Missio Dei in the Book of Job

By Larry J. Waters

[Larry J. Waters is Associate Professor of Bible Exposition, Dallas Theological Seminary, Dallas, Texas.]

Besides displaying one man’s faith in God in times of suffering, the Book of Job also has a “missionary” purpose. That is, a believer’s suffering should be viewed, as seen in Job’s experience, as a witness not only to God’s sovereignty but also as a witness to His goodness, justice, grace, and love to the nonbelieving world. Yet in studies of Job God’s redemptive purpose and action in relation to missions is rarely addressed.[1]

Often the purpose of the Book of Job is seen simply as concerned with the sovereignty of God and man’s response to His will. But the book is also part of the progressive revelation of God’s purpose and mission, so that the book is, in a sense, missional and evangelistic. That is, as believers undergo undeserved suffering, they are witnesses to nonbelievers of God’s goodness, justice, grace, and love. The purpose of this article is to focus on God’s mission, missio Dei, in relation to the ancient story of Job and his experience of undeserved suffering and the false application of the theological doctrine of retribution.

A Definition of Missio Dei

Missio Dei is Latin for “the sending of God,” usually in the sense of “being sent.” This term was used by Augustine in discussing God the Father sending His Son. But in the 1950s the term came to mean more broadly “the mission of God.”2 Young points out that “this phrase, which comes into English as the ‘mission of God,’ focuses our attention on God’s redemptive purpose and action in human history.”[3]

“Mission is a predicate of God. God is a missionary God . . . Missio Dei is active in the whole of history; it means that God turns to the whole world both inside and outside the Church. Through the events of history, God guides the world.”[4] As Stott wrote, “The living God of the Bible is a missionary God . . . . a global God.”[5] Bosch writes that missio Dei is “God’s self-revelation as the One who loves the world, God’s involvement in and with the world, the nature and activity of God, which embraces both the church and the world, and in which the church is privileged to participate. Missio Dei enunciates the good news that God is a God-for-people.”[6] As Horrell explains, “The term missio Dei was coined at the Willingen missionary conference in 1952 to express [the fact] that mission is based on and reflective of the Triune God’s nature, will and action.”[7]

Since missio Dei can be seen as God on mission, involved in humankind’s existence and eternal destiny, and actively making Himself known for redemptive purposes, Job is one of the first illustrations of individuals used by God to demonstrate that mission. Job’s struggle with suffering and a false theology contrary to grace, Elihu’s corrective measures guiding Job into God’s presence,8 and God’s remarkable and unusual speeches are all a part of the missio Dei in communicating His loving concern for humanity.

The Importance of Job

The reader of the Book of Job is immediately introduced to the integrity and virtue of the main character (chaps. 1-2). Job was considered the greatest of “all the men of the east” (1:1), and God viewed him as a man like no other “on the earth” (v. 8). Job was therefore at this time in history a well-known individual. As a righteous man, could his undeserved suffering be an example of missio Dei? Put another way, does undeserved suffering result in advancing the purpose of God? Is God “on mission” through the suffering of His people?

Before answering these questions it is important to ask, Who is Job? When and where did he live? What was his heritage? Authors differ on these important questions. As Balentine points out, “Job is clearly part of Judaism’s Scripture,”9 but its place in Judaism is unclear. For instance Green suggests that the Book of Job “conforms neither neatly nor fully to the religious structure of Judaism. Rather, it stretches the Levitical framework and sets it on altered footing.”[10] Some have even suggested that Job is not a real character, but simply a representative personality in a didactic parable.[11] However, most evangelical scholars see Job as a real historical character.[12] For instance Konkel states, “There is no reason to doubt that Job was a historical individual whose story was well known. The prophet Ezekiel (Ezek 4:14, [20]) refers to Noah, Daniel, and Job as three historical individuals.”[13] James also recognized Job as a historical person (James 5:11).

Job is also “a heroic figure in the mold of Noah and Adam . . . . patriarchal, or better, prepatriarchal.”[14] He was a citizen of the land of Uz, a place debated by scholars as either south of Damascus, or in Edom, or in northern Arabia.[15] Zuck argues that Uz was in northern Arabia.[16] Rowley states, “Job is presented as a foreigner, and not a Jew.”[17] Andersen writes, “Since Job is given no tribal identification, we do not even know if he was an Israelite of Transjordan. He was certainly a believer in Israel’s God.”[18]

