The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #275

[July 2006 journal entry]
Would the ‘scrapheap’ Job be justified in expecting or insisting that his three close friends enter the spiritual/theological meltdown with him? I have found myself for many years struggling to figure out how to be with others without pulling them into such a meltdown. The ‘scrapheap’ Job is being swept into a spiritual/theological meltdown and is hopeless (from the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm perspective) whereas his three close friends (consistent with the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm) are clinging to the more hopeful idea of being refined or having character built by ‘God’ through such suffering. For many years, I have been using ‘meltdown’ as a metaphorical description of the experience that drove the shift from ‘religious’ to ‘non-religious’ for me.

The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #274

[July 2006 journal entry]
The three close friends are soon saying, “All bets are off. This is not what we had in mind by ‘adversity’.” Their kindness dissolves. They assume a posture loyal to ‘God’ (as understood within the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm) that supersedes, reshapes, and diminishes their loyalty to the ‘scrapheap’ Job. In other words, they could not be loyal to the ‘scrapheap’ Job without being disloyal to ‘God’ (who, they all – including Job -- agree, has withdrawn from Job) and without validating/endorsing the meltdown of ‘God’ language for the ‘scrapheap’ Job. Perhaps the ‘scrapheap’ Job should realize/anticipate their confusion and let his three close friends off the hook, freeing them to depart or to commit themselves afresh with their eyes now fully open to the severe and tragic realities of human suffering.

The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #273

[July 2006 journal entry]

I can imagine conversations prior, to the story/play prologue tragedies, between Job and his three close friends in which they had made unconditional promises of loyalty to each other. And I can imagine the public comments Job and his three close friends had made re ‘friendship’. The first words from the ‘scrapheap’ Job to his three close friends (ch. 3) abruptly begin to test their friendships down into the root. What had the ‘scrapheap’ Job’s three close friends inferred from observing him in silence for days? Are they already feeling the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm wobble/buckle underneath them?

The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #272

[July 2006 journal entry]
My view of Proverbs wisdom is that such wisdom does not fully/indiscriminately/deeply consider tragic human suffering. The wisdom in Proverbs does not appear to have been carved out of serious/radical engagement with the harsh realities of human suffering. The three close friends can no longer consider the ‘scrapheap’ Job to be wise. What is the counsel in Proverbs re treating ‘fools’? Do the three close friends follow such wisdom in their responses to the ‘scrapheap’ Job?

The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #271

[July 2006 journal entry]
What should a true friend’s loyalty imply? Are there any limits? The answers are pivotal. A ‘yes’ leads the friend safely back to the core/center of the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm. A ‘no’ leads the friend to a ‘non-religious’ path that is essentially/radically separate from the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm.

The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #270

[July 2006 journal entry]

The Hebrew wording for 6:14 is – “For the one who despairs, from his friends, steadfast love; and the fear of Shaddai he forsakes.” The ‘he’ would seem to refer to the one who despairs, with ‘despair’ further defined as forsaking/abandoning ‘God’. The singular ‘he’ would not agree with the plural ‘friends’. 6:14 is the only place where the Hebrew word for ‘steadfast love’ or ‘loving kindness’ occurs in Job. The word does not occur in Ecclesiastes.

The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #269

[July 2006 journal entry]

How should 6:14 be translated? I am drawn to Peterson’s “When desperate people give up on God Almighty, their friends, at least, should stick with them” (which follows the NIV). The RSV has “Those who withhold kindness from a friend forsake the fear of the Almighty”. This translation seems awkward and quite out of sync with the ‘scrapheap’ Job’s thought. Peterson’s linking “give up on God Almighty” with “desperate people” rather than with “friends” makes far more sense, has far more force. The RSV translation sounds more like a generalizing proverb than a pained statement by Job from the ‘scrapheap’.

The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #268

[July 2006 journal entry]

If the ‘scrapheap’ Job has some such proverb in mind, his being abandoned by his wider circle of friends weakens the proverb’s credibility. As his wider circle of friends disappears, the proverb’s credibility depends on the ‘scrapheap’ Job’s three close friends. The implications of their failure to meet the ‘scrapheap’ Job’s expectation of friendship (6:14) are existentially as well as theologically profound.

