As we think about what it means to live faithfully in a world that is full of risk and chaos, suffering and death, there is no better literary companion than the ancient book of Job. This is one of the most ancient, and still most poignant, explorations of the problem of pain across all of spiritual literature. In the story of Job, the namesake character is tested by evil and undergoes intense suffering, losing his family, his health, and his hope in chapters 1-2. Afterward, he is comforted and interrogated by four "friends" in chapters 3-37. Essentially they say:
Eliphaz argues that suffering is always a consequence of sin, implying that Job must have done something to deserve his misfortunes. He urges Job to repent and seek God's forgiveness.
Bildad takes a harsher stance than Eliphaz, emphasizing God's justice and the inevitability of punishment for the wicked. He sees Job's suffering as proof of his guilt and urges him to confess his sins.
Zophar is the most dogmatic and uncompromising of the three. He insists that Job's suffering is just and that he should accept it as a lesson from God. He offers no comfort or sympathy, only condemnation.
Elihu, a younger man, joins the conversation later. He criticizes both Job and his friends, arguing that they have misunderstood God's ways. He emphasizes God's sovereignty and wisdom, suggesting that Job's suffering may have a hidden purpose that he cannot comprehend.
Finally, in chapters 38-42 God Himself speaks to Job out of a whirlwind, challenging him to consider the vastness and complexity of creation. God does not directly answer Job's questions but reminds him of his limited perspective and the unfathomable nature of divine justice. There are several different interpretations of this Divine discussion, but here we will focus on one interpretation that mitigates risk and distances God from risk, and another which implicates God in risk and implies that God risks in creation and redemption.
The Happy Ending that is too good to be true: Before we go on to look at these two interpretations of chapters 38-42, we must deal with the cheerful "happy ending" of Job. The careful reader of Job will note that the entire tone (and message) of the Job seems undercut by the Epilogue at the end in Job 42.10-17. In this short section, all the previous 42 chapters are undone as the LORD gives Job "twice as much as he had before", including wealth and children and even years of life.
Many scholars see this as a later addition tacked on by "pious editors" who wanted to save the Deuteronomic message of the Hebrew Bible: That we live in a just universe where karma prevails in just consequences for our actions, and those who do good get good, while those who do bad get bad. For the "pious editors" the story of Job and its ending in sackcloth and ashes was too scandalous. To "save" the book for the canon and re-align it with the theology of Deuteronomy 28-30 (where obedience must lead to material blessing), they attached a prose ending designed to sound like an ancient story. This effectively "stultified" the radical message of the poetry by suggesting that, in the end, the "Deuteronomic check" always clears.
The tension between Job and the Deuteronomists is so famous that it crossed into literature. The poet Robert Frost famously wrote in A Masque of Reason (1945) that God’s purpose in the Book of Job was "to stultify the Deuteronomist." Many scholars, including John Collins and Joel Baden, use this quote to highlight that the Book of Job's very existence is a direct assault on the "reward-and-punishment" history found in the books of Joshua through Kings. So, if we see the epilogue as a "fifth friend" of Job trying to tame and domesticate the raw pain and chaos of the book, we can move forward with the two main ways of viewing the Divine Theophany of Job 38-42:
The Risk-mitigating Interpretation of God's Rebuke to Job: The traditional interpretation of God's speeches to Job at the end of the book is often seen as a humbling rebuke. God appears in a whirlwind and questions Job's understanding of the universe and creation. The emphasis is on God's omnipotence, omniscience, and the limitations of human knowledge. Job is confronted with his inability to grasp the grand scheme of things and his presumption in questioning God's justice. This leads Job to repent, acknowledging his insignificance and submitting to God's wisdom. This interpretation often emphasizes the following points:
God's Sovereignty: God's speeches highlight His absolute power and control over the universe, emphasizing Job's comparative smallness and limited understanding.
Human Finitude: Job's suffering is put into perspective by highlighting the vastness of creation and the intricacies of God's plans, which are beyond human comprehension.
Repentance and Submission: Job's response is seen as a recognition of his own ignorance and a humble submission to God's authority, ultimately leading to his restoration.
This Risk-mitigating approach is arguably the most common and most orthodox approach to the book of Job. The take home here is that "God is God and we are not". Which is all very true and good. We may even paraphrase Saint Paul and Isaiah: Who is Job as a pot of clay to say to his Divine Potter "Why did you make me this way"? Indeed, who are we to say the same thing to the Almighty? It is right to take a stance of humility when things are so far above our pay grade we cannot even hope to understand them. And yet, our Creator, in his infinite Wisdom, has given his children the ability to ask why. God has made his pots with the ability to talk back to the Potter. And we must wonder why God would make us thus if God did not, in fact, want us to use this capability. Perhaps God is the kind of Potter who likes debating and wrestling with his pots. After all, God did name his chosen people "Israel": Those who wrestle with God. And so, let us risk the impudence of putting forward a risk-embracing approach to the Theophany at the end of Job.
