Job 4:7-5:7 and creative thinking and eliphaz's questions

The purpose of this and the next mini-essay is to take a step back from our detailed examination of Eliphaz's first speech by trying to get an overview of the large middle part of the speech. I call this the "middle part" of the speech because it is surrounded either by hopeful words (5:7ff.) or ambiguous but gently comforting words (4:1-6). Yet, as we have seen, this section is filled with images of death, even though Eliphaz seemingly wants to cushion the blow by referring to a mysterious night vision he had. As I was thinking of the flow of 4:7-5:7, however, it seemed to me that we have hidden as well as explicit things at work here. Let's start with what is hidden.

What is Hidden, or What is NOT Said in 4:7-5:7

Every conversation among friends is spoken in the context of existing friendship. People have histories with each other and assume certain roles with each other so that the relationship can continue and even flourish. We don't know any of this as it relates to Job and the friends. What I would love to know is the "history" of their relationship. Had Job been the "big guy" from the beginning or had the friends seen Job's "rise to power"? Had they enabled it in any way? Had the friends played a deferential role to Job all along? Had Job ever previously revealed his weakness, inadequacy or fears to the friends? Were they friends first because of business or because of other things? Was Job always the admired one, the untouchable one, the one whom the others wanted to emulate? To what extent was honesty a cornerstone of their relationship? That is, in the murky world of friendship, we don't always know what makes the relationship continue to "work."

Because we don't know these things, we really don't know what might have been coursing through the friends' minds as they sat with Job or as they began to speak. Were they terrified, like the lesser soldiers in a battle when the great warriors come back wounded and killed? Were they shocked and uncomprehending? Were they secretly gloating? Did they take a small amount of pleasure in Job's comeuppance, thinking that this might humanize him or bring him down a notch or otherwise teach him lessons that they thought all along Job needed to learn? Sometimes, as we know, we simply are not open to receive the lessons of life because things are going too well for us. Prosperity can insulate us from self-knowledge. Had they for years wanted to say things to Job that they refrained from saying, either because of Job's power or because their dissatisfaction just hadn't risen to such a level that they "levelled" with Job? Sometimes, then, when the great one (i.e., Job) becomes vulnerable, what comes forth from mouths of friends is not simply a reaction to the loss at hand--it can be the "stored up" feelings that all come bursting forth at once.

Three Types of Hearers/Learners

These hidden complexities give the interpreter a lot of freedom. Well, let me qualify that. It all depends what kind of interpreter you are. I have found as I have taught the Book of Job in a number of adult education contexts, that there tend to be three kinds of students. First, are those who are generally out of it. That is, they seemingly are there for the free (or reduced cost) therapy or community or excitement or something to pass the time. They don't seemingly know how to interact with a text or to connect their insights to words on a page. They occupy space and they bump my numbers. You actually need a lot of these type of people if you aspire to teach large groups.

Second, are those who are fairly unimaginative in their ability to interpret. This is a large number of people. These folk often use a doctrine of Scripture (its inerrancy or authority) to justify their lack of creativity even though they are not aware they are doing it. Here is what I mean. Many people feel that you ought not "go beyond" what the text says. Since God has "authored" the text ultimately, and since God is not a God of confusion but of order, they believe that the "meaning" of the text is fairly clear or, with minimal effort, will come springing out to meet them. The meaning they discover will also be rather uncontroversial, such as 'God loves you' or 'people are sinners' or 'life can be tough' or 'if you trust God, you will be OK.' Whereas the former group of people just looks at you and says nothing when you suggest interesting ideas, this latter group tends to rebel. They think that if you are suggesting something they haven't thought of and which doesn't fit into their uncreative view of the world, that it can't be right and, indeed, they wonder why you could even think such a thing. What these type of folk don't realize is that the reason they read the text in such a limited fashion is that they either lack creativity themselves or are trying to keep the lid on a tumultuous inner life that they don't want to come to the surface. Thus, they think that by shutting down interesting ideas they can control the seething caudron within.

Third, are those who actually want to learn something and are open to a variety of readings of a text. These people may or may not be verbal, and I sometimes have made the mistake of putting some of these in with my "group one" above. They are not. Sometimes the real strength of any class is the creative but silent group of people. These are people who read literature and/or are not afraid of the complexity and murkiness of life, and so are not bothered by the attempt to find some of that complexity mirrored in the biblical text. For example, when I pose the question of what kind of insight we might get into Job's psyche by reading 1:5, which tells us that Job rose early to sanctify his children by sacrificing for them, the third group of students might make suggestive comments about Job being a controlling parent or a worried man, while the second group would say, maybe with a little indignation, 'Job sacrifices because he is a godly man.' End of discussion. The first group of students just looks on.

Conclusion

This seemingly long digression should help us realize what we don't have as we listen to Eliphaz in chs.4-5. We don't have "context." I think this actually inspires a creative reading of the text as we try to imagine where the words "come from" when they are spoken by Eliphaz. As I think of it, I wonder why the Book of Job isn't produced as a play more often. It has all the rich themes of the modern age. Well, as I think further, I believe it isn't produced because there would just be too many decisions for a director to make. But, isn't that their Job, I mean job? Maybe the lack of dramatic renditions of the Book of Job is testimony to the poverty of our thinking today.

[Next]

1010