When God Doesn’t Explain

The Book of Job has challenged generations of Christians with one of the most difficult questions in life. Why is there suffering in the world? Why do good people go through hardship? The Book of Job is unique for its approach to these questions, as compared to the rest of the Wisdom books—Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and Song of Songs. Unlike the rest of the wisdom literature, which mostly present a black and white view of good and evil, the Book of Job presents an often unsettling and seemingly contradictory view of the problem of evil.

 The problem of evil is the conflict of the existence of evil and innocent suffering with an all-powerful, all-good, just God. Despite the numerous religions in the world, Christianity has been at the forefront of this debate. Orthodox Christianity would argue that God’s nature—all-good, all-powerful, and just—makes sense of the evil and suffering in the world.<1> This is not a mere theoretical question—its strikes at the core of how we understand God’s justice, love, and sovereignty.

The book of Job’s particular interaction with the problem of evil has been the subject of debate for centuries. The two main camps are the classical interpretation and the modern interpretation. The classical interpretation argues that Job is a defense of God’s providence and divine justice.<2> The modern interpretation believes that Job disproves and combats the traditional view and often argues that the traditional view does not answer the questions presented in the book of Job.

However, the Book of Job seems to go beyond both the classical and the modern interpretations. Job is not an outright defense of God’s justice but a bold affirmation of the compatibility of indiscriminate suffering—suffering that is unrelated to a person’s actions or morality—with God's justice. The book does this by rejecting the idea—common in retribution theology—that God always rewards or punishes based on our behavior.

Evaluating the Classical Interpretation

The classical interpretation maintains that God is completely just despite the existence of evil in the world. St. Aquinas, in his commentary on Job, argues that “The whole intention of this book is directed to this: to show that human affairs are ruled by divine providence using probable arguments.”<3> This view believes that creation is ordered by God’s providence and every aspect is accounted for within his governance. This implies reason behind every event in the cosmos. It would also then follow that if God is all-powerful, all-good, and just, he would have a good purpose for every event, including evil events that cause suffering.

St. Augustine believes as much, writing, ‘There is a further reason for the infliction of temporal suffering on the good, as is seen in the case of Job — that the spirit of man may be tested...’<4> St. Augustine further argues that suffering sanctifies the believer, morally refining them.<5> St. Augustine and St. Aquinas also acknowledge the mystery and incomprehensibility of God’s full nature, but they primarily argue the intelligibility of God’s providence which can lead to an overly rigid interpretation of Job.

Though the classical interpretation has been highly successful throughout the history of scholarship, and despite its general correctness, there is one major problem with this interpretation: the unrestricted nature of created things. This is not to suggest that the cosmos is ruled by chaos or devoid of order and boundaries. If God is truly the creator of all things, he certainly ordered the cosmos.<6> Rather there is a type of disorder, not chaos in the destructive sense, but a kind of freedom.

The classical interpretation envisions a world completely ordered by justice, a similar assumption to that of Job’s friends. (4:7-9; 5:8-27; 8:3-7; 11:10-20) A world founded solely on justice, however, would require a micromanaging of the created order that we do not see in reality or in the Book of Job.

Life does not fit into systematic boundaries. There is an openness in life that allows for creation to exist unordered, that openness results from human freedom.<7> This unrestricted nature of creation is described in God's speeches toward Job. Though some order and boundaries are described in chapters 38-41, creation is almost described as wild or a type of wilderness, and altogether not safe.<8> Again, this is not to say that we live in a world completely ruled by chaos, but that God has allowed freedom and risk.

Immediately in God's first speech, the creation of the seas is described. God describes making a boundary around the sea but describes the sea as initially, bursting forth, ‘out of the womb’ (38:8, NET), clothed in storm clouds and a ‘thick darkness its swaddling band.’ (38:9). Though God has given limits to the sea, the waters are still described in a terrible and powerful way. God continues in his narration of creation describing: ‘the deep’ (38:16), ‘the gates of death’ (38:17), hail, lightening, thunder (38:22-25), ‘devasted and desolate land’ (38:27), and lions. Though God has created these, man still rightly fears all of them.