The Risk-embracing Interpretation of God's Rebuke to Job: In response to the traditional risk-averse response, G.K. Chesterton, an Edwardian era social critic and novelist, as well as Slavoj Žižek, a contemporary Christian Materialist philosopher, offer a provocative alternative interpretation of the dialogue between God and Job. Chesterton and Zizek (hereafter the "Risk-embracing Interpretation") argue that God's speeches are not a rebuke of Job's questioning but rather a confirmation of Job's fundamental complaint, and as such they implicate God in risk along with us. A summary of this view can be seen in these videos and quotes:
"God will make man see things, if it is only against the black background of nonentity. God will make Job see a startling universe if He can only do it by making Job see an idiotic universe. To startle man God becomes for an instant a blasphemer; one might almost say that God becomes for an instant an atheist. He unrolls before Job a long panorama of created things, the horse, the eagle, the raven, the wild ass, the peacock, the ostrich, the crocodile. He so describes each of them that it sounds like a monster walking in the sun. The whole is a sort of psalm or rhapsody of the sense of wonder." (GK Chesterton, Introduction to the Book of Job)
"The book of Job is chiefly remarkable for the fact that it does not end in a way that is conventionally satisfactory." (GK Chesterton, Introduction to the Book of Job)
"Indeed the Book of Job avowedly only answers mystery with mystery. Job is comforted with riddles; but he is comforted." (GK Chesterton, Orthodoxy)
"Job puts the question of human existence in a stark and strong way, and the answer of God is to make Job see a startling universe. He shakes the pillars of the world and strikes insanely at the heavens; he lashes the stars, but it is not to silence them, it is to make them speak." (GK Chesterton, The Everlasting Man)
The Risk-embracing approach suggests that God's display of power and the whirlwind itself are a manifestation of the chaos and risk that underlies the universe. This chaotic force, represented by the whirlwind, is what truly governs existence, not just the rationality or justice of God. Job's persistence in questioning God is, therefore, a refusal to accept false comforts, and instead a demand for a true confrontation with the absurdity of existence. Thus, Job's final "repentance" is not a submission to a higher authority but an acceptance of the chaos and risk inherent in life. Job accepts the chaotic abyss and continues to live in spite of it.
In this interpretation, the book of Job is a critique of the idea that all suffering can be explained or justified. Instead, suffering and risk are inherent parts of the human condition, and attempting to explain them away diminishes their reality. Due to the vastness of the universe and the limitations of human knowledge, we ultimately have no "control mechanism", not even God, to limit risk. Indeed, God risks with us, in the risk that is creation. Instead, the book of Job invites us to embrace the mystery of suffering and to trust in God's ultimate goodness, even when we cannot understand His ways. This entails the following:
The Absurdity of Existence: God's speeches are seen as a revelation of the risky and random chaos that underlies the universe, rather than a display of divine justice.
God as the Abyss: The divine is not a source of comfort or meaning but the embodiment of the chaotic, risky void of existence.
The Divine Admission of Risk: When God shows Job the panoply of animals and forces and powers that are beyond human control, perhaps God is also admitting they are beyond God's simple control as well. Both God and humanity are locked into the same roller coaster ride as we brave the contours of chaos together.
Job's Resistance: Job's questioning is not a challenge to God's authority but a refusal to accept false comforts and a demand for a genuine encounter with the absurdity of existence.
Acceptance of Risk: Job's final response is not a repentance but an acceptance of the risk of chaos and a decision to continue living in spite of it.
Embracing the Absurd: True freedom comes from acknowledging and accepting the meaningless nature of existence, rather than clinging to false hopes or illusions of order.
Thus we may compare the two approaches:
The Risk-embracing interpretation of God's response to Job in this quote provides fertile ground for exploring the intersection of absurdism, existentialism, and Trinitarian Panentheism:
Absurdism: The Risk-embracing description of God unrolling a "startling universe" that could be perceived as "idiotic" aligns with the absurdist notion that life is inherently meaningless and paradoxical. The absurdity of existence is highlighted by the juxtaposition of God's divine nature with the seemingly nonsensical and monstrous creatures He presents to Job. This absurdity, however, is not a cause for despair but rather an invitation to embrace the mystery and wonder of existence.
Existentialism: The Risk-embracing view resonates with existentialist themes of radical freedom and the individual's responsibility to create meaning in a meaningless world. Job's confrontation with the absurd forces him to grapple with the fundamental questions of existence and to find his own meaning in the face of suffering. This existential struggle is ultimately transformative, leading Job to a deeper understanding of himself and his relationship with God.
Trinitarian Panentheism: The Risk-embracing depiction of God as a dynamic and creative force who is intimately involved in the world aligns with Trinitarian Panentheism. This theological perspective views God as both transcendent and immanent, present within all of creation yet also distinct from it. God's presence is not always comforting or reassuring, but can be startling and even challenging. This challenges the traditional notion of a distant and detached God, emphasizing instead a God who is actively engaged in the world and who invites us to participate in the ongoing process of creation. Furthermore, the Risk-embracing interpretation prefigures the act of the Trinitarian God in accepting risk and becoming one of us and one with us in the person of Jesus. In Jesus, God empties Godself of all power and control, and puts Godself in the shoes of Job, to walk with us the path of human risk, loss, and suffering.
The intersection of these three perspectives offers a compelling framework for understanding the human experience. Absurdism acknowledges the inherent meaninglessness of life, while existentialism calls us to create our own meaning in the face of this absurdity. Trinitarian Panentheism provides a theological foundation for this existential quest, affirming that God is present within the world and inviting us to participate in the ongoing process of creation. This fusion offers a holistic approach to faith that embraces both the challenges and the possibilities of human existence.
No comments:
Post a Comment