Interpreting Job, Pt. 3: the Testimony of Job, the Man
Job Rebuked by His Friends, by William Blake (1757–1827). from the Butts set. Public Domain.
There is a well-known conversation in the C. S. Lewis children’s classic, The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe, wherein the two oldest of the four Pevensie children, Peter and Susan, are in doubt about the testimony of their youngest sibling, Lucy. They struggle to believe as truthful her story of a personal visit to a land called “Narnia”.
Part of the issue was that her tale was inherently so fantastic, to them it was unbelievable. The other matter was a conflicting testimony. Their younger brother, Edmund, actively worked to contradict Lucy’s story. This rival testimony created confusion for Peter and Susan, not to mention profoundly injured the innocent Lucy.
Readers are of course aware that Edmund had also visited Narnia, but was deceived by the White Witch, the book’s primary antagonist. And so his return to the countryside outside of Coombe Halt had an ulterior motive, which involved lies, deceit, and sowing doubt into the minds of others. Whose testimony was right? None of it made sense.
Their host, the Professor Digory Kirke, then entered the narrative to shine a little light. (1) He listened and then asked thoughtful questions. In doing so, he was able to help Peter and Susan think logically and discern truth from error. One of those questions:
“If you will excuse me for asking the question–does your experience lead you to regard your brother or your sister as the more reliable? I mean, which is the more truthful?”
Both agreed that it was the youngest, Lucy, who was historically more trustworthy—that was not in question. But again, what about her testimony being simply too fantastic, too unbelievable? To this, the professor famously replied:
“‘Logic!’ said the Professor half to himself. ‘Why don’t they teach logic at these schools? There are only three possibilities. Either your sister is telling lies, or she is mad, or she is telling the truth. You know she doesn’t tell lies and it is obvious that she is not mad. For the moment then and unless any further evidence turns up, we must assume that she is telling the truth.’”
Hearing such words, Peter and Susan were forced to struggle with a difficult choice. Do they believe Lucy, whom they know to be honest, and who is most certainly not insane—even though her testimony does deeply challenges their worldview? Or do they believe Edmund, whose testimony is more aligned with their own worldview, and therefore also more comfortable for them—even though they must also admit that he is demonstrably a less truthful and less reliable person?
While those certainly don’t have to be the only two choices in such a situation—it isn’t a binary trap—the central decision of “whose testimony shall we believe?” remains. And to answer the question in either direction will come at a cost.
In a way, it’s similar to the conundrum found in the Book of Job. His story on the surface seems to point in one direction, one that confirms the inherent beliefs and biases of his friends. But Job insists that it isn’t so—he’s innocent! He didn’t do anything wrong, so as to deserve such terrible suffering! So whose testimony do we believe?
3. REMEMBER THE TESTIMONY OF JOB, THE MAN HIMSELF.
Job was clear: “I am innocent! I have lived my life with integrity!” (2) Even though he was suffering terribly, and even though it didn’t make sense to him or anyone around him, he still maintained that testimony, as the following verse can summarize:
“I hold fast my righteousness and will not let it go.
My heart does not reproach any of my days.” (27:6)
Even when directly attacked by his friends, he insisted he was innocent. In one example, he called their accusations of wrongdoing wholly unfounded and untrue:
“How then will you vainly comfort me,
For your answers remain full of falsehood?” (21:34)
While there are other examples, we can read a final one in Job’s last extended speech, found in chapter 31, wherein he thoroughly defended himself and his life using an “if-then” pattern of speech: “If I have [done evil deed X], then [let there be consequence Y].” The layers of repetition help to emphasize his claim of innocence. And after this final speech, this last stand, his three friends are finally silent. The only extended dialogues to follow are that of the young Elihu—oh my, there’s so much there!—and that of God Himself.
For readers, there should be no doubt: Job believed himself innocent. It was and is a fixed point in the narrative. In mathematical terms, it would be considered a constant in the equation, not a variable. Solving for “X” is not to determine Job’s innocence or guilt. It is to “solve” some other (unknown) variable. But therein lies the problem.
The “Problem” of Job’s Innocence, Pt 1. We addressed in part two of this series that the narrator and God Himself (within the narrative) both testified of Job’s innocence. So isn’t is strange that, when we read of Job’s self-defense, we still feel tempted to dismiss him? I have done it; though I no longer do, I certainly have before. Despite knowing more than Job’s contemporaries, some of us may still be prone to search and labor over the details for a reason as to how Job might have gotten it wrong. But why? Why would we do this?
While we will address this more in-depth in part four of this series, we believe it helpful for now to point out a critical aspect to the narrative: God believed Job. The end of the story shows it. Despite the cosmic “rebuke” that Job receives—more on that in another post—God both believed and defended him. And as powerful as that is, there’s more.
Ministry Debrief. Part of our work in member care involves providing debriefs for others. While there are many ways one can describe a good ministry debrief, one of the more helpful is that a debrief is an intentional and structured opportunity for an individual, couple, family, or team to tell their story in an un-criticized and un-corrected setting. Part of what this means is that, when we do our job well, we spend a lot of time just listening and asking good questions.
