Role of the Friends of Job - Research Paper Example

The Role of Job’s Friends Religion and theology Introduction The story of Job is one of the most famous in the Bible. The story is in The Book of Job which is one of the oldest books in the Bible. Modern scholarship places the authorship of the book between 6th and 4th century BC. Several sources and traditions such as the Talmudic tractate Batra insist that the author of the Book of Job is Moses, the author of the Pentateuch. In the book, Satan falsely accuses Job of loving God for gain and challenges God to grant him the power to test Job’s faith. Resultantly, Satan is allowed to destroy Job’s wealth, family and health. Stripped of all his wealth, children and smitten with a malignant boil that covers him head-to-toe, three of Job’s friends Bildad, Zophar and Eliphaz come to comfort him. Their company opens a lengthy dialogue that covers four-fifths of the book. The dialogue among these four friends is interrupted by Elihu and ultimately, God. As shall be seen forthwith, it is not in doubt that the friends play critical roles in the Book of Job- that they fail miserably to comfort Job, notwithstanding.1 In the discourse, Job’s friends attributed Job’s great suffering to sin. Among many other instances, this can be seen in Job 4:1 and 7 where Eliphaz tells Job that those who are innocent cannot suffer harm. Again, in Job 5:17-18, Eliphaz exhorts Job to appreciate the chastising discipline of God. The import of Eliphaz’s reasoning is that misfortunes overtake the evildoers while good things happen to the upright in conduct. Therefore, the conclusion that Eliphaz is making is that the misfortunes that have befallen Job are as a result of Job’s sins.2 The flipside of the three friends’ rationale is that so-called bad people cannot get good things. This line of thought is seen in the same book’s references such as 5:5, 15:29 and 18:9. The final conclusion is that Job should repent, so as to stave off the sufferings he is undergoing. However, Job’s sufferings are brought about by Satan’s temptations and not Job’s folly. Similarly, Eliphaz’s reasoning is too simplistic to explain the negative realities of life’s dynamics. A prepubescent child who has lost his parents to armed robbers is outside the radius of this rationale. To tell such a child that because of his sins, he will have to face life in his parents’ absence and bear the overwhelming sense of loss would be the height of unfathomable insensitivity and shallowness. This makes Eliphaz’s idea on suffering very hard to provide comfort for the suffering innocent. This mentality is the same reason why Job’s comforters inadvertently became his tormentors. Because of the case above, Job’s friends open up a door for the rethinking of the theology that suffering is solely caused by sin. In Christian theology, although Adam’s sin opened the world to suffering, yet, not all suffering that an individual may experience are necessitated by that individual’s sin. On the contrary, instead of lumping suffering as a result of sin, theologians such as Boadt and Ellis have become poignant that suffering is a mystery. In an attempt to reconstruct the meaning of suffering, Boadt and Ellis give insightful standpoints which separate followers of Christ and those outside Christ. Like Adam who initiated a new system which opened up a Pandora Box of suffering, Christ also initiated a new system through His sacrificial suffering during His Passion. Thus, suffering unites the people of God with Christ.3 Job’s friends also open a door for the discussion on God. Particularly, the false charges that Eliphaz, Zophar and Bildad bring to Job’s charge only foster a siege mentality on the side of Job. Because of this, in his attempt to defend himself, Job insinuates that God is unfairly treating him. Given that Job’s three friends have very limited insight on the nature of God and the developments materializing in Job’s life, it behooved God to stand up for Himself (from Job 38-42:6). God’s defense of Himself lets the audience in on the very nature of God. For one, the transcendence of God is amplified against man’s finite cognitive abilities. The crux of the matter herein is that God is too complicated to be questioned on the course of life. Likewise, it is incorrect to assume that as Santa Claus, the Biblical God must limit fortunes to good people and misfortunes to malevolent characters.4 Likewise, the rationale that Job’s friends put across to the effect that malevolence happens upon the malefactors and benevolence, the virtuous, is a precarious theology. This thinking makes man feel that God is indebted to him, on the account of being virtuous. The same rationale makes God indebted to man, provided that one is virtuous. The same line of thinking is also not empirically observable in the real world, since suffering is a reality that characterizes the lives of both the religiously devout and the deviant in character. The puzzle which is why good things happen to bad people and bad things, to good people cannot be answered if one takes Zophar, Eliphaz and Bildad’s theological approach. In a similar wavelength, courtesy of the discourse between Job and his three friends, discussions and considerations for soteriology (the doctrine of salvation) are set in place. This comes against the backdrop of Eliphaz, Zophar and Bildad having incessantly accused Job of having committed a great sin. Subsequently, the three try to verbally coerce Job into penitence. Against this development, Job acknowledges awareness on the transcendence of God. Specifically, in Job 9:1-3, Job asks about how man can be just before and with God. Job is categorical that should he question God, he will probably not get an answer while he can answer God anytime. This means that in Job’s questioning, he is acknowledging the transcendence of God. In verse 23, Job sees the transcendence of God as being underpinned by: God being a Spirit and man, human; and the absence