On another day the angels came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan also came with them to present himself before him. 2And the LORD said to Satan, “Where have you come from?”
Satan answered the LORD, “From roaming through the earth and going back and forth in it.”
3Then the LORD said to Satan, “Have you considered my servant Job? There is no one on earth like him; he is blameless and upright, a man who fears God and shuns evil. And he still maintains his integrity, though you incited me against him to ruin him without any reason.”
4“Skin for skin!” Satan replied. “A man will give all he has for his own life. 5But stretch out your hand and strike his flesh and bones, and he will surely curse you to your face.”
6The LORD said to Satan, “Very well, then, he is in your hands; but you must spare his life.”
7So Satan went out from the presence of the LORD and afflicted Job with painful sores from the soles of his feet to the top of his head. 8Then Job took a piece of broken pottery and scraped himself with it as he sat among the ashes.
9His wife said to him, “Are you still holding on to your integrity? Curse God and die!”
10He replied, “You are talking like a foolish woman. Shall we accept good from God, and not trouble?”
In all this, Job did not sin in what he said.
11When Job’s three friends, Eliphaz the Temanite, Bildad the Shuhite and Zophar the Naamathite, heard about all the troubles that had come upon him, they set out from their homes and met together by agreement to go and sympathize with him and comfort him. 12When they saw him from a distance, they could hardly recognize him; they began to weep aloud, and they tore their robes and sprinkled dust on their heads. 13Then they sat on the ground with him for seven days and seven nights. No one said a word to him, because they saw how great his suffering was.
Second Conversation (2:1–6)
THROUGH THE MIDDLE OF verse 3, this second conversation practically repeats Job 1:7–8; the only differences are the addition of three Hebrew words at the end of 2:1 (lit., “to present himself before Yahweh”) and the word used for “from where” (meʾayin in 1:7; ʾe mizzeh in 2:2). In other occurrences, these two phrases used for “from where” function similarly.1 The former (meʾayin) occurs in three different syntactical situations. When accompanied by a pronoun, it forms a question concerning a person’s travels.2 When accompanied by the verb “to come” (boʾ), as here, it is used to inquire superficially about the location from where one has traveled, but is more interested in what brings the person there—that is, it is more a question concerning motives and purposes than travel itinerary.3 When accompanied by a noun, it functions as an inquiry about the source from which something will be drawn.4 The latter (ʾe mizzeh) evidences only two of these categories. It occurs with the verb boʾ regarding motive or purpose,5 and with a pronoun in contexts concerning place of origin.6 We can therefore conclude that the two phrases are synonymous.
Job maintains his integrity. The text indicates that Job continues to cling to his integrity. The participle that I translate “cling to” is typically used to indicate grasping something firmly, sometimes even showing a response to grasp something more tightly when someone might be inclined to take that thing away—for instance, when a child tries to pull her hand away from her mother and the mother grips it more firmly (note Isa. 41:13). The word translated “integrity” is the same word that led off the sequence in the repeated accolade of Job (“blameless”). We can easily conclude that Job maintains not only his blamelessness but also his other commendable qualities. In short, Job’s actions have revealed no flawed motive such as the Challenger earlier suggested.
Ruin without reason. We should analyze the language here to determine precisely who is responsible for Job’s predicament: the Challenger or Yahweh. The close analysis provided in the appendix on the word translated “incited” (see p. 449–50) demonstrates that Yahweh is accountable and responsible despite the role that the Challenger plays.
Yahweh’s statement that he has been incited to “ruin”7 Job “without any reason” (Heb. ḥinnam) requires further clarification.8 This same word (ḥinnam) was used in 1:9, when the Challenger raised the question about whether Job served God “for nothing [no reason].” While the term ḥinnam can refer to something done in vain (e.g., Ezek. 6:10), unnecessarily (e.g., 1 Sam. 25:31), or without compensation (e.g., Gen. 29:15; this is the meaning in Job 1:9), in most cases it refers to something done without cause—undeserved treatment (1 Sam. 19:5; 1 Kings 2:31). Job expresses this same assessment of what God has done in Job 10:7–8: “You know that I am not guilty … will you now turn and destroy me?”