To further push against the foundations of the world being absolutely justice, God describes the ostrich. He describes the ostrich leaving her eggs on the ground despite the danger and God tells Job that it is because he ‘deprived her of wisdom.’ (39:17) This would seem especially cold if God had tried to describe it as just or good. But God seems throughout his speeches to be implying the unpredictability, from the human perspective, of nature. The risk, then, is reducing providence to a rigid scoreboard—where every event must be explained, and every suffering justified. That’s not the world God describes in Job.

Evaluating the Modern Interpretation

The modern interpretation of Job reacts to classical theodicy with an anti-theodicy—claiming that traditional defenses of God’s justice cannot account for the suffering described in the book.<9> Modern interpreters generally argue that Job protests directly against God for the evil he has suffered.<10> This is specifically argued from passages like 19:6-7 in which Job says,

“Know then that God has wronged me and encircled me with his net. ‘If I cry out, “Violence!” I receive no answer; I cry for help, but there is no justice.”’

They see this as an active statement of protest from Job and a cry that God is unjust. It is from passages such as these in which they claim that God has done harm to Job<11> and from which they label God as abusive.<12> Some scholars from the modern interpretation, attempting to avoid labeling God as evil, place the blame on God’s wisdom. Guillaume and Schunck argue that Job’s suffering is a result of God’s foolishness—an imperfect wisdom which would account for the harm caused.<13>

The modern interpretation holds that suffering, specifically Job’s suffering, is indiscriminate and purposeless, even irrational.<14>

They rely on passages such as 9:22-24 in which Job complains that God ‘destroys the blameless and the guilty.’ (9:22) Guillaume and Schunck see God’s speeches as proof that ‘Creative power is not limited, it is brutal and indiscriminate.’<15> Further support of the indiscriminate nature of suffering is the lack of a definitive answer within the Book of Job. Although the book is centered on the search for an answer—and even leads up to God addressing Job—there is never a direct explanation for Job’s suffering.<16>

Though the reader knows that Job experiences suffering due to the wager between God and the accuser, Job never finds out the reason for his turmoil. Just as the classical interpretation fails to fully account for the Book of Job in its entirety, so the modern interpretation falls short. The overarching error in the modern interpretation is the failure to acknowledge the truths within the story. This is not a claim about the truth of these theological themes in ultimate reality, but about their coherence and truth within the narrative world of the Book of Job.

The modern interpretation characterizes God not on the basis of what the author is trying to present, but often on the grounds of outside philosophies of morality and justice. This leads to proponents of the modern interpretation labeling God as an abuser,<17> unjust,<18> and foolish.<19> This completely overlooks the fact that the book itself never portrays God as such. The Book of Job assumes the wisdom and justice of God. The closest to this negative characterization may be in 19:7 in which Job cries out that ‘there is no justice.’ But this is not calling God unjust. A seeming lack of justice does not necessitate that there is injustice. How often is justice delayed, yet still considered justice?

The modern interpretation also overstates divine silence. God does answer, even if not in the expected way. Harvey claims that God’s argument against Job is ad hominem, but that seems to miss the point of God’s response.<20>God is not flaunting his power and judging Job over a simple misunderstanding. Rather, he is instructing Job through creation.<21> It is because the modern interpretation fails to contend with the story on its own terms—imposing external philosophical categories onto the text—that it ultimately misses the mark.

Toward a Balanced Theology of Suffering

Having evaluated both the classic and modern interpretations of the Book of Job, it is appropriate to acknowledge where each is correct. This will help inform the interpretation that follows. Looking closely at both interpretations—and the text of Job itself—it becomes apparent that the book ends not in resolution, but in tension. The tension lies in the goodness and justice of God, and the reality of indiscriminate suffering. The classical and the modern interpretations represent opposing ends of this theological tension.

The classical interpretation is broadly correct in its perspective on the Book of Job, particularly in its defense of God’s character. Classical interpreters rightly uphold God’s justice, recognizing that nowhere within the book is God labeled unjust. They also correctly demonstrate that divine providence governs human affairs even when suffering is involved,<22> though not exhaustively. And though the knowable nature of God’s providence is heavily pushed, the classical interpretation does not deny divine mystery.

