Ehrman’s Problem 16: Cosmic Issues He Doesn’t Understand

We come next to Ehrman’s chapter, “Does Suffering Make Sense?” In it he divides the book of Job into two separate answers and concludes, no surprise, that neither of them succeeds in answering our many questions.

Ehrman even argues that the book of Job has two separate authors, but that’s just an assertion largely based on the fact that Job begins and ends with prose and the rest is poetry. 1 But, whether Job had one author (as I believe), or two, doesn’t change whether the answers add two more Biblical answers to why we suffer, which is what Ehrman’s book is about.

So let’s look at each answer individually. Today’s post will address Ehrman’s first answer, which he entitles, “The Folktale: The Suffering of Job as a Test of Faith” (164). This post is longer than most because the ideas are extremely important but complex.

The book of Job begins by telling us that Job is wealthy, successful, renowned, has a happy family, and fears God. But next we are told about a dialog in Heaven where the angels and Satan present themselves before the Lord. But then God asks if Satan 2 has noticed Job: “Have you considered my servant Job, that there is none like him on the earth, a blameless and upright man, who fears God and turns away from evil?” (Job 1:8). But Satan replied, “Does Job fear God for no reason? Have you not put a hedge around him and his house and all that he has, on every side? You have blessed the work of his hands, and his possessions have increased in the land. But stretch out your hand and touch all that he has, and he will curse you to your face” (1:9-11). In other words, Satan proclaims that the only reason that Job serves God is that God has given Job everything that Job desired. Satan then says that if God takes away what Job desires, that Job will curse God to His face.

Ehrman says, “The overarching view of suffering in this folktale is clear: sometimes suffering comes to the innocent in order to see whether their pious devotion to God is genuine and disinterested” (167). So far, so good. But then Ehrman says: “God did this to him in order to win a bet with Satan…. Anyone else who destroyed all your property, physically mauled you, and murdered your children—simply on a whim or a bet—would be liable to the most severe punishment that justice could mete out. But God is evidently above justice and can do whatever he pleases if he wants to prove a point” (168). Ehrman concludes his discussion by saying, “As satisfying as the book of Job has been to people over the ages, I have to say I find it supremely dissatisfying. If God tortures, maims, and murders people just to see how they will react—to see if they will not blame him, when in fact he is to blame—then this does not seem to me to be a God worthy of worship. Worthy of fear, yes. Of praise, no” (172).

Before I answer Ehrman’s ire, I need to point out that what I’m about to say isn’t how I would proceed with someone who has just suffered a major loss. The Scripture tells us to “weep with those who weep” (Rom. 12:15) and that should be our first response. But, after that, after some time has passed, there is much to say as to what God’s doing in the universe.

First, let’s remember that since the fall of Adam the mortality rate remains at 100% and God didn’t promise us a long life here. As I’ve said before, barring the Lord’s return, only one thing will prevent you from watching everyone you know die from murder, accident, or disease and that will be your own death from murder, accident, or disease.

Second, although it is true that God allowed Satan to cause Job’s suffering, God himself didn’t torture, maim, or murder. This goes back to the whole free will issue that I’ve previously discussed: God is either going to allow hateful creatures to harm others or He is not. It is true that he could stop creatures from ever harming each other but He would certainly be limiting, if not annihilating, their freedom. (How many are hurt by adultery? Consider how changed our world would be if God made adultery impossible.)

Third, consider the context. From what we can see in Scripture, Satan thought he deserved more than he was getting and so Satan rebelled against God and tried to take it for himself. Satan was able to get other angels to join his rebellion and so “there was war in heaven” (Rev.12:7). Ponder the significance of “there was war in heaven.” What’s God to do about that? How does God respond to the rebellion of these free beings? Well, God created this relatively puny race of humans, who now live amidst difficulty and death, and as these puny creatures honor the Creator they justify the judgment of Satan and the likeminded. Apparently, then, Satan’s modus operandi is to accuse puny yet God honoring humans of not measuring up—that’s why he’s called “the accuser.” Come to think of it, many non-Christians love to accuse Christians too—it makes them feel that their own judgment is unjustified.

And that brings us to Job. Satan argued that Job wouldn’t honor God if God weren’t making his life easy. After all, if Satan was able to prove that Job wouldn’t honor God if God thwarted Job’s desires, then Satan could argue to heavenly beings that God demands too much; that God is unfair. If that were the case, then Satan could argue that God had unfairly judged Satan. But as God’s servants, like Job, continue to honor God through disease and death; they then justify God’s judgment of Satan and others who rebel against God. That is why Christians who remain faithful to the end will not only judge the world but judge angels (1 Cor. 6:2-3). I’ve previously posted on this.

Fourth, perhaps the most important fact about this life is that there is infinitely more than this life. Those who don’t understand eternal life will never understand why God allows evil any more than a child who doesn’t understand simple addition could understand calculus. But if our life here is just the beginning of life forever, then eternity will dwarf our suffering to insignificance.

2 Cor. 4:16-18: “So we do not lose heart. Though our outer self is wasting away, our inner self is being renewed day by day. For this light momentary affliction is preparing for us an eternal weight of glory beyond all comparison, as we look not to the things that are seen but to the things that are unseen. For the things that are seen are transient, but the things that are unseen are eternal.”

Amen.

