Early in the book, Gutierrez shows that devotion to God should not be based upon what one can get from God. Job's faith was “Disinterested”, his fidelity to God didn't falter when the copious blessings stopped coming. The accuser lost the wager.
This is interesting to think about, for on one level, a healthy and good relationship with others is disinterested (in the way Gutierrez uses the term). For example, when my sister ask me to help her with something, I don't do so in order to put her in my debt—I don't keep score. Yet, if my sister wasn't the wonderful person she is and was instead manipulative; using and taking advantage of me, I would then be hesitant, not wanting to encourage her bad behavior. So it seems with our relationship with God, in one sense, our love of God should be unconditional and our faith disinterested, and yet... there is a line somewhere, isn't there? What if God ended up being more like the devil? Does God deserve our trust and adoration if in fact he is sadistic, cruel and untrustworthy? For me the goodness of God is central to a continuance of my faith in Him. If God isn't good, his terrifying power might produce fear in me, but never love or allegiance.
Now, Job in his raw honesty eventually did imply that God was unjust; viciously trampling the poor and mistreating the needy without cause, and yet he didn't walk away. Possibly, like I have in many of my own poems, Job expressed the way things seemed, all the while, in his heart of hearts, giving God the benefit of the doubt. Job possibly clung to the hope that contrary to his experience, God really was good and just in some meaningful sense that he couldn't see. If not this, possibly Job was a model Calvinist; understanding that whatever God does is automatically good. If God tortured babies for fun; this is holy, just and righteous—merely because God did it. We as finite insignificant worms never have the right to question, we must merely grovel before his sovereignty and accept what he does, no matter how unjust, wicked and diabolical it seems to filthy rags that we are.
As the founder of Liberation Theology, Gutierrez expounds upon the “preferential option for the poor” and from this perspective notices what a majority of us might pass over when reading Job. One thing he called attention to was how Job was initially quite focused on himself, his perspective broadens later and he begins to himself as the representative for the poor in general. He saw that many of the poor were not suffering because they deserved it, but that many truly were innocent (which was a huge strike against his retributive theology that was also held by his friends).
Gutierrez also noticed that both Job and his comforters understood a central part of ones relationship with God was ones preferential treatment of the poor. The accusations of Jobs friends and Jobs case for his righteousness revolved around what James called “pure religion”.
Gutierrez is largely opposed to retributive theology (which the protestant Penal Substitutionary view of the atonement is established on) and sees the book of Job as an attack upon the belief that retributive justice is core to the very nature of God. Some think if God doesn't act with strict retribution, God isn't just. Gutierrez thinks the book of Job shows that God is not shackled to our notions of justice, God is not in a box, he isn't forced to punish the wicked here and now, nor under obligation to bless those who do rightly. God is free to do what he wants. Job had the retributive view, yet his knowledge of his innocent and his suffering blatantly contradicted his theology. He knew he was innocent, but his theology meant that God was therefore, unjust, for God it was was an either/or and this created quite a dilemma. His friends had the same misguided theology and knew God is just, so therefore, Job must have committed some sin deserving of the calamity that befell him.
With the help of a friend who also read this book with me, I think I now understand one of Gutierrez points at the end of the book. Not only did Job's experience and God's answer from the whirlwind, completely shatter his retributive theology, but Job learned that this theology would bind God's hands preventing him from showing undeserved grace. Somehow this negative experience opened Job's eyes to the gratuitousness of God's love, that God can show kindness to those who don't deserve it for he is not bound. But this also means God can seem arbitrary, he sometimes punishes the wicked, and often he does not, he sometimes shows kindness, but sometimes he does not. Its a fools errand to try to discern a rhyme or a reason, God is like a cat; always mysterious, doing what he wants when he wants to, on his own terms and in his own ways. He may show up, he may not, he is not like the loyal dog always at the door to great us.
I have questioned part of my theology due to experience that seemed to contradict it. Job's friends however wouldn't allow their theology to be reshaped; orthodoxy was the Procrustean bed—everything had to be hacked or stretched. Job's friends seem to be like the young, restless and reformed of today, for them experience and common sense be damned, the theology they inherited must be defended and protected from people like me, who in spirit of Job, doubt and question.