifts to an attack on the ‘scrapheap’ Job’s motive. The ‘scrapheap’ Job could easily deflect this challenge back to ‘God’ by countering – “Must I destroy my integrity by admitting guilt so that you can be justified?”
Is there an implicit judgment against the ‘scrapheap’ Job in the reference to “the proud” (40:11-13)? I have read repeatedly the Behemoth and Leviathan sections without experiencing an “Aha, so that’s the point” other than to conclude that the message from the whirlwind ‘God’ is ‘might makes right’. Peterson has ‘God’ contend,
“If you can’t hold your own against his glowering visage, how, then, do you expect to stand up to me? Who could confront me and get by with it? I’m in charge of all this -- I run this universe!”It seems to me the core premise of the whirlwind section is that the power/transcendence assigned to ‘God’ removes ‘God’ from accountability, leaving as ‘take it or leave it’ the claim there is some comprehensive plan/purpose that encompasses the ‘scrapheap’ Job’s plight. I do not accept this understanding of ‘God’ for at least three reasons. First, in every aspect of my life, I reject a hierarchical, ‘who is the strongest’, rank-pulling approach to relationships. Second, the core premise stands or falls with a pre-scientific cosmology. Third, I do not reduce life circumstances to a single factor -- i.e., divine sovereignty.