The Response to Job's Suffering

Job has long been one of the more "troubling" books of the bible. Often ignored by pastors or teachers, it sometimes doesn't seem to fit within our perceived paradigm of scriptural usage. It's an awkward piece due, in part, to its format. While pastors will agree that it deals with the interaction of God in human affairs, it has a seeming lack of concise verses concerning this; instead adopting a drawn out narrative format. Alan Cooper argues that for centuries, Christians have been trying to force the book of Job into a context concerning the relationship between man's suffering and God's providence. When, in reality, it is better interpreted as an example of man's futile attempts at understanding God, and how his attempts will guide him towards righteous works, or evil ones. Cooper summarizes previous interpretive traditions well, and  organizes his arguments clearly, but I believe his alternate explanations for the interpretation of Job are misguided; under a closer examination each one falls short.

Cooper begins his piece by summarizing the most popular historical view on Job, a view which continues today. He appeals to two prominent supporters of this view: Norman Hebel and Maimonides. Norman Hebel has divided Job into three primary sections or "movements". The first is "God Afflicts the Hero-The Hidden Conflict", the second "The Hero Confronts God-The Conflict Explored", and the third "God Challenges the Hero-The Conflict Resolved". Cooper argues that Maimonides' interpretation follows this model, as well as exemplifying the "divine providence vs. innocent suffering" interpretation of Job, which fits into his belief that man's ultimate goal on earth is to attain knowledge of God. He states, "When Job comes to know God . . . he ceases to be troubled with the loss of his health, wealth and children; things that he had only imagined to be sources of happiness" (229). Cooper takes issue with this, arguing that such a view is only satisfying to a philosopher. He questions whether a heightened knowledge of God, or the knowledge that divine providence is inexplicable and beyond understanding, will ever really comfort the sufferer.

Cooper follows this by laying out his critique of the "divine providence and suffering of the innocent" interpretation of Job in three parts. The first is that God has nothing to say on the topic. Rather, what he does say is "disconcerting". Job's suffering is apparently meaningless and without reason, the Hebrew word used to describe Job's suffering means literally "without reason or just cause". It appears that God had no motive other than some sort of game with Satan. His second issue with this view is that those who adhere to it inevitably interpret Job as an archetype for the "Everyman": a man to whom we can all relate, whose suffering we can relate to our own, but the author of the book goes to painstaking lengths to portray Job in an un-relatable light. He isn't an Israelite, he's impressively rich, and also perfect. He is, by all definitions, the most uncommon of examples possible. His final disagreement comes in the form of a critique of Job's friends. The common view is to see the five friends of Job as representing the traditional view of suffering: Job is not innocent, therefore his suffering is justified. Job and his friends spend the majority of the book traveling in circles, due to Job's unusual circumstances this model fails. In reality, Cooper argues, both Job and his friends represent human ignorance about the ways of God. He quotes James Conant as saying that the lesson of the Book of Job "is a denial of the assumption that the universe is explicable in human terms; it is a corrective to the presumption of human beings in applying their standards of value to the cosmos."

Cooper's interpretation, while it takes into account many of the unusual and troubling aspects of Job, I would argue, fails to fully consider the potential impact of such portions. The aforementioned problems in the book end up becoming strong evidence for the "divine providence vs. innocent human suffering" narrative, rather than against. The first example is his treatment of Maimonides' views. Cooper finds the idea that we could transcend suffering through a higher knowledge of God unsatisfying. He asks whether realizing that God's providence exists, yet is unknowable really comforts the sufferer. I would argue, however, that what else should alleviate our suffering? If, as Maimonides thinks, knowledge of God is our ultimate goal, then such knowledge is the ultimate peace-bringer. Human suffering pales in comparison to an understanding of God. Human attempts at explanation of innocent suffering can find meaning, not through a simplistic, colloquial answer, but through a transcendent knowledge of God.

My second point of disagreement with Cooper lies in his treatment of the roles of God and Job throughout the book. His argument is that God's distance and strange behavior throughout the book is indicative of its attempts at painting God as incomprehensible. While I agree with this premise, I draw a different conclusion. I believe the author's intent may have well been to paint God as incomprehensible, I believe he did not leave it that, as Cooper argues. He did so in order to present an astute example of innocent human suffering. Not only was it innocent suffering, it was innocent suffering without reason. True to the books parabolic and narrative structure, it's not meant to be indicative of God's true nature, it's meant to magnify the circumstances, to present exceptionally difficult circumstances of innocent suffering. Should the reader assume the literality of God's role in the book, problems concerning his omnibenevolence arise. Finally, I agree most with Cooper's last point, again however, with a different conclusion. I would argue that the failing of Job and his friends at understanding God and his intent again indicate the exceptional circumstances of Job's suffering. Each friend accuses Job according to their preconceived paradigm of human and divine interaction. They cannot make sense of his suffering, so they accuse him according to what they think they know of God. This serves a twofold purpose: firstly, it portrays added suffering; as if Job's circumstances weren't enough, his friends turn against him. Secondly, it portrays ignorance of God's true nature and providential workings, which perfectly lays the premise for the conclusion of the book;  an overwhelming display of God's power, bringing him a higher knowledge of God, by which Job's questions are answered and suffering relieved.

The book of Job, rather than painting an un-relatable situation of suffering,  makes a universally relatable situation. No matter how bad your situation, it can't be as bad as Job's. His was not only underserved, it was also without reason, or explanation. It is the most powerful kind of explanation of providence and human suffering. When we try and make sense of God's providence by forcing it into our conventions of what is "just" we inevitably fail. Ultimately, the only answer is God's resounding announcement of his power and sovereignty. The book shouts the fact that we cannot understand God or his providential hand in human affairs, yet it does exist. That is Job's answer, and he finds peace with it.