The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #267

[July 2006 journal entry]

What attitudes/emotions should be attributed to the ‘scrapheap’ Job (6:14) toward friendship? as represented by his three close friends? Who does he have in mind in this challenging view of ‘friend’ – a wider circle of individuals he would call ‘friends’ with a corresponding shallow expectation? or his smaller/inner circle of close friends with a corresponding deep/profound expectation? Is he repeating a familiar proverb? There are three possible parallels in Proverbs for the ‘scrapheap’ Job’s remarkable statement about friendship -- (1) “A friend loves at all times, and a brother is born for adversity” (17:17), (2) “There are friends who pretend to be friends, but there is a friend who sticks closer than a brother” (18:24), (3) “Wealth brings many new friends, but a poor man is deserted by his friend” (19:4). Note that the phrase ‘by his friend’ in the third parallel with Proverbs is identical to the wording used by the ‘scrapheap’ Job (6:14).

The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #266

[July 2006 journal entry]

Peterson (6:11b) has “future” (RSV “end”). What future/end has motivated the ‘scrapheap’ Job to this point? Is he confirming what the Accuser proposes in the prologue – i.e., that Job’s noble behavior prior to his tragedies had been motivated by self-serving ambitions? Yes. Are self-serving ambitions characteristic of ‘religion’ and the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm? Yes. A ‘non-religious’ approach to ethics and spirituality – which I do not find represented by any character (‘God’ included) in the story/play -- is centered by goals and values other than self-serving ambitions.

The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #265

[July 2006 journal entry]

Peterson translates the ‘scrapheap’ Job to say -- “I’d at least have the satisfaction of not having blasphemed the Holy God, before being pressed past the limits” (6:10). Peterson’s “satisfaction” seems a bit weak when compared with the RSV’s “I would even exult in unrelenting pain”. Peterson’s ‘not yet’ suggestion about cursing ‘God’ seems on target re the direction and pace of the ‘scrapheap’ Job’s thought. If the RSV translation is followed, what “words of the Holy One” does the ‘scrapheap’ Job have in mind? What would it mean to deny such words? To deny “words of the Holy One” – as variously understood within the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm -- would put the ‘scrapheap’ Job outside his ‘religious’ T/O paradigm community. Would any of the ‘scrapheap’ Job’s three close friends stay with him? Peterson’s translation is very free flowing, but captures the basic meaning. However, the reference to unrelenting pain in the Hebrew wording should be retained. The ‘scrapheap’ Job senses how close he is to crossing the line. Given more time, will he curse ‘God’ as the Accuser predicts in the prologue of the play/story?

The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #264

[July 2006 journal entry]

Does the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm expect/demand the cowering and the silence implied by the ‘scrapheap’ Job (6:5-7) and demonstrated by the prologue Job as well as the whirlwind section’s ending? Yes. They might respond initially in defiance, but a individuals and communities committed to seeing world events and human experiences through the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm expect (pressure) the ‘scrapheap’ Jobs eventually (1) to accept the pain/suffering – however tragic and profound -- as the intent/will of ‘God’ and, therefore, as just and as beyond question and (2) to repent of the initial defiance.

The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #263

[July 2006 journal entry]

Here (6:1-7) is the second reference to “God Almighty” (Peterson) or “the Almighty” (RSV). The meaning of Shaddai is debated – e.g., ‘mountain one’, ‘almighty’, ‘powerful one’. BDB suggest a possible derivation from a verb that means to deal violently with, to despoil, to devastate, to ruin. If presented as a play, how should the ‘scrapheap’ Job utter “God Almighty” – cynically? fearfully? defiantly? I vote for a defiant tone. Within the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm, how does ‘almighty’ relate to ‘sovereign’? to ‘just’/‘righteous’? to ‘mercy’? It seems clear the ‘scrapheap’ Job is not pointing to ‘God Almighty’ for a demonstration of ‘might for right’ (i.e., King Arthur’s radical vision in Camelot). The emphasis is certainly on having power rather than on being just or being righteous or having mercy.

The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #262

[July 2006 journal entry]

The ‘scrapheap’ Job is convinced his resources have been all but depleted by ‘God’. Peterson has “Do you think I can pull myself up by my bootstraps? Why, I don’t even have any boots!” (6:13). The ‘scrapheap’ Job has no ear for such reassurance as -- “You will not be tested above that which you are able to bear”. The ‘religious’ T/O paradigm is crumbling around the ‘scrapheap’ Job. The paradigm’s defenders eventually argue that individuals who wither rather than grow under such punishment/discipline turn from ‘God’. They might also argue the ‘scrapheap’ Job is not trying to see the good the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm promises will come from his tragedy.

