printI got thinking about the Book of Job after La Coulter made fun of Howard Dean for choosing Job as his favorite “New Testament reading.” Dean is an unsharpened pencil, for sure, but he is right about Job. It’s unrivaled—easily the best book in the Bible…
Job challenged the ultimate authority, not because he was rebellious, but because he was righteous and true to himself…
Contemporary parallels to Job’s individualism are hard to come by, not least because the State has replaced God as the ultimate authority. Other than principled libertarians, nobody challenges the god of government in any meaningful way. Our Delphic oracles are the pundits and assorted self-styled presstitutes. Their Delphi is the TV on which they primp, preen and parrot party falsehoods. They can strike a pose but they can’t oppose …”
Here is the complete new WND.com column, “Job: Jewish Individualist.”
“…the proper metaphor for the relationship between Judaism and Christianity is that of parent and progeny.”
Part of the shaping of the West possibly lies in the fact that the Hebrews were the first people that we know of to put the Golden Age in the future. This has to lead to the idea of the possibility of progress. (I’ll deal more with this in my blog series “Western Civilization and its Discontents”.
“By logical extension (deduction is integral in Jewish thinking)…”
For me, a lot about the Jesuits became clear when I found out that Ignatius Loyola’s Chief Executive Officer and Chief Theologian were converted Jews.
http://rantsand.blogspot.com/
Job is a most amazing scripture, and your own interpretation some time ago here quite fascinating. The evangelical Charles Swindoll has given an extensive interpretation as well. No doubt there are numerous others in both Christian and Jewish tradtions.
As I understand it, Job is one of the very oldest of all scriptures. All that being said, I still recommend the magnificient score by Ralph Vaughn Williams, done for a ballet on the subject. Our mere words are quite insufficient, at the end of the day. (But I’m a classical musician and thus prejudiced a bit against mere words.)
Prof. Paul Gottfried, who has fans on BAB, writes this:
Ilana,
Although I too value the book and character of Job and find them worthy of visiting and revisiting, there is a side of this narrative that you pass over too lightly. It is the awesome power and primacy of the Lord, which Job in the end is forced to acknowledge. This is in fact a point that Protestant Christians emphasize in reading the text; and it is also one that struck medieval Jewish commentators. Your individualistic reading of the Book of Job may be more modern than you recognize. The same observation would apply to modern interpretations of Sophocles’s Antigone, which overlook the polytheistic tensions, between Zeus and the cthonic deities, that is present in the play.Most attempts to read that work as feminist or individualist tract are excessively presentist.
–Paul
The marvelous Dennis O’Keeffe reminds us of the Book of Ruth:
Ilana,
I agree about the marvels of the Book of Job. I like the Book of Ruth even more. Both the Old and the New Testaments are full of stuff about how proper people ought to live: about mercy, patience, friendship, loyalty, courage and so on.
–Dennis
Shalom,
I enjoyed your article on Job and his encounter with God. I don’t get many opportunities to read the Jewish perspective of scripture. I never actually thought of Job as Jewish. I was under the impression that he lived before Abraham and that the book of Job was written before the Torah.
It is awesome to ponder the depths of God’s ways. I never read Job and came to the conclusion that God was fallible, that he made a mistake in his judgment of Job. Instead, (and this may be because I have studied karate for decades) I saw it as a scenario that was used to reveal the manifold wisdom and character of God. Just as a martial arts master will set up certain training experiences to reveal the character of the students, to help them understand their personal strengths and weaknesses, so God allowed satan certain access to Job in order to reveal his character like a refining fire purifies gold and silver.
I do love the commentary in Job that reveals that satan can do nothing unless God allows it. It shows that he has no power of his own, only what God allows. Jesus said that satan comes to kill, to steal and to destroy. If he had any power to do that on his own, he would have destroyed every human on the planet by now. He can only do what God allows. Of course, to us, God allowing the destruction of Job’s family and fortune seems rather harsh and merciless, yet when you look at the positive effect the story has had on countless individuals over the centuries since it happened, it shows that God always causes the bad things that happen to his people to ultimately produce good fruit.