  1. Look, I’ve written a little poetry and a lot of prose and I’ll bet if someone looked at them side by side they would suspect two different authors. Ehrman also claims “that the names for the divine being are different in the prose (where the name Yahweh is used) and the poetry (where the divinity is named El, Eloah, and Shaddai)” (164). But “Yahweh” is used in the poetry section: 12:9, 38:1, 40:1, 3, 6, and so on.[]
  2. Ehrman opines that “the Satan is not the fallen angel who has been booted from heaven…. He is not an adversary to God” (165). That’s bizarre! Perhaps at that time Satan hadn’t been “booted,” but to say he’s not an adversary? Do you, dear reader, not see in this passage that Satan is defiant, scoffing at God, and accusing Job? Is this not the same “Satan” who in Rev. 12:10 is called “the accuser”? Certainly that is the way evangelicals understand the passage and I’d be surprised indeed if when Ehrman considered himself an evangelical that he understood the passage as he does now.[]

12 thoughts on “Ehrman’s Problem 16: Cosmic Issues He Doesn’t Understand”

  1. This is a great post, Dr. Jones. However, I would caution against reading Rev. 12 as describing a primordial fall of Satan and his angels. I believe contextually, the fall from heaven depicted in Rev. 12’s apocalyptic combat account is a result of the ascension of the male child (i.e. the Resurrection and Ascension of Jesus and the subsequent disarming of the evil powers that resulted).

    I’ve given a talk on this that goes into more detail if you or any reader is interested: “The Woman, the Dragon & the Cross” (available for free at http://jmsmith.org/store/audio/)

    Blessings from Disciple Dojo,
    JM

  2. ” It is true that he could stop creatures from ever harming each other but He would certainly be limiting, if not annihilating, their freedom.”

    Wouldn’t want to annihilate Satan’s “freedom,” now would we? That would surely be the worst thing imaginable.

    Except… what was Yahweh’s stance vis a vis Satan’s “freedom” immediately prior to him giving the go-ahead?

  3. Pingback: Really Recommended Posts 8/17/12 « J.W. Wartick -"Always Have a Reason"

  4. >eternity will dwarf our suffering to insignificance.

    This is a distraction. The issue is whether God could be kinder and still reach his goals. If God could bring us to eternal bliss with less suffering, he is not maximally loving. We know God left some horrors out of creation. It seems impossible that he could not have omitted one more.

    God didn’t have to take Satan’s bet. He could have known the outcome without allowing Job’s torture. If someone proposed a bet like this concerning my wife, I’d ignore him and call the police.

    When we remain faithful to someone, no matter how we are treated, by action or neglect, we are in an abusive relationship. In the Book of Job, it seems Job is suffering from Stockholm syndrome. And God appears to be a sadist.

    In Job 38:4, God doesn’t reply, he just pulls rank. But this is fatal to his goodness. If he is not held to some standard other than himself, it means nothing to say he is good. He could do opposite things and we would have to say they were both good.

    The Book of Job depicts a callous, authoritarian god who uses his most loyal subjects as pawns in his schemes. The heartbreaking part is that none of Job’s losses were necessary. We sometimes put up with pain for a greater good, but only when there is no better option. God always has options.

    Humans reduce pain with Tylenol, so we know it can be reduced. Believers must face the fact that God could have created a kinder world and still reached all his goals. He just didn’t.

    1. donsevers: „He could have known the outcome without allowing Job’s torture.“

      In my view God’s omniscience implies that God knows what a person WILL do but not what a person WOULD do in a hypothetical situation, as the latter would mean that the respective person’s acts would be determined by the circumstances and consequently he or she would not have free will.

    2. Hi Don,
      You wrote: “He could have known the outcome without allowing Job’s torture.” Certainly God did know the outcome. But Satan (and who knows how many others) thought differently. If God did create free beings then He must actually care, to a certain extent, what they believe about the nature of reality. Thus God knows how much suffering is needed for other beings to be convinced of certain truths. To say that less suffering would have accomplished what needed to be accomplished is no more than an assertion on your part.

  5. In my view God’s acts with respect to Job can be seen as having the purpose to save Job’s honour in view of Satan’s suggestion that Job serves God just because he benefits from such behaviour.

  6. I actually read this article with utter disbelief.The story of Job will always be a torn in the side of evangelicals.You expressed the view that God did not torture Job but satan did.I do not get it.God actually did it according to the story.Why did God have to give satan permission.Why does God have to prove to satan the loyalty of one of his kids.The story looks more like God and satan are on the same side than opposing side.Do not forget that satan presented along with sons of God.What was he doing in Gods heavenly court in the first place..thought he was cast down with other rebellious angels.Several ancient near east scholar have shed more light on divine councils in this culture..a council that has a supreme head and other junior gods and this is what is happening here.Ehrman was right.The satan here is Ha satan..it is a title for one of Gods emissaries/gods in the council of Elohim.He is not YET the enemy of God we have in the new testament.All he does is to make sure Gods people are righteous in the OT.We can not absorb God of evil by pointing the finger at the one sent on errand.If i send someone to kill and both of us are caught,under the law we are both guilty not just the one i sent.If the new testament says God is love and He is good..then I can not reconcile a God that sent agent to torture and maim with love and goodness.I think this reflect the image of God the authors of the OT passsed down to us which is incomplete and that is why Jesus is the will of God revealed in totality.

    1. Believe, David! 🙂 I don’t know any evangelicals who consider Job to be a thorne in their sides, David. It’s a thorne in the side of skeptics. Most of the rest of your comments simply relate to whether God is going to give free beings permission to harm others or not. Yes, He has given them permission. Note how evil free beings can be to each other. Also, Job was united with his family for eternity and it is the eternal perspective that is so often ignored in this discussion.

  7. One more thing.The issue of free will is not even applicable to Jobs story.He had no say in the entire behind the scene action in heaven or in the clouds.His fate was determined without his knowledge.In fact God said he was righteous.He did not do anything sinful or illegal according to the story.So how does freewill apply.This story shows that free will does not solve the problem of evil no matter how hard we try.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *