I have studied Philosophy of Religion for multiple years now both personally and academically. One narrative in the Bible that is loved by people in this field is the book of Job in which a man seemingly gets the rough end of a cosmological bet between God and Satan. All of us students and theologians talk about how it is an example of the Problem of Evil, or it is a cosmic wager on Job’s faith, or it is a discourse about what is truly just. However, the more I have studied the book of Job the less I think it gives or even offers answers to such dilemmas. It is a book as practical to our daily lives as the Sermon on the Mount.
How is this so? I mean I admit that almost every philosophical discussion I have had on Job has been plagued with moral calculations and logical syllogisms in order to understand what exactly is going on. We must realize this is exactly the fault of Job’s friends. They tried so hard to make Job’s troubles easy to understand by jumping through theological hoops that they never addressed Job as a human being or God as more than a part of a bigger moral syllogism. I believe this is ultimately why God condemned Job’s friends. They were not necessarily saying wrong theology as much as they were making an idol out of it.
But throughout the long defenses of Job, there is a constant theme that he wants an answer from God. Thirty-seven chapters of theological juggling by “educated” laymen (which is a shared trait by so many in today’s church, both leadership and laymen) and Job refuses his friend’s answers. He refuses not only for defense of his righteousness, but also because he refused to believe that God would be silent – that God would merely play along with some theological equation that man has deduced. In this way, the narrative of Job teaches us that such discourse is always secondary to esteeming our neighbor and encountering our God as a person and not a principle – two things that Job’s friends never did understand even after Job asked for comfort.
Finally, in chapter thirty-eight, God speaks. The theologian in us is thinking, “Yes, here is the answer to all our questions!” and we end up hearing God spill out question after question to Job, “Where were you when I created heaven and earth? Where were you….?” As if God needed to top the wisdom of Job and his friends. And after God asks question after question of Job, Job gives in: “I have spoken of things I do not understand, I have sinned, and I am sorry.” What?! As Elie Wiesel points out, “Why doesn’t Job say to God, ‘But, Mr. God, that is not the problem. The problem is where were you when I suffered?’” But instead Job is content. Why?
Here is where the practicality – so subtle, simple, and profound – shows up. Wiesel claims that the book of Job is about indifference. We need to know that God is not indifferent to our suffering. For Job, God speaking is enough. As Phillip Yancey puts it in his book Disappointment with God, “I have a hunch that God could have said anything – could, in fact, have read from the Yellow Pages – and produced the same stunning effect on Job. What he said was not nearly so important as the mere fact of his appearance” (pg. 240). While this does not answer some theological questions, it answers a much more foundational question for us as Francis Schaeffer put it, “God is there and He is not silent.”
But even more poignantly for us today is that we are here and we ought not be silent. Job’s friends talked a lot, but they never once offered comfort or esteemed their friend. They were indifferent to Job even though they addressed Job without stopping for thirty-seven chapters because their concern was not for their neighbor but for their theology. This is why Jesus said to treat others you find in hardship as you would treat Him – you comfort the sick and imprisoned, you feed the hungry, you give to water the thirsty, and you clothe the naked (Matt. 25). This is what it means to love your neighbor as yourself; literally meaning, love your neighbor for that is who you are – as a human being, as a creature made in God’s image. And that is the lesson we should take away from Job. Not that it answers tough theological and philosophical questions, but that it teaches us and commands us to be the answer for the evil in the world. As Wiesel says, “If God is not indifferent, my friends, neither should we be,” and this is something we can and must live out every moment of our lives.
(To hear more from Elie Wiesel on Job, listen to his podcast in the iTunes U store to Queen’s University.)



Philip,
I have often wondered, since God condemned Jobs friends, is everything they said wrong because it just seemed to me that a lot of what they said was probably true. My take is that God condemned them because the recurring theme in their responses seemed to be that Job must have sinned for all this to have happened to him.
The longer I live, I’m coming to the conclusion that we won’t ever have an explanation for everything that happens even though we desire one. And if we try to offer an explanation (even a so-called theological one), we just might receive the same condemnation that Jobs friends did because as logical or biblical as it seems to us, we could be wrong.
Then, that response that people so often give when calamity or disappointment happens, “It was God’s will” – opens up a whole new can of worms.
Who can understand God’s thoughts and His ways?