Redemption and Holiness in a Fallen World

Growing up I was taught about the importance of holiness; striving to be more like the God who redeems us. What holiness is and how it's carried out, however, is something often left vague. Dietrich Boenhoffer, towards the end of his life, was imprisoned in a Nazi concentration camp. From prison he wrote many letters and papers, which were sent to his friends and family; earlier in life he'd written "The Cost of Discipleship" as a young theologian. In one of his last letters he wrote home on the fact that he'd written the book while at a place in life where he strove for holiness by living a moral life and removing himself from the world. In contrast he now realized that, while partially correct, he was incomplete in his Christian practice. He'd come to realize that it is only by living wholly in the world that a Christian can come to true holiness. He still believed in personal purity, but it was a purity born of actively doing the will of God, rather than personal moral restriction.

Is holiness a personal sense of purity and separation from the world (a negative process), or is it actively working towards the betterment of mankind in the name of Christ (a positive process)? the one side believes that Holiness is separation from the world. Christians have the task set before them of keeping themselves pure as the bride of Christ while also reaching hurting souls. The other, that holiness was striving to be more like God. And what was the nature of God? God's nature is of love and truth and justice. Holiness, then, is acting out these attributes of the divine in the temporal realm. It doesn't take long to see the apparent discrepancy between the two opinions. While not mutually exclusive, they certainly make for different attitudes and actions towards the world.

How then should I live? What both sides agreed on is that the redemption which is foundational to the gospel is inexorably linked with holiness. The redemption of earthly things is a common biblical motif; that which is fallen and corrupted in the world finds its true fulfillment and expression in the redemption of Christ. This process is not limited to the nature of man, although that is its apex. Throughout scripture the process of redemption by Christ's sacrifice is applied to the entire world (Romans 8). There is no thing on earth that cannot be redeemed by his blood. Whether you believe that the Kingdom of Heaven is carried out by believers, or that Christ will supernaturally set it up after his return, we believe in Christ's role in the redemption of creation. Paul, as well as Isaiah comment on the fact that there is nothing earthly which is innately evil (Isaiah 44), (Romans 14). Things that were once good have been corrupted. The beauty of Christ's sacrifice is that it covers a multitude of sins, including sin's effects on creation.

The problem I find with the first view of holiness, and often the acompanying view of redemption, is that it views the only (or at least the only important) redeemable thing on earth to be human souls. This views adherents evangelizes and has a heart for them, and very well should, if they are the apex of redemption. They even disciple converts to do the same, but I believe they've left out a major element of Christianity. They redeem the world through only one mode of action. Instead, let us mirror the redemption of our souls in creation. Let us shower our neighbors and our earth with the redeeming nature of Christ.

The arts, philosophy, history, music, ecology, politics, sociology, psychology, let it all be employed for the betterment of mankind in the name of Christ. Of course, all these things can be used for the betterment of mankind without giving honor where honor is due. It is entirely possible to employ these without relating them to the redemption which is through Christ. This is where Christianity shines. Christians do the will of God in sharing the gospel when they employ whatever means to the expression of Christ's love towards a needy world. This is the second approach to redemption. Holiness is achieved only when we forget about ourselves and work in every human sphere possible to spread Christ's love.

The argument concerning the involvement of the believer in secular arenas comes from many different corners of Christian thought. From my own background I hear things like "Study academics in order to be better able to evangelize!" But it's usually followed by a word of caution: "knowledge for knowledge's sake is pointless, it leads to arrogance". I would argue that this is a cleverly disguised false dichotomy. On the one hand we have learning solely for the pursuit of conversions; on the other we have the dangers of learning for the sake of nothing but gaining more knowledge. The problem is that the quest for more knowledge is everywhere commended in scripture, without the justification of evangelical applicability. And even if one attempts to gain knowledge for no particular purpose, it is inevitable that the knowledge gained will be employed to some use. Therefore admonishing someone against the quest for knowledge as a goal of its own is rather redundant. Everyone learns for some reason. What statements like this often reflect is simply an anti-intellectual sentiment. The other side of the dichotomy is that academics as a means to an end of evangelism is not so limited as those making such statements would like to think. Preaching, sharing the gift of justification, witnessing, all are well and good. But if our intellectual pursuits are limited to those modes of action it's like gaining all the knowledge about architecture, construction, geology, ecology and plumbing the world has to offer in order to only build the foundation for a house. If, as Christians, we are to build a vibrant, comprehensive and convincing faith, we must employ knowledge and its expression from every corner of the earth. We should do it because we love the expressions of Christ we find therein; we should do it because all mankind benefits from it; we should do it because we are commanded; that is true evangelism.

The apparent conflict between the two views also appears to stem from how they each define "the world". Growing up in the first position led me to believe that the world was everything that distracts us from the great commission; any concern with the temporal and unregenerate. I would now argue that the world is something once good, now fallen. In the first case the world is to be avoided, in the second the world becomes a stage upon which the narrative of redemption takes place.

So how then are we to be holy? "In the world but not of the world"? If redemption is the process of taking that which is fallen and making it good again then it is not so far off from sanctification; becoming holy. And again we arrive at Boenhoffer, who said that "being a Christian is less about cautiously avoiding sin than about courageously and actively doing God's will.” The man found that it was only when he executed God's redemption in a suffering world that he truly found holiness. It was for the expression of this gospel that he was executed. Shortly before his death he wrote, “I discovered later, and I'm still discovering right up to this moment, that is it only by living completely in this world that one learns to have faith. By this worldliness I mean living unreservedly in life's duties, problems, successes and failures. In so doing we throw ourselves completely into the arms of God, taking seriously, not our own sufferings, but those of God in the world. That, I think, is faith.” Go then into all the earth and preach the gospel to every living creature.