Such assertions confirm again that nothing that happens to Job can be construed as punishment for some offense; Job’s righteousness continues to be confirmed from all sources. We should again emphasize that Job is not portrayed as totally sinless, but as one who does not deserve the tragedies that have befallen him. If the RP represents justice, it must be carried out in proportion: the punishment must suit the crime. In Job’s case, no such proportionality can be sustained.
Affliction of Job and the Arrival of Counselors (2:7–13)
ADVANCED TRIAL. THE FIRST round of trials took away that which was positive in Job’s life—that is, his prosperity; this second round adds the negative by causing physical suffering. The first round brought mental anguish associated with loss, while the second brings physical problems associated with pain.
Job first responded by acknowledging God’s prerogative to take everything away (1:21), since all he had came from God in the first place. Thus, Job loses the “compensation” for his righteousness. The Challenger contends that Job will not be so sanguine if he believes that God is actually punishing him, despite his righteousness. The ancients did not think of good health as a benefit provided by deity, but they did think of sickness and disease as either punishments imposed by deity or, more likely, as the result of God’s abandoning the person to affliction from demons or ghosts.9 Job allows no possibility that his affliction is caused by another party: the bad comes from God (2:10). In the first trial God took away the good (1:21); in the second, God brings the bad (2:10). Job accepts God’s right to do both without cursing him.
Job’s condition (šeḥin) does not yield confident diagnosis.10 It is not the term that is sometimes translated as “leprosy”11 and probably involves inflammation of the skin (if etymology leads the right direction). This skin disease would generally have resulted in his expulsion from the city. Though the reference to ashes recalls the common practice of mourners heaping dust and ashes on their heads, here Job has been relegated to sitting on the ash heap. The ash heap outside of town is like the city dump, which burned regularly.12 The expansive translation of the LXX indicates that dung was one of the most common loads brought to the dump;13 such a location confirms Job’s outcast status.
Role of Job’s wife. Several observations in verses 9–10 call for a fresh analysis of Job’s wife. We need to sort out the possibilities, beginning at the level of text, because several possible interpretations of the wife’s words have been suggested. Primarily we must decide between the traditional: “Are you still holding on to your integrity? Curse God and die!” and the variant: “Hold onto your integrity! Bless God and die” (i.e., continue blessing God and it will get you nothing but death). Our analysis will address four elements:
Discourse: the connection between the wife’s and God’s statements about Job
Syntax: the absence of the interrogative marker
Morphology: the forms of the verbs “bless” and “die”
Lexical semantics: the meaning of the words barek (2:9) and nebalah (2:10)
(1) In the discourse comparison, God’s assessment of Job (2:3) is identical to the assessment of Job’s wife (2:9), except for the insignificant and necessary change from third person to second person. The similarity could signal that we should read the two statements the same way, or the similarities could belie a contrast that the reader is supposed to pick up.14
(2) Regarding syntax, we must ask whether the first part of the wife’s speech (2:9a) and the second part of Job’s response (2:10b) are questions.15 There are no interrogative markers, though, in Hebrew, an interrogative marker is not essential for a statement to be a question; sometimes only context will determine the reading. Nevertheless, the author has used the interrogative markers for questions of fact (1:8; 2:3) and for rhetorical questions (1:10) in this context. Furthermore, the speeches throughout Job are filled with rhetorical questions; yet there is not a single unarguable case where there is a question with no interrogative marker.16
(3) The morphological questions concern the verbal forms used by Job’s wife. Both “bless” and “die” are imperatives, suggesting that they function as words of advice. If Job’s wife intended to make general statements of principle, as some suggest, we would expect participles (“the one who blesses is the one who dies”).
(4) The first semantic issue concerns whether the Hebrew word barek should be translated “curse” (i.e., understanding the verb euphemistically, as in ch. 1) or “bless” (as it stands). Here, context is our only guide, though the author might intend the verb to be ambiguous.
