Job 8:1-16: a reflection

1Then Bildad the Shuhite answered, 2“How long will you speak these things? Shall the words of your mouth be a mighty wind? 3Does God pervert justice? Or does the Almighty pervert righteousness? 4If your children have sinned against him, he has delivered them into the hand of their disobedience. 5If you want to seek God diligently, make your supplication to the Almighty. 6If you were pure and upright, surely now he would awaken for you, and make the habitation of your righteousness prosperous. 7Though your beginning was small, yet your latter end would greatly increase. 8“Please inquire of past generations. Find out about the learning of their fathers. 9(For we are but of yesterday, and know nothing, because our days on earth are a shadow.) 10Shall they not teach you, tell you, and utter words out of their heart? 11“Can the papyrus grow up without mire? Can the rushes grow without water? 12While it is yet in its greenness, not cut down, it withers before any other reed. 13So are the paths of all who forget God. The hope of the godless man will perish, 14whose confidence will break apart, whose trust is a spider’s web. 15He will lean on his house, but it will not stand. He will cling to it, but it will not endure. 16He is green before the sun. His shoots go out along his garden.

When Bildad answers the suffering Job, he offers a neat, confident formula: if Job were pure and upright, God would restore him; the fate of the godless is to perish. His theology is simple and rigid, God prospers the righteous and destroys the wicked, and he applies it directly to Job: your suffering must mean something is wrong with you. But Bildad's tidy formula could not account for the reality of Job's situation, a righteous man suffering not for his sin. The rigid formula, applied to the mystery of Job's suffering, failed; suffering is not always so simply explained, and Bildad's neat theology could not comprehend it.

Notice the inadequacy of Bildad's rigid formula before the mystery of suffering. His theology was tidy: the righteous prosper, the wicked perish, so suffering must mean guilt. It was simple, confident, and it seemed to explain everything. But it could not account for Job, a righteous man suffering; the formula was too small for the reality. Suffering is often a mystery that a neat formula cannot comprehend; and Bildad, applying his rigid theology to Job, only added to his pain, explaining what could not be so simply explained. The tidy formula failed before the mystery; suffering does not always fit our neat explanations, and to force it into them is to misjudge both the sufferer and the mystery.

That is worth taking to heart, for we too can apply rigid, simple formulas to the mystery of suffering, and misjudge it. When we or others suffer, we can reach for tidy explanations, neat formulas that seem to account for it, as Bildad did with Job; but suffering is often a mystery that our simple formulas cannot comprehend, and to force it into them misjudges the sufferer and the mystery alike. There is more to suffering than our neat theologies can explain. Do not apply rigid, simple formulas to the mystery of suffering, as though it could always be neatly explained; be humble before the mystery, as Bildad's tidy theology failed before Job's suffering. Be humble before the mystery of suffering rather than forcing it into rigid, simple formulas that cannot comprehend it, as Bildad's neat theology failed before the reality of Job's affliction; for suffering is often more than our tidy explanations can account for, and it is wiser to be humble before the mystery than to misjudge the sufferer with a formula too small for the reality.

Lord, when Bildad answers the suffering Job, he offers a neat, confident formula: if Job were pure and upright, God would restore him; the fate of the godless is to perish. His theology is simple and rigid, that you prosper the righteous and destroy the wicked, and he applies it directly to Job: your suffering must mean something is wrong with you. But Bildad's tidy formula could not account for the reality of Job's situation, a righteous man suffering not for his sin. The rigid formula, applied to the mystery of Job's suffering, failed. Show me the inadequacy of Bildad's rigid formula before the mystery of suffering. His theology was tidy: the righteous prosper, the wicked perish, so suffering must mean guilt. It seemed to explain everything. But it could not account for Job, a righteous man suffering; the formula was too small for the reality. Suffering is often a mystery that a neat formula cannot comprehend; and Bildad, applying his rigid theology to Job, only added to his pain. The tidy formula failed before the mystery. Take that to my heart, for I too can apply rigid, simple formulas to the mystery of suffering, and misjudge it. When I or others suffer, I can reach for tidy explanations, neat formulas that seem to account for it, as Bildad did with Job; but suffering is often a mystery that my simple formulas cannot comprehend, and to force it into them misjudges the sufferer and the mystery alike. Keep me from applying rigid, simple formulas to the mystery of suffering, as though it could always be neatly explained; help me be humble before the mystery, Lord, as Bildad's tidy theology failed before Job's suffering.