The importance of the name Uz lies not in where such a place is, but in where it is not. Israelites themselves may not have known its precise location, but they will have known, as we do, that it is not in Israel. The name therefore signifies that the action has a horizon that is not peculiarly Israelite. It does not mean that Job necessarily is a foreigner, for most Jews of the exilic period and beyond . . . lived outside the borders of Israel, and the patriarchs themselves—since that is ostensibly the time in which the story is set—were almost as often to be found outside the land as within it. The Book of Job simply does not say whether or not Job is an Israelite; by leaving open the question of his race, the book effectively makes his experience transcend the distinction between Israelite and non-Israelite, Jew and non-Jew. We do not know that the storyteller had such a conscious intention, but such is the effect he has created.[19]

The missiological importance of this is that God was “on mission” through an individual whose life would impact people around him, as well as generations of readers after his death. Job “serves ideally as a setting for the universal spirit and character of the message conveyed by the book of Job.”[20]

Suffering and Missio Dei in the Book of Job

The opening of the book takes the reader into the throne room of God. “Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the Lord, and Satan [הַשָּׂטָ][21] also came among them” (1:6). When God asked Satan, “Have you considered My servant Job?” (v. 8), God took the initiative[22] for the purpose of advancing His redemptive purpose. In a missiological sense God used Job’s experience to reveal Himself to Job’s world.

Satan responded with two questions. “Does Job fear God for nothing? Have You not made a hedge about him and his house and all that he has, on every side?” vv. (9-10).[23] That is, he asked, Does Job worship God because of what he materially gets out of the relationship? Does God “buy” worshipers through prospering them materially? Is man’s relationship with God based on grace or works? Is God so impotent that He must purchase human worship through materialism? Or is God worshiped because He is God? Is worship of God based on a quid pro quo system of theology, like all other ancient Near Eastern religions? Or does He bless humankind on the basis of His grace? Will God’s servant Job serve and worship Him regardless of human and material loss? Was God’s protection the reason Job served Him? Satan wrongly assumed that since God protected and blessed Job, greed was the foundation of his righteousness rather than Job’s personal intimate relationship with God based on love, trust, and faith in Him (1:8-10; 2:3; cf. 1:21-22; 2:10).

Missio Dei in Job therefore began with suffering and God’s initiative (1:8; 2:3), in which He introduced His servant into a contest with the accuser. Satan was allowed to attack the hero of the story with viciousness almost beyond comprehension. “While he was still speaking” (1:16-17) indicates that within minutes several catastrophic things happened vv. (13-21). A Sabean raiding party rustled all of Job’s donkeys and oxen, and murdered all but one of the servants. Fire fell from the heavens and consumed Job’s sheep, and killed all but one of the servants. A Chaldean raiding party rustled all of Job’s camels, killing all but one of the servants. Then a windstorm caused the collapse of the oldest son’s house, killing all ten of Job’s children. Over the next few months (7:3; 29:2) Job’s suffering increased.

The seriousness and variety of Job’s suffering during that period was fourfold. First, physically, Job suffered personal pain and disease that included, as Zuck observes, inflamed, ulcerous boils (2:7), itching (2:8), degenerative changes in facial skin (2:7, 12), loss of appetite (3:24), insomnia (7:4), hardened skin, running sores, worms in the boils (7:5), difficulty breathing (9:18), loss of weight (16:8), eye difficulties (16:16), emaciation (17:7; 19:20), bad breath (19:17), trembling of the limbs (21:6), continual pain in the bones (30:17), restlessness (30:27), blackened, peeling skin (30:28, 30), and fever (30:30).[24]

Second, Job was socially alienated from family and friends and lost his high status in the community. Job’s wife turned against him (2:9), and he was rejected, jeered, and mocked by friends (12:4; 16:10; 17:2, 6) and even by children (30:1, 9-11).25 Several derogatory terms were used to describe Job: fool (5:2, 3); sinful (5:7; 18:5-22; 22:5-11); arrogant (8:2; 11:4, 7; 15:11-16; 18:3); evil (11:13; 15:20; 22:5); idle and useless (11:2); stupid (11:11-12); empty (15:2); unteachable (15:8-9); a “byword” or object of scorn (17:6; 30:9); ugly (19:17-20); dishonest (20:19); a persecutor of widows and orphans (22:9); and a worm or maggot (25:6).

Third, emotionally, Job was grief stricken over the loss of his children (1:20-21), was depressed (3:24-25), lacked a sense of inner tranquility (3:26), experienced troubled thoughts (7:4, 13-14), generally had no taste for life (9:2), felt uncertain (9:20), was without joy (9:25; 30:31), and suffered from loneliness (19:13-19).