The second semantic issue concerns the characterization of the wife’s words; Job labels them as words of “a foolish woman” (nebalah). The NIV note indicates that the term “foolish denotes moral deficiency,” but others have suggested that the word is not limited to contexts of moral deficiency and can also refer to many forms of unconventional behaviors.17 The word nebalah, however, cannot be easily neutralized to simply refer to something unconventional. Elsewhere, it refers to a scandalous travesty, outrageous behavior—not simply unconventional, but violating all conventions of propriety (13x, almost half in the scandal passages of Gen. 34; Judg. 19–20; 2 Sam. 13). Yet even taking it as a scandalous suggestion leaves open the question about which part of what she says is scandalous. If the suggestion that blessing God will result in death rather than life (against the conventional wisdom), she is speaking what seems accurate given recent events, but what eventually is seen as a misrepresentation of the way God works. She claims that faithfulness leads to death—a world-upside-down scenario.18 The friends are presumably also accused of speaking nebalah (42:8, though see comments there), which makes them liable to harsh treatment at God’s hand, but their scandalous talk about God is expressed by an affirmation of the traditional philosophy.
The nature of Job’s last statement in 2:10 drives the conclusions that I recommend. I cannot see any consistent way to render verse 9 as a statement rather than as a rhetorical question (despite the absence of the interrogative marker). If Job’s last comment is a rhetorical question (“Should we not accept … trouble?”), then his wife’s first statement could also be taken as a rhetorical question (as traditionally translated). The syntactical equivalence between verse 9 and God’s statement in verse 3 is an example of contrast through similarity: Job’s wife uses the same words but turns them to different purpose. If Job replies by saying that they ought to accept the bad from God, then she must have suggested that he do otherwise. Therefore, she could not have simply advised him to continue blessing God, even as it appears to be leading to death. She must have advised a contrary path of action (cursing God), an example of not accepting the bad. Job calls this advice foolishness because impious behavior is always outside the bounds of conventional propriety. In the end, then, linguistic analysis supports the traditional understanding as most likely. Job’s wife has advised Job to capitulate to his tragic fate by cursing God and accepting the inevitable punishment of death.
The “trouble” (“bad”; Heb. raʿ) that Job insists must be accepted is a term used repeatedly throughout the prologue.19 It is what Job turns away from and now it is what he accepts from the hand of God. Moral evil is one possible denotation, but the term can be used for anything negative; here Job refers to all of the negative things that have come upon him. His words cannot be construed as labeling God as the source of moral evil, but the word leaves another ambiguity to be resolved as the book progresses. Contrary to “cursing God to his face,” Job has not sinned with his lips. This still leaves unaddressed the question whether he has “cursed God in his heart,” but nothing has indicated any wavering of his commitment.
The arrival of the friends. Eliphaz, Bildad, and Zophar now enter the picture. Eliphaz is from Teman, a well-known location in Edom, about halfway between the Dead Sea and the Gulf of Aqaba. Bildad is identified as a Shuhite, a designation that could either identify him as a descendant of Shuah, son of Abraham (Gen. 25:2), or a resident of the town of Suhu along the middle Euphrates. However, neither of these alternatives is conclusive—confidence is impossible at this stage. Zophar is a Naamathite; this location is even more uncertain. For modern readers, there is no information to be gleaned from the place names, though to the ancient reader they may have had significance.20
The friends come together by arrangement and with a specific purpose: to commiserate or sympathize and to offer condolences and assuage his grief. Clines may be right that the friends actually discard their good intentions once they encounter Job; he believes their mourning and seven days of silence indicate that they are treating Job as if he were already dead.21 Thus it is left to Job to speak first.
Bridging Contexts
TWO RHETORICAL ISSUES WILL be addressed in this section: (1) the contribution made by the second scene in heaven, and (2) the roles played by Job’s wife and friends.
Second Scene in Heaven
THIS SECOND SCENE REAFFIRMS Job’s righteousness and sets the stage for the second barrage of suffering. The conversation opens the same way as the first, and a similar exchange of information takes place. The second phase of suffering assures that Job has every opportunity to abandon God if his only motive for faithfulness has been to gain benefits. Tolerating pain is different from tolerating loss.
Role of Job’s Wife and Friends
JOB’S WIFE. THOUGH ONLY one verse is dedicated to the speech of Job’s wife, she plays an important role. She makes no pretense of offering comfort or consolation; her comments offer instead a particular course of action. If Job listens to her advice, the Challenger wins the case. She believes that if Job has none of the benefits of his righteous living, his life has no value. If Job agrees, he would show that he has been living for the benefits—exactly what the Challenger suspected. This would demonstrate that God’s policies corrupt the motives of righteous people.