I came to the conclusion from Job, Abraham, Jacob, Moses and others that God delights in us being bold before Him. He is not threatened at all by our arguing with Him. Indeed, if He knows our end from our beginning, the number of all our days before there was one of them, it is totally conceivable that He orchestrated our learning and arguments so that He could position us to be blessed by Him. And not only us, but all of humanity that follows us (like Job) as well.
As I understand things, the only real difference between Jews and Christians is that we disagree on whether the Anointed One (Messiah, Christ) has already come. In my experience, I have come to the conclusion that Yeshua is the Anointed One and that he will come back again in the future. As a Jewish believer, you still look for the Anointed One to come in the future. So we both look for the Anointed One. I believe I know who he is, and you wait expectantly for him to be revealed. But we both anxiously anticipate his coming.
By the way, have you ever wondered how Job knew he had a Redeemer? Where did he learn that? Who told him?
As a christian, Job has always been my favorite book of the Bible. I enjoyed this column very much, due in large part to the Jewish heritage of the author. And yes, I would disagree that God was unjust. Man’s ability to reason, a trait that reflects the image of God that is stamped upon man, does not mean that he is able to rationalize and understanding everything. The same God who spoke to Job also says in Isaiah 55: 9: For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts. I would argue that it is it is quite possible for Job to be innocent of wrongdoing, and, at the same time, for God to be equally just in afflicting Job. There are ways and things of God that we don’t now have the capacity to understand. Indeed, this reminds me of my favorite part of Job. It is when God speaks to Job from the whirlwind. He asks Job: “Who is this who darkens counsel by words without knowledge?…”Where were you when I laid the foundations of the earth? Declare, if you have understanding. This so clearly demonstrates the finite capabilities that the human mind has in comparison with the infinite mind of God!
Anway, Bravo Ilana on another GREAT column. [And a good analytical argument from you]
Every time I am going through a serial of trials and it seems, the older I get, the more frequently they come, I immediately go back to the book of Job. Once again, it makes me aware that we ALL go through our individual trials one way or the other and eventually, “this too shall pass”. It’s refreshing and re-assuring.
Dear Ilana,
Thank you for a very interesting article.
There is a wonderful painting of Job as an illustration in one of my Catholic catechisms as he is described as a saint and a great model for the virtue of Hope.
To me, Job is also an example that “Our human understanding, which shares in the light of the divine intellect, can understand what God tells us by means of his creation, though not without great effort and only in a spirit of humility and respect before the Creator and his work”. (C.C. # 299)
Although I am not a theologian by any strech of the imagination, I would say that our analysis differs in that we believe God could never act unjustly, and that His will is always love. I think that had He not known in advance that Job would come out victorious, He would not have allowed him to be tried by the adversity. I also think that Job, because of the trials he endured, had a better knowledge of God and recognized his utter dependence on his Creator and this knowledge was a source of wisdom, joy and confidence for the remainder of his life, and I would think, especially in his hope of eternal life.
Margo
My take on Ms. Mercers column regarding job is a bit different.
What interests me about her column is not so much her take on Job, but rather her take on the Bible.
Nowhere in her column does Ms. Mercer refer to the Bible as holy or divine. Nowhere does she revere it as God’s Word. Just as interesting is the fact that she refers only to the Old Testament, as though the New Testament does not exist. Maybe for her it doesn’t. Maybe for her the NT is merely an afterthought, a footnote with little or no relevance. She goes on to call the 39 books of the OT a “tradition”, and praises the old books for their historical accuracy and eloquence, but that’s as far as she goes with it.
I could go on, and in fact I do at my blog (for those that are interested), but I wonder just what Ms. Mercers thinks of the Bible in terms of it’s connection to the Divine? Perhaps that question and it’s answer were (are) not relevant to her column on Friday, being outside the scope of her take on the book of Job. Still, the question remains.
Does Ms. Mercer even believe in a personal God? Does she realize that the Bible is for mankind, and not just for Jews or just about Jews? Who does she think Jesus is? These are personal questions, the answers to which are really none of anyones business, but if Ms. Mercer is going to proudly and publicly proclaim her Jewish heritage with such fervency, then someone needs to remind her that being a Jew is a matter of the heart, more than it is a matter of one’s heritage, thanks to Christ, the Saviour of the Mankind.