The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #261

[July 2006 journal entry]

What is the hope, the end, the future about which the ‘scrapheap’ Job speaks in these questions? The immediate context suggests he is longing/searching for the answer to his prayer (6:8-9). However, I see him thinking more broadly. If so, what does the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm claim to offer the ‘scrapheap’ Job? Perhaps a renewed life if he repents? Perhaps a deeper spiritual life if he can withstand the educational experience of his suffering? To the contrary, the ‘scrapheap’ Job sees no prize (including the bounty described in the epilogue) that can be worth this trauma.

The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #260

[July 2006 journal entry]

The ‘scrapheap’ Job’s questions (6:11-12) sound rhetorical. Is he posing these questions to his three close friends? If so, does he think they hear the questions as rhetorical? No doubt the three close friends see a glorious prize awaiting them if they succeed in getting the ‘scrapheap’ Job to repent.

The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #259

[July 2006 journal entry]

Peterson (6:10c) has “blasphemed” (RSV “denied”) and (6:14) “give up” (RSV “forsake”). Are these terms equivalent to cursing ‘God’? ‘Denied’ can mean to conceal or to cover as well as to rebel. The ‘scrapheap’ Job may think he has not yet cursed ‘God’, but he senses he is very close. Peterson is correct to accent this implication with “before being pressed past the limits” (6:10).

The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #258

[July 2006 journal entry]

Remember the ‘whose hand is afflicting Job’ back-and-forth between ‘God’ and the Accuser in the prologue? The ‘scrapheap’ Job reveals his conclusion about this dispute in his wish that ‘God’ would “let loose his hand” (RSV). I wonder how Job’s wife hears this prayer. Perhaps as -- “He’s coming around to my view of this mess?” Does she now empathize with him? Does she hear his prayer as an accusation against ‘God’?

The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #257

[July 2006 journal entry]

Peterson’s “squash me like a bug” is vivid. But the RSV seems to sustain the bluntness of the prayer better with “crush me”. Does the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm’s view of what ‘pleases God’ include an appeal to be squashed/crushed? Does the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm have a place for a death wish? Is the ‘scrapheap’ Job’s appeal serious? Such an appeal challenges the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm. If the ‘scrapheap’ Job is hoping to end it all, he is saying, “Why not let those arrows hit a vital organ and just take me out? Show some mercy in your wrath.” However, it is also possible to read him as not yet serious. He may still want to accuse ‘God’ to his face.

The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #256

[July 2006 journal entry]

The ‘scrapheap’ Job now (6:8-13) seems clearly on the edge of the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm. Interpreting his thoughts as sarcastic, ironic, even cynical would not be premature or inappropriate.

The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #255

[July 2006 journal entry]

Re the ‘scrapheap’ Job’s next question – “Do you see what God has dished out for me?” -- a food may not taste good but can still be eaten for nourishment without nausea. However, the ‘scrapheap’ Job adds another forceful analogy – nausea (6:6-7). This analogy is particularly significant in light of the place this metaphor holds in existential thought about the human predicament. The staging/directing needs to make vivid to the audience that the ‘scrapheap’ Job is nauseated by what ‘God’ “has dished out”.

The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #254

[July 2006 journal entry]

The ‘scrapheap’ Job turns to animal analogies (6:5). How common are such analogies other than in the story/play’s whirlwind section? ‘Wild ass’ appears also in 11:12 and 39:5. ‘Ox’ appears in 24:3. Peterson’s “so don’t expect me to keep quiet in this” makes explicit the implication in these analogies. What makes a wild ass bray or an ox low over its food? the scarcity? the taste? The lack of satisfaction and contentment? If it would be possible to say the following to the ‘scrapheap’ Job without harming him or falling in with his three close friends, I would look for a way to say to him, “Yes, I do expect more from a human being than I expect from a donkey or a cow.”

The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #253

[July 2006 journal entry]

Peterson (6:4c) has “God has dumped the whole works on me” (RSV “the terrors of God are arrayed against me”). Peterson’s translation seems weak, almost trivializing. The Hebrew wording is as forceful as the RSV translation, if not more so. How the ‘scrapheap’ Job sees the terrors arrayed around him is important. The terrors have been carefully positioned. He is surrounded with strategically selected terrors that are aimed at particularly vulnerable areas. The ‘scrapheap’ Job is not thinking ‘God’ has dumped these terrors on him; he is thinking ‘God’ has organized them into a massive, orderly, and devastating offensive against him.