The involvement of Job’s wife accomplishes four purposes:
• It avoids the quick win for the Challenger. If Job is going to break, it will take more than this.
• It provides opportunity for Job to express his faithfulness yet again. Not only can God take away what he has given, but he can strike with pain and disease. Job remains steadfast.
• It serves as prelude and transition to the friends. The author will carry out the business of the book through the various solutions offered by humans trying to cope with crisis. Everyone has their perspectives and all will be considered.
• It proposes a solution opposite the direction the friends will go. They want to tell him how to live (with renewed benefits) while she tells him life is not worth living. Both assume that benefits are essential to the equation and therefore are pulling Job in the direction the Challenger has suggested he will go. They are unwitting agents for the Challenger.
Job’s friends. A number of commentators have recognized that the friends function as representatives of the traditional views of the ancient Near East.22 We can agree with that, but ask further whether they work together to offer a deeply nuanced picture or whether they each represent stereotypes of a particular view. Hartley has characterized each of the friends by the way that they argue their cases. He suggests that Eliphaz is a mystic who leans heavily on his experiences and observations (4:8, 12–16; 5:3); perhaps considering him a “spiritualist” would include his mysticism but also explain his consistent orientation to the spiritual realm. Bildad is a traditionalist (8:8) who relies on what he has been told. Zophar is a rationalist who depends on what his reason and logic tell him.23 In this way, the friends offer differing perspectives toward the problem of suffering. The following chart summarizes the viewpoints of the friends.
| Eliphaz | Bildad | Zophar |
Philosophical solution | No mortal is righteous (4:17; 15:14). | We know nothing (8:9); no one can be righteous (25:4). | God is inscrutable (11:7–9). |
Practical advice | Appeal to God (5:8) for restoration (5:17–19; 22:23) and remove wickedness (22:23) for renewed prosperity (22:21). | Plead your righteousness (8:5–6) to gain restoration (8:6–7). | Devote your heart and put away sin (11:13–14), and you will be restored (11:15–19). |
Affirmation of RP | 4:6–7; 15:20–35; 22:15–20 | 8:4–7; 18:5–21 | 11:11; 20:4–29 |
In their philosophical solutions, they reflect the common answers given in the ancient Near East.24 It is therefore no surprise that they advise Job to deal with his offense, even though they cannot identify any particular sin he has committed. Eliphaz’s catalog of Job’s supposed transgressions in 22:5–9 is fishing—an attempt to offer suggestions. Even as they are fixated on uncovering Job’s offense, their advice makes it clear that restoration of benefits is the goal. Eliphaz even goes so far as to claim that righteousness gives no pleasure to God (22:3). In this way, they are promoting the Challenger’s case as they try to get Job to ignore the question of disinterested righteousness and instead pursue benefits. Though they do not propose ritual solutions, the core of their argument lies in the ancient Near Eastern appeasement mentality. They do not discuss at length how Job should appease God, but that end is their focus. They are more interested in outcome (benefits restored) than method. Even as the friends stand as representatives of the conventional thinking of the ancient Near East, more importantly, they are the Challenger’s agents. If Job follows their advice, the Challenger will win his case and God’s policies will be shown to be flawed, as the Challenger has suggested.
In the Introduction we described briefly Tsevat’s triangle of claims as a way of understanding the positions taken up in the book. The triangle illustrates the tension between three concepts that everyone believes should co-exist: the Retribution Principle, God’s justice, and Job’s righteousness. Given Job’s calamities, one of the three has to be discarded. As we progress through the book, we will see that the various parties choose which corner is most important to them and which is no longer tenable. The friends act as a group in this; the most important corner for them is the RP, because that is the conventional thinking in the world of wisdom. It operates in a strict cause-and-effect manner with a benefits orientation. That means that as they set up their defense in that corner, they must question one of the other corners. Because they refuse to cast aspersions on the character of God,25 Job is the weak link; his righteousness comes under automatic suspicion. As we proceed through the book, we will position others in relationship to this triangle.
