| In chapter 1 we learned that Job was in alignment with God. In chapter 2 Job ridiculed his wife and then reaffirmed his alignment with God. Thereafter the narrator told us that Job and his friends meditated for seven days and seven nights.
Chapter 3 is the first speech by Job to his friends. He begins by denying that the gift of his life has value. He acknowledges that it is a gift, so there is evidence of love. But he focuses on the negative value of that information. I correlate positive love and negative information with a concept called “obligation”. Job appears to be obligated to live a life that is hard. Thus I tentatively plot Job’s journey from Alignment to Obligation. | 
|
Viktor Frankl was subjugated and found opportunity in each day. Jesus, though tested, remained in alignment. Aside for one brief momentary remark to his wife, Job stayed in alignment, transitioned to tranquility and then responds to his discomfort with an expression of anguish. The difference between subjugation and opportunity is in our perception of the events. The difference between testing leading to chaos and testing affirming our alignment is in the power of our will. Job does not wander into subjugation because he never doubts that there is a God and he never doubts that God will eventually redeem him. Job’s desire to return to tranquility is a model behavior. But where does anguish lead him?
Our goal should be alignment. To reach alignment we need to go through transformation. Alignment is difficult work. Transformation is tiring. Even Jesus, when he finished his day returned to tranquility to restore his inner strength. Job wanted to go back to tranquility but he was overwhelmed. I wish I had the strength to try as hard as Job did. Instead, when I find myself a bit fatigued or a bit overwhelmed I wander over to the right side of the graph. Job is a role model in that he resisted conflict as long as he did.
And yet, there is one common behavior that Job displays that is an ailment that strikes us all unexpectedly. The simple transition into “obligation” is a slippery path that is hard to see and hard to walk. Consider the appeal for volunteers for a project. If you are in conflict with the goal then you have no real problem with this because you stay on the right side of the graph and avoid all feelings of remorse. If, however, you sense the need and you feel that it is an act of love, then you need to decide how you will respond. If you feel like this is an opportunity for you to learn and grow as a person while giving, then you see this as an opportunity. If, however, you see the need but feel that it is a burden, then you see this situation as an obligation. A common syllogism for this is “the glass half-empty versus half-full.”
Is your spouses birthday an opportunity to celebrate or an obligation to spend time with his or her family? Who decides? Is there some ideal standard that determines when an event is an opportunity and when it is an obligation? What Viktor Frankl found was that he could take subjugation and create opportunity. Surely, if the bound of love is there already we should be able to see opportunity rather than see obligation. Even if you do not like her or his relatives, surely you can see the joy that it brings to your spouse to spend the time with their family.
The same applies to our broader communities. I recently spoke about an opportunity to help with a fund raising effort. Everyone there gave, but they had no desire to hear the presentation. They wanted it kept as brief as possible. They did not value the information. But their love for the cause obligated them to give anyway. They decided to give. But they decided to live in obligation while giving.
Many of us live our lives trapped in obligation. In chapter 3 Job shows us that even one of the greatest servants of all time could, with enough pressure, slip out of alignment, stop viewing life as an opportunity and begin to view life as an obligation. It is easy to do. It is also hard to detect and correct. If you refuse to participate then we both see that we have conflict in our goals. If, however, you participate, but do so grudgingly, then it is much harder for either of us to know what is wrong. Obligation is a murky swamp that swallows us and no one knows when or why it happened.
It would have been interesting if Job had firmly landed in obligation. Out of that we might have learned how to deal with so prevalent an ailment. Job, however, was experiencing such intense dissonance that he could not return to tranquility nor could he even comfortably settle into obligation. Towards the end of chapter 3 Job wanders over towards chaos with a high level of agitation and a feeling of persecution. In chapter 6 Job uses words like anguish and loathe to describe his intense feelings of conflict and injustice. Then he complains that he is being tested and questions why God wants to test him. These are common reactions. His wife expected him to move from alignment to chaos. It just took him longer to make that transition than it would take most of us.
What I learned in chapter 3 is that the complexity of the characters described in this drama is such that my simple conjecture based on a few sentences here and there was not adequate to the task. I sense that Job touched on “obligation” but throughout the rest of the debate he is much more aligned with chaos and anguish than he is with obligation. A few scattered phrases do not indicate a consistent theme.
I decided to next try to type-cast these characters into familiar roles and thus stereotype them. If, for example, we go back to the analogy of a trial, then we can cast Satan as the prosecuting attorney, Job as the defendant and God as the judge. But that analogy fails because Job is the one calling God to trial.
I then considered this as a civil case. Job is the plaintiff alleging that he has been wronged because of negligence on God’s part. God is the defendant. The messengers are witnesses. Job’s wife and his three friends should also have been witnesses — on Job’s behalf. They should have come forward to testify regarding Job’s innocence and to lend support in building the case for damages. In essence, the narrator created a test case in which we know that Job is innocent and yet calamities have impacted his life. But the roles get confused.
Job pleads that he is innocent and asks for God to judge fairly. Thus God is not only the defendant, he is called as a witness and has authority to act as the judge. Job’s friends wander away from their role as witnesses and seem at first to take on the role of the jury. Rather than waiting for the end of the trail, they pronounce judgment throughout the duration of the trial. Job’s hypothesis is that he is innocent even though he is suffering. His friends see the evidence of his suffering and conclude that his testimony is false. His friends are biased and are not following the stereotype for a contemplative jury.
But his friends do display a common stereotypical behavior. We all link the message to our expectations. The Pharisees expected the Messiah to conquer the Roman Empire. Jesus set actions in motion that did overturn the Roman Empire — but there was a three hundred year time delay. Job’s friends believe that God rewards the just and punishes the evil. Thus, when they see Job suffering they draw the conclusion that Job has done evil. Neither the Pharisees nor Job’s friends tested reality.
A key concept in the scientific method is that the hypothesis should be judged on it’s own. The Pharisees and Job’s friends judged the hypotheses by looking at the person delivering the message. Here is another key theme from Job: Truth needs to be judged independently of our prejudices.
I suggest that the message should be judged, rather than the messenger.
And yet, even the analogy of a civil lawsuit fails. The actions of Job’s friends do not fit. They should be in empathy with their friend. Instead they accuse him of wrong. Thus, it makes sense as to why Satan does not return. Job’s friends have taken on Satan’s role as accusers. Job’s friends are prosecuting a counter claim. By analogy, it is as if Job went to the carpenter shop and bought a chair. He came home, sat in his chair and it collapsed. Job was injured and is suing the carpenter. So far the carpenter has not come to the court. However, three friends who were called as witnesses for Job have now filed a counter claim alleging that Job did not follow directions. If Job had sat in the chair correctly then there would have been no problem. Thus, if there is a problem, it is because Job did not do what he was supposed to do.
These friends should be here counseling Job regarding his case. It would be reasonable for them to listen sympathetically. They would demonstrate loving kindness if they chose to dissuade Job from prosecuting a case against such a well respected carpenter. Instead, they take Satan’s role and accuse Job. Eventually, these three friends will be called to task for presuming to act on God’s behalf. But the multiplicity of roles each character is filling and the complexity of the human interactions captured by the author make a simple analysis difficult.
When I work on difficult problems in measurement I first try algebra. Then, when the complexity of the data overwhelms that technique I switch tools and pull in statistical methods. Consider the collection of data shown in the table that spans the next three pages. In this table I identify the speaker. Then I looked at every question that was asked and tried to discern if the question was seeking information or denying information. The questions asked by Job in chapter 3 eluded me at first. It was only once I began looking at the body of the text in chapters 3 through 27 that I began to discern a pattern. Consider, for example, the question that Job asks in 7:1 when he poses the hypothesis that all humans live hard lives. He is not telling us that this is the case. Instead, he is posing a hypothesis and asking us to dialogue with him. I hope that my writing can achieve that same purpose. I hope that, in spite of the confidence with which I seem to state my opinions you can see that all of this is just a hypothesis. I hope you can see that I ask you to join in the dialogue and help humanity find perspective.
In contrast to the seeking shown by Job and Eliphaz, consider the rhetorical questions posed by Bildad and Zophar. For example, in verse 8:3 Bildad asks whether or not God is just. Clearly he expects unanimous agreement from those assembled for this trial. Thus, I score that question as an attempt to close down the discussion or deny the uncertainty of the facts already stated.
I then went to work on the statements. I had hoped to find some simple way to break these statements out into alignment with my grid of love, conflict, dissonance and distracters. Instead, the patterns I found begin with a loose association of alignment through the concepts of redemption and awe. I then chose the word “mystery” to contrast with the alternative that God is predictable.
I chose the concepts of pleading and anguish as key themes and eventually realized that they were better expressions of chaos than of obligation. I found condemnation spoken by all parties and linked that with the theme of subjugation.