Fourth, spiritually, Job was distressed over his conflict with a theology that viewed God as “a capricious despot, who delights in afflicting his servant” (6:4; 7:17-19; 19:25). He was also disturbed by God’s silence (23:8-9, 15).[26]

Few have suffered as broadly and severely as Job, yet many have suffered in one or more of these categories. Job’s experience shows that his suffering was allowed by God, was a reality in the “contest” or conflict with Satan, and opened the question, Is suffering a part of missio Dei? If suffering is allowed by God, and if it is part of the conflict with evil and the evil one, then it would seem that suffering is used by God in dealing with the lies of Satan. The result of the proper response to suffering would then lead to triumph over the enemy’s accusations and would help reach the world with God’s message of grace. Job’s initial response in 1:21-22 exemplifies this thinking. “Naked I came from my mother’s womb, and naked I shall return there. The Lord gave and the Lord has taken away. Blessed be the name of the Lord. Through all this Job did not sin nor did he blame God.”

This is followed by his extraordinary answer to his wife’s urging that he give up and die. His response reveals a clear understanding of God’s grace and the importance of handling suffering in light of that grace. “Shall we indeed accept good from God and not accept adversity? In all this Job did not sin with his lips” (2:10). This seems to imply that God’s blessing and the suffering of life are both instruments of His grace. And so it is with all who face similar circumstances. Job was to be a witness of God’s grace in adversity. Witnessing means presenting the gospel to unbelievers through written or verbal communication. But it also includes living out biblical principles by one’s example. In a believer’s suffering God communicates His purpose to others through conversation, pain management, and attitude. Even though Job did not epitomize or demonstrate this witness consistently, he never let go of his belief that all things come from God and that ultimately it was to God alone that he could turn.

Missio Dei and The False Theology of the Ancient Near East

For Job, as with most ancient peoples,[27] the quintessential doctrine related to life was that God/gods ruled with predictive, moral, and compensatory order. It was generally believed that the sovereign God or the gods ruled His/their world fairly and justly, and that when necessary He/they would intervene into human history to reward the good and righteous and punish the wicked and sinful. The conviction of the Scriptures is that God will ultimately and finally punish the wicked and reward the righteous.[28] It would seem that moral order in the world was and continues to be “one of those requirements of the human mind which God cannot fail to satisfy without appearing unjust.”[29]

Throughout the ancient Near East people believed “that there is an exact correspondence between one’s behavior and one’s destiny,” and this principle “is known as the doctrine of retribution.”[30] Therefore the righteous do not suffer and the wicked are not blessed, at least not for a prolonged period.[31] But is this true? Actually within this belief resides a warped addition to a true biblical and moral maxim central to Job and the rest of Scripture, namely, “that a man always reaps what he sows—in this life.”[32] It is true that what a person reaps he sows (Gal. 6:7). But adding the words “always” and “in this life” makes the statement untrue. The realities of suffering and blessing are the unpredictable parts in the tradition of immediate retribution and are witness to the paradox of experience and traditional doctrine. The Book of Job asks, Is God free to correct the assumptions usually associated with the traditional view of the doctrine of retribution, and is He free to act in contradiction to these assumptions and still be just? Is God bound by tradition to act according to a fixed formula? On the concept of traditional doctrine Tsevat writes, 

Job’s misinterpretation of God and the world was due to his conceptions which were by and large those of Israelite tradition. His argument with the friends rested on this ground common to all of them, and their disagreement was about secondary features and particularly had regard to the application of the philosophy of tradition to his fate. . . . When it was tradition of religious doctrines, and when these doctrines were combined into a comparatively consistent whole, we speak of traditional theology. There is no part of the Old Testament which represents the most common variety of traditional theology better than the talk of Job and the friends.[33]

The effect of this doctrine on missio Dei is significant. As the sovereign God extending grace toward His creation, He is free to act outside of human assumptions regarding the moral order of His world. The traditional wisdom of Job’s day viewed retribution as a fixed systematic formula for judging the condition of a nation or an individual. Therefore, if improperly conceived or applied, this limited God. People “seek an explanation of suffering in cause and effect. They look backwards for a connection between prior sin and present suffering.”[34] But the Bible looks forward “in hope and seeks explanations, not so much in origins as in goals. . . . The purpose of suffering is seen, not in its cause, but in its result.”[35] This is readily observed in the relationship between God and people in the patriarchal period. For instance, God’s grace, longsuffering, and love were continually evident even in the failure of God’s servants, prepatriarchal and patriarchal.