While incorrect in its general reading of Job, the modern interpretation rightly emphasizes the mystery of God and the raw emotional weight of suffering. Job’s bold questioning reflects this struggle. Job’s own speeches demonstrate his confusion and how he cannot reconcile God’s justice and goodness with his suffering.<23> Yadav correctly points this out, writing, ‘Job represents the dialect of the innocent sufferer of the severest afflictions imaginable, the inner logic of which includes belief in a just God who permits those afflictions, a rationally justified despair of life itself, and an insistent demand for empathy.’<24> God’s approval of Job then validates Job’s questioning and confusion. The modern interpretation’s merit is also in recognizing the messiness and the reality of indiscriminate suffering. This insight is indispensable to any faithful reading of Job.

The Book of Job as a Theology of Tension

Drawing on the insights of both the classical and modern interpretations, we can now develop a more faithful reading of Job—one that holds divine justice and indiscriminate suffering in tension. With this in mind, it becomes apparent that Job does not offer a neat theodicy, in fact, it critiques such systems<25> —especially retributive theodicies.

Strikingly, the Book of Job never offers a defense of God’s justice. Nor is there any clear defense of any aspect of God’s character. God’s justice is a core assumption of the Book of Job. Every character affirms God’s justice, and though Job struggles to reconcile that with his pain, he never accuses God of being unjust. (6:3; 9:22-24; 10:3-8) Even during his dialogue with his friends, Job agrees with them that God is just—specifically after Bildad affirms the justice of God. (9:2) It is affirmed from the prologue to the epilogue that God is just. And again, there is never a strict defense, as in a traditional theodicy, of this claim.

While the book does not offer a defense of God’s character, it does strongly rebuke retribution theology which serves as the foundation of the Book of Job’s affirmation of indiscriminate suffering. The common view held by Job’s friends is that God punishes the wicked and blesses the innocent; this is commonly referred to as retribution theology. Job’s friends all claim this to some degree at some point in their respective speeches: Eliphaz (4:7-8), Bildad (8:3-6), and Zophar (11:13-17). Though much of Job’s speeches are in defense of himself and his integrity, he does give several rebuttals to his friends. (21:1-34; 24:1-25) Job claims throughout the book that God ‘destroys both the blameless and the wicked’. (9:22) Job does not even need to point to general examples, for he himself, his current circumstances, refute retribution theology.<26>

The ultimate refutation of this theology is God himself. After his dialogue with Job, God rebukes Job’s friends for proclaiming falsities about him. (42:7-9) The book as a whole works as a cohesive unit in disproving retribution theology for not only does God vindicate Job, but the author does as well. The book notes immediately, that Job did not sin. (2:9) If Job was innocent,<27> then one would expect Job’s restoration to occur much sooner—if retribution theology were true absolutely

What’s most striking is that the book dismantles retribution theology without replacing it with an alternative system. Instead of offering a new framework, God points to the mystery of creation and Job’s limited understanding.<28> This is as close to an answer to the problem of evil that the Book of Job offers up. Merely that the world is ordered, though not necessarily on justice, but with room for the wild, unpredictable nature of the cosmos. Instead of defending God’s justice, the book draws us into the mystery of a created world that is ordered, but not always just in ways we understand. The world has space for wildness, freedom, and suffering—and yet God remains just and sovereign.

Conclusion: Job’s Enduring Witness to Suffering and Divine Justice

In the end, what does the Book of Job truly offer us? It may seem, without a clear and resounding conclusion, that the Book of Job leaves us with little to learn. But this misunderstands its purpose. If this interpretation is correct, the purpose of the book is to cause those confident in their theological systems to pause. The book does not cast aside all theodicies. Traditional theodicy still has merit in articulating God’s justice—but it cannot account for every form of suffering, nor should it be expected to. Just as Job was unaware of the heavenly exchange between God and the accuser, we too lack knowledge of God’s full purposes. While some suffering may serve as a test or a refining fire, there remain trials that lack discernable rationale. And as God called for Job to be humble before him, so must we humble ourselves before the infinite God. This is not a call to despair or to doubt God’s justice when trials lack a clear purpose. Rather, our reassurance lies in God’s unchanging nature—his justice, goodness, and sovereign love.