of a daysman to link him with God.5 In respect to the foregoing, the ground for a link between the transcendent spiritual God and the mortal imperfect man is set. It is not fortuitous that both Genesis and Job have a common authorship in Moses, since Genesis also lays the ground for the need for a daysman. The introduction of the sacrificial system and experiences such as the one in Genesis 28:10-19 correlate with Job’s concern for a daysman. To Christians, since Jesus is the propitiation for mankind’s sin and claimed to be Jacob’s ladder in John 1: 51, He is considered this daysman that Job is in need of. Thus, Eliphaz, Zophar and Bildad in their accusation of Job open the door for the discussion of soteriology. The conversation that the three friends of Job hold with Job also opens up the door for discussions or considerations on theodicy. Since Job is suffering yet he is guiltless but his friends are poignant that his misfortune has been brought about by his sin, theologians have attempted to explain the evidential persistence of evil. This, they do by reconciling the divine attributes of God which are omnipotence, omniscience and omnibenevolence. Job’s friends take it for granted that God is omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent. However, although they also take Job’s supposed sin for granted, the audience is aware that Job is guiltless. This means that Job is suffering yet he is guiltless. This necessitates the need to explain how God being just, can allow Job to suffer to the point of forfeiting everything except his life. The conversation between Eliphaz, Bildad and Zophar at one end, and Job at the other, presents one of the most primordial need for theodicy. Later, even more evidential cataclysmic occurrences in the 21st century such as the September 11th terrorist Attacks, Hurricanes Katrina (2005), Rita (2005) and Tropical Storm Irene (2011) would necessitate the need to reconcile the goodness of God, His omnipotence and omniscience by looking at the Book of Job. Thus, the conversation between Job and his friends serves arguably as one of the most ancient literature that calls for theodicy. Another role that Job’s friends play is setting the stage for the consideration of the nature of man. At the same, the way in which Bildad, Zophar, Eliphaz and Job deem man is important since it lets in the audience on how the oriental world viewed man. Particularly, the 11th chapter of the book has Zophar telling Job that he is wrong in declaring himself upright. To Zophar, Job as a human being must have sinned. Because of this, Zophar implores Job to repent and amend his ways (Chapter 11: 14-20). To this effect, Job also acknowledges Zophar’s postulation that man’s ways are imperfect. This makes Job to start defending himself (as is seen from chapters 12: 1-14, to 14:22). Job’s standpoint that human beings have a short lifespan and are troubled (chapter 14: 1) is perhaps one of the most explicit renditions of the external nature or attributes of man. The discourse between Zophar and Job therefore can be summarily said to present man as having a natural predisposition towards sin and having a shorter lifespan that is characterized with evil (misfortune).6 Thus, the conversation between Zophar and Job do not only reveal the oriental worldview about man, but also proceeds to strengthen the idea of man being inherently evil by birth, due to the original sin. As a side note, it is interesting to consider if the current technological attempts to lengthen man’s longevity will be successful, or if the Scriptures will remain true that man’s days are, apart from being generally filled with sorrow, characteristically short. Specifically, Trans-humanism is aiming at not merely elongating human life, but actually eradicating death and other natural drawbacks such as fatigue, aging, memory loss, diseases, foolishness and emotional pain, as negative elements which characterize man’s life.7 At the same time, the anthropological relevance of this standpoint above by Zophar and Job to the effect that man has inherent shortcomings cannot be sidestepped in social and cognitive sciences such as psychology, anthropology and criminology. It is obvious that the conversation that is sustained between Job and his three friends open up the audience to the way the Jew viewed God and their theological standpoint on the nature of God. For instance, Zophar, Eliphaz and Bildad’s preconceived notion that good things happen to good people, and bad things to evil people does not only lead them into wrongfully accusing Job of sin, but also portrays the extent to which that society was puritanical in nature. So puritanical was the society that great suffering was associated with great sin. As a matter of fact, a critical look at the discourse between Job and his friends-turned-afflicters show clearly that even social sin was considered a great sin against God. Particularly, Job’s three friends accuse him of: having great wickedness and limitless iniquities; imposing usury on his brother for no reason; stripping the naked of his clothing; not giving water to the tired; and not sharing food with the hungry (22:5-7). So strong are these puritanical and superstitious beliefs that these serious accusations are leveled against Job, by people who have neither seen Job commit these transgressions, nor bring any proof of this litany of wrongs.8 As far as the internal attributes of God are concerned, God’s merciful personality is numerously amplified. The reason for the amplification of God’s mercifulness is the attempt to persuade Job into penitence. The line of reasoning among Job’s three friends is that Job has sinned, but the good news for Job is that God is merciful and gracefully ready to forgive. Therefore, Job should repent. For instance, in verses 13-20 of the 11th chapter of the book, Zophar speaks of God as not only having the virtue to forgive, but also the grace to restore. At the same time, Zophar’s conversation