Therefore within the true doctrine of retribution there was room for exceptions to a fixed formula for the working of God’s justice and sovereignty in the lives of His people. “God’s actions can at times suspend all dogmatic statements and theories about God’s own inner workings.”[36] This is not to say that God is capricious or that the doctrine of retribution contradicts His freedom to act, but it does explain why humankind attempted to develop fixed formulas to try to explain or predict God’s actions.[37] Retribution theology remains a tenet of God’s justice and righteousness and does not violate God’s mercy, love, and grace toward His people (Job 37:13). As Rohr says, the “Book of Job proclaims from the beginning that there is no [fixed] correlation between sin and suffering, between virtue and reward. That logic is hard for us to break. This book tries to break it, so that a new logos, called grace can happen.”[38]

The theology of Job’s three friends included the false idea that God is somehow under obligation to exact payment according to a presumptive doctrine that confines Him to the limitations of human interpretation. In fact, Satan, Job’s wife, Job’s three friends, and within the dialogue, Job himself, based their conclusions and suggestions on observation and empirical evidence, not on God’s revelation of who He is and His grace toward humanity, as did Elihu and Yahweh Himself (Job 32-42). Compensation (or “assumption”) theology is a fixed formula that assumes that God’s immediate (within one’s lifetime) blessing and cursing are based on a person’s own judgment or evaluation of God and His actions.

Job’s concept of God and His justice was marred by this false theology. Not only were the three friends at fault, as God clearly stated in the epilogue (42:7-9), but also this compensatory theology was perpetrated by Satan (1:9-10; 2:4-5) and is still believed by many people today. Part of the mission of God is to correct this false thinking regarding Himself and His actions. The Book of Job can serve as a corrective measure, pointing to His grace and love, rather than to a fixed formula invented by humankind to which God must adhere. This is not to say that the true doctrine of retribution is not in operation throughout the history of Israel.[39] But after the loss of everything and Job’s expressions of faith (chaps. 1-2) and his exasperation (chap. 3), lengthy dialogues with the three friends presented the distorted application of retribution theology, namely, that all Job’s suffering was caused by sin. This, in fact, is not retribution theology, but an assumption theology based on human speculation. Job’s undeserved suffering caused his faith in retribution, or more precisely, his confidence in the fixed system of compensation, to waver. For Job this “doctrine failed the test of reality”[40] and experience, while the three friends insisted on holding to the doctrine regardless of the evidence given by Job and by life itself. The grace message of God must be free of the encumbrances of a false theology that does not take suffering into account as part of the missio Dei.

Suffering and Missio Dei

A number of examples in Scripture support the fact that God uses suffering in missio Dei.

Abel’s sacrifice was a testimony of his faith in God, but he was unjustly murdered by his brother Cain. Still his testimony spoke from the grave of his righteousness (Gen. 4:4; Matt. 23:35; Heb. 11:4; 1 John 3:12).

Noah went through years of ridicule from the people around him. Yet he was obedient to the command of God to build the ark, a demonstration of his faith in God (Gen. 6:13-22; Heb. 11:7).

Abraham suffered in the sense of having no direct indication as to where he was to go, and no assurance of security or protection beyond his faith in the command of the Lord. The command of God for him to sacrifice Isaac, the promised descendant, was also a time of great stress (Gen. 12:1-4; 22:1-10; Acts 7:2-4; Heb. 11:8-10).

Joseph was abused by his brothers, sold into slavery, unfairly accused, imprisoned with prejudice, and yet promoted to prominence so that God’s mission would continue for His people (Gen. 37; 39-50).

Moses’ parents experienced great trauma in having to hide their newborn son in the Nile River, but this resulted in the grace of God being extended through Moses to Israel in the Exodus generation (Exod. 2; Heb. 11:23).

Moses endured ill treatment, rejected the treasures of Egypt, was a wanderer for forty years, considered the reproach of the Messiah greater riches than those of the greatest culture of the day, confronted an antagonistic ruler without fear, and led a multitude to freedom, all by faith in God’s mission (Exod. 2-14; Heb. 11:24-29, 37).

David suffered extensively at the hand of Saul, and in consolidating the kingdom of Israel (1 and 2 Sam.; Heb. 11:32, 34). Yet God’s mission for Israel and David continued and will continue through David’s greater Son, Jesus Christ, in the future.

Daniel, Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego suffered in exile at the hands of pagan rulers, Daniel was in the lions’ den, and God delivered the three from the fiery furnace (Dan. 3:23-24; 6:13-28).

Almost without exception God’s prophets suffered at the hands of their own people and others. Yet God’s mission continued, their voice was heard, and their prophecies proved true.

The New Testament is filled with illustrations of God using suffering to move His mission toward its goal. Beginning with the beheading of John the Baptist, the Gospels record the suffering of Jesus Christ, with emphasis on His rejection and passion. Though the promise of the “seed” is a blessing to all the human race, there is no greater example of undeserved suffering than that of the Messiah (Gen. 3:15; cf. 22:18; 26:4; 28:14; Isa. 53; 2 Cor. 5:21; 8:9; Gal. 3:8; 1 Pet. 2:21-24; 3:18).

