The book of Job with an unhappy ending

[Diakonos]

During one of the Bible studies at my church, my pastor told us that the original book of Job did not have the happy ending that most of us know. Of course we are all familiar with the story. After listening to Job complain how he (a righteous man) received unjust treatment, God confronts him and basically says to Job, “Who are you to question me?” Job basically responds by saying, “You’re right, I’ve have been complaining, without fully knowing or understanding what I talking about. I’m sorry and now I will sit here in my own misery.” For those of you who don’t particular like my interpretation of Job’s response, here is how it reads in the NRSV.

Then Job answered the LORD: 2"I know that you can do all things, and that no purpose of yours can be thwarted. 3'Who is this that hides counsel without knowledge?' Therefore I have uttered what I did not understand, things too wonderful for me, which I did not know. 4'Hear, and I will speak; I will question you, and you declare to me.' 5I had heard of you by the hearing of the ear, but now my eye sees you; 6therefore I despise myself, and repent in dust and ashes."

Job 42:1-6

And that is how it (the original manuscript) ends. The way my pastor tells it, the happy ending was tacked on a little later. My question is this. How many of us could handle that story if it really ended that way?

 

[Krystina661]

The story didn't end that way. It ended very happy, with Job living a very long life, having many more children, and blessed with everything he once had and so much more. Why even bother wondering if it did completely end that way? It would have ended with him repenting. Would there be a reason for that to be hard to handle?

 

[Faithful1]

.... here is how it reads in the NRSV.

Thanks for giving me another reason not to read the NRSV version.

Faithful1

 

[Ioustinos]

Thanks for giving me another reason not to read the NRSV version.

Faithful1

Seemed fine to me

As far as the "ending", does your pastor support this idea with any textual criticism? And if so what?

 

[Krystina661]

Seemed fine to me

As far as the "ending", does your pastor support this idea with any textual criticism? And if so what?

*rawr* Nice avatar

 

[Ioustinos]

*rawr* Nice avatar

thanks

 

[filosofer]

The real issue of Job is resolved by 42:6 - that is the whole point, his presumption about his own righteousness rather than the righteousness which God declared for him, regardless how the book ended.

BTW, Jesaiah, you asked the right question!

 

[RhetorTheo]

It doesn't change the point of the story. In fact, it would be better without the happy ending. The point of Job is that "bad thing happen to good people," and the happy ending confuses some into thinking it's about "patience."

 

[Diakonos]

Here are a few quotes from a good sermon.

I have heard people argue that this encounter between Job and God makes God out to be a divine bully, one who prefers cowering subjects to free and joyful people. Generations of preachers, who have advised that the proper approach to God necessarily includes fear, have reinforced this opinion. I would suggest, however, that something else is going on. There is a profound truth in the story of Job's encounter with God: it is precisely when I am in the depths of suffering that I most need to remember that I am not the center of the world. When, by the grace of God, I do remember this, my own troubles become lighter, easier to bear. God is not bullying Job, but rather reminding him, and us, that God is bigger, grander and more mysterious than we can ever comprehend or imagine.

Job never lost faith; he argued, he pleaded, he called God to account. Nevertheless, through it all, Job remained in conscious, dedicated relationship to God. Because he believed in God's ultimate goodness, he was able to accept God's answer, the only one any of us is likely to get.

Next week, we will end our reading of Job with what many scholars consider a tacked-on, artificial, happy ending. Job repents-rethinks-his focus on his own troubles, seeing a greater truth that he is unable to articulate, but knows at a very deep level. Then God restores Job's fortunes, giving him new houses and herds, and seven sons and three daughters. I have always had a hard time with this last bit. Yes, money and things can be replaced, but can children be replaced? It seemed too easy. However, the text does not tell us that Job ever forgot his troubles, or ever stopped grieving for his dead daughters and sons. Rather, Job has learned to accept what he cannot change, and has learned a new way of relating to those around him.

The story of Job was written before Jesus was born; before people knew the story of Jesus' life, death and resurrection; before people had heard him teach about the surprising way of life that he called the realm of God. Yet the ending verses of the Book of Job describe something very like that realm. Job's fortunes are restored neither by some supernatural miracle, nor by his own effort. Rather, it is as though Job's renewed relationship with God has transformed his human relationships, as well. Job's friends and relatives bring him real comfort, now, even sharing their possessions with him, bringing him money and gold rings.

http://www.seekerschurch.org/sermons/20031019.htm

 

[reformedfan]

During one of the Bible studies at my church, my pastor told us that the original book of Job did not have the happy ending that most of us know... The way my pastor tells it, the happy ending was tacked on a little later.

