Category: Book of Job
If the Book of Job were a drama and the Book of Jonah a parable
If the Book of Job were merely some form of ancient drama (i.e. there was no historical figure named Job who went through what the story tells us), and/or if the Book of Jonah were merely a parable with the prophet Jonah (a real historical person used as an icon) merely representing Israel’s incredulity toward their calling to spread the Abrahamic promises to the Gentiles, do you think this would change how you read and interpret these stories? In other words, do you need them to be grounded in actual events for the text to make the same impact on you or do you find the “moral of the story” is the same either way?
God tramples down the waves of the sea: Job 9.8-11 and Mark 6.47
In the aforementioned lecture by Richard Hays he makes an intertextual connection that I would have not noticed. In Mk. 6.45-56 we have the story of Jesus walking on the Sea. In v. 48 there is a semi-cryptic statement that Hays says has perplexed scholars. It says of Jesus as he walked by his disciples who were struggling with the storm that, “He was about to pass them by.”
Why was Jesus about to pass them? Why mention this?
In Job 9.8 God is described as the one “Who alone stretches out the heavens and tramples the waves of the sea”. It says a few more things about God and then in v. 11, “Were he to pass me, I would not see him; Were he to move past me, I would not perceive him.”
Hays connects the LXX rendering of v. 11b ἐὰν παρέλθῃ με οὐδ’ ὧς ἔγνων with the language of Mk. 6.48c καὶ ἤθελεν παρελθεῖν αὐτούς.. In both passages the passing of the main character is put in focus. In both passages the one passing is the one who tramples water. In the Job passage only God can do this.
If the Markan passage contains an intertextual echo of Job 9.11 then this presents a high Christology. Admittedly, the connection is a bit loose at first glance but I think Hays may be on to something. What do you think?
Scripture’s poetics
No, not Neruda' poetics
Three days ago I wrote a post about the both/and function of some books with the canon of Scripture. In other words, let us ask whether the Book of Proverbs is true to life in its call to follow Wisdom’s voice or if the Book of Ecclesiastes is true to life in its seeming nihilism for those living “under the sun”. There is a way to read these two books as being in opposition, but I think this is a mistake. I do not deny the juxtaposition, but I do deny that these two necessarily oppose each other.
I was asked to provide a bit of clarification regarding my both/and paradigm which I did in a comment that I thought deserved the attention of becoming a post. This is what I wrote:
“I read the Book of Proverbs as a book of proverbial wisdom that claims that if Wisdom’s words are followed the follower will avoid the heartache and devastation of foolish living. That is truthful and this claim is truthful, but there are times when there is an addition x factor that the author of proverbs has not taken into consideration that can derail the applicability of these various proverbs to certain lives. In other words, the Book of Proverbs presents the general rule that if you follow wisdom you will live a good life. It does not stop to ask if this is still true when A, B, C, or D occur.
“The Book of Job provides a scenario that shows an exception to the general rule of the Book of Proverbs: What is God and Satan wage a cosmic bet? It does not matter is Job lived by wise principles, there is another factor in play: God, angels, demons, and other people can interrupt things causing the Book of Proverbs to appear untruthful to the person who tries to live wisely yet finds their life is a disaster.
“The Book of Ecclesiastes provides another angle that we find is true to our experience. There are people who seem to live horrible lives who are successful; there are people who live “wise” lives who are buried by unforeseen circumstances. If we read the Book of Ecclesiastes alone we can say, “Yes, I have seen this type of scenario. I have seen many lives wasted. I have seen good people buried by bad circumstances. This is so true to life!” But we know this is not the whole story. It is not true of everyone and every life even though it is true.
“When we read these poetic books together we get a vision of life that is holistic. If we just read Proverbs we may think something is wrong when we are trying to live in wisdom yet our child dies or we lose our job. If we Job alone we may fear that our every decision will be overrun by God, angels, demons, and other people. If we read Ecclesiastes alone we may become nihilistic. But together, we see these harmonized voice show the truth that life is more complex than any one of these three books would indicate if read alone.”