displays a balanced view of the immanence and transcendence of God, in respect to the dominant cultural and religious beliefs at the time. Particularly, verses 5 and 6 intimate the imminence and transcendence of God. Verse 6 interestingly anthropomorphizes God in order to underscore the forgiving power of God, as being complete to the point that He forgets sins (after repentance). Despite the transcendence of God in chapters 5 and 6, verses 13 to 20 emphasize the immanence of God, since Job is being told that he can acquaint himself with God if he repents and changes his ways.9 The import of this is that it is not Christianity that came about with the concept of the immanence of God. Instead, the concept existed for as long as Judaism was extant. Christianity only amplified and showed the attributes of transcendence and immanence as complementing each other in the person of Jesus Christ and His atoning work. Nevertheless, it is also true that in the three friend’s quest to have Job repent, they misrepresent the character of God. This, they do by portraying Him as One who is ready to punish. It is against this backdrop and the folly of falsely accusing Job that God reproves Eliphaz, Zophar and Bildad and tells Job to pray and propitiate for them. In this right, Elihu is the one who gives accurate information on God. However, it is God who bears the most accurate information about Himself (chapters 38-40). Historians and archaeologists have also picked keen interest in the conversation sustained by Job and his three friends. Particularly, historians and archaeologists have tried to demystify the identity of the animals, Behemoth and Leviathan which are found in chapters 40: 15-24 and 41: 1-34. Thomas Aquinas for instance equated the leviathan with a whale and the behemoth, an elephant. Many have nevertheless followed Samuel Bochartus’ idea in Hierozoicon (1663) to identify the behemoth with the hippopotamus and the leviathan with the crocodile. The attempt to reconstruct the identity of the two animals which also appear in Genesis 2:20, Psalms 104:26 and Isaiah 27:1 has made archaeologists to consider the material culture of Egypt and parts of North Africa. Because of this, Christian archaeologists such as Mart-Jan have concluded that the behemoth was a herbivorous dinosaur.10 Secondly, the same Mart-Jan also looks at the ancient Egyptian material culture, in an attempt to determine the true identity of the leviathan. His explanation is plausible since he compares the Egyptian material culture, the descriptions in the Scriptures, and the nature and mannerisms of the crocodile (such as the knack for residing water depths as is found in v.31). One of the material cultures that Mart-Jan greatly considers in his work is Egyptian carvings that show crocodiles impaled with javelins. He also restates the fact that a crocodile can be fast killed by jabbing its neck with a spear. However, he also brings facts to the table to show that equating the leviathan to a crocodile readily attracted logical problems. Mart-Jan speculates that Sarcosuchus imperator is a plausible candidate for the identity of the leviathan, since: it has protective armor plates underneath it; is huge enough to measure 12 meters; and weighs 10 tones. This creature also has a unique cavity at the end of its snout which could have acted as the gas-mixing-and-ignition chamber. The leviathan breathed fire.11 Despite the behemoth and the leviathan being extinct, there is no consensus whether the two animal species existed at the time of the Biblical Job, or before. However, it is important that Job and his three friends are aware of these animals. This is seen by the fact that in speaking to Job and his friends about the animals, God assumes that their identities are well understood. This shows that, as opposed to the common belief that man in ancient times had scant information compared to his modern counterpart; people in ancient civilization must have possessed a great pool of knowledge and information. It is not by chance that all knowledge that exists now has merely been an expounding of the foundational knowledge that had been already set. For instance, without the inputs of Socrates, Plato and Aristotle who all lived in the classical era, philosophy may not have been as deep, profound and compelling as it presently is. Conclusion In a nutshell, despite their incomplete possession of the knowledge on the character of God, Job’s three friends and Elihu play an indispensable role in keeping the plotline and the structure of the Book of Job. It is because of their input that a discourse ensues, with the denouement of this discourse being God’s interruption and Job’s restoration. Without Eliphaz, Bildad and Zophar’s input, the mystery of suffering, the concepts of sin and the need for a daysman and God’s attributes may not have been relayed. Bibliography Boadt, Lawrence & Ellis, A. Thomas. The Book of Job: Why the Innocents Suffer. New York: St. Martin’s Press, 2000. Ehrlich, Bernard. “The Book of Job as a Book of Morality.” Jewish Bible Quarterly, 34 (2006), 30-8. Fiorello, Michael. D. “Aspects of Intimacy with God in the Book of Job.” Journal of Spiritual Formation & Soul Care, 4 (2011), 155-184. Ghantous, Hadi. “Was Job 'Patient"? Is God "Just"?” Theological Review, 33 (2012), 22-38. Hartley, E. John. The Book of Job. Michigan: Eerdmans Publishing Co, 1988. Joo, Samantha. “Job, the Biblical Atlas.” Catholic Biblical Quarterly, 74 (2009), 67-83. Mare, Leonard. “The God of Job.” Verbum ET Ecclesia, 33 (2012), 1-6. Mart-Jan, Paul. “Behemoth and Leviathan in the Book of Job.” Journal of Creation, 24 (2010), 1-10. Reymond, Eric D. “Imaginary Texts in Pseudepigraphal Literature: The Angelic Hymns of Job's Daughters in the Testament of Job.” Henoch, 31 (2009), 366-86. Timmer, Daniel. “God's Speeches, Job's Responses, and the Problem of Coherence in the Book of Job: Sapiential Pedagogy Revisited.” Catholic Biblical Quarterly, 71 (2009), 286-305. Read More