In closing, it is one thing to appreciate the Bible for its historical relevance and eloquence. It is another thing altogether to praise it as a living work, being alive and full of power. Similarly, it is one thing to proclaim ones Jewish heritage. It is another thing to proclaim the Living God
Good Morning.
Took a very quick scan through your article and wish I had time to read it in depth. A couple points.
1. As you hinted, I have to disagree w/ you that God punished Job. He permitted the trials but was not the instigator. As stated in the New Testament, God does not permit us to be tempted “above that which we are able to bear.” The “permit” indicates he is not the instigator, but, rather the limitor. This was very clearly shown in Job’s experience.
2. In reading Job, you can never forget that much of the book is BAD advice a la his three buddies. Anything they say needs to be taken w/ a bucket of salt.
3. Job is also one of the best scientific books out there. The material is beyond my understanding, but, when God spoke to Job about creation, there are huge scientific principals which make great sense to those who understand. One man I listened to was an electrical engineer. He became a Christian through the book of Job when he read the portion where God describes to Job something having to do w/ electricity. For him, this ancient book clearly stated underlying principals which should have been way beyond the understandings of anyone who had a hand in writing this book; however, if the Creator of the World inspired the writing of The Book, it was not necessary for the scribe to understand the principals therein.
Thanks.
Dave Atherton
As a Christian, I also puzzeled over the book of Job, but came to a different conclusion. I prayed that God would explain it to me. I remember saying that this doesn’t sound like you. All of the supposed “comforters” were rebuked in the end, with God offering no explanation other than He alone could fight with the adversary.
It was then that I heard in my spirit God saying that he did not rebuke all of the “comforters”. It was then that I re-read the end of the book and found that Elihu was not rebuked.
On reading Elihu’s portion of the book, I found that Elihu was of the royal family of Ram, and spoke to the need of Job for an advocate in heaven. I took this to be a reference to me that the Christian Savior was necessary in the old Testament as well as the New Testament.
I hope that this information is helpful.
I can’t accept the claim that God is fallible just because He ended Job’s trial. God changes the course of events when it suits His purpose. There was a purpose to Job’s suffering; a lesson he and Israel needed to learn. Job and those who knew him thought he was righteous. Job’s sin was pride in how much he was blessed by God. God used Satan to teach Job and Israel a lesson in humility before God. It was only when Job worshipped God without pride that God ended the lesson. Beyond this observation, made by Elihu to Job’s friends is the larger point; God uses suffering to teach us to trust Him for who He is no matter what happens to us, not for what He does for us.
In reply to Timothy Carr:
I state in my column, “Job: Jewish Individualist,” that I am, to quote “an irreligious, if fierce, defender of the Judeo-Christian tradition.” This will explain why I do not foist on readers a religious perspective. Mine is an intellectual vantage point, but it is also deeply spiritual. No one can write about the text as I do without having a great deal of affinity for its message—spiritual, historical, etc. The tone of the column is unmistakably reverential, although one would have to have some depth to detect that. Some people think spirituality is bashing people over the head with a bible and shouting loudly about what they ought to and ought not to believe.
Mr. Carr is right to say that the above doesn’t belong in my column, but only a shallow person would say that the column is devoid of depth or spirituality.
Why Mr. Carr is perplexed about my lack of mention of the New Testament is beyond me. I’m a Jew through and through. I grew up in Israel. I do not know the New Testament. Obviously the Hebrew Bible is the one that matters to me and the one to which I’m attached. I know it and love it. (Not many people can claim to be able to read it in the Hebrew—and understand it. Until you can, you just don’t know how fantastic the narrators were. As a writer, I’m in awe of them. The stuffy translations do not do justice to the Hebrew.)
Mr. Carr sounds extremely dogmatic about what I should believe, write, proffer, and care about. Maybe someone should remind him to be a bit more …Christian.
—ILANA
I stand by my above comment.
For the record, nowhere in my above comment do I claim your column lacks depth or spirituality.
The reason I am peplexed by your failure to recongnize the NT is that because without it the Bible does not exist. [strange comment, given the historical chronology–the Hebrew Testament came before the New Testament] The dispensation of Grace is for Jew and Gentile alike, not just Gentile. Perhaps you might enjoy spending some time in the NT. I think you would find it revealing.