Scripture’s poetics sometime present contrasting truth claims which result in truth due to the balance of the canonical witness. If we take Proverbs alone it is true in part. If we take Ecclesiastes alone it is true in part. If we take Job alone it is true in part. Together it is true.
Scripture’s both/and
Maybe we need to think of the canon as more like an orchestra or a choir than a textbook?
A few years ago my pastor did a series of sermons on the poetic books. It was during this time that I was forced to think about the reality that Scripture’s truthfulness is often found in its acceptance of both/and rather than either/or. Let me explain.
If one reads the Book of Proverbs one gets the idea that Scripture indicates that if someone lives by these proverbs that life will be good. If someone seeks wisdom they will avoid the pit falls that entrap the foolish. Yet when we flip to the Book of Ecclesiastes we discover “vanity, vanity, all is vanity!” Even the good person ends up dead in the grave. Then if we go to the Book of Job it becomes even more complicated: So we have a Satan, angels, and God as active agents? Where is that in the presentation given by the Book of Proverbs???
Some read Scripture and this tension is overwhelming. But I think this is a misreading of Scripture. Scripture’s truthfulness is not limited to some sort of depositing of theological data. It is not a decision between one person saying “5 + 5 = 10″ and someone else saying “no, 5 + 5 = 12″. Life is more complicated and complex than that.
So Scripture’s truthfulness is often found in its both/and. Is it true that the person who seeks to live wise will have a better life. Yes, unless a, b, c, or d. Is it true that life is meaningless and that we all go to the grave to die? Yes, unless a, b, c, or d. In other words Scripture makes absolute statements that do not seek to answer the “what if’s” or the “what abouts”.
In doing this Scripture often is truer to life than any text on philosophy. If a person obeys God they will have a good life and a better life than the fool….unless Satan and God have a cosmic wager! If a person seeks life’s best they will often find that they die like the rest….unless God sends his Son to provide resurrecting life through his Spirit!
This is not contradiction. This is 3D. This is multidimensional. The canon creates a choir of voices. If we only heard the voice of the Preacher in Ecclesiastes this would not be true to life. If we only heard the voice of the wise father in Proverbs this would not be true to life. If we assumed that everything good and evil is the result of cosmic duals between God and Satan like Job this would not be true to life. But together (!) it is true to life.
Scripture’s both/and is often missed by both fundamentalist type readers and those reacting to fundamentalist type readers. But if we think of the canon more as a choir than a book of propositions we will realize it is telling us the truth of God’s world like no other book.
Reading Levison’s Filled with the Spirit: Part One, Chapter Two
The second chapter of John R. Levison’s Filled with the Spirit is titled “Wisdom and Spirit Within”. In it he focuses upon his thesis that, “The spirit given at birth was considered no less divine, no less the spirit of God, than the spirit understood as subsequent, charismatic endowment.” (80, italics his) The spirit that God has already given has qualities of “wisdom, knowledge, and insight” that must be cultivated but that are already there. (81) Levison writes, “There is, once again, no distinction between the spirit as a life-principle and the spirit as the source of extraordinary feats or insight.” (35)
The motif here is that being “filled with the spirit” does not necessitate something exterior becoming interior but rather something already interior being increased of “filled up”. As examples Levison goes through various OT passages showing examples of heroes whose spirit filled activities were not necessary foreign but rather the result of something previously cultivated that God used. This list includes Elihu in Job; the prophet Micah; Bezalel in Exodus; Joshua; Daniel. I will not comment on the passages that he cited since this is something someone should interact with while reading the book itself and not my comments.
This chapter is one of those were it feels the assertions made need a greater context. I have seen where Levison is going with his reunification of the concepts of the spirit as life principle and charismatic empowerment elsewhere, but I am not sure exactly where he is going to take these examples. I think he is setting up further arguments.
