Job and Suffering Humans Have a Lengthy

Job and Suffering

Humans have a lengthy history in dealing with the idea of suffering. Can anyone forget the relates the trials of Job, a devout man of God, at the hands of Satan, and his theological discussions with various characters on the nature of suffering and the relationship between God and Mankind? The poem attempts to address a basic problem for humanity -- the problem of good vs. evil -- how one should reconcile the existence of evil/suffering in a world of goodness created by God (Janzen, 1985). Indeed, this type of question has been tackled by numerous cultures, showing that it is central to the way humans interpret the divine. Certainly, other cultures have numerous parallels to Job, and other cultures ascribe the generic affinities of the Job tale by showing a character of virtue that evokes certain aspects of the questioning all humans view as central -- what is evil and why does the Divine allow evil to occur? (Newsom, 2009, pp.40-41). In the East, Buddhism is the teaching that life is permeated with suffering that is cause by one thing -- desire. Suffering stops when desire stops; and then enlighten replaces the vacuum left (Dash, 2006).

Briefly, Job was a righteous man who lived in Uz with his seven sons and three daughters. Job owned sheep, camels, oxen, donkeys and slaves making him a very wealthy man. Each year, Job held a banquet to celebrate his good fortune. At this celebration, his children were purified so that any sin they may have committed would be wiped away. When God's angels came to tell God about his children on earth, God told Satan (the accusing angel) how respectful and righteous Job was. Satan told God that Job was not really righteous, but self-serving and needed God's blessing to retain his earnings. Satan also remarked that Job would renounce God if he incurred hardship instead of bounty. Satan challenges God to test Job, and God accepts. Here, we see Satan prodding the Lord, who is supposed to be almighty and knowledgeable about everything, into testing one of his faithful servants for no reason other than to prove his loyalty (Mitchell, 1994).

God, being omnipotent, cannot be tricked; so anything he removes from Job is simply to allow the moral question of good and evil -- but how is God "good" by making someone suffer? Does God need to prove a point to Satan -- how does that engender Satan's supposed influence and power? Moreover, did Job actually "do" anything to cause suffering? On the earthly plane, Job has one misfortune after another; his children die, his animals die or are stolen, he has difficulties with friends and community. However, Job does not curse God and rationalizes the issues as -- "What God gives, God may take away." Satan justified this by saying Job was not personally affected -- so God sends more tests -- Job is covered with boils and his health decays. Job's faith is then tested by his wife, who wonders aloud how Job can still be faithful to God. This then, is the most difficult -- being tested when others around push for doubting and try to convince us that they are right and our own faith is wrong. Eventually, because of his faith, Job is restored to health, has a new family, and is twice as wealthy as he was.

In primitive cultures, the process of dying is accepted as a natural part of the rhythm of being human and revered. In the modern developed world, death is feared and those who are dying are often institutionalized and removed from general society, often rather than allowing one to die with dignity everything "possible" even if uncomfortable and invasive is done to keep the loved one alive -- not for the patient, but for the living. Elizabeth Kubler-Ross believes the opposite, that grief and loss are transformative and that a person's stage of dying is a natural outgrowth of life (Kubler-Ross, 2007)

Kubler-Ross' theory was developed as a response to the view that death and dying were processes to be feared and hidden within modern society. The overall purpose of the theory is that patients are unique individuals with unique and important rights to decide the circumstances of their death -- even if that means heroic and medically possible efforts are refused (Kubler-Ross, On Death and Dying, 2013). Within the nursing model, this may seem anathema to many ethical principles of aiding and doing no harm. However, in other ways, the ideals of patient-centered care are critical to the modern nursing profession. At the very heart of both KR and medical ethics are the notions of autonomy (allowing a rational individual to make uncoerced and individual decisions), beneficence (do no harm, but also do not cause the patient pain and discomfort that will only prolong illness, not cure it), and paternalism (that of respecting the individual's choice and opportunities) (Kubler-Ross, Rai, 2009).