The friends believe that Job is on trial—the defendant in a criminal case—and that he has been found guilty. But this is a backward trial. In their assessment, the judge has passed down the verdict, and now they, as the jury, need to try the case and find the evidence to uphold the verdict. To this end, Job is intensely cross-examined. In conclusion, then, the friends are the defenders of the RP, the agents of the Challenger, the representatives of the conventional thinking of the ancient Near East, and the jury trying the case in which, by virtue of his circumstances, Job is already presumed guilty.
Straddling the rhetorical issues and the theological issues is the contrast between the two uses of ḥinnam in Job 1–2, already discussed in Original Meaning. The two uses of ḥinnam interact to form a significant pair.26 Job, as it turns out, was capable of fearing God ḥinnam (“without compensation”) and God was incited to act against him ḥinnam (“without cause”). The two occurrences of ḥinnam bring into sharp relief the basic philosophical premises of the discussion, as well as the basic philosophical challenges directed toward God. The two philosophical premises are the Great Symbiosis27 (if Job fears God ḥinnam, the Great Symbiosis does not affect Job’s thinking—God owes him nothing) and the Retribution Principle28 (if God brings evil on Job ḥinnam, the RP is not in effect in God’s policies).
Job and the Challenger pose two opposite philosophical questions about God’s policies. The Challenger questions whether Job would fear God if his service was ḥinnam (“without compensation”). Job questions whether it is good policy for God to ruin righteous people ḥinnam (“without cause”). By the end of the book, both the Great Symbiosis and the Retribution Principle are discarded as fundamental principles. This conclusion is already anticipated here as God affirms that he has ruined Job for no cause. As Clines observes, “the law of retribution has been broken!”29 The word ḥinnam stands, therefore, at the heart of the book’s focus on motive and cause. The characters concentrate on these, but the book will eventually contend that these are the wrong questions. But for now, they hold center stage and frame the coming discussions.
The main theological issue for us to address concerns the relative role of God and the Challenger in Job’s suffering. Numerous verses clearly indicate that God is the cause of Job’s suffering:
1:11; 2:5—The Challenger says that God must stretch out his hand to strike Job.
2:3—God indicates that he is the one who has brought Job’s ruin without cause.
16:9—God assails him.
19:21—The hand of God has struck him.
42:11—Job is consoled over all the trouble that Yahweh brought upon him.
No one in the book ever suggests any other agent as the cause of Job’s suffering. When God places Job in the Challenger’s hands (power, 1:12; 2:6), he is not absolving himself of responsibility but delegating authority to the Challenger. The Challenger’s role is philosophical, not diabolical; he is a subordinate functionary, not an independent power for evil or the ruin of humanity. Anything approaching dualism would let God off the hook too easily; the book does not provide this option. It is trying to give a deeper understanding of God, not to somehow absolve him of responsibility.30
Is God cruel to accede to the challenge? The issue is presented poignantly by F. R. Magdalene, whose thoughts are worth quoting at length:
[God’s] actions constitute a horrifically cruel deed if all that is at stake is a test of Job’s faith. Surely God has other, less invasive and traumatic ways to gather such data. The theological view arising from a focus on the sovereignty and omnipotence of God that God must be in league with the Satan is deeply disturbing. If God is capable of destroying ten children and stripping Job of any human dignity on a bet—on a dare—then he is, to my mind, a very immature, highly insecure, and deeply troubled god, certainly no better than our worst view of the Satan. There is a better solution to the theological conundrum presented by the events in the Divine Council. If we read Job 1–2 with the idea that the Satan has charged God with serious misconduct, then God is also subject to investigation and must allow such investigation to proceed against his will. The withdrawal of all Job’s blessings and the imposition of suffering are much more than an investigation of Job’s state of mind; they are, more important, an investigation of God.31
If Yahweh’s policies are to be investigated legitimately, he cannot simply say, “You’re wrong,” and be done with it. He allows his policies to be placed under thorough scrutiny.
Finally, I would again emphasize my belief that even though built on a forensic model, this is wisdom literature and is devised as a thought experiment, not as something that Yahweh actually did. It is designed to raise issues and discuss philosophical options. If so, we should not misguidedly enter into a discussion of whether Yahweh’s action was justifiable or cruel.