As someone who spends most of my time in the NT I am interested to see how he transfers these concepts to Johannine passages but even more so Lukan or Pauline. It seems to me that in the latter the gifting/empowerment of the Spirit is seen as a foreign force.
I must admit that as a reader the second chapter of this book dragged on forever. It felt like fifty-two pages of material that could have been said in twenty-six. This is a subjective critique and I acknowledge it.
Read my earlier notes on the Introduction, Prescript to Part 1, and Chapter One
Reading Levison’s Filled with the Spirit: Part One, Chapter One
Filled with the Spirit by John R. Levison
As I read through the first chapter of John R. Levison’s Filled with the Spirit there was several occasions when I realized there are important aspects of Pneumatology that many of the scholars that I have read have overlooked altogether. In this chapter he emphasizes how the spirit is essential to the life of human, animals, and creation in general. He begins by noting the connection between the adam (human) and the adamah (earth/dust). What makes Adam more than dust is the breath of God (Gen. 2.7).
Both humans and animals (Gen. 2.19) have their source and destination from and toward the earth. The pattern is “dust then life then dust” (15). In part, what makes humans live is the spirit. When God determines that the life span of humans will shorten it is because “my spirit shall not abide in mortals forever” because “they are flesh” (Gen. 6.3). This is so for all creation for “everything that is on the earth shall die” (Gen. 6.17) (16).
Rarely does it seem that many think of the sustaining force of humanity and all creation as the S/spirit of God. It is most evident in early Israelite Pneumatology that this was so. Levison does a good job at pointing out the seemingly obvious. As a reader it immediately made me think about specific elements of Pauline and Johannine Pneumatology that it seems many New Testament scholars overlook–but that is a subject for a later post.
The remainder of this chapter is dedicated to showing how the spirit = life for humans, animals, and all creation theme reappears in places like the Book of Job, the Book of Ecclesiastes, and in several Psalms; most notably Ps. 104.29-30. In each of these instances nothing can survive without the spirit. Often many theologians have made distinctions between the human spirit in an anthropological sense and the S/spirit of God. It seems to me that Levison wants to narrow the gap and he is justified when using these passages.
For Levison, “Death is nothing less than the hiding of God’s face, the extraction of God’s spirit, and a return to dust.” The spirit of God brings life back to humans. Likewise, “The sending of God’s spirit creates the animals and renews the face of the ground.” (26)
I won’t go into each and every passage that Levison explores but I will say there is a theme in Israelite literature that he has spotted that is impossible to ignore. God’s S/spirit is what determines the sustainability of humanity and creation in general. It will be interesting to see how he traces this theme from here into the Wisdom literature.
Jon Stewart Understands the Function of Scripture in Tragedy Better Than Pat Robertson!
I know I said we should ignore the types of things that come out of the mouth of Pat Robertson (here) but Jon Stewart has said some things that I want to comment on. On The Daily Show Stewart rebuked Pat Robertson for his response to the earthquake in Haiti and it was done in such a way that I want to say “Amen!” to Stewart (see here). Basically, Stewart asked Robertson why when he has such a large book (the Bible) full of passages that can be used to encourage and uplift those who are heart and broken he opted to instead make reference to an urban legend.
I think Stewart understands the function of Scripture in a time of tragedy better than Robertson!
Robertson sounded like the friends of Job. It may be that the friends of Job told some truth, at least some half truth, but the fact of the matter was what happened to Job was because God made a pact with Satan! Robertson wants to talk about Haiti making a pact with Satan. Robertson has no way of knowing why God has allowed this earthquake at this time to these people just like Job’s friends had no idea what God was really doing.
What do we do in a time of pain and suffering? Well, we do what Jon Stewart would have us do. We edify, we encourage, we read those Psalms that comfort, we remember the lives of those who have suffered before us, we confess the goodness of God. What do we not do? Exactly what Pat Robertson did.