Bibliography

Aquinas, Thomas. Commentary on the Book of Job. Translated by Brian Mullady. Naples, FL: Sapientia Press, 2005.

Augustine. The City of God. Translated by Marcus Dods. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 2009.

Green, Barbara. “Recasting a Classic: A Reconsideration of Meaning in the Book of Job.” Journal of Biblical Literature 112, no. 2 (1993): 213–229.

Guillaume, Philippe, and Michael Schunck. “Job’s Intercession: Antidote to Divine Folly.” Zeitschrift für die Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 119, no. 3 (2007): 451–472.

Harvey, Warren Zev. “Questions on the Book of Job.” Religious Studies 59 (2023): S7–S16.

Lacocque, André. "Job and the Symbolism of Evil." Biblical Research, (1979-1980):7-19. Mantor, Abbie F. “I Spoke but I Did Not Understand: A Holistic Theology of Evil in the Book of Job.” Master's thesis, 2021.

Verbin, N. “Faith and the Absurd: Kierkegaard, Camus, and Job’s Religious Protest.” Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2024.

Williams, Trevor B. “Job’s Unfinalizable Voice: An Addendum to David Burrell’s Deconstructing Theodicy.” New Blackfriars 101, no. 1090 (2019): 681–696.

Yadav, Sameer. “A Joban Theology of Consolation.” Harvard Theological Review 117, no. 2 (2024): 181–203.

<1>           Augustine.

The City of God

. Translated by Marcus Dods. (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 2009), Book I, Ch. 8-9. <2>           Thomas Aquinas.

Commentary on the Book of Job

. Translated by Brian Mullady. (Naples, FL: Sapientia Press, 2005), p. 2. <3>           Aquinas,

Commentary on Job,

p. 2. <4>           Augustine,

City of God,

Book I, Ch. 9. <5>           Ibid, Book I, Ch. 9-10. <6>           In the Divine Speeches God clearly describes an order to the cosmos and all of creation, though not a meticulous control. <7>           Abbie F. Mantor. “I Spoke but I Did Not Understand: A Holistic Theology of Evil in the Book of Job.” Master's Thesis, (2021): p. 154. <8>           Yadav, “Joban Theology”, p. 191. <9>           Williams, “Job’s Unfinalizable Voice”, p. 682. <10>         N. Verbin. “Faith and the Absurd: Kierkegaard, Camus, and Job’s Religious Protest.” Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, (2024): p. 297. <11>         Philippe Guillaume and Michael Schunck. “Job’s Intercession: Antidote to Divine Folly.” ZAW 119, no. 3 (2007): p. 463. <12>         Verbin, “Faith and the Absurd”, p. 297. <13>         Guillaume and Schunck, “Job’s Intercession”, p. 463. <14>         Verbin, “Faith and the Absurd”, p. 296. <15>         Guillaume and Schunck, “Job’s Intercession”, p. 471. <16>         Harvey, “Questions on Job”, S14; Williams, “Job’s Unfinalizable Voice”, p. 693. <17>         Verbin, “Faith and the Absurd”, p. 297. <18>         Lacocque is describing Elie Wiesel’s perspective on Job; André Lacocque. "Job and the Symbolism of Evil". BR

(1979-1980): p. 8. <19>         Guillaume and Schunck, “Job’s Intercession”, p. 472. <20>         Harvey, “Questions on Job”, p. S12. <21>         Barbara Green. “Recasting a Classic: A Reconsideration of Meaning in the Book of Job.” JBL 112, no. 2 (1993): pp. 217-218. <22>         Aquinas,

Commentary on Job,

p. 2. <23>         Verbin, “Faith and the Absurd”, p. 310. <24>         Yadav, “Joban Theology”, p. 191. <25>         Williams, “Job’s Unfinalizable Voice”, p. 683. <26>         Mantor, “Holistic Theology”, p. 152. <27>         Aquinas,

Commentary on Job,

p. 30. <28>         Aquinas,

Commentary on Job,

pp. 436-457.