The difficulty I had next was trying to understand the concept behind the theme that God is predictable.
| Speaker | Seek | Deny | Mystery/Redemption | Plead/Anguish | Condemn | God is predictable |
| Job | 3:3,4,5,6,6,7,8, 10 | |||||
| Job | 3:11,12 | 3:15 | ||||
| Job | 3:16 | 3:17,18,19 | ||||
| Job | 3:22,23 | 3:24,25,26 | ||||
| Eliphaz | 4:2 | 4:2 | 4:3,4 | 4:5 | ||
| Eliphaz | 4:6 | 4:7,7 | 4:8,9,10,11 | |||
| Eliphaz | 4:12,14,15,16 | |||||
| Eliphaz | 4:17,17 | 4:19,20,21 | ||||
| Eliphaz | 5:1,1 | 5:2,3,4,5,7 | ||||
| Eliphaz | 5:8,9,11 | 5:12,13,14,15,16,17,18, 19,20,21,22,23,24,25, 26,27,27 | ||||
| Job | 6:2,3,4 | |||||
| Job | 6:5,6 | 6:7,9,10 | ||||
| Job | 6:11,11 | 6:12 | 6:13 | 6:14,16,17,18, 20,21 | ||
| Job | 6:22,22,23,23 | 6:24 | ||||
| Job | 6:25,26 | 6:27 | ||||
| Job | 6:28,29,29 | |||||
| Job | 6:30,30 | |||||
| Job | 7:1 | 7:3 | ||||
| Job | 7:4 | 7:4,5,6,7,8,10,11 | ||||
| Job | 7:12 | 7:15,16,16 | ||||
| Job | 7:18,19 | 7:20,20,20,21 | 7:21 | |||
| Bildad | 8:2,3,3 | 8:4,6,7 | ||||
| Bildad | 8:9 | |||||
| Bildad | 8:10,11,11 | 8:12,13,14,15,16,17,18, 19,20,21,22 | ||||
| Job | 9:2 | 9:3 | ||||
| Job | 9:4 | 9:10,11 | ||||
| Job | 9:12,12 | 9:13 | ||||
| Job | 9:14 | 9:15 | 9:16,18 | |||
| Job | 9:19 | 9:19,20 | 9:21 | |||
| Job | 9:22,23 | |||||
| Job | 9:24 | 9:25,26 | 9:28 | |||
| Job | 9:29 | 9:31,32,33 | ||||
| Job | 9:35 | |||||
| Job | 10:1,2 | |||||
| Job | 10:3,4,4,7 | 10:8 | ||||
| Job | 10:9,10 | 10:11,12 | 10:13,14,15,15,16,17 | |||
| Job | 10:18 | 10:19 | ||||
| Job | 10:20 | 10:22 | ||||
| Zophar | 11:2,3 | 11:4,6,6,6 | ||||
| Zophar | 11:7,7,8,8,10,11 | 11:12,13,14,15,16,17,18, 19,20 | ||||
| Job | 12:2,3 | |||||
| Job | 12:3 | 12:4,5,6,8 | ||||
| Job | 12:9 | 12:10 | ||||
| Job | 12:11,12 | 12:13,14,15,16 | ||||
| Job | 12:17,18,19,20,21, 22,23,24,25 | |||||
| Job | 13:1,2 | |||||
| Job | 13:3 | 13:4,5 | ||||
| Job | 13:6 | |||||
| Job | 13:7,8,9,9 | 13:10 | ||||
| Job | 13:11 | 13:12 | ||||
| Job | 13:13,14,15,16,17,18 | |||||
| Job | 13:19 | 13:19,21,22 | ||||
| Job | 13:23 | 13:23 | ||||
| Job | 13:24,25 | 13:26,27,28 | ||||
| Job | 14:2 | |||||
| Job | 14:3,3 | 14:4 | 14:4 | |||
| Job | 14:6 | |||||
| Job | 14:7,9 | |||||
| Job | 14:10 | 14:12 | ||||
| Job | 14:13 | |||||
| Job | 14:14 | 14:14,15,17 | 14:19,20,21,22 | |||
| Eliphaz | 15:2,3 | 15:4,5,6 | ||||
| Eliphaz | 15:7,7,8,8,9,9 | 15:10 | ||||
| Eliphaz | 15:11 | |||||
| Eliphaz | 15:13 | 15:14,14 | 15:16,19,20,21,22 | |||
| Eliphaz | 15:23 | 15:24,30,31,32,33,34,35 | ||||
| Job | 16:2 | |||||
| Job | 16:3,3 | 16:4,5 | ||||
| Job | 16:6 | 16:7,9,10,11,13,13,14 | ||||
| Job | 16:15,17,18,19,21,22 | |||||
| Job | 17:1 | 17:2 | ||||
| Job | 17:3 | 17:4,5,6 | ||||
| Job | 17:7,8,9 | 17:10 | ||||
| Job | 17:11,12 | |||||
| Job | 17:15,15, 16,16 | |||||
| Bildad | 18:2 | 18:2 | ||||
| Bildad | 18:3,3,4 | 18:5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13, 14,15,16,17,18,19,20,21 | ||||