If I were in a church where the pastor was advocating 'translator error/ insertions by men/ this isn't really Scripture, lemme tell ya how it really is!' I'd run for the door, not wonder about if the Bible or my pastor was correct.

 

[Diakonos]

If I were in a church where the pastor was advocating 'translator error/ insertions by men/ this isn't really Scripture, lemme tell ya how it really is!' I'd run for the door, not wonder about if the Bible or my pastor was correct.

Look, I didn't start this thread to dicsuss translator errors, speculate about insertions by men or to tell you what is or isn't scripture. You can make up your own mind about that. Here is what I am asking. Does your perception of the book of Job change without the happy ending? Does the thought of that story ending with Job repenting in ashes make you feel uneasy? Should this book be used by preachers to show that God rewards everyone who endures suffering? To many, the catch phrase "You're gonna get double for your trouble" is good preaching. Is that what the writer of this book had in mind when he wrote it?

IMO, the thought of this book ending with Job accepting his misfortune and repenting for questioning God about it, makes most Christians feel uncomfortable.

 

[Diakonos]

We must provide children and adults a more complete view of how God acts. When all our Bible stories end with "they lived happily ever after," our children and students get a distorted view of how God acts. All of our Red Seas will part and we will walk across on dry land. Goliath will fall at our feet. We won't get burned in the fiery furnace. We'll escape from prison. All our prayers will be answered. All our diseases will be healed. That's the way most "Bible stories" end, but not most of the stories in the Bible. Moses, the liberator, never enters the promised land. King David's family and kingdom falls apart. Wise Solomon dies a fool. Many children an adults have rejected God because of an incomplete view of Him.
James N. Watkins

http://www.gospelcom.net/watkins/therestprint.htm

 

[Protoevangel]

Look, I didn't start this thread to dicsuss translator errors, speculate about insertions by men or to tell you what is or isn't scripture. You can make up your own mind about that. Here is what I am asking.
1. Does your perception of the book of Job change without the happy ending?
2. Does the thought of that story ending with Job repenting in ashes make you feel uneasy?
3. Should this book be used by preachers to show that God rewards everyone who endures suffering?
4. To many, the catch phrase "You're gonna get double for your trouble" is good preaching. Is that what the writer of this book had in mind when he wrote it?
5. IMO, the thought of this book ending with Job accepting his misfortune and repenting for questioning God about it, makes most Christians feel uncomfortable.

1. Not at all.
2. Not at all.
3. No, teaching that God rewards everyone who endures suffering is a false teaching. The book of Job does not promote this idea.
4. Not at all, see #3.
5. Not this Christian.

I think the idea that the end was added later is false and vain, but it changes the point of Job not at all.

 

[Jaywalk]

During one of the Bible studies at my church, my pastor told us that the original book of Job did not have the happy ending that most of us know.
My question is this. How many of us could handle that story if it really ended that way?

The argument has been made, and sometimes accepted, that the "happy ending" doesn't agree with the tone of the rest of the book, which is pretty bleak. Evidently the translators of the NRSV agreed with this analysis and omitted the closing verses. However, William Whedbee argues in The Bible and the Comic Vision that Job should be read as a comedy. As such, the plot line should have the "U-shaped" plot line; starting and ending happily. I find this argument convincing and -- as far as I know -- there is no textual evidence that the "happy ending" isn't authentic. It evidently seemed so to the translators of the NIV, who left it in. Actually, I looked around on Bible Gateway and everyone seems to have left it in. I even found an NSRV link that included it. Do you have a link to a translation that omits it?

 

[inkidinkido]

"IMO, the thought of this book ending with Job accepting his misfortune and repenting for questioning God about it, makes most Christians feel uncomfortable."

God has no obligations to us. We do not have rights granted by God. From the very beginning the relation of human to God is one of unconditional obligation and obedience. We are not given rights; we are given responsibililties, and our consent is neither needed nor requested. God is completely free to do whatever he wishes to any person or to any thing.

What is right and what is wrong for the human ultimately is grounded in nothing but the dictates of God which whether are his whim or his desire are neither right nor wrong by any independent criteria, or any higher measure for there is none.

God just is, and his commands just are - by our minds God is absurd. God could have ordained it to be right for the human to murder and lie. Our perception of God's commands - favorable or unfavorable - is the threefold product of: our biology, our social context, and of the former two our personal rationality.

God ordained killing and what we today would call genocide, though we are not called to this. Saul found disfavor with God for thinking God would accept compromise. God destroyed all the inhabitants of the world save Noah and his family in a flood. So far as we know thousands or millions drowned to death with their friends and families; the elderly and children were not spared.