I think you are right in that Job’s friends weren’t necessarily talking all bad theology, but their theology was not dead on either. The issue I think is much more simple – their theology did not include the necessity of not being indifferent. Their theology was static – it did not provoke action. When God spoke, Job finally got the encounter with God he was waiting for. God answered his request (Job never asked for his friends opinions).
I think we will never find answers if we are not willing to be the answer ourselves. It is quite possible when we ask God “Where are you when evil happens?” He can look right back and say, “Where are you?” Once we take on the responsibility we feel God is not taking on, then we can ask God. Just a thought.
Finally, God’s will in Scripture is usually lined up with living as He wants us to live and not some great career path or big events that happen. Not saying God does not care about those things, but the term “God’s will” is usually not associated with His care for those aspects of our lives (I say usually because things are rarely absolute).
I like that “Where are you?” answer. I just started reading Dr. Scott Morris’ new book Healthcare You Can Live With. He is the founder of the Church Health Center in Memphis. He is a physician and ordained Methodist minister.
He reminded us that we are Jesus’ body here on earth. We are his hands, his feet, his eyes, his ears, etc. So, when we see something and wonder why or why somebody doesn’t do something, perhaps we should be the ones to do something.
Ross Perot, the billionaire businessman who ran for president against Bush and Clinton in 1992, once said, “The activist isn’t the one who complains about dirty water; the activist is the one who cleans it up.”
Hey Phillip! I would add James 5:10-11, James 1:2-8 1cor10:6-11, Rom 15:4, and 1Pet4:19 to the discussion. At the beginning of my journey I use to wonder why this book was even in the Hebrew canon. A running bet between God and Satan hardly brought inspiration to my heart. Nor did it answer the question of “WHY”. When I was a child…
Thanks for post. Keep them coming.
Amazing view on Job that I have never heard of before! Thanks for giving me a new perspective on life. Surprisingly, I just studied Phil. 4:10-23 and learned a lot about contentment there, and this article adds even more to what it means to be content.
Great insight into one of the most perplexing and difficult books in the Bible and in all of world history.
I really like this. Keeps the mystery alive. God’s presence is enough.
Here’s a comment on my Facebook page under the link to this blog: “A lot of content to meditate on. I appreciated this blog so much.” I wrote under that, “Yes, it doesn’t read like a ‘blog.’ I looked at it and thought, Look at the size of those meaty paragraphs. This is well developed, much like a published paper on the topic of Job instead of ‘just’ a blog.” Thanks, Philip, you’ve given me a lot to work with in furthering my understanding of Job, a book that I always look forward to reading each year.
I am just glad everyone got something out of this. I owe a lot to people like Wiesel for giving more clarity – I’m just relaying the message!
Sam, there is a contentment that is startling. One quote I almost added into this post was by Abraham Heschel that says, “Faith like Job’s cannot be shaken because it is the result of being shaken.” I have a feeling Job was content because he had been broken.
Phillip,
Your blog rang so true within me. Right now I am healing from a lot of pain. I’ve thought of Job often, and in the midst of my own pain I’ve found people have offered me much more consult than love or comfort. When, I don’t want or need their answers. All I want to know is that I’m not alone, that God is with me.
But, on this earth, I do long for human arms to wrap around me and hold me in my brokenness, which is what struck me in your blog. There are often no words that can adequately speak in our pain, we/I just need to know that I am loved and that God is there, that is truly enough.
A friend that can sit and love me in the midst of my pain, that is what I need, and yes, what I need to be for others. Thank you for opening up God’s truth in such a simple way, that’s what Job needed, and often what I need.
Shelby,
It’s hard feeling alone while still being surrounded by people. It’s truly frustrating when we use our hands to point fingers instead to embrace the hurting with open hands. I think you and Job could relate very well. I’m glad I was able to maybe bring some clarity to a foggy situation, and maybe see more meaning to your life within the pain.
Hi Philip, as someone who has dealt for over a decade w/ hugely debilitating chronic illness, I’m wishing for more care on, “they were not necessarily saying wrong theology.” Not everything said was wrong or totally wrong (some express one side of a paradox w/o acknowledging the other; some might come off as basic quotes of wisdom if incorporated in a book like Proverbs), but the ever-present shame and blame game is woven throughout and is not just a wrong attitude amid right or mostly-right theology but a wrong theology. I don’t believe the two can be separated. Even if you are focused disproportionately on one side of a truth, if you are not acknowledging the other, that is poor theology, is it not? And I’ve been in too many churches that take Job’s friends’ words as scriptural truths (obviously utilizing poor hermeneutics).
