Last December, either for Christmas or my birthday, I received Jung's "Answer to Job" as a gift from my step-son. I didn't start it right away but did this past spring. It is a short read but there is an awful lot to unpack here. It has spurred a lot of thought and conversations.
I enjoyed the book quite a bit. I was brought in quickly by the prologue, which has a lot of good discussion about the nature of religious belief and the religious experience. It's short but also dense...Jung's writing is approachable but requires a level of deliberation and mindfulness while reading. For lack of a better term, his style is very cerebral in nature.
Again, there's a lot to unpack here. I will focus on areas where I diverge from Jung's premises as his reasoning is astute and sound. But, coming from different premises, it lends itself to disparate conclusions.
On the story of Job itself, I don't believe it is a historical account but rather an archetypical account of the testing of man by Satan. Its placement in the Biblical story arc, though, would be before Abraham, despite the timing of the book's authorship, which is significantly later. It seems that Jung favors the the timing of the authorship as correlating with the timing of the story due to his continuing to allude to the Mosaic covenant as though it had already occurred, and, further, that the story of Job is being represented as a historical story. This historical representation is evidenced by Jung's using the facts of the story to make conclusions about God's character and motives.
There are a few things about the story as it appears in scripture that have some variation with Jung's premises on the same. First, God wasn't testing Job as represented by Jung. God allowed the devil to test Job. Secondly, God wouldn't have allowed a test that Job couldn't pass. It's like boot camp for marines....which is arduous but not meant to break candidates and encourage them to quit, yet is rather meant to make them marines. I am faithful but must admit that my faith may not have withstood what Job was said to have withstood. I have had my own tests, though, and they are Brian tests rather than Job tests. I have issues with patience and with temper, among other things, so would not be equipped to suffer as much as Job did without it impacting my devotion to God. I hate to say it but I believe it to be true.
Jung's point on the test, though, was that it was amoral in nature and not positively transformative, and therefore not compassionate, in nature. It's true that there were terrible losses...even losses of life. I can't speak what is on God's mind when a life is taken. I do know that everyone, save Jesus Christ himself, is a sinner and that those who have had life are blessed in having received it. At what point does a blessing last long enough for it to be worth it? I'm not sure but that is a question for wiser minds than mine. I've been grateful, for my part, for even transient blessings I have received in my life.
Although the devil caused suffering for Job and continues to cause suffering in the world, as a Christian I take great comfort