The Book of Acts highlights the suffering of the apostles in moving the plan of God forward. Shortly after his conversion to Christianity, Paul was told by Christ “how much he must suffer for My name’s sake” (Acts 9:16). Second Corinthians 11-12 enumerates the many kinds of suffering Paul endured for missio Dei. Church history abounds with illustrations of the suffering of people engaged in advancing Christianity throughout the world. God’s mission was and continues to be advanced through the suffering of His people.

This certainly flies in the face of the prosperity message of the three friends, which has been perpetrated throughout history. The “prosperity syndrome leaves suffering people feeling left behind, useless and God-forsaken. . . . It leaves no room for the possibility of the meaningfulness of suffering.”[41]

The book of Job is also a real setback for the modern error known as the “Prosperity Gospel.” . . . To tell Job, “You shouldn’t be suffering, it’s not God’s will for you,” is madness because the first chapter [of Job] makes it obvious that it is God’s will. It is God’s purpose. God does have a good, wise and rational plan in everything. . . . If you told Job, “You have a title deed to prosperity, he would laugh in your face.” If you said to Job, “If you had enough faith you could be healed, you could prosper, you are guaranteed protection, promotion, prosperity and perpetual success,” you would be repeating the same foolish advice given long ago by the prosperity preachers of Job’s day: Eliphaz, Bildad and Zophar.[42]

Even Job was beleaguered with reconciling God’s justice with the tragic paradox of the evil in God’s world and specifically in his own life, as expressed by the statement, “Why do the wicked prosper and the righteous suffer?”[43]

This dilemma hits at the very heart and essence of biblical faith. Job’s dilemma is related to his undeserved suffering and his assumptions about a dogmatic philosophy of the existence of a fixed formula of order in life in which God is obligated by traditional wisdom to do what is expected. Traditional or assumption theology was on trial.[44] Some of the most profound questions of life were not being answered by this theology, and Job was courageously challenging the failure of this theology in his effort to solve these issues. How then is this dilemma to be resolved?

Many people have believed that God sends rain as a reward and that witholding rain is a punishment for wrongdoing. However, “the phenomenon [of rain] is shown not to be a vehicle of morality at all—the moral purpose ascribed to it just does not exist (38:25-27; cf. Mt 5:45).”[45] Rain falls by the grace of God on both the righteous and the wicked. “Also with moisture He loads the thick cloud; He disperses the cloud of His lightning. It changes direction, turning around by His guidance, that it may do whatever He commands it on the face of the inhabited earth. Whether for correction, or for His world, or for lovingkindness,[46] He causes it to happen” (Job 37:11-13).

Clearly God is stating through Elihu that His blessings are based on His grace. Further, if God chooses to use rain for discipline, or simply for the benefit of the planet, that is His business carried out in perfect justice and sovereignty. First Elihu (chaps. 32-37) and then God (chaps. 38-42) stated that the misplaced hope of blessing through works has no place in the divine economy. In fact in his final replies (40:3-5; 42:2-3, 5-6), “Job acknowledges this fact and is now prepared for a pious and moral life uncluttered by false hopes and unfounded claims.”[47] In the restoration epilogue, Job’s brothers, sisters, and “all who had known him before came to him” (v. 11a). They “consoled him and comforted him for all the adversities that the Lord had brought on him” (v. 11b). Job lived for another one hundred forty years, and his influence was “in all the land” (v. 15). Job’s experience served as a catalyst for this message throughout the region and beyond.

Application of Missio Dei to Job and Suffering Saints

How does this apply to missio Dei in Job? First, since the Fall (Gen. 3) the elimination of suffering has never been promised as a reward for believing in the Lord. Blessing is promised and experienced, but suffering is not eliminated. In fact the normal life of a person who follows the Lord involves both blessing and suffering (Job 2:10). Second, suffering is often undeserved in the sense of not being related to any personal sin or bad decision on the part of the sufferer. Job “is concerned with that kind of suffering which bears no relationship to the specific sins of individuals.”[48] Third, God, in His sovereignty, uses suffering for His own glory and purpose, often not immediately made clear to the sufferer, but still effective in advancing missio Dei. Fourth, suffering is part of missio Dei. That is, God’s will and purpose for the redemption of humankind is advanced by the suffering of His own people. As in the case of Job, knowledge of his suffering spread throughout the Near East, brought “wise men” to his side, drew curious onlookers to witness his debates with the three friends, and ultimately resulted in a witness of his relationship with the Lord. Fifth, the biblical evidence shows that like other examples from Scripture, missio Dei is connected to the life and experience of Job. The writer of the book had a twofold purpose: to correct a doctrine that made God “a capricious despot, who delights in afflicting his servant”[49] for no apparent reason (6:4; 7:17-19; 19:25); and to enable God to use His servant’s experience to impact the world with His message of grace. In regard to the first of these purposes van Zyl writes,

