Interpreting Job

[Rach620]

I’m in a college seminar at my Catholic university on the problem of evil, and right now we’re discussing the Book of Job. I had heard from a classmate that our professor had a very ‘misguided’ interpretation of the meaning of Job, and today’s discussion pretty well confirmed that for me.

We spent most of the class responding to her claim that Job had fault worthy of punishment before he was put to the test (ie, he wasn’t the “blameless and upright” man which Scripture claims he is). For some reason, she’s claiming that Job’s three friends, who hold the idea that God rewards the righteous and punishes only sinners, are the ones who are correct. God doesn’t answer their claims, so she says that somehow this means that they may be seen as right. Job’s suffering, she says, is gratuitous. (She holds the same idea of his three friends, it seems–suffering is only explained as punishment from God.) Our task is to try to make sense of why God would have someone suffer ‘gratuitously’.

At least that’s my unclear understanding of her position at this point…those of you familiar with Job will know that the message she is taking from the book is the opposite of what we are supposed to. Like Job, we can’t possibly understand why God might allow man’s innocent suffering, but we can know that our suffering is never pointless, never gratuitous. There is always the possibility of a closer friendship with God, even in our trials. It is the epitome of pride to question the ways God chooses to bring us closer to Him, simply because we don’t understand his mysterious and awesome ways.

So for class, and for my own understanding, I’ve been googling, trying to find good Job commentaries online, but can’t find much besides wikipedia (which I don’t trust) and the Catholic Encyclopedia. I’m considering, if I have time, heading to the library, but I’d appreciate if anyone could either link me to a good Catholic commentary or respond to some of her points.

How do any of you make sense of Job, his suffering, and our lives?

 

[catholicmessage]

Check out some of the talks by Peter Kreeft. He specifically deals with Job in at least on of his talks on suffering.

 

[Cranch]

You can find Aquinas’ commentary on Job (first 27 chapters only) here.

This site has the whole commentary but I’m having difficulty connecting today (it’s in Nigeria I think).

 

[Keikiolu]

…{snip}…

Like Job, we can’t possibly understand why God might allow man’s innocent suffering, but we can know that our suffering is never pointless, never gratuitous. There is always the possibility of a closer friendship with God, even in our trials.

Does Job ever ‘relent’ to thinking that God isn’t ‘trustworthy’, even when he knows that he hasn’t been evil (worthy of punishment)?

No.

One way to see this story is as an object lesson for Satan. He is allowed to “punish” Job, and see the results. Job is merely the righteous object of the lesson. (God, in His infinite love, even gives Satan a chance to learn something, and be saved!)

What are the results? Job is driven even further into the arms of God,… which no doubt must be infuriating for Satan, but does Satan ever learn the lesson of this story? No. Why? Because he can’t admit that all of God’s lessons serve to illustrate TRUTH.

The truth that, in this case, even "seemingly’ gratuitous suffering serves SOME purpose (all suffering serves some purpose).

…and since WE are the recipients of this story,… perhaps the good which comes from understanding the infinite love of God is yet another reason for Job’s seemingly gratuitous suffering?

It is the epitome of pride to question the ways God chooses to bring us closer to Him, simply because we don’t understand his mysterious and awesome ways.

Hear hear…!

…{snip}…

Mahalo ke Akua…!
E pili mau na pomaikai ia oe. Aloha nui.

 

[Legal_Eagle]

It may be that your professor is playing Devil’s Adovcate to get you to think and research for yourself. If that’s the case it seems to be working well. I’d say you have a good professor.

 

[Rach620]

You can find Aquinas’ commentary on Job (first 27 chapters only) here.

This site has the whole commentary but I’m having difficulty connecting today (it’s in Nigeria I think).

Thanks so much! I wasn’t sure Aquinas’ commentary was available, in full, in English. Good to find that it is!

One way to see this story is as an object lesson for Satan. He is allowed to “punish” Job, and see the results. Job is merely the righteous object of the lesson. (God, in His infinite love, even gives Satan a chance to learn something, and be saved!)

What are the results? Job is driven even further into the arms of God,… which no doubt must be infuriating for Satan, but does Satan ever learn the lesson of this story? No. Why? Because he can’t admit that all of God’s lessons serve to illustrate TRUTH.

The truth that, in this case, even "seemingly’ gratuitous suffering serves SOME purpose (all suffering serves some purpose).

