Stoicism and Christianity, Part 3: An Experimental Reading of the Book of Job

The book of Job is perplexing. And I have no illusions that I can make a dent in it as it has stumped the deepest theological minds for millennia. Further, I'm not equipped to deal with the textual and historical issues surrounding the book. As a result, the questions I put to the book of Job and the answers I demand from the book are likely to violate the integrity of the book.

That said (to signal my epistemic humility to any biblical scholars reading this post), I've had a few thoughts about the book of Job that I'd like to share. The thrust of this reading of Job goes to issues of apatheia and the person-hood of God I noted in my first post in this series.

To start, we can make the following observations about the book of Job:

1. Job's basic argument is that he is being treated unfairly, that he is innocent and does not deserve what has happened to him.

2. Job's friends argue that God must have his reasons and that Job must not be as innocent as he thinks.

3. God does show up but God doesn't directly answer Job's questions. Rather, God appears to take offense that Job should question him. God mainly speaks to his transcendence and power in a move to over-awe Job.

4. God rebukes Job's friends for speaking wrongly of him.

5. God states that what Job has said of God is right.

6. Job's friends are asked to repent.

7. Job repents.

The puzzling issues are #1, #3, #5, #7. That is, Job says he is treated unfairly. God says that Job what right in this claim. Yet God offers no explanation or apology to Job. In the end, it is Job, rather than God, who repents.

The whole outcome seems morally backwards.

What exactly is Job repenting of?

If what Job said is correct and true--if Job is representing the situation accurately (and he is)--then why the repentance?

A common interpretation is that Job is expressing humility before the power of God. That Job is repenting of speaking of things--how God runs the the cosmos--about which Job knows nothing.

I think that this reading has a grain of truth, but I want to float a different reading. I don't know if this reading is new to me, and I think I remember George hinting at something like it awhile back. So, this might not be new, but here is my thought balloon on reading Job.

The only way I can see to reconcile #1-#7 is that the "sin" of Job and his friends has nothing to do with the accuracy of their speeches. Job's friends were "wrong" and they must repent. Job, apparently, was "right" yet he repents as well. So it seems that the truth or falsity of their pronouncements are not the problem.

So what is the problem?

Well, perhaps the problem is that they shouldn't have started speaking at all. The proper move would have been to remain silent.

Now, so far this reading looks a lot like the folk reading (i.e., common readings in the pew). The point of Job is one of humility. That we should not speak of things beyond our ken.

I want to float the idea that the problem with the speeches in Job was not that they were speeches but that they expressed certain expectations that were problematic. And is was these expectations that God tried to quash in his response to Job.

My thought is that the speeches in Job express the assumption that the God/Human relationship is, well, a relationship. Thus, there is embedded in this formulation a sense that we can critique God on how God is "treating" us. Job's main complaint is that God isn't treating him well or fairly. In this assessment Job is correct. The problem, as I'm reading it, is that Job is trying to view his interactions with God in relational terms, using notions of personal "treatment." Job's repentance, therefore, is not for being "correct"--God IS treating him in a shabby fashion--but for expecting that God could be criticized on relational grounds. My take on Job is that God is rejecting those categories outright.

Evidence for this reading comes from looking at God's respond to Job. On the folk reading, God is mainly demonstrating his Power and Transcendence. Basically saying to Job, "I'm too big for your questions." In my reading, the issue isn't God's transcendence but rather his impersonality. That is, God's self-portriat isn't a relational portrait. God doesn't describe himself as being the caretaker of humankind. A God who answers prayers, demands worship, is angered over moral infractions, or is seeking the salvation of sinners. Rather, the God in Job looks similar to Einstein's or Spinoza's view of God. Deus sive Natura.

That may be stated too strongly, but the point of this reading is that Job's problem was that he misunderstood the nature of God/Human relations. Job saw the situation in relational terms. God rejects those terms. God basically says in his speech to Job that relationality isn't in the offing.

I don't know if this reading is doing violation to the book of Job. Or how it is affecting you. Again, this is just an experimental line of thinking. And it goes back to issues of how relational notions of God may interfere with the development of equanimity in the face of life circumstance. To summarize, this reading of Job suggests that we cannot read life events in relational terms. As symptoms of God's "treatment" of us.

Food for thought.