The book of Job had missiological implications for its own culture. It addressed a world-view according to which God was made subservient to human actions, and which, by implication, legitimized the position of the prosperous and powerful, and “demonized” the sick, the have-not’s, the working class. . . . The book, through the laborious process of speeches, unmasks . . . this type of theology . . . it brings . . . hope to the poor and suffering that they may understand more of God than the wise do. It unmasks . . . a worldview which, on face value, is infused by lofty religious ideas and values, but which has (been) developed to legitimize power structures and to suppress the masses. It critiques theology which has become ideology.[50]

In regard to the second statement the book is both missional and evangelistic. People are not to approach God on the basis of works or an assumed concept that obligates Him to follow human wisdom. Instead God wants to relate to His people based solely on grace, a lesson finally learned by Job (40:4; 42:5-6). Two observations follow from the famous statement of 42:5. First, “mere hearing in the sense of ‘hearing of [about]’ is not sufficient,” and second, “true hearing and vision belong together. . . to hear God is to see God. It is because Job has listened to God that he now sees God.”[51] “This seeing was spiritual insight, not a physical vision . . . . Having deeper insight into God’s character—His power, purposes, and providence—Job gained a more accurate view of his own finitude.”[52] “Job had ‘seen God,’ which means he had an immediate encounter with God that was unprecedented in its immanence. Job had not been crushed by the arrival of the divine presence as he had feared (9:17), but he had been overcome. He was unable to answer, just as he had anticipated (9:15), but he could not say he had not been heard (9:16). He was not as right as he assumed (9:15), for the questions of justice were more than he knew.”[53]

“God had met him face to face, and in the end that suited Job better than ten thousand answers.”[54] Therefore Job’s prosperity, which was returned (Job 42), is to be understood as a grace gift from a gracious and loving God, rather than a deserved compensation for Job’s works.

What are the implications of missio Dei for suffering believers today? First, God’s desire is to bring the world into faith. Suffering believers can use their experiences as a means for drawing people to Christ. The attitude of suffering believers determines the effect they will have on unbelievers. For example Joni Eareckson Tada’s life and publications have encouraged and challenged others who are suffering, and she has developed a very effective ministry to the disabled.[55] Elisabeth Elliot’s loss of her husband along with four other men in the Ecuadorian jungle resulted not only in the salvation of various tribal peoples, but also influenced many of them to become missionaries.[56] After Larry Crabb lost his brother in a tragic plane crash, he wrote Finding God,[57] in which he recounted his journey in seeking to understand God’s purpose and plan. Martha Snell Nicholson was an invalid for most of her life. She wrote “Dear Lord, illumine with Thy face each sick-room; make it, by Thy grace, an altar and a holy place.”[58] God used her to write poems that were a blessing to many people. An excellent example is “Treasures.”

One by one He took them from me,
All the things I valued most,
Until I was empty-handed;
Every glittering toy was lost.

And I walked earth’s highways, grieving,
In my rags and poverty.
‘Till I heard His voice inviting,
“Lift your empty hands to Me!”

So I held my hands toward heaven,
And He filled them with a store
Of His own transcendent riches,
‘Till they could contain no more.

And at last I comprehended
With my stupid mind and dull,
That God could not pour His riches
Into hands already full.[59]

A second major missiological emphasis is God’s desire to bring faith into the world. Not only is the suffering believer given the opportunity to witness to the unbelieving world and to influence others for Christ, but he or she also has the opportunity to demonstrate faith in God in spite of the suffering. This is especially true during times of undeserved suffering when there is no logical reason to trust God, who seemingly has forgotten the sufferer and offers no explanation for the anguish and agony. Probably the most common criticism of the Christian faith focuses on the relationship between God and suffering. People often ask, “How can a loving and powerful God allow terrible and unjust suffering to exist?” Or as Taylor quips, “What kind of God allows the innocent to suffer while the wicked pop their champagne corks and sing loud songs?”[60] The implication is that God is impotent and unjust. However, the suffering believer who handles the suffering well has the opportunity to make sense of the unexplainable and to demonstrate confidence and faith in God. As Job’s experience with undeserved suffering brought the ultimate example of this to his world, suffering believers can do the same today. A proper relationship with God, based on grace through faith, is all that matters in life.