I like your interpretation, Keikolu. A complicating question, though, is Satan in this book doesn’t seem to be the same Satan/Devil/Lucifer we meet elsewhere in Scripture. He’s referred to as ‘the’ Satan, meaning ‘adversary,’ and is indeed God allows Satan to test Job, explicitly granting him permission in Chapter 2. I understand your point, though.

It may be that your professor is playing Devil’s Adovcate to get you to think and research for yourself. If that’s the case it seems to be working well. I’d say you have a good professor.

That’s the hope I developed earlier this afternoon. If she’s trying to play Devil’s Advocate, though, she’s doing a shoddy job of it. Usually profs do that in order to get us to the truth of the idea, not just to oppose our comments at every turn. And after talking to friends who have taken the class, it sounds like she concludes the study of Job with a similar tone/erroneous interpretation. Only time will tell, though!

 

[masterjedi747]

One way to see this story is as an object lesson for Satan. …(God, in His infinite love, even gives Satan a chance to learn something, and be saved!)

Uhhh…no. Satan, because of his nature as an angel (having a pure intellect), cannot repent. It would be completely pointless for God to “give Satan another chance” and “be saved”. What you could say is that God used Satan in order to ultimately bring Job closer to Himself.

…but does Satan ever learn the lesson of this story? No. Why? Because he can’t admit that all of God’s lessons serve to illustrate TRUTH.

Exactly. Satan does not learn the lesson of this story. Why? Because he can’t.

The truth that, in this case, even "seemingly’ gratuitous suffering serves SOME purpose (all suffering serves some purpose).

Amen.

 

[Contarini]

We spent most of the class responding to her claim that Job had fault worthy of punishment before he was put to the test (ie, he wasn’t the “blameless and upright” man which Scripture claims he is). For some reason, she’s claiming that Job’s three friends, who hold the idea that God rewards the righteous and punishes only sinners, are the ones who are correct. God doesn’t answer their claims, so she says that somehow this means that they may be seen as right. Job’s suffering, she says, is gratuitous. (She holds the same idea of his three friends, it seems–suffering is only explained as punishment from God.) Our task is to try to make sense of why God would have someone suffer ‘gratuitously’.

With all due respect, you appear to be contradicting yourself here. “Gratuitous” means that it has no cause or rationale. If Job deserved what happened to him, it was not gratuitous. Are you sure that you are not misunderstanding her when you say that she agrees with Job’s friends? Perhaps she was trying to get the class to think for themselves and come up with reasons why Job’s friends were wrong? I suspect that you are not quite getting her point.

I’m interested to see how you deal with this as the class progresses. I spend a little time on Job (not always even a full day, alas!) in my one-semester intro to the Bible (I teach at a Protestant college). One interesting interpretation (which your professor will probably hate) is that of Gregory the Great, who thought that Leviathan in chap. 41 represents Satan! I disagree with the idea that Satan as “accuser” (or as I tell my students, “rogue DA”) contradicts what we know of Satan elsewhere in the Bible–I think it fits perfectly.

Here’s another view I unload on my poor students: perhaps what is really on trial in Job is the goodness of God’s creation. At any rate, I think the key to understanding Job is understanding God’s speech in 38-41. Just why does this incredible catalog of natural wonders answer Job’s complaints?

A good book surveying interpretations of Job (and my source for the Gregory interpretation above–unfortunately Gregory’s commentary is hard to find and I don’t think it exists in English translation) is Susan Schreiner, Where Shall Wisdom Be Found? She talks a lot about Calvin (since she’s a Calvin scholar originally–by the way Calvin is one interpreter who really does basically side with the three friends!), but also Gregory, Maimonides (a Jewish philosopher), Aquinas, and some modern writers.

Have fun!

Edwin

 

[Rach620]

With all due respect, you appear to be contradicting yourself here. “Gratuitous” means that it has no cause or rationale. If Job deserved what happened to him, it was not gratuitous.

Gratuitous means that it has no cause, yes, but also that it has no reason. In the example of suffering, suffering gratuitously would mean suffering for no reason or purpose. But suffering always serves some purpose, even if there is no reason (ie, as punishment) for its being inflicted. So to say that Job’s suffering was gratuitous implies that it happened through no fault of his own AND that nothing good came of it, which is not the case.

Are you sure that you are not misunderstanding her when you say that she agrees with Job’s friends? Perhaps she was trying to get the class to think for themselves and come up with reasons why Job’s friends were wrong? I suspect that you are not quite getting her point.

As I said in another post, I’ve been hoping that she’s playing the Devil’s Advocate game/trying to get us to think more critically, and that we were simply missing that aspect of her approach. It’s just that the way it’s playing out, that doesn’t seem to be the case. Given our discussion today, it didn’t seem like she knew when to stop being antagonistic and start leading us towards some greater idea, if you know what I mean.

Here’s another view I unload on my poor students: perhaps what is really on trial in Job is the goodness of God’s creation. At any rate, I think the key to understanding Job is understanding God’s speech in 38-41. Just why does this incredible catalog of natural wonders answer Job’s complaints?

Interesting, I’ll go back and re-read those chapters. I remember that my impression from God’s speech was the fact that he really doesn’t answer any of Job’s/his friends’ questions. Instead, what we get is this awesome exposition, in the voice of God, of His infinite power and wisdom. After hearing it all, Job repents. So it’s not an answer to his questions, but it is indeed an answer. We can never understand the mind of God, the motives for His actions, the workings of His eternal plan. When confronted with suffering and other events in our lives, our role as His faithful servants is not to question why God would do this to us, to the point where we are decrying His motives and our existence. Wisdom, as Job is one of the Wisdom Literature books of the OT, would be the appropriate fear and trust in God, would it not? That’s the lesson I take from Job, anyway.

Thanks for your book recommendation, too!

 

[blessedtoo]

I remember that my impression from God’s speech was the fact that he really doesn’t answer any of Job’s/his friends’ questions.

God does address Job’s friends here:

7After the LORD had spoken these words to Job, the LORD said to Eliphaz the Temanite: “My anger burns against you and against your two friends, for you have not spoken of me what is right, as my servant Job has. 8Now therefore take seven bulls and seven rams and go to my servant Job and offer up a burnt offering for yourselves. And my servant Job shall pray for you, for I will accept his prayer not to deal with you according to your folly. For you have not spoken of me what is right, as my servant Job has.” 9So Eliphaz the Temanite and Bildad the Shuhite and Zophar the Naamathite went and did what the LORD had told them, and the LORD accepted Job’s prayer.

Your teacher said:

God doesn’t answer their claims, so she says that somehow this means that they may be seen as right.

but obviously this passage clearly refutes that claim. He flat out tells them they are wrong.

For some reason, she’s claiming that Job’s three friends, who hold the idea that God rewards the righteous and punishes only sinners, are the ones who are correct

It was generally understood by the Jews that if one lived a righteous life, God would reward them and that those posessing some degree of earthly success were especially beloved by God. Job sets out to dispel this notion and of course, the NT fulfills this idea with Christ’s miracles and in particular, the story of the blind man who is healed. For me, Job is the quintessential illustration of how suffering may appear “gratuitous” and how tempting it is for us as humans to lash out and question God’s motives. It is the perfect example of humanity humbled to the point of desolation and yet still willing to remain faithful. It is a wonderful display of God’s tolerance of our anger, and how it is completely permissable for us to ask aloud “why me?” without fear of retribution. It is a love poem about how we, as fallen human beings, can push at God all we want, kicking and screaming along the way, without Him withdrawling His love. Ultimately, we are incapable of comprehending God’s grand plan but if we do not despair of His love and remain in faith, the fruits of our sufferings may be revealed to us. In Job’s case, he was blessed to have this revealed to him while still earthbound.

 

[Keikiolu]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Keikiolu forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_cad/viewpost.gif
One way to see this story is as an object lesson for Satan. …(God, in His infinite love, even gives Satan a chance to learn something, and be saved!)

Uhhh…no. Satan, because of his nature as an angel (having a pure intellect), cannot repent. It would be completely pointless for God to “give Satan another chance” and “be saved”. What you could say is that God used Satan in order to ultimately bring Job closer to Himself.

God knows Satan can’t be saved (due to the inherent nature of Satan, as you said), but because He has INFINITE love for ALL His creatures, He DOES in fact give Satan a chance.

Why? Because HE has to…!

Did God know that Satan’s machinations would drive Job even closer to Him? Duh…!

Did God know that this little episode, as told in His holy books, would tell other of His creatures that suffering isn’t necessarily ONLY a punishment for sin? Uh… yup.

Why did/do humans keep thinking that suffering was/is only and always a punishment? Because they’re not listening, or they can’t hear the truth.

Does God’s mercy apply to all His critters? Yeah,… even that goofball “Adversary” character.

Does God take delight in Satan’s (inherent) stupidity? Probably not.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Keikiolu forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_cad/viewpost.gif
…but does Satan ever learn the lesson of this story? No. Why? Because he can’t admit that all of God’s lessons serve to illustrate TRUTH.

Exactly. Satan does not learn the lesson of this story. Why? Because he can’t.

I’m not gonna argue with you on that one…!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Keikiolu forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_cad/viewpost.gif
The truth that, in this case, even "seemingly’ gratuitous suffering serves SOME purpose (all suffering serves some purpose).

Amen.

I do wish atheists (which is anyone who is not a trinitarian Christian in my not overly humble opinion) would read and cogitate on this story.

The big problem that atheists have with God is that God is “unjust” for not simply “fixing” the world, and eliminating all suffering, which would be (in most cases) the ONLY proof of the existence of God that they would accept.

If they’d think about Job for a while, they might “start” to get the hint.

Mahalo ke Akua…!
E pili mau na pomaikai ia oe. Aloha nui.

 

[Contarini]

Gratuitous means that it has no cause, yes, but also that it has no reason.

Is that what she means by it, or is that your interpretation?
And my main point was that if she says his suffering was gratuitous, she can’t really agree with his friends. I’m pretty sure you are misinterpreting her here.

Given our discussion today, it didn’t seem like she knew when to stop being antagonistic and start leading us towards some greater idea, if you know what I mean.

Yes. I’m a college professor myself and when you’ve been on this side of the podium you’ll realize just how hard it is to provoke a good discussion. Either you take control too soon and just tell the students what you think (which is my tendency) or you confuse them hopelessly (which it sounds like she is doing). I suggest that you have patience. In my opinion, the fact that she has you engaging in a discussion of the topic out of class indicates that she’s doing a better job than you realize (though of course you may do this sort of thing all the time, and I don’t know how many other students have been provoked to think more deeply about the material).

Generally speaking a professor who confuses you and makes you think is going to be one you are grateful for in the long run. I actually think I need to be bolder about that. My predecessor lost his job for teaching things the church backing the college found unacceptable, so I tend to be a bit over-cautious.

Interesting, I’ll go back and re-read those chapters. I remember that my impression from God’s speech was the fact that he really doesn’t answer any of Job’s/his friends’ questions. Instead, what we get is this awesome exposition, in the voice of God, of His infinite power and wisdom. After hearing it all, Job repents. So it’s not an answer to his questions, but it is indeed an answer. We can never understand the mind of God, the motives for His actions, the workings of His eternal plan. When confronted with suffering and other events in our lives, our role as His faithful servants is not to question why God would do this to us, to the point where we are decrying His motives and our existence. Wisdom, as Job is one of the Wisdom Literature books of the OT, would be the appropriate fear and trust in God, would it not? That’s the lesson I take from Job, anyway.

Yes, I agree to a great extent–but God says at the end of the book that Job has spoken rightly about him. (This gets into the question of the “Elihu” segment. The historical critics think it is an interpolation, which doesn’t really help much! Some people think that Elihu is saying basically the same thing as Yahweh. I don’t agree. I think Elihu is saying that Job should just shut up and submit to God’s power, whereas I think Yahweh’s speech from the whirlwind is doing something different–exactly what is a hard question to answer.) Of course that could refer to Job’s “repentance,” but I don’t think it does, given the contrast with the speeches of the friends. I think it’s clearly talking about what Job says throughout the book. In my opinion what God is praising is Job’s steadfast personal trust in God combined with a refusal to shut up and stop questioning (until God actually reveals Himself to Job).

I read an article some years ago–in a Southern Baptist scholarly journal I believe–that made an interesting point about the names of God in Job. In the prologue, God is referred to as Yahweh (the Tetragrammaton–the “personal name” of God, usually associated with the covenant). But for the most part, the human characters throughout the book call God “Elohim”–the generic name for God (or even “the gods”). It seems clear that these people are not Jews–the story appears to be set vaguely in the patriarchal period. So they don’t have a covenant relationship with God. They know God through nature and providence (as per Romans 1). God is quite distant. All through Job they are discussing why “Elohim” is doing this–and then in chap. 38 Yahweh shows up in the whirlwind! So Job’s questions about the God he knows through nature and providence are answered only by the personal revelation of the God of the Covenant, the God who doesn’t just rule the world from on high but talks to people out of whirlwinds–and this same God is the one who clothed the horse’s neck with thunder and made Leviathan sneeze fire. (OK, I’m departing from St. Gregory’s interpretation a bit on that last one!)

Thanks for your book recommendation, too!

You’re welcome! An excellent brief essay on Job (in my opinion) is this one by G. K. Chesterton.

Edwin

 

[ABostonCatholic]

Check out some of the talks by Peter Kreeft. He specifically deals with Job in at least on of his talks on suffering.

