Comments on Cooperation

So Eliphaz the Temanite, Bildad the Shuhite and Zophar the Naamathite did what the Lord told them; and the Lord accepted Job’s prayer.  Job 42:9 NIV

Accepted – What is implied in the verb “accepted”?  Interestingly, the Hebrew root is nāśāʾ, the same verb that is used for carrying away sin.  When the text tells us that God accepted Job’s prayer, it is telling us that Job’s indiscretion has been forgiven.  But notice the condition of this forgiveness.  Eliphaz, Bildad, and Zophar do what God asks of them.  They listen and take responsibility.

Amit Kula has some important comments about this action in regard to the issues of good and evil in this world:

There is something painful and worrying which in itself, in every generation, leads many to outright heresy—it is the appearance of injustice in the world, the suffering of the righteous, and the prosperity of the wicked.

The traditional responses to this question fall between two extremes that can be identified with the two approaches presented in the book of Job. One approach, generally understood to be the position of Job’s friends, is that human suffering is usually the result of sin and can always be justified. A person’s efforts should, therefore, be directed toward revealing the righteousness in the judgments of ‘a faithful God, never false’ (Deut. 32:4). There are various ways of justifying God’s judgments. The most common way of explaining suffering is as the expiation for sin. According to this approach, the ‘righteous’ person is not in fact righteous; either he has hidden sins, or is not entirely righteous.  Other explanations are that suffering purifies the soul in preparation for the world to come, or that the concepts of good and evil are different than how they appear at first sight.

The esoteric nature of the conclusion of the book of Job has led some commentators to argue that the alternative approach entails denying the validity of the question.  This form of denial perhaps causes the repression of angst over the disparity between ideals and reality. The declaration that the greatness of God precludes questioning His way of ruling the world, or that the question itself is beyond human comprehension, can be found both in commentaries on Job and in a variety of philosophical responses to this question throughout the generations.

There is, however, a third option, according to which the response to suffering is not static or objective, but is rather to be found within the heart and mind of the suffering individual. It is possible to see the ‘happy ending’ of the book of Job as the outcome of a human decision taken by those involved in this drama not to stand aloof, not to judge or complain, but, instead, to take responsibility for righting wrong. This, in turn, brought about God’s blessing for the renewal of good fortune: ‘Eliphaz the Temanite and Bildad the Shuhite and Zophar the Naamathite went and did as the Lord had told them, and the Lord showed favor to Job.’

These words express the idea that divine providence, including both mercy and judgment, is actualized and applied by those who are devoted to him and follow his ways. According to this approach, each individual is responsible for the welfare of the world. Each person must fight evil, do justice, and build a world of loving-kindness. When one does so, the purpose of the Creator is revealed: . .[1]

Rabbi Jonathan Sacks makes the same point in a larger context:

The entire drama of Torah flows from this point of departure.  Judaism remains God’s supreme call to humankind to freedom and creativity on the one hand, and on the other, to responsibility and restraint—becoming God’s partner in the work of creation.[2]

 . . . because we understand or because we trust Him when we do not understand.  He seeks from us something other and greater than obedience, namely, responsibility.[3]

Responsibility is always a response to someone or something.  In Judaism, it means response to the command of God.[4]

We are going to create an environment where we rule, not Him, where the Other is replaced by Self.  Babel is the failure of ontological responsibility—the idea that something beyond us make a call on us.[5]

Abraham is different.  For him, the command is life itself.  God speaks, Abraham listens and acts, without resistance on the one hand, and with pride on the other.  His life is an answer to God’s question; his existence is lived in the conscious presence of the divine will.  With Abraham a new faith is born: the faith of responsibility, in which the divine command and the human act meet and give birth to a new and blessed order, built on the principles of righteousness and justice.  Judaism is supremely a religion of freedom—not freedom in the modern sense, the ability to do what we like, but in the ethical sense of the ability to choose to do what we should, . . [6]

Have you thought of the Torah as a narrative about responsibility?  Not rules, not legislation, but stories about what it means to be responsible?  Maybe that’s a new lens to apply.  Instead of debating how this or that commandment should be applied, we might ask, “What does this teach me about being responsible?”  And remember the lesson from Job.

Topical Index: Amit Kula, Jonathan Sacks, responsibility, Job 42:9