| Job | 19:2,3 | 19:4 | 19:6 | |||
| Job | 19:7 | 19:8,9,10,11,12,13 | ||||
| Job | 19:15,16,17,18, 19,20 | 19:21 | ||||
| Job | 19:22 | 19:23,23,24 | ||||
| Job | 19:27 | 19:27 | 19:28,29 | |||
| Zophar | 20:2,3 | |||||
| Zophar | 20:5,7 | 20:8,9,10,11,14,15,16,17, 18,19,20,21,22,23,24, 25,26,27,28,29 | ||||
| Job | 21:2,3 | |||||
| Job | 21:4,4 | 21:5,6 | ||||
| Job | 21:7 | 21:8,9,10,11,12, 13,14 | ||||
| Job | 21:15,15 | 21:16 | 21:16 | |||
| Job | 21:17,17,17,18 | 21:19,19,20 | ||||
| Job | 21:21,22 | 21:24,25,26,27 | ||||
| Job | 21:28,28 | |||||
| Job | 21:30,31 | 21:32,33 | ||||
| Job | 21:34 | 21:34 | ||||
| Eliphaz | 22:2,2,3,4,5 | 22:5,6,7,8,9,11 | ||||
| Eliphaz | 22:12 | 22:12 | ||||
| Eliphaz | 22:13,13 | 22:14 | ||||
| Eliphaz | 22:15 | 22:16 | ||||
| Eliphaz | 22:17 | 22:18,20,21,22,28,29, 30 | ||||
| Job | 23:2 | |||||
| Job | 23:3,4,5 | |||||
| Job | 23:6 | 23:6,7,9,10,11,12 | ||||
| Job | 23:13 | 23:13,14 | ||||
| Job | 23:15,17 | |||||
| Job | 24:1 | 24:2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9, 11,12,13,14,15, 16,17 | ||||
| Zophar | 24:18,19,20,21, 22,23,24 | |||||
| Zophar | 24:25 | |||||
| Bildad | 25:2 | |||||
| Bildad | 25:3,3,4,4 | 25:6 | ||||
| Job | 26:2,2,3 | |||||
| Job | 26:4 | 26:5,6,7,8,9,10,11, 12,13,14 | ||||
| Job | 26:14 | 27:4,5,6 | 27:7 | |||
| Job | 27:8,9,10,10 | 27:11 | ||||
| Job | 27:12 | |||||
| Bildad | 27:14,15,17,18,19,20,21,22,23 |
TOTALS
| Speaker | Seek | Deny | Mystery/Redemption | Plead/Anguish | Condemn | God is predictable |
| Job | 43 | 56 | 73 | 95 | 33 | 50 |
| Job | 12% | 16% | 21% | 27% | 9% | 14% |
| Eliphaz | 5 | 26 | 10 | 0 | 11 | 50 |
| Eliphaz | 5% | 25% | 10% | 0% | 11% | 49% |
| Bildad | 0 | 14 | 1 | 2 | 0 | 41 |
| Bildad | 0% | 24% | 2% | 3% | 0% | 71% |
| Zophar | 1 | 10 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 40 |
| Zophar | 2% | 19% | 0% | 0% | 4% | 75% |
It took time. I had to read and re-read Job over and over again. I read through multiple translations. I drilled into a few words at a time. I did web searches on key themes and I queried Hartley’s commentary. Eventually I found that the theme of obligation that I had sensed earlier was here. It is not that Job landed in obligation in chapter 3. Job just lightly touched that theme. Where I was sensing obligation is in the Theology of Retribution. In essence, that theology imposes a contract on God. And Job’s three friends are present to represent their interests in that contract. They behaved honorably and thus God is obligated to reward them. They knew of people who were dishonest and God, through that same contact, is obligated to punish those people. In brief, the Theology of Retribution implies that God is obligated to do what we want, when we want because we initiate actions in a linear model. Job is in conflict with his friends because he is challenging the validity of the foundation of their existence.