Contemporary Significance
WE MUST NEVER ALLOW ourselves to believe that God is cruel. Job’s response is appropriate: “Should we accept the good from God, and not trouble?” This is true regardless of whether we can identify cause. God acted against Job without cause. Does God sometimes act against us without cause? Does this make him cruel? Is there a difference between his acting without cause and his acting without purpose? That is, should we sometimes seek understanding of God’s actions, not in light of just cause, but in light of wise purpose?
When life takes a turn for the worst, it is easy to blame God and to question what he is doing. It is easy for us to believe that he is making a mess of things and that we could do a better job of it, if given the chance; we will discuss this further when God confronts Job with this very idea in 40:7–14. Whenever we raise questions about God’s justice, we tacitly suggest that if we were given the chance, we would be more just. When we question God’s love, we imply that we could be more loving. His grace, his mercy, his patience—name whatever attribute you will: If we think we can do them better than God, we have a defective view of God (not to mention an unrealistic conceit and a superficial and simplistic knowledge of the problem). Talk to any adult on the street and you would likely hear him or her express doubts about how unfair it is of God to do this or that. In today’s climate of tolerance, we commonly hear that only an ogre of a God would so limit the range of salvation that only those who happened to hear of Jesus will benefit.
We all know that revelation is not exhaustive and our theology does not provide ironclad answers for every question. Where our revelation is silent and the logic of our theology fails, however, we are not without recourse; this is where faith begins.32 Will not the Judge of all the earth do right? Of course he will. We don’t have to worry that God is less fair, less just, less merciful, less loving, or less gracious than we would be. The “If I were God” option will always fall far short of letting God be God. This is our faith. We never have all the information and we are never wise enough to infallibly apply the information we have to whatever issue is at hand.
Kelly’s Story33
OUR TENDENCY TO QUESTION God and his nature, motivations, and competency is especially evident when we suffer. In pain, grief, or loss, our unanswered cries become bewildered questions, then glares of disapproval, and finally accusations and even rejection of God and faith. Those who have suffered consider the answers of the faithful and the philosophical to be clichés that offer no solace and no sense of reality—well-intentioned but sadly superficial.
In order to make sure that we avoid the easy answers, Kelly is going to share some of her thoughts and struggles about God as she lived with the pain from her accident and the unsuccessful surgeries that sometimes made things worse rather than better.
JHW: Job expresses the philosophy that if we are willing to take good from the hand of God, we should also be willing to accept the bad. But many cannot face suffering with such stoicism. Can you share some of your thoughts about God’s hand in all of your suffering?
Kelly: It has been a process of growth. I am still learning and being stretched when it comes to this topic. The accident happened over a decade ago, so I have gone through different stages in regards to my view on suffering and God’s involvement. I have experienced times of anger, periods of confusion, and times of sorrow, curiosity, and joy. I do trust that God has a plan, but there are times where I have been confused as to what I am supposed to learn from it. The car accident is something that God allowed and for which I can praise him because I can see the fruit that has come from it. It is hard to praise him for the pain I am experiencing, when I can’t see his purpose in it. Yet we are not guaranteed explanations. Even though I know God’s will is better than my own, there are still some things I wrestle with and ask God about.
A good example of that is the result of my spinal cord surgery in May 2008. I had severe nerve pain for eight years, and it was something my friends and family were aware of. Yet when the surgery failed and the nerve pain increased dramatically, I was the only one who would feel the difference. So I asked, “God, what was the point of that? How did that strengthen my testimony? I could have dealt with the surgery failing and no improvement, but why did you allow the surgery to intensify the pain to the degree that it did? I had nerve pain before and that impacted my testimony; now I still have the same story, except that I am living in more pain.” On days when I feel discouraged, I ask, “Lord, isn’t my testimony strong enough? Aren’t there enough trials in different areas of my life to encourage people from many walks of life? Now, could you extend me a little grace?” When I vocalize that, I see the faulty way of thinking, but I can’t deny the questions that run through my head.
I vividly remember my conversation with God when I began to lose function in my left arm. As I sat in the shower looking at my two limp arms, I cried out in frustration. “God, you have already taken one arm and countless muscles in my body, please … please don’t take my left arm! Don’t … don’t take it. You say you only give us what we can handle, and I can’t handle having no arms! You’ve finally reached the limit of what I can take. I want to do things for your kingdom; please let me keep one hand!”