Notes

1. However, Danie C. van Zyl does address this topic in “Missiological Dimensions in the Book of Job,” International Review of Mission (2002): 24-30. See also James Reitman, Unlocking Wisdom: Forming Agents of God in the House of Mourning (Springfield, MO: 21st Century, 2008).
2. “Missio Dei,” in Evangelical Dictionary of World Missions, ed. A. Scott Moreau, (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2000), 631.
3. Mark Young, “Missio Dei in Evangelicalism” (unpublished manuscript, Dallas Theological Seminary, 2007), 1.
4. Johannes Aagaard, “Trends in Missiological Thinking during the Sixties,” International Review of Missions 62 (1973): 13.
5. John Stott, “The Living God Is a Missionary God,” in Perspectives on the World Christian Movement: A Reader, ed. Ralph D. Winter et al. (Pasadena, CA: William Carey Library, 1999), 9.
6. David Jacobus Bosch, Transforming Mission: Paradigm Shifts in Theology of Mission (Maryknoll, NY: Orbis, 1991), 10.
7. J. Scott Horrell, “The Self-Giving Triune God, the Imago Dei and the Nature of the Local Church: An Ontology of Mission” (unpublished manuscript, Dallas Theological Seminary, n.d.), 16 n. 31.
8. See Larry J. Waters, “Elihu’s Theology and His View of Suffering,” Bibliotheca Sacra 156 (April–June 1999): 143-46.
9. Samuel E. Balentine, Job (Macon, GA: Smyth & Helwys, 2006), 23.
10. William S. Green, “Stretching the Covenant: Job and Judaism,” Review and Expositor 99 (2002): 572-73, quoted in Balentine, Job, 15. See also H. H. Rowley, The Book of Job, New Century Bible Commentary (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1983), 5-6.
11. Green, “Stretching the Covenant: Job and Judaism,” quoted in Balentine, Job, 22.
12. For example Balentine, Job, 3-24; William H. Green, The Argument of the Book of Job Unfolded (reprint, Minneapolis: Klock & Klock, 1979), 1-11; John E. Hartley, The Book of Job, New International Commentary on the Old Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1988), 3-50; Norman C. Habel, The Book of Job: A Commentary, Cambridge Bible Commentary (London: Cambridge University Press, 1975), 39; Gerald H. Wilson, Job, New International Biblical Commentary (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2007), 1, 17; and Francis I. Andersen, Job: An Introduction and Commentary, Tyndale Old Testament Commentaries (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1976), 77-78.
13. August H. Konkel, Job, Cornerstone Biblical Commentary (Carol Stream, IL: Tyndale House, 2006), 30.
14. Habel, The Book of Job: A Commentary, 39. Hartley uses the same term “prepatriarchal” (The Book of Job, 66).
15. Roy B. Zuck, Job (Chicago: Moody, 1978), 13.
16. Roy B. Zuck, “Job,” in The Bible Knowledge Commentary, Old Testament, ed. John F. Walvoord and Roy B. Zuck (Wheaton, IL: Victor, 1985; reprint, Colorado Springs: Cook, 1996), 718-19.
17. Rowley, The Book of Job, 28. Others who hold this view include Hartley, The Book of Job, 66; and Marvin Pope, Job, Anchor Bible (New York: Doubleday, 1973), 5-6.
18. Andersen, Job: An Introduction and Commentary, 27.
19. Clines, Job 1-20, 10 (italics added).
20. Charles W. Carter, “The Book of Job,” in Wesleyan Bible Commentary, ed. Charles W. Carter (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1968), 2:14, quoted in Zuck, Job, 13 (italics added).
21. This term occurs thirteen times in the first two chapters of Job. “In general, . . . ‘the Satan’ here is some kind of opponent or adversary; but that much is obvious from the narrative itself. Further precision about his function can come only from the story. First, is he God’s adversary or Job’s? Later theological development of the figure of Satan preconditions the reader to say, ‘God’s’; but the story here makes it evident that the Satan is Yahweh’s subordinate, presenting himself before him as one of his courtiers, responding to Yahweh’s initiatives, and powerless to act without Yahweh’s authorization. His only undelegated capacity is to ‘allure, incite’ Yahweh (2:3)” (Clines, Job 1-20, 20).
22. This is not to imply that God did not know what Satan had been doing or his intent in accusing Job.
23. A helpful discussion on this passage is found in Susannah Ticciati, “Does Job Fear God for Naught?” Modern Theology 21 (July 2005): 353-66.
24. Roy B. Zuck, “A Theology of the Wisdom Books and Song of Songs,” in A Biblical Theology of the Old Testament, ed. Roy B. Zuck (Chicago: Moody, 1991), 227. In discussing several skin diseases Job may have had, Zuck concludes that the disease was pemphigus foliaceous (Zuck, Job, 18-19; idem, “Job,” 721). Also see A. Rendle Short, The Bible and Modern Medicine (Chicago: Moody, 1953), 6-61; and C. Raimer Smith, The Physician Examines the Bible (New York: Philosophical Library, 1950), 60.
