The Book of Job is perhaps one of the most baffling pieces of ancient literature. It is certainly one of the most baffling pieces of Hebrew and Christian scriptures. The only effective way, at least for me, to understand Job is to read it as a myth, but not only a myth but rather as a mythic play - perhaps one of the earliest examples of a play in Canaanite and Hebrew culture and literature.
In fact, Job is so much like a play that Archibald MacLeish wrote a modern version of it called, "JB" in 1958. Job also fits well into the realm of mystical literature as saying something about the mystic journey on this side of life; particularly, about the pauses (transitional moments that give us pause to consider who we are and what's happening) that occur.
Job is a tragic character, whose tragedy has nothing to do with anything he's done but rather what is done to him as a result of divine challenge initiated by God to Heaven's court adversary, Satan. As a play, we, the audience, take a seat next to God as observers of a human tragedy in need of an explanation for which no logical one exists.
Job's suffering serves no purpose. It does not make Job a better man. It does not make God a better god. If anything, this play validates the colloquial sentiment, "shit happens." With this tale, we enter into deep psychological terrain as Job and his three oldest friends engage in a dialogue trying to fill in the blanks as to why Job, a righteous man, finds himself in such a miserable state; setting the mood and conditions for us to be the jury. So, if you haven't read the Book of Job or haven't read it this way; as a play, do so now and then come back to this post.
* * * * * * * * * *
WHY? WHY NOT?
There are many ways to interpret Job. Many see it as an examination of suffering or as meditation on Theodicy, as to how an all-powerful, all-loving God can allow suffering. Suffering is very much an important factor in this tale, but if one treats Job as a play, suffering serves as a catalyst or a contextual prop for a broader discussion of the ontological question, "Why" to which the play gives an answer that many might consider unsatisfactory: "Why not?"
In fact, the play begins with the answer in the form of the challenge God gives to Satan. It is God who brings up Job and asks if Satan has given consideration to God's blameless and upright servant, Job. Satan implies he has but then complains that God is protecting Job and in turn challenges God to remove God's protection and watch to see Job curse God to which God basically says, "OK, you're on. I won't protect Job on the condition you spare his life." This divine challenge deepens as it results in increased suffering for Job; from losing his children and wealth to personal physical, mental, and spiritual pain.
Now before one thinks this a glib or trite interpretation, wait, there's more. The answer, "Why not," serves as a contextual setting in which the dialogue between Job and his three closest friends; Eliphaz, Bildad, and Zophar occurs. Of course, Job and his friends have no knowledge of the divine wager involving Job's response to his suffering.
As an audience it helps, if possible, for us to suspend any knowledge about the conversation between God and Satan as Job and friends converse in order to see the play within the play. The writer or writers of Job do an excellent job of helping us out. They vividly depict the loathsome state Job finds himself in and introduce us to his wife whose name we are not given. I think this is done with purpose. It somehow casts her brief appearance as a distraction of no consequence, but try to forget her. One can't.
What she says shakes one into a realization that Job's situation is so painful that those around him are affected by it. Job's wife sees the problem of his pain for what it is; Job holding on to his one reason for staying alive; his sense of integrity. Job's wife knows of no reason for his suffering other than he is cursed; abandoned by God, and she advises Job to curse God in return and die. Job agrees that God is the cause of his suffering; accepting, in general, the answer, "Why not," but in accepting this premise, Job finds he is unable to curse God for his suffering lot.
While Job accepts "Why not," as a premise for his suffering, his sense of integrity, which is tied to his sense of justice demands an answer as to why him. His reasoning mind cannot wrap around the abandonment he feels with God or the void of having no explanation. "Having " makes "not having" a matter of justice, which invokes humans to reason.
Since Job's suffering does not reveal a reason, he pleads his cause to the void of his abandoned-by-God experience. Job's deeper pain is in being cut off from God. Job goes so far as to say he could accept God killing him because God's doing so would make God present. The worst torment for Job is the fact that he isn't dead but living as if he were dead; living without God's presence.
It is important for the reader to grasp Job's plight as Job understands it; otherwise, one is tempted to see Job as an arrogant, stubborn, bitter man who probably deserves what he is getting, which, in essence, is the conclusion his three oldest friends have come to. There is a sense of arrogance in his standing up for his personal integrity. He is stubborn in his resolve to get an answer, either dead or alive, and he is bitter about his life, but unlike his suffering, there is reason for his being so.
