Most doctors have to help some of their patients deal with various forms of suffering. It may be the result of a disease beyond their control, like a genetic disorder, or a spontaneously arising cancer. It could be the result of a serious accident, either purely random or perhaps even their own fault. It could be the result of their own misbehavior, whether it be a failed liver from alcohol abuse or a bad heart from overeating and underexercising. Typically doctors care for all these patients without judgment for how these disorders arose. But I suspect most doctors, like most patients often wonder, Why does this person, who may not even take the best care of himself, sail through life with minimal problems while this other person is assailed by serious disorders and suffering through no fault of his own? That is the sort of question that the book of Job discusses.
Although the basic story of Job is widely known the book in the Bible named for him is widely misunderstood, thanks mainly to the nonsensical beginning and end added to the original poem. The typical fairy tale begins “Once upon a time there lived…” and ends “…and they lived happily ever after.” The book of Job fits that pattern too neatly. “There was a man in the land of Uz whose name was Job…” We’ll get to the ending later. Although the book of Job is considered one of the most profound in the Bible, one of the main reasons many find it confusing is that some well-intentioned (but in my opinion idiotic) scribes added a prologue and epilogue around the original poem which basically contradicted and nullified the very point of the book! This creates essentially two different stories, which argue against each other rather than supporting each other. And neither story presents a very flattering picture of God.
First, just flip through the first few chapters of the book of Job. You will see that the first two chapters look like basic prose narrative (the prologue), but starting with chapter 3 it changes over to poetic form. Then in verse 7 of the final chapter it reverts back to prose for the epilogue. The prose bookends do not fit the poem sandwiched between them, as I will try to show.
To review the basic outline of the book, we start in the prologue. Job is described as “blameless, upright, fearing God and turning away from evil.” He is prosperous and has a large, healthy and happy family. But he’s not the only one with family: “there was a day when the sons of God [Elohim] came to present themselves before Yahweh, and Satan [lit: adversary] also came among them.” Most people, Christian and Muslim, assume “sons of God” means angels or some other members of the heavenly host because God doesn’t really have sons, right? That might be a reasonable assumption, but I find it odd that fundamentalists will argue that a “day” in the Genesis 1 creation story is a literal 24-hour period, but in this passage “sons of God” doesn’t really mean what it says. Personally, I suspect the ancients who originated this story may have thought of the gods as having children, which was very common in ancient religions. Note that it is “sons of Elohim,” the plural word for gods, and they present themselves before “Yahweh,” the personal name of the god of the Jews. Often in the Old Testament there seem to be references to the existence of other gods, but Yahweh is the only one to be worshipped (as even in the Ten Commandments, Exodus 20:3). So, is this story suggesting that the other gods are showing obeisance to the top god Yahweh?
Anyway, the other odd thing is that Satan himself shows up in Yahweh’s throne room. To the surprise of most people Satan doesn’t show up much in the Old Testament and he seems to be a late addition to the lore of the gods. Zechariah, one of the latest books, makes a brief mention of him (3:1, 2) and like in Job his function seems to be as an accuser, since the name literally means “adversary.” He gets a mention in 1st Chronicles 21:1 where that author “corrects” the corresponding earlier version in 2nd Samuel 24:1 so that instead of God inciting David to take a census (which was against God’s will!) it is Satan doing so. That’s it for Satan in the Old Testament; he seems to be more important to the Christians later. Lest you claim that Satan was in the Garden of Eden the serpent was cursed to crawl on the ground and Satan seems to have no problem walking around God’s throne room, despite the attempt in Revelation 12:9 to equate the two. The concept of Satan appears to have arisen late in Israel’s history with what is called apocalypticism, where instead of God getting credit for all things, good and bad, it is evil forces led by Satan that get the blame for the world’s problems, with the expectation that God will soon appear to eradicate those evil forces. If you doubt this, read the poetic part of Job with the long discussions with his friends. Not once do any of them ever bring up the idea that Satan could have something to do with Job or human suffering in general. The idea of Satan as an alternative to God had not developed yet when the poem was written. All things stem from God and that is why Job wants an audience with Him.
In the prologue God does not seem surprised to see Satan, which runs contrary to the idea I often heard in the church, that God cannot be in the presence of evil. Either this version of Satan is not truly evil, or God can in fact handle being around the very essence of evil. God then boasts to Satan about how devout Job is. Satan replies that it is only because He has blessed him so much, but take it all away and Job “will surely curse You to Your face!” Then, most strangely, as if God has to prove anything to Satan, He gives Satan permission to take everything away from Job to test Satan’s assertion. Basically, they are gambling with Job’s family and estate just to prove a point.
