Theology of Suffering: Job, Theodicy, and Christian Meaning

Introduction: The Problem of Theodicy

The existence of human suffering poses a unique theological problem. If God is omniscient, omnipotent, and all-loving, then why does suffering exist? This difficulty is confronted in scripture itself: perhaps the most important treatment of the problem of suffering comes in the Old Testament story of Job. Mainstream Christianity continues to offer a variety of ways of approaching this theological question, although historically Christians had a much broader spectrum of responses. For example, today's mainstream Christianity is a result of the establishment of orthodoxy in the face of Gnostic Christians, who used the existence of suffering as a way of questioning whether God was indeed omnipotent or all-loving. Gnosticism instead posits a "demiurge" or "alien god" that created this world and its suffering without being omnipotent or good. The oldest mainstream form of Christian orthodoxy today — represented by the Roman Catholic faith — came into existence partly as a response to these early challenges to basic theology.

It is worth acknowledging one key term at the outset: theodicy. A theodicy is a defense of God's goodness in light of the problem of human suffering. The term itself dates from the Enlightenment, when the idea that an all-loving being could be responsible for so much pain and wickedness came to seem something less than rational. The rationalist character of post-Enlightenment thought, which continues to this day, has necessitated a renewed approach to the most basic issue of theodicy — namely, whether God can be apprehended by human understanding. As this essay argues, the theological problem of suffering — of the extreme sort seen scripturally in the Book of Job — has been addressed not only by the Vatican but also by mainstream theologians, literary writers, and cultural figures.

The Book of Job and God's Answer to Suffering

The problem of suffering as outlined in the Old Testament's Book of Job may be called "extreme" because it encapsulates the theological problem in its sharpest form. Job is presented in scripture as having led a blameless and pious life. If it were the case that God merely rewards good persons for doing good things, then the Book of Job makes no sense whatsoever. The form of early Christianity that eventually became condemned as the Gnostic heresy can find a fair amount of scriptural support in the opening chapter of Job, which presents Job's suffering as part of a wager between God and Satan. Heretical sects like the Gnostics and the Manichees simply separated off the evil in the world from God's actual creation, attributing it to a lesser divine power, usually the devil. The Book of Job, however, does not indicate that the devil causes Job's suffering — indeed, it is explicitly stated that God Himself sends the afflictions to test Job, and that God is proved correct against Satan that Job will not abandon his faith even under so severe a trial.

For those concerned with the application of reason to theology, God's answer to Job does pose a problem:

Then the Lord answered Job out of a whirlwind, and said: Who is this that wrappeth up sentences in unskillful words? Gird up thy loins like a man: I will ask thee, and answer thou. Where wast thou when I laid up the foundations of the earth? Tell me if thou hast understanding. Who hath laid the measures thereof, if thou knowest? Or who hath stretched the line upon it? Upon what are its bases grounded? Or who laid the corner-stone thereof, when the morning stars praised me together, and all the sons of God made a joyful melody? (Job 38:1–7)

God does not offer Job a rational answer; instead, God challenges Job's very right to ask such questions. In terms of philosophical logic, this is known as the argumentum ad hominem — the opposing speaker's arguments are set aside in favor of a personal challenge to the speaker's standing to raise the question in the first place. We may therefore wonder whether scripture even endorses the possibility of using reason and logic to approach the question of suffering at all.

Catholic Teaching: Salvifici Doloris and John Paul II

Pope John Paul II addresses this issue directly in his 1984 apostolic letter on human suffering, Salvifici Doloris — Latin for "redemptive suffering," referring to the suffering of Christ on the cross. The letter acknowledges the canonical example of Job as a way of addressing God's purpose in permitting human suffering:

"While it is true that suffering has a meaning as punishment when connected with a fault, it is not true that all suffering is a consequence of a fault and has the nature of a punishment. The figure of the just man Job is a special proof of this in the Old Testament."²

John Paul II distinguishes between suffering intended as punishment and suffering that may afflict the righteous and virtuous, as it afflicted Job. The difficulty then becomes one of discernment: by assuming God is all-righteous, human beings themselves must be examined — are they wicked and deserving of suffering, or good and undeserving? — in order to discern God's purpose, whether punitive or otherwise.

For example, we need not consider John Paul II to have been wicked in order to understand that the last years of his papacy were marked by his tremendous suffering from Parkinson's disease. We might instead see his personal suffering as intended by God for a greater educational purpose. His successors as Pope have, unprecedentedly, respectively abdicated office (Benedict XVI) and announced the intention to do so rather than die in it (Francis). Yet they did not interpret John Paul II's medical condition as evidence of divine punishment — otherwise he would not have been canonized so rapidly after his death.