The Problem of Theodicy & Evil: Job

This is part of a series for a course on theodicy.

Which of Job’s friends did you find theologically most relatable?  Why?

I think I find Eliphaz the most relatable, with some reservations.  He starts from lived spiritual experience, not doctrine.  Elpihaz appeals to visions, mystery, and the moral order of the world rather than pure formula.  That instinct to wrestle with suffering through experience and awe is deeply human.

Eliphaz recognizes divine transcendence.  His core point that humans are limited before God has real theological weight.  He’s also trying to preserve meaning in the face of chaos, and he clearly wants suffering to fit within the moral universe, perhaps the one defined in Torah.

That in and of itself is a relatable impulse because random suffering is clearly terrifying to faithful people.

The problem for me with Eliphaz (since this exercise is who we find most relatable, not pitch perfect) is that he becomes less relatable when he tries to force suffering into a neat equation.  Righteousness equals blessing, suffering equals punishment.  His theology begins as reverence and ends as an accusation.

It’s still better that Bildad, who feels more anchored in inherited tradition, and Zophar seems without empathy and kind of that preachy friend who prides himself in “saying it like it is.”

I mean, truthfully, Job is the most relatable theological voice in the book, but if we’re constrained to the theology of his friends, I find Eliphaz the least problematic.

Which argument did Job give that was most meaningful or relevant to you?

The argument that feels most meaningful is a common thread in our approach to theodicy in general, and that is Job’s insistence that suffering is not reliable proof of moral failure.

Job doesn’t say, “I hurt.”  He argues that the moral math of his friends, that good people prosper, bad people suffer, is very much incomplete.  He points out that the wicked indeed often thrive, the innocent suffer, and reality doesn’t conform to the simple formulas his friends pose.

A very resonant thread is his demand for an audience with God:  “Why should a person be condemned without understanding the charge?”

That longing matters because it takes faith from passive acceptance into moral engagement.  It’s a good model for us because Job doesn’t reject God, just inadequate theology about God.

Scholars believe that the beginning and the end of Job are “add ons”.  Does that change how you view the story?

I’ve known this for a long time, so it is difficult to remember how I related to Job prior to learning this.  But critically, if we strip away the opening “heavenly wager,” Job’s suffering is not given any kind of context or justification.

Job’s questions become that much sharper because neither Job nor the reader would have this privileged information.  In some ways, I think it might be better without, because we’d firstly not have yet another place where HaSatan is personified, but secondly and importantly, we’d have a significantly more unique treatment of what happens when innocent suffering has no accessible explanation.

That epilogue matters to.  The restored wealth, new babies…it’s as Rabbi Patrick Beaulier says in his lecture on the topic.

I feel so strongly that our “walk” so to speak with God as Jews, whatever God may be in all of God’s ineffableness, that the lack of resolution, that discordant, unresolved chord is one of its most deeply-defining theological realities.  It also unwinds and sort of ruins everything that happened.  We don’t get happy endings, righteous or not.  If we did, so many of my Army friends would be above and not below feet of dirt.

One final reflection of my own, as in how this would affect how I do pastoral care

My biggest takeaway, along with the two academic pastoral care courses we’ve invested in, is that I would be very apprehensive about ever offering trite explanations when someone is suffering.

Rabbi Patrick said it, “Job is terrible theodicy.”  I 100% agree.  Faith communities, to my mind, really rush to resolution before grief has had its say.  In practice, I’d be wary of becoming Eliphaz, Bildad, or Zophar.  The world has enough asshats who try to shoehorn a Disney-esque happy time at the end because they’re projecting nonexistent constants to assuage their own internal anxiety when it comes to grief and anguish.

And that’s it, in “what not to do” courtesy of Job’s friends, I think it’s so important to sit with someone’s suffering before offering interpretation.  If there’s a theological role, I think it’s prudent to offer permission for protest, make space for their spiritually honest responses.

I definitely do not believe premature closure nor implying tragedy is part of a humanly decipherable moral formula has any utility or place.  The unresolved middle parts of Job are the only functionally useful parts, I think, to someone in a pastoral care mindset.