If I am truly honest with myself and think about my raw thoughts with God, I have realized that I have come to expect the worse—especially medically. I do not see my medical situation improving, yet I expect it to get worse as the years go on, to the point where I am no longer surprised by failed surgeries, but expect them. When things are calm in my life, I begin to wonder, “Okay, it has been relatively calm for too long. When does the next trial come? What will it be?”
It is a learning process. I unfortunately have seen how my trials have tainted my views of certain attributes of God and how my response to the suffering is not always biblical or praiseworthy, but in the times when I doubt or I am angry … I still go to him. I cry to him in my anger, sadness, or grief. Yet I am humbled because even though there are days when I am angry, there is still so much good that the Lord has brought from it. It is when I am thinking clearly that I can sincerely praise him for the life I have lived and the trials Christ has carried me through.
JHW: Though the book does not offer Job as a role model, his strength has been an encouragement to many over the centuries, and people have also been encouraged by your strength. Tell us about some of the opportunities you had to share the struggles you have been having and how that has affected people.
Kelly: Since I have a physical disability, it is one that everyone is aware of whether I talk about it or not. I wear a brace on my paralyzed right arm to protect it, so it looks like I sprained my wrist. So I get asked, “Oh, what did you do to your arm? Did you break your arm?” numerous times a day, whether it be the cashier at the grocery store, a waiter in a restaurant, or meeting a new friend. I get asked by almost every person I come into contact with, regardless of whether they know my name. I have numerous opportunities a day to share about his miracle in keeping my family alive through the car accident and his faithfulness to carry us through. Having a visual reminder on my body of the car accident opens doors of opportunity to share compassion and remind people that there is a living God. Not to say I take every single opportunity, but it is encouraging to see how the story of his faithfulness can encourage people.
I distinctly remember going to a spa to use a gift card for a massage. Within minutes of my session, my massage therapist was asking tons of questions about my car accident and then proceeded to ask how I was dealing with it emotionally. Now, as my face was smashed in the cradle of the massage table, I tried to articulate how through Christ’s strength, you can endure through trials and with the right perspective you can learn, grow, and mature from them. So he started opening up and telling me that his girlfriend was in a car accident and was really emotionally distraught, but she felt as if no one understood how she felt. So he asked if I would be willing to meet with her. In other words, I walked in to get a massage and walked out with his business card and his girlfriend’s cell phone to set up a coffee date. As I sat down to meet with her, I thought to myself, “Wow, what an incredible opportunity it is to sit here, one I would never have had without my disability.” I met with her and simply listened to her story and affirmed her in how she was processing a traumatic event. Then I shared with her my experience and what God has done in my life, and she was encouraged by talking with someone who shared her trial and was still moving forward and living her life.
The Lord has graciously expanded my mission field, sometimes to areas where I feel like I am not equipped; yet those are the times I am reminded it isn’t my words or work, but what he is doing through me. I can relate to numerous types of people and try to encourage them—which would be an unlikely opportunity, were it not for my disability. Since I am a kids’ snowboard instructor around the holiday season, kids arrive and learn their instructor is snowboarding with only the use of one arm. So I have had the chance to encourage kids not to let a trial stop them from pursuing their passions. I can work with disabled kids and show them how they can modify sports, so they can participate. I have also been able to encourage the junior high girls about beauty. Since I have struggled with insecurities about appearance, with my surgery scars, I can relate to them and build their confidence in who we are as women and in the bodies God gave us.
I have a physical reminder of a very difficult trial. Because of that people from so many walks of life feel I can relate with them in what it feels like to have your world turned upside down. I started to realize that everyone has disabling events in their lives; mine you can just see.
In high school, I began recognizing that in the midst of the adversity, I was so blessed because I learned so many things from the accident and the years following. At an early age, I learned about the fragility of life, how each day is a gift we take for granted, and I learned to appreciate my family. That shift in perspective in junior high dramatically changed how I live my life and shaped me into a different person. I have had opportunities to talk in front of large groups on topics such as car accident awareness, overcoming trials, talking to God amidst adversity, and perseverance—all topics I still struggle with daily. Yet when I learn about how my testimony has affected someone, I can look back at the trials and say, “Okay, it is worth it.”