It is not our job to make or force meaning upon the story of a debrief participant. It is the participant’s responsibility (and opportunity) to discover and later apply that meaning with the Spirit of God. It’s their story, not ours. So they are the ones who get to tell it, not us. It is an incredibly vulnerable occasion to hold someone’s story while they tell it. And so, if not careful, we might injure the participant if we are quick to speak when we should instead be listening. Can you imagine how much harm we would cause if we responded in a way that communicated that we don’t even believe their story, their testimony?
Trauma-Informed Care. Performing this work has also meant that we train to incorporate trauma-informed skills into our care. As a deeply complex and sensitive matter, trauma is an example of how a skillful response can make all the difference. Applying such trauma-informed care can mean the difference between cultivating healing or creating additional (and perhaps worse) injury. Consider this, from the National Library of Medicine:
“Trauma-informed therapy emphasizes shifting the focus from ‘What's wrong with you?’ to ‘What happened to you?’” (3)
Note that the first question—“What's wrong with you?”—makes several assumptions and judgments. And sadly, this is often our initial response when we confronted with the suffering of others. But the second question—“What happened to you?”—expresses to the sufferer a healthy curiosity and can help create safety with others.
And yet, it is also a much, much more difficult question to ask someone who is suffering. And why? Because it requires more from us. It demands of us something that, if caught off-guard, we may not be ready to give. It asks us to believe the testimony of the person(s) who is/are in a likely distressed state. And assuming their testimony is true, then many times we are forced into deep discomfort: what am I to do with this information?
Friend of Job. There is none but God who can handle our griefs and sorrows perfectly. And yet, there is such a thing as wisdom for a reason. As part of the wisdom literature of the Bible, the story of Job beckons us to consider and be discerning, and to ask ourselves, “What would be wise in this situation?” We believe here is a glimpse into the failure of Job’s friends—at the very least, they didn’t believe him; it was too much.
No doubt, Job’s experience was traumatizing. We can’t imagine anyone disagreeing. As such, that fact that God believed Job and, in doing so, met a critical need for a suffering man—this is all part of what made the Lord such a good friend. At no time did God ever doubt, correct, or criticize Job’s testimony of the events, his life, or his character. Again, while we will write about it in another post; for now we say this: we personally regard the divine correction of Job of an entirely different nature.
God, the Good Listener? For a brief moment, we will consider a simple question about an enormous topic. And believe us when we say that we do not intend to create, make worse, or prolong injury—only, it is from a place of desiring to wade into the discomfort of which we spoke: What if God’s “silence” was, at least in part, actually Him listening to Job?
If we are willing to consider such a possibility, it certainly wouldn’t be the only biblical record of the Lord patiently listening to one among His suffering servants. Consider the prophet, Elijah, who suffered greatly at the hands of King Ahab and (especially) his wife, Jezebel. Recall from 1 Kings 18-19 the (in our opinion, traumatic) events on Mt. Carmel, followed by Elijah’s fearful flight into the wilderness, followed by his eventual redirection towards an encounter with God at Horeb.
Two times, the Lord asked: “What are you doing here, Elijah?” (19:9, 13) We believe this was a type of “What happened?” type of question from God, instead of judgment-based one. And when Elijah effectively trauma-dumped on God, do you know what happened? God patiently listened. And He didn’t correct or criticize him or his testimony. (4)
To listen to another without correction or judgment is not inherently an abandonment of wisdom and discernment—that would be inconsistent with the Bible’s testimony of what wisdom is and is not. Nor is it biblical to give up our ability to form for ourselves an opinion or interpretation of what we are seeing and hearing. However, what it does mean is that we do not take from someone else their ability to give testimony, to evaluate their own experiences, and to make meaning in their own story.
We aim to faithfully demonstrate on this site that God is the perfect “Friend of Job.” We believe His response to a suffering Job was perfect and complete, lacking nothing—both consistent with God’s good character and also exactly what Job needed—and this also includes the silence. It’s a bold idea, but deem worth our consideration. For if the Lord can be such a friend to Job, then it means He might want to be our friend, too.
Stay tuned for further posts to come:
4. The Testimony of Job’s Friends
5. The Testimony of Elihu
6. The Testimony of God and His Word
7. And more!
Notes:
(1) Spoiler alert: readers of the Narnia series would come to find out that Kirke himself had also visited Narnia. But considering the original release order of the books in the series, original readers of The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe wouldn’t have known this about Kirke at the time. Therefore, in light of this, as well as in light of the fact that he himself didn’t volunteer this information in his addressing Peter and Susan Pevensie, we can conclude that to some extent it didn’t or shouldn’t matter.
(2) While it is important for our understanding and interpretation to recognize that Job maintained his innocence throughout, he also never made a claim of perfection—a different topic for a different time.
(3) Yadav G, McNamara S, Gunturu S. Trauma-Informed Therapy. [Updated 2024 Aug 16]. In: StatPearls [Internet]. Treasure Island (FL): StatPearls Publishing; 2025 Jan-. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK604200/
(4) We are deeply grateful and indebted to the ministry of TRAIN International, who uses the Lord’s interactions with Elijah as a key example of a compassionate divine debrief.