25. Zuck, “A Theology of the Wisdom Books and Song of Songs,” 227.
26. Hartley, The Book of Job, 47-48. Hartley shows that Job’s suffering involved “every dimension of his existence—physical, social, spiritual, and emotional” (ibid., 48).
27. “The idea of retribution [is] an essential aspect of every system of mythological representation . . . it dominates primitive religion” (René Girard, Job, the Victim of His People [Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 1987], 122).
28. Jerome D. Quinn, “The Scriptures on Merit,” in Justification by Faith, ed. H. George Anderson, T. Austin Murphy, and Joseph A. Burgess (Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1985), 84.
29. Édouard Dhorme, A Commentary on the Book of Job (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1984), cxxviii.
30. Clines, Job 1-20, xxxix. This doctrine “was universally accepted throughout the ancient Near East, from the Nile to the Euphrates. The concept of . . . lex talionis (‘measure for measure’) . . . became a cardinal principle in the legal system of the ancient Babylonians, Assyrians, and Hittites” (Robert Gordis, The Book of God and Man: A Study of Job [Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1965], 137).
31. Shimon Bakon, “God and Man on Trial,” Jewish Bible Quarterly 21 (1993): 22.
32. “Put simply, you reap what you sow (Gal. 6:7; Ps. 34:11-22; 1 Pet. 3:10). This is the starting point for much biblical teaching. [However,] life is much more complex than this simple formula. Human suffering is more than a system of rewards and punishments” (Andersen, Job: An Introduction and Commentary, 65, 67).
33. Matitiahu Tsevat, “The Meaning of the Book of Job,” Hebrew Union College Annual 37 (1966): 91-92 (italics added).
34. Andersen, Job: An Introduction and Commentary, 68.
35. Ibid (italics added). As an example of this principle Andersen points to the man who was born blind “so that the works of God could be displayed in him” (John 9:3).
36. Klaus Koch, “Is There a Doctrine of Retribution in the Old Testament?” in Theodicy in the Old Testament, ed. James L. Crenshaw (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1983), 82.
37. “The Book of Job has no objection to a connexion [sic] of deed and consequence, but indeed objects to a doctrine of retribution into which reality is forced” (J. A. Loader, “Relativity in Near Eastern Wisdom,” in Studies in Wisdom Literature, ed. W. C. van Wyk [Hercules, South Africa: N. H. W., 1981], 54 [italics his]).
38. Richard Rohr, Job and the Mystery of Suffering (New York: Crossroad, 1996), 33.
39. For a discussion of the biblical concept of retribution see Larry J. Waters, “Elihu’s View of Suffering in Job 32-37” (Ph.D. diss., Dallas Theological Seminary, 1998), 56-68.
40. Clines, Job 1-20, xl.
41. van Zyl, “Missiological Dimensions in the Book of Job,” 29.
42. Peter Bloomfield, Job (Webster, NY: Evangelical, 2003), 12-13 (italics his).
43. See F. Rachel Magdalene, “The ANE Legal Origins of Impairment as Theological Disability and the Book of Job,” Perspectives in Religious Studies 34 (spring 2007): 23, n 1.
44. Kyle M. Yates, “Understanding the Book of Job,” Review and Expositor 68 (1971): 453.
45. Tsevat, “The Meaning of the Book of Job,” 100.
46. The word for “lovingkindness,” חֶסֶד, refers to God’s attribute of lovingkindness exhibited in His covenant love for His own in faithfulness, mercy, kindness, and loyalty.
47. Tsevat, “The Meaning of the Book of Job,” 100.
48. Robert S. Fyall, Now My Eyes Have Seen You: Images of Creation and Evil in the Book of Job (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2002), 189.
49. Hartley, The Book of Job, 48.
50. van Zyl, “Missiological Dimensions in the Book of Job,” 28.
51. Fyall, My Eyes Have Seen You, 179.
52. Zuck, Job, 184.
53. Konkel, Job, 238.
54. Barbara Brown Taylor, “On Not Being God,” Review and Expositor 99 (fall 2002): 612.
55. Joni Eareckson Tada, The God I Love: A Lifetime of Walking with Jesus (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2003); and Joni Eareckson Tada and Steve Estes, When God Weeps (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1997).
56. Elisabeth Elliot, Through Gates of Splendor (Wheaton, IL: Tyndale House, 1996). Other books of hers demonstrate missio Dei, including Shadow of the Almighty (New York: HarperCollins, 1989); A Path through Suffering: Discovering the Relationship between God’s Mercy and Our Pain (Ventura, CA: Regal, 1990); and The Savage My Kinsman (Ventura, CA: Regal, 1996).
57. Larry Crabb, Finding God (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1995).
58. Martha Snell Nicholson, Threshold of Heaven (Wilmington, CA: Martha Snell Nicholson, 1943), 1.
59. Martha Snell Nicholson, “Treasures,” in Ivory Places (Chicago: Moody, 1949), 67.
60. Taylor, “On Not Being God,” 611.