The dialogue between these four men is an examination of the human perspective on suffering, righteousness, and God's justice. In the end, their speculative conversation proves irrelevant. So I won't go into it, as interesting as it is. The meanings of their names give one an idea of the perspective they are coming from. Eliphaz means pure gold, as in God's righteousness and implies that suffering is for the unrighteous. Bildad means old friend and his approach, while stating Job must have done something wrong his judgment is temperate in tone. Zophar means rising early or chirping. He is quick to pass judgment on Job as being arrogant.
If one would hear what they say outside the context of Job's story, one might think one was hearing a reading from one of the prophets or a Psalm. By themselves they sound very scriptural, and they are, but they're contextually wrong in application and send the message: No one should use scripture in a speculative manner for determining the cause of another human's personal suffering or the cause of tragedy, in general.
There is one other character in this play that requires attention, Elihu. Elihu means my God is He. Elihu stands apart from Job's oldest friends. He is young or younger and offers a defense of God after Job and his three friends are through speaking. If I were to stage this as a play, Elihu would have been placed up stage in dim lighting serving, for the most part, as an observer throughout the play until he speaks.
While Job states he knows his redeemer (his defender) exists and will plead his righteousness in the courts of heaven[1], it is Elihu who shows up as God's defense lawyer and makes the case for God's righteousness in the court of Job and his friends; in the court of human reason.
In the end, it is God who declares his integrity and faith in what he has created, which Job's integrity validates. Human reason cannot fathom an answer to why or why not. They are an ontological paradox - a Yin/Yang set.
As a play within a play, I would stage it as if it were a dream from which Job awakens in a final scene that begins in total darkness with God voice addressing Job's friends; explaining that Job's children, property, and wealth are restored. Suddenly, a spotlight focuses on Job as he sits up eyes wide open in a bed. Job awakens from what was a nightmare to the unexplainable reality that life happens and the richness of being.
PAUSE
Treating the tale of Job as play allows one to understand what I have been referring to as Pause. In a Jobian sense, this life is nothing more than Pause, a period of transfiguration or a period of prepping us for transfiguration. The theme song for Job could be the nursery rhyme: "Row, row, row your boat gently down the stream. Merrily, merrily, merrily, life is but a dream" - An apt description of and good advice for the mystical journey we find ourselves on.
In Job the ontological question "Why" is answered with "Why not." It is an unsettling answer that forces us to grapple with the temporal reality that this life is. Life is meant to be lived. Being is meant to be. Questioning why one lives or why one is becomes a moot point in light of the fact that one lives and one is. The only answer to why is why not.
FAITH AND INTEGRITY
The depiction of God as being capricious serves as a clever device to force us to consider the meaning of life and the frailty of human reason to fully comprehend it. What Job, the character, demonstrates is that when reason is lacking we must rely on our personal integrity to muster the will to carry on and live. As mentioned in past posts, integrity is linked with faith.
The story of Job never mentions faith, as the Hebrew word for integrity implies a state of being blameless which is the basis for his debate with his friends, but in the course of this debate we see something more coming from Job than a mere arrogant, stubborn bitterness about being wronged. His acceptance of “why not” exhibits a deep seated faith beyond mere belief.
What we encounter in the person of Job is an active longing for God that infers hope. The fact that Job defends his integrity reveals an act of faith. His addressing the void of his abandoned-by-God state belies an unconscious validation of the deep faith he possesses in God who is listening and present in absence. This is the true righteousness of Job.
It's not what Job did, but rather who he is. His complaint to the void is an act of faith and demonstrates who he is. It is what links him to God whose faith in creation demonstrates God's integrity. Faith and integrity (being out true selves) is what links us all to God.
With this post, we leave the Hebrew scriptures and take a leap into Christian scripture as we continue to explore the Tales of the Mystic Journey.
Until next time, stay faithful.
[1]
Job 19:25-27 “I know that my redeemer lives…” is largely interpreted by
Christians as prefacing or presaging Jesus as the Christ. I think this is a wrong interpretation, given
the context of Job. Such an
interpretation serves to distract from what is really going on in this
story. What Job’s statement reveals is
what these verses state – a deep yearning for God that is rooted in the deep
stream of faith that Job makes this statement from. The bold claim of Job (spoken from
excruciating pain) that he will see God with or without his flesh has been
again concretized as referencing the resurrection by Christians. Again, this is spoken from a state of
hopefulness rooted in faith rather than from certainty. The translation of “yet in my flesh” can
equally be interpreted as “yet without my flesh.”
No comments:
Post a Comment