So, all in one day Satan causes Job to have his flocks stolen and his servants killed (why did the servants have to be collateral damage?) and then the ultimate disaster is that all his children are killed in a storm. So, Job’s ten children and his servants all die to prove a point to Satan? This is what I mean that this part of the story does not paint a flattering portrait of God. People are expendable so He can win an argument with Satan?
Then Job arose and tore his robe and shaved his head, and he fell to the ground and worshiped. He said,
“Naked I came from my mother’s womb,
And naked I shall return there.
The Lord gave and the Lord has taken away.
Blessed be the name of the Lord.”
Through all this Job did not sin nor did he blame God.
Job 1:20-22
Of course the ironic thing is that God was to blame! Job is looking more righteous than God at this point. But it doesn’t end there (obviously).
On another day Satan again appears in God’s throne room and God once again boasts about pious Job. This time Satan argues that Job will forsake God if his own life is at stake. So God gives Satan permission to afflict Job as long as he does not kill him. So Satan smites Job “with sore boils from the sole of his foot to the crown of his head.” Miserable Job is sitting “among the ashes” and scraping his sores and his wonderfully supportive wife tells him, “Do you still hold fast your integrity? Curse God and die!” Touching. With a wife like that, who needs enemies?! Still, Job is faithful:
“Shall we indeed accept good from God and not accept adversity?” In all this Job did not sin with his lips.
Job 2:10
Then Job’s three friends come to commiserate with him: Eliphaz the Temanite, Bildad the Shuhite and Zophar the Naamathite. The three initially weep and wail, but then it says they simply sit with him in silence for seven days, “for they saw that his pain was very great.” That truly is touching. So far Job seems more righteous than God and his friends are certainly more sensitive and caring than God, who allowed all this suffering just to prove something to Satan. Is this a pride issue for God? This prologue just does not make God look too good, and I would argue that it violates the premise of the upcoming poem: it tells us why Job is suffering, when that is supposed to be the subject he and his friends are about to debate. It undermines the coming discussion, rather than enhancing it in any way.
In chapter 3 begins the poem, which I believe is the original story of Job. The structure is that Job makes a lengthy statement about his suffering and questioning the cause and meaning of it. Then one of his friends will give a lengthy reply, or rebuttal. And back and forth they go. This actually brings out an interesting technical point about these ancient documents. Of you look at chapters 25 through 28 Bildad’s response is unusually short, Zophar’s comments are missing, and Job’s speech sounds more like something his friends would say. So it appears something was garbled in transmission. Perhaps a section was lost and Job’s name was mistakenly assigned to Zophar’s reply or some similar scenario. This simply shows what one might expect of ancient documents: they could be damaged, edited, altered and/or reconstructed less than perfectly. These stories weren’t written in stone by the finger of God and they were subject to human limitations in both the writing and the preserving of these texts. That comes as no surprise to anybody but the strict fundamentalist who wants to believe everything in the Bible is perfect.
As for the content of this poem, one of the themes is that Job cannot see any reason for his suffering; he knows of no sin that would merit such punishment. His friends believe God is wholly just and therefore Job must have done something to deserve such treatment. Of course since we’ve read the prologue we know that Job is innocent, which suggests that his friends are wrong. But then, either God is not truly just, or we humans don’t have a proper understanding of justice. Then (chapter 32) a fourth person comes on the scene, Elihu, and his main problem with Job is that he is arrogant for questioning Almighty God and claiming to be without sin. All this discussion is very deep and philosophical and there are some lovely poetic phrases that are worth the reading. If only that vapid prologue hadn’t poisoned the pudding.
Let’s cut to the chase. Job insists on an audience with God in order to defend himself and sure enough, God shows up. He begins a “shock and awe” campaign against Job as God assaults Job with one rhetorical question after another. Where were you when I laid the foundation of the earth?! Have you walked in the depth of the seas? Can you reach the constellations? Do you know the ways of all the animals? Will the faultfinder (Job) contend with the Almighty? Job tries to answer:
“Behold, I am insignificant; what can I reply to You?
I lay my hand on my mouth.
Once I have spoken, and I will not answer;
Even twice, and I will add nothing more.”
Job 40:4, 5
That just gives God time to catch His breath and He continues on with His grilling of Job. Finally Job succumbs to this withering assault:
Then Job answered the Lord and said,
“I know that You can do all things,
And that no purpose of Yours can be thwarted.