God is jealous. His wrath is fearful and his judgement is terrifying. No human by its own means can ever meet the requirements of his law to avoid judgement. The human creature is detestable, is wicked, fragile, meaningless, and momentary. We have become by nature twisted; we are incapable of doing any right.

But God, though he did not need to, had mercy upon us and gave us a chance, one last chance. We have one last chance that by the mighty grace of God alone we may be regenerated, we may become a new being, to put off the old twisted nature that the world - all of natural world fallen and in decay unto death and into nothingness - has produced.

God loves us.

 

[artybloke]

The argument has been made, and sometimes accepted, that the "happy ending" doesn't agree with the tone of the rest of the book, which is pretty bleak. Evidently the translators of the NRSV agreed with this analysis and omitted the closing verses. However, William Whedbee argues in The Bible and the Comic Vision that Job should be read as a comedy. As such, the plot line should have the "U-shaped" plot line; starting and ending happily. I find this argument convincing and -- as far as I know -- there is no textual evidence that the "happy ending" isn't authentic. It evidently seemed so to the translators of the NIV, who left it in. Actually, I looked around on Bible Gateway and everyone seems to have left it in. I even found an NSRV link that included it. Do you have a link to a translation that omits it?

Thanks for this insight. I suspect, though, that a lot more Christians will be disturbed by the idea that there is comedy in the Bible (some of those parables, for instance, must have had his audience in stiches.) It's actually one of the big problems with literalistic readings for me: that they pay no attention to the genre of writing. That, and the continual reading of one's own theological position onto the scripture (eisegesis, not exegesis.)

 

[christian-only]

"We must provide children and adults a more complete view of how God acts...James N. Watkins"

By teaching all of the Bible rather than just the parts we want, but not by removing endings.

 

[Curt]

Look, I didn't start this thread to dicsuss translator errors, speculate about insertions by men or to tell you what is or isn't scripture. You can make up your own mind about that. Here is what I am asking. Does your perception of the book of Job change without the happy ending? Does the thought of that story ending with Job repenting in ashes make you feel uneasy? Should this book be used by preachers to show that God rewards everyone who endures suffering? To many, the catch phrase "You're gonna get double for your trouble" is good preaching. Is that what the writer of this book had in mind when he wrote it?

IMO, the thought of this book ending with Job accepting his misfortune and repenting for questioning God about it, makes most Christians feel uncomfortable.

2 Tim 3:16-17
16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.
2 Pet 1:20
20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.
2 Sam 14:14
14 For we must needs die, and are as water spilt on the ground, which cannot be gathered up again; neither doth God respect any person: yet doth he devise means, that his banished be not expelled from him.
Job 37:24
24 Men do therefore fear him: he respecteth not any that are wise of heart.

And well it should make them unconfortable, and cause then to turn to The Scriptures that tell them not to lean to their own understanding. Job knew that He was righteous, and instead of remembering what Joseph went through because He to was righteous, he had a pity party, and accused God of unjustly punishing him.

 

[Jaywalk]

a lot more Christians will be disturbed by the idea that there is comedy in the Bible

Some of those problems are best handled with prayer.
Others, with prunes.

I always like pointing folks to the Song of Solomon. Especially the risque passages. It's fun to watch their understanding of Scripture undergo a few changes.

 

[NotTroy]

I suspect, though, that a lot more Christians will be disturbed by the idea that there is comedy in the Bible

You are just making a joke right? I am sorry but I cannot tell if you are being sarcastic. If you are then great, I love sarcasim, hehe. However, if by some chance you are serious then I think you have a misunderstanding of the type of comedy he is refering too. Not the haha comedy we think of today, comedy in the Greek sense of the word pertaining more to the way a story is structured than to its laughs per minute. They go like this, a happy start, a tragic middle, and a happy ending.

I do not think that most people would have a problem with seeing Job as a fictional moral story. Job does not have to have been a real man and the events real events for the message of the story to get across and I think most people realize that.

I personally think the idea of Job as a comedy/moral story is more likely than it being true. If you read it then you realize that it is set up and told much differently than other Biblical stories that are obviously based on history. It reads much more like a fable/myth than a historical account.

I believe the same thing that Tolkien believed. A myth is way for human beings to effectively communicate some kind of truth that would normally be hard to just out and out explain. I see Job in the same way. The message it sends to us readers about suffering, faith in God, the majesty and mystery of God's plan, the inclusion of our suffering in that plan, and the eventual reward for those who remain faithful, is expressed in a way to people who read than by just out and saying "Here, this is how it works".

The ending of Job, whether it was tacked on or not, is important. Life does not end in suffering for those who, like Job, keep their faith in God. God rewards the faithful with life everlasting and we should always remember that.