JHW: God was also able to use you for the kingdom in a number of ways. Tell us about the foundation you were able to establish.
Kelly: After studying abroad in Quito, Ecuador, for my junior year of high school, I was challenged in new ways. I wanted to get out of my comfort zone. I was stretched and humbled that year and had my eyes opened to such poverty and suffering that I could not even fathom. It puts things in perspective. While living in Ecuador, I encountered poverty, which became a part of my life as I volunteered with different service groups and missionaries throughout that year. I saw an increasing problem of kids with disabilities being abandoned because their parents couldn’t afford the medical costs.
When I returned to the U.S. for my senior year of high school, I wrestled with reverse culture shock. It was a tough transition, and I initially judged so many people around me for not appreciating their wealth and what they had. I was frustrated as I began realizing how much I had changed and how I no longer fit in the place I called home. Yet the Lord quickly humbled me and reminded me that I am just as guilty of materialism, and that he did not send me to Ecuador to come back and judge, but sent me to come back and share.
So I began working on what is now called the Ecuador Challenge. My parents and I went through the application process my senior year, and just after I turned eighteen the government approved it as a nonprofit foundation, allowing it to be tax deductible. I knew I wanted to raise support for different causes and to be transparent within the foundation about what I was doing, where the money was going, and how it was used. So in the first project, we raised support for an existing orphanage just outside Quito that specialized in caring for kids with disabilities. I was so impressed by the compassion of the workers and how they served the kids in that community that I wanted to raise financial support to help cover the costs of medical bills and care for these kids.
I expected to launch a small project within my high school, to expose high school students to the reality of poverty and to how they themselves could have an impact. I shared with the students that I was a high schooler like them, yet had been blessed with an opportunity to be challenged and changed by my experience in Ecuador. When the project launched, it took off. The Lord blessed it, and it has spread from one school to the next, to churches, businesses, media, and families. My goal had been to raise $2,000 in my high school. Within three short weeks with the additional help of the community, we raised $15,000. It was all in God’s hands! So the day after I graduated in May 2006, I flew down to Ecuador bringing a friend, Jeff Hall, and a cousin, Elita Intini, with me to personally deliver the donation, letters, pictures, and gifts for the orphans.
I want the foundation to support and raise awareness for existing projects that are sustainable in Ecuador, but need financial support to continue serving their communities. The experience has radically changed me and given me a passion for serving. At the moment, the foundation is on standstill as I gain job experience to prepare me for what God has in store, but I am excited and praying about what the Lord will do in the future.
Kelly has shared with me on a number of occasions that as glad as she is for her pain and suffering to be an inspiration to others, she wouldn’t mind sometimes if God would use someone else as an inspiration. Like Kelly (and unlike Job), for many the story has no end in this life. It is one thing to have a noble response to suffering when it first happens; it is another thing entirely to sustain that noble response through years and years of unending struggles. Many days are not good days and our resistance wears down. Job’s did as well, and in the next chapter we will explore those days.
Before we move on, however, I offer a word of caution about how we think about God’s role in our suffering. This topic is going to be addressed throughout the commentary from many different perspectives, but we need to introduce some of them here. Job assumed that his suffering came from the hand of God. Kelly likewise used active verbs to describe God’s role (whether in sending or allowing things to happen). In Job’s case the book tells us that God did indeed play an active role, but we must remember that the book is not trying to give us a model for how God is regularly involved in what people suffer.
What vocabulary should we use to describe God’s involvement? Choosing terms inevitably becomes an expression of theology. I would suggest that one of the major lessons of the book of Job is that no such language suffices. Whenever we choose a verb to communicate God’s relationship to suffering, we are proposing what can only be a simplistic understanding of what God does. Simplistic generalizations lead to flawed theology because God’s role is beyond our comprehension and beyond our powers of explanation. In the scenario laid out in Job, he happened to be right—his circumstances were from the hand of God. But it would be reductionistic and inaccurate for us to characterize all suffering as coming directly from the hand of God. These issues will be unpacked gradually as we work through the book.34