1. In Bringing the Hidden to Light, I read Ed Greenstein’s essay, “‘On My Skin and in my Flesh’: Personal Experience as a Source of Knowledge in the Book of Job”.
In Job 4:17-21, Eliphaz tells about a spirit who communicated a message to him at night, saying that God considers all of humanity to be sinful. Many people read this and conclude that Eliphaz is making an argument about Job’s suffering, maintaining that Job is wrong to claim that God is afflicting him unjustly, for all have sinned and deserve God’s displeasure.
But Dr. Greenstein holds that Eliphaz is not the one expressing this sentiment, but rather it’s Job who’s saying this, and, in the process of transmission, Job’s statement somehow got placed under a speech of Eliphaz. For Dr. Greenstein, Job is taking God to task for punishing him just because God is a perfectionist, and Job falls short a little bit.
Some reasons that Dr. Greenstein attributes Job 4:17-21 to Job rather than Eliphaz:
a. Eliphaz does not cite the spirit as an authority, but instead he relies on the wisdom of the ancestors (Job 5:27) and “derides any reliance on heavenly spirits (5: 1, 8).” Job, by contrast, “specifically complains of terrifying dreams from the divine realm (7:13-14) and takes pride in the fact that he ‘has not suppressed the words of the holy being [that is, the spirit]‘ (6:10).”
b. Job 4:17-19 is paraphrased by Bildad in 25:4-6, and by Eliphaz in 15:14-16. According to Dr. Greenstein, Bildad’s speech in Job 25 is fragmented, so we can’t really conclude anything from it. In the case of Eliphaz’s speech, however, Eliphaz introduces his paraphrase of Job 4:17-19 with language that elsewhere in Job precedes a citation (Job 8:10; 35:4). I will add that Eliphaz in Job 15 arguably goes on to try to refute the claim that everyone is imperfect in God’s eyes and so Job is getting a bum rap because he falls short a little; Eliphaz says that the wicked and the oppressive are punished by God. To me, that implies that there is a special class of people who are wicked, and that God punishes wickedness, not mere imperfection.
At the same time, in Job 5:17, Eliphaz says that God disciplines the righteous. Could Eliphaz indeed be the speaker of Job 4:17-21, and his point is that everyone is imperfect, with varying levels of imperfection, and God addresses the righteous people’s imperfection through discipline, and the wicked people’s gross imperfection through punishment?
2. In my reading of A Prophet Reads Scripture: Allusion in Isaiah 40-66, Benjamin Sommer argues that the promises and the mission of the Davidic dynasty have been transferred in Deutero-Isaiah to Israel as a whole. In First Isaiah, the Davidic king brings forth justice and enlightens the Gentiles; in Deutero-Isaiah, this mission belongs to Israel. In Psalms, God delivers David from his enemies and exalts him; in Deutero-Isaiah, God does this for Israel. God promised David an everlasting dynasty in II Samuel 7; in Deutero-Isaiah, God’s relationship with Israel is everlasting. Sommer looks at verbal parallels between Deutero-Isaiah and texts about David or the Davidic king to contend that Deutero-Isaiah is handling those sources and making an interpretive move.
But I’m confused. God’s covenant with David was everlasting? Then how can Deutero-Isaiah believe that Israel is replacing the Davidic dynasty, which is Sommer’s argument? Wouldn’t that mean that God’s covenant with David was not everlasting?
There are biblical voices, such as the Deuteronomist in I Kings 8, which treat God’s covenant with David as conditional on obedience: yes, the Davidic dynasty will continue forever, but only if the Davidic king obeys.
But Sommer doesn’t see that as the position of Deutero-Isaiah. For him, Isaiah 55:4 indicates that Deutero-Isaiah thinks that God’s promises to David have been fulfilled: David was a witness, a leader, and a commander, as God said he would be in his covenant with him.
But God also said in II Samuel 7 that David’s line would rule forever. And Deutero-Isaiah knows this, for Isaiah 55:3 says God will make an everlasting covenant with Israel, even the “sure mercies of David”. There’s an implication there that God’s covenant with David was everlasting, for God’s covenant with Israel—like that with David—will be everlasting.
Does Deutero-Isaiah believe that God changed his mind, or that God is continuing the Davidic covenant, only in another form: he is transferring the Davidic covenant to Israel as a whole? Is this God playing fast-and-loose with his promises? If so, how can we trust him? What would Deutero-Isaiah say to that?
3. In my church bulletin today, the topic was commitment. It mentioned people who leave their religious communities, often because of the pain they experienced. Those who stuck with their commitments, however, dealt with the pain by asking God for help.
I wonder about commitment. Does it mean that I can never, ever leave something, that, once I go into it, I must stick with it for the rest of my life? Should I remove myself from an unhealthy environment to seek one that is healthier? Or should I build character by staying with what I joined?
I can understand the latter, but I don’t always feel I’m strong enough.
I’ve left some things in my life, and, while I may have gotten some benefits by sticking with them, I’m glad I left, for I went on to find something better.
But maybe I would have learned to tolerate the imperfect by sticking with my commitment, rather than leaving when it didn’t suit me.
Tough choice. Not that I’m facing it right now. I’ve just thought about commitment more than once in my life.