Notice in 13:7 that Job accuses his friends of testifying falsely while conveying themselves as God’s representatives. Remember Eliphaz even quoted from a vision to justify his position. Job also tells us that his friends are acting from fear. For example in 6:21 he tells his friends that they see him and are motivated from fear and implies that they fear that what happened to him could happen to them.
Bildad states the counter claim boldly and in 8:20 tells us that God listens to the righteous and rejects sinners. Eliphaz and the others remind Job that they have thought through their positions carefully. For example, in 5:27 Eliphaz offers guidance to Job based upon his wisdom.
And yet, Eliphaz in 5:10 through 5:12 exposes the key themes in quick contrast without appearing to catch the significance of his own point. In 5:10 he reminds us that the rain falls on all. Then in 5:11 he tells us that the righteous will be protected and in 5:12 he tells us that the sinners will be thwarted.
Eliphaz, in those few sentences demonstrates the gap between a developmental theology of “us-versus-them” and a holistic theology for humanity. Stage 3 is all about our team being rewarded and their team being punished. Stage 5 is concerned about all humanity while still acting within one’s given role.
The rain falls on the righteous farmers and the wicked farmers. The drought strikes the wicked farmers and it strikes the righteous farmers. God, or the natural order, or whatever name you want to give this great complex system, acts in a non-linear manner that is not directly managed or controlled by us. And thus I felt that I finally understood the characters in this portion of the drama. While each represents a stereotype, each is an expression of the complexity of human nature. Each jostles among many positions and seldom stays on one theme to the exclusion of other themes. There is uncertainty about where any of these actors is going to go next. Yet, each is bounded by their personality and their theology.
I believe that the following graph represents the sense of their point of view. What I try to show in this graph is that Job has a strong sense of alignment, displays a significant expression of chaos or anguish and yet, he also touches on condemnation and obligation.
PROBABLE LOCATIONS IN JOB 3 to 27
| SPEAKER | ALIGN | CHAOS | SUBJUGATION | OBLIGATION |
| Job | 27% | 33% | 17% | 22% |
| Eliphaz | 12% | 2% | 24% | 62% |
| Bildad | 2% | 3% | 12% | 83% |
| Zophar | 1% | 1% | 13% | 85% |
Eliphaz tries to align with Job and has a sense of alignment with God. Eliphaz condemns Job to an extent, but, more than anything, Eliphaz attempts to remind us that God is obligated to obey.
Zophar and Bildad are more narrow minded in their representation of the theme of obligation. They are deeply committed to this theology.
The numbers that I used to plot this graph are shown in the table below the graph. I calculated those values with the following formulas.
Align = Mystery + (Seek / 2)
Chaos = Plead + (Seek / 2)
Subjugation = Condemn + (Deny / 2)
Obligation = Predictable + (Deny / 2)
I readily admit this technique is highly questionable. I believe, however, that it is reproducible. I believe that independent readers can read the text and score the results with something similar. Clearly there is a factor of subjectivity that cannot be eliminated. And, clearly it took me many readings through this text to get to the point where I felt comfortable that I even understood which themes were core to the text. Even so, I tentatively postulate that the theme of obligation is something we both perceive and project.
I believe that when we feel obligated we project a sense of obligation on the relationship.
Obligation is implied in chapter 3 when Job acknowledges the gift of life and then questions whether or not it has value. Obligation is presumed by Job when he asks in 7:1 whether or not all humans live hard lives. Obligation appears in Job’s subtle inferences about the peace he seeks in the grave. He longs for that peace and yet he has insufficient information on which to base his conjecture. But most importantly, Job expresses the theme of obligation when he presumes that God will not respond and then presumes that if God does respond that God will find him guilty. Consider verse 10:13 where Job says that God knows all the secretes of Job’s life and yet Job presumes to know God’s intentions.
Job expresses the theme of obligation when he invokes the Theology of Retribution to condemn his friends in verse 13:10 and in other similar passages. Job expresses his own sense of obligation to a difficult life and projects obligation onto God in an expectation that he knows God’s motivations.
Job’s friends convey their understanding of the predictability of God throughout their rebuttals to Job. While Job questions life and hypothesizes patterns, Job’s friends speak with ill founded certainty. By so doing, they imply that God is obligated to behave as they predict he will.
Before moving on to the next section of Job I think it is important to update the list of loose ends that will need to be resolved. First, there is the list of themes that I introduced earlier.
- Satan
- Fear of God
- Turn or Repent
- God as a co-conspirator
- Remnant
Since then a few new themes have appeared that must also be evaluated.
- Discipline
- Obligation
- Opportunity
It is my goal to address each of those themes before the end of this set of articles.