[Of course I “recognize” the NT, whatever “recognize” means]
I thoroughly enjoyed your article on Job- the Jewish Individualist and think it is right on the mark.
I wrote a book a couple years back “Putting God on Trial: The Biblical Book of Job” (www.bookofjob.org) that stresses the Jewish piety of protest. Your views are virtually identical to mine. The entire manuscript and a summary are online at the above website. You might be interested in having a look. It was very well received by scholars who considered it a revolutionary contribution to Job studies. Their reviews are online at the website.
Hi Ilana,
I hope you don’t mind me writing to you off the blog, I just want to say a few things regarding your Job article, Mr. Carr’s blog input…. and your reply. My heart sunk when I read Mr. Carr’s response to your column. I too am a Christian and read your Job article and certainly saw things from my Christian perspective that I could have commented on, but, Ilana, I really didn’t know how to do it. I thought about what you had to say from a Jewish perspective and wanted to say where you were wrong…. but I also knew how easily I could offend if I didn’t wisely choose my words. So, I didn’t make a public response, not that I am a chicken, but you are very smart and I am not such a theologian–especially in the area in which you are very wise, ie. Jewish perspective on the Scriptures and such. Most Christians who understand the Word of God love and support the Jews and their nation, Israel. This is because we know that you are the root and we, by the grace of God, have been grafted into the tree because of you, our fathers in the love and knowledge of God. Mr. Carr was terribly judgmental and this is what made me so sad. If I may apologize for him, I will. What he said was wrong and had none of the love that should come through him to you in Christ. Ilana, this is a hard concept for many Christians to understand, and that is that we as Christians are supposed to, by faith, allow Christ to live through us. Other people are supposed to “know that we are Christians by the love we have for one another.” (this includes all other people… ) I’m sure your reply to Mr. Carr sufficiently made him aware that he did not respond in a Christ-like manner. You were right, sadly, in this case.
The apostle Paul wrote in Romans and Corinthians that many Jews have a veil over their minds concerning Jesus Christ and cannot recognize Him. Some have seen Him for who He is, but most do not. Romans 11:25 says: “For I do not want you, brethren, to be uninformed of this mystery–so that you will not be wise in your own estimation–that a partial hardening has happened to Israel until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in;” Paul also states in Corinthians 3:14: “But their minds were hardened; for until this very day at the reading of the old covenant the same veil remains unlifted, because it is removed in Christ.”
Ilana, I will not attempt to try to convince you of Jesus, I pray this knowledge of Him will come in His time. I deeply respect your being Jewish and you held my rapt attention as you described your love for the Hebrew Scriptures. You make me a bit jealous that you can read them in Hebrew and understand them. I’m taking a Master’s in Ministry in Biblical Counseling and am a bit lost when it comes to the Hebrew in the O.T. and the Greek in the N.T. I would love to go to Israel not only to see the land and biblical places, but to do so with your knowledge, language abilities and perspective would be awesome! Thank you, Ilana for your columns and your life, you are a special woman.
Ilana & Everyone–
I just want to say again publicly what I’ve stated in correspondence.
You’re analysis of Job is brilliant & cogent & effective. It makes it easier for those of us with Jewish heritage to provide a reference that we might explain to others why it is we think of ourselves as Jewish without restricting our horizons. I am not legally Jewish–my Hebraic line is patrilineal, but it forms and shapes the way I see the world and I am proud of my heritage.
Judaism, in its modern incarnations, expects people to be true to themselves, true to their culture & above all, true to the world & true to, well, the truth.
God is optional. I’m an agnostic with very strong atheistic leanings. My maternal heritage is heavily Anglo-Scot & takes me back to the Enlightenment. I’m a big Hume fan. If you can survive the eyebleed from the antiquated prose, reading David Hume is a lot like reading Job. He forces you to carry the chain of reason not just forwards but backwards to your “a priori” assumptions. He dismantles myths at their routes & forces you to do the same.
It is the end of innocence, yes, but the beginning of adulthood–or sophisticated adolescence.
Quoth Spock (Mister, not Doctor): “Logic…logic isn’t the end of wisdom. It’s the beginning.”
Good line. Hope you can cope with the pointy ears, Ilana. I know how you feel about elves. 😉 [In the home, I’m known as “gnome,” so yeah, i like ’em]