All that to say… I otherwise loved this piece.
Thanks for it,
Deb
Deborah,
Thank you for your words. I think it showed where I may not have clarified a central point!
I agree with you that theology is practical, as C. S. Lewis said, and maybe I should have rephrased that to say “they were not neccesarily saying wrong theology, but they were definitely exhibiting it.” And while I did not say this out right that was exactly my intent.
With that said, no one has perfect theology and we do not need to throw the baby out with the bath water. The little, country, fire and brimstone preacher may not be exhibiting good theology with his attitude but he still is preaching some truth. In Phillipians, Paul said he would rejoice in the gospel being preached even if it was through wrong motives. I think we should take to heart his attitude here.
But I do agree with you. I honestly do not see much worth in anything Job’s friends said because I cannot get past their attitude.
Thanks, Phillip.
I would personally go farther to say that their health and wealth theology tied to one’s righteousness w/ God was wrong (and I say this as a charismatic who fervently believes and has seen and experienced miraculous healing and provision in response to prayer). God even says at the end that they have not spoken rightly as His servant Job has in Job 42:8. Moreover, this language directly mimics the opening dialogue w/ Satan in 1:8. So, how much more evidence do we need, imo? But then we do get into paradoxes and your excellent analogy of the country preacher. And sometimes what God has said through the scriptural writers might be a correction of one situation that seems to be applauded in another setting and circumstance. So. But I totally hear you and am glad you saw my point. Thanks for responding!
Deb
p.s.–I do struggle w/ analogizing it to the gospel though. Job is the one who looks to heaven and determines his redeemer lives. The men have human rules, some moral ones w/ some truth, granted, but they do not seem to be predecessors to the gospel.
On the other hand Clark Pinnock (who I don’t particularly follow, but I happen to be reading him today) helpfully presents the book of Job as necessary in that “it calls into question a shallow reading of God’s covenant promises and forces one to go deeper.” It “seem[s] to have been written to introduce correctives into the way in which the covenant might be misread.” Insofar as the covenant promises parallel the counsel of Job’s friends and are something of a proto gospel or gospel preparation, I can agree w/ you. However, it seems God found their content all wrong and worth paralleling w/ the devil by dint of distortions and attitude, so I don’t know how to factor that. The clarity of Pinnock’s expression hit me as a good way to frame it.
Deborah,
The book of Job, many scholars believe, happened before the covenant. So what you see is actually prior to covenant theology, but it at times seems very similar. You can read Deuteronomy and see the same idea: follow my commandments and I will make you a successful nation, but if you do not follow them, I will punish you. This part, you can argue, Job’s friends got right. But you are right that we can not narrow it to that alone, but it is undergirded by a covenant relationship.
Job 42:8 does say that Job’s friends did speak rightly, but it never says if everything they said was rubbish or what. This is my whole point, they spoke wrongly in that they made God only an object of theology and not someone who responds. I do not necessarily agree with the whole of Job’s friends’ theology either, but I do not want to discount it all. And looking at the future covenant with Israel, it looks like they were on to something although they neglected an essential part: a covenant or relation with God.
Thanks, Phillip.
Yes, I am aware that Job is generally considered more ancient than other OT writings. I believe Pinnock is looking at it as to “why” in the context of the cannon that came to exist (and, therefore, in relationship to the covenant) it is there.
My apologies for an error, btw, in referencing 1:8 and 42:8. In the search engine I was using it was apparently quoting part of 42:8 whenever 1:8 came up. I therefore thought I saw the same wording about words was in both, the “You have not spoken right about Me,” but it’s not there. Job and his friends were both missing both the covenant picture (presumably) and the Christ-picture, although Job glimpsed something. It seems clear, of course, that God is critiquing more than their missing the covenant piece. This is not what primarily differentiated Job’s words and theirs.
I understand what you are saying about not discounting all they have shared. I’m partly reacting b/c I continue to hear bad preaching, really bad preaching, based on decontextualized bits from Job’s friends. If something they said correlates consistently w/ the whole of scripture, that’s one thing.
Thanks
Deb