Summary of Kreeft: The three friends are theologically correct, but their error is that they talk about God rather than to God. Job really doesn’t want an answer, He just wants Gods presence, and that’s what satisfies him.

 

[JeanneH]

. Hi

So for class, and for my own understanding, I’ve been googling, trying to find good Job commentaries online, but can’t find much besides wikipedia (which I don’t trust) and the Catholic Encyclopedia. I’m considering, if I have time, heading to the library, but I’d appreciate if anyone could either link me to a good Catholic commentary or respond to some of her points.

How do any of you make sense of Job, his suffering, and our lives?

opwest.org/Archive/2002/Book_of_Job/tajob.html
try this site.
JeanneH

 

[PraRFLEsEkHm]

Hi.

I have a somewhat unorthodox view of Job that will probably provoke some to respond - but I will post it anyway.

In the beginning of the story we see that Job offers up offerings for his children…in case they have done anything to provoke God. Now - there is essentially nothing wrong with this, as God Himself tells Job to pray for his three friends. But - the text says that “In the morning after these feasts Job would send and have his children purified…as was his regular custom, in case they had sinned and cursed God in their hearts” Sounds rather like his children weren’t in the habit of purity, as Job was. God, we read later, has a hedge about Job and all his property; because Job himself was upright and blameless. (Though not necessarily his children, which is the point I’m making) Job’s offerings then, being accepted because of his purity, got in the way - so to speak - of God chastising Jobs children, and turning them to Himself.

Job wanted to know why God was doing all this to him, his friends said he must be doing something wrong…which he was not technicaly…except that he was basically questioning Gods right to do as He pleased with his creatures, and getting in the way of His chastisement - which is done in His greater wisdom out of Love for us, and our greater good - which is the interpretation of Gods speech: “Where were you when all this was done? Can you tell me…” Essentially telling Job you haven’t done anything wrong, you are correct there - yet…I AM…and I know what is best for you and everyone/everything else - as I created them all…you were not even a witness at the time.

Job repented and was restored and then some…wiser and more humble - allowing God to do His thing with His creation.

That is my nutshell interpretation of Job.

It kind of blends with the Churches view…

Peace

John

 

[Keikiolu]

…{snip}…

Sounds rather like his children weren’t in the habit of purity, as Job was. God, we read later, has a hedge about Job and all his property; because Job himself was upright and blameless. (Though not necessarily his children, which is the point I’m making) Job’s offerings then, being accepted because of his purity, got in the way - so to speak - of God chastising Jobs children, and turning them to Himself.

…{snip}…

Hmmmmm…

There is no sin in Job ASKING for God to “spare his children” from undue “chastisement”.

If Job was thoroughly righteous, as purported, then he must have known that God will always do what is necessary as regards chastisement, and he simply couldn’t “get in the way” between God and what He was going to do.

No. God’s allowing Satan to “scourge” Job was entirely gratuitous, unearned, by Job,… and only makes sense (both pre-Christologically and Christologically) if Job is “scourged” for absolutely no reason whatsoever related to Job’s “worthiness” of it.

It’s a great object lesson for everyone only if Job is the prefigurement of Christ, as the utterly innocent and infintely faithful.

Mahalo ke Akua…!
E pili mau na pomaikai ia oe. Aloha nui.

 

[Rach620]

God does address Job’s friends here…

but obviously this passage clearly refutes that claim. He flat out tells them they are wrong.

God addresses Job’s friends, but he doesn’t answer their particular points (ie, about how suffering must only be a punishment for wrongdoing, etc.). Instead, the lesson seems to be that wisdom is found in the appropriate fear of God, recognizing that our questioning Him can really never be answered. Man’s pursuit of wisdom must be accompanied by humility.

For me, Job is the quintessential illustration of how suffering may appear “gratuitous” and how tempting it is for us as humans to lash out and question God’s motives. It is the perfect example of humanity humbled to the point of desolation and yet still willing to remain faithful. It is a wonderful display of God’s tolerance of our anger, and how it is completely permissable for us to ask aloud “why me?” without fear of retribution. It is a love poem about how we, as fallen human beings, can push at God all we want, kicking and screaming along the way, without Him withdrawling His love. Ultimately, we are incapable of comprehending God’s grand plan but if we do not despair of His love and remain in faith, the fruits of our sufferings may be revealed to us. In Job’s case, he was blessed to have this revealed to him while still earthbound.

Beautifully put. Thanks, our class discussion was quite unfulfilling in this regard