‘Who is this that hides counsel without knowledge?’
“Therefore I have declared that which I did not understand,
Things too wonderful for me, which I did not know.”
‘Hear, now, and I will speak;
I will ask You, and You instruct me.’
“I have heard of You by the hearing of the ear;
But now my eye sees You;
Therefore I retract,
And I repent in dust and ashes.”
Job 42:1-6
What can humble Job do in the face of Almighty God but cower and submit? This seems to be the ultimate message of the poem: It is not for us mortals to understand or know the ways of God; shame on us for trying! That understanding is beyond us. Of course the ancients believed there was a god (or gods) running the world, controlling all that happens, but who can understand why they do what they do? Who knows why one person suffers and another does not? Why do good people sometimes suffer while evil ones prosper? Their answer was simply that we puny humans cannot presume to understand the ways of mighty God (or the gods). Of course, an alternative understanding of the world is that stuff just happens, either due to the laws of physics or the vagaries of human nature; there is no mystical or heavenly meaning behind any of it. Take your pick. Either way it is up to each of us to make the best of our situations. Personally, I find the book of Job as written unsatisfactory: God knows perfectly well why Job is suffering (as does the reader!) and yet God refuses to acknowledge His role in it. (A bet with Satan?!) Come on, God, you allow Job such torment and then won’t even explain it to him? Not cool. Is God too embarrassed to admit to Job that it was all to win a bet? Imagine if you were going through a real ordeal and a friend gets in your face and says to you, “Just deal with it, you wimp, you ignorant dolt, you insignificant nothing!” Do you think that is an appropriate way to deal with someone enduring suffering? With friends like that, or a God like that, who needs enemies?
Then comes the epilogue, which I really detest. God is upset with Job’s friends “because you have not spoken of Me what is right as My servant Job has.” Wait, God, didn’t you just spend the last few chapters putting Job in his place? Now you’re saying he was right about You? Makes me think the person who added this ending didn’t really read the poem.
Finally the worst part: God gives Job back his health, his wealth and another ten children. What’s wrong with that? As a doctor I saw a few success stories, but for many people there was no “happily ever after.” They do not get their health back. Their finances are not magically restored. Their dead child is not “replaced” by God. As if having another child erases the pain of losing a previous one. In my medical residency during the obstetrics rotation we were taught that if a patient lost a pregnancy it was not advisable to tell her she could just have more; it was considered insensitive. I was in the room when one of my fellow residents was counseling a young woman about her miscarriage and in the tenseness of the moment she blurted out, “Oh, you can have more!” Gauging the reaction of the grieving mother I could tell this was of no comfort to the poor woman. It did indeed sound hollow and insensitive. Are we supposed to accept that God giving Job and his charming wife another ten children made up for killing their original children, especially just to prove a point to Satan?! Such a superficial god does not seem to meet the high standards typically attributed to deity.
That is why I said at the start that neither version of the Job story portrays God in a flattering way. In the prologue/epilogue prose version God is willing to see Job afflicted and all his children and servants killed just to prove a point – to Satan!? And He tries to make it up to Job by simply replacing what was lost; after all, children are expendable and replaceable, right? How callous and insensitive is this god? Then in the poetic body of the book God ends up treating Job as a sniveling worm and not as one of His children, and offers Job no comfort or even a glimmer of understanding. He treats Job as a toddler either too simple-minded for or unworthy of any explanation. It seems to be all about God and how great He is. I guess we’re just supposed to suck it up and not ask questions about the difficulties of life. Thanks, Father.
Thinking exercises:
1. What is your explanation for why some people cruise through life while others struggle, often without regard to their personal choices or whether they are good or evil?
2. Why do you think the God of Job expects us to accept the vagaries of life without question? What would you think of a human father who refused to explain to his children why they were going through difficult times? If that father answered his children the way God answered Job how would you assess his parenting skills?
3. If you were arguing some philosophical point with a neighbor would you ever consider killing some people in order to prove your point? What do you make of God’s willingness to do so?
4. If a human father tormented his own child in order to prove a point to somebody, what would you think of him? Why does anyone find it acceptable that God would allow his good son Job to be tormented to prove a point to Satan? Why do people assume that God has the right to do this to Job? Just because He is God? Might makes right?
5. Some people assume that suffering in this life does not matter because God will make it up to you in the afterlife. Are you satisfied with this? If you have children would you ever consider tormenting them for a period of time without explanation with the justification that you would make it up to them later?