God’s Blueprint: a Stephen Maltz book that almost hits on every cylinder

 From my Goodreads review: I enjoy Maltz’s perspective on scripture and Hebrew interpretation so I was looking forward to reading this book. While he emphasizes (which in opening chapter he uses the term ‘empathizes’ instead) the overall themes found throughout the Hebrew Scriptures (Old Testament), he notes he’s not going verse by verse like other commentaries. He summarizes the through-lines in the final chapters that appear from beginning to end (Genesis to Malachi).

I didn’t find any new ideas here unfortunately. And I found many omissions and perhaps a mischaracterization or two of God’s behavior. In the retelling of the scriptures, Maltz highlights the events where God seems only disappointed in us; not like Zephaniah’s oratory in 3.17 of being in our midst, calming our fears and rejoicing over us. Maltz claims that God “shouts” at us periodically, for example, at Job when God “confronts” him. While God can be displeased and speaks quietly (not in the storm to Elijah) or from the whirlwind (Job), we forget that God made His creation in His own image and was pleased. This is a theme that Maltz misses. God can be disappointed we’re not living up to our potential, but forgiveness and prodding, coaching, leading abounds. Let’s take the case of Job. God has already declared him to be upright and above reproach. At the end of the book, God says Job has spoken accurately about Him and God is furious at the Job’s friends. Why then would we read God’s dialogue with Job as a harangue? What kind of justice-loving, gracious, fatherly god would “blast” a beaten-down man who has suffered a lot—especially going on and on about how weak or minuscule mankind is compared to other creatures or nature? Why couldn’t we read “stand up like a man” as an exhortation to stop wallowing and live up to the image of God in which Job is created? Why couldn’t we read the tone of voice (missing in text only) as compassionate—as if saying “though you, Job, can’t do all these great things, you are still important to me and that’s why I have appeared to you”? Why can’t we read Job’s disparaging response as humility and self-esteem building—“Please listen and I will speak. I will ask questions and you give me answers…therefore I detest myself and humble myself before you [because You still love me and have deigned to acknowledge my concerns and fears]? [Perhaps Job is reciting God’s opening words with the addition of “please” as an acceptance of the invitation to dialogue.]

The end of Job does fit Maltz’s noted theme of God blessing those who bless “you” and cursing those who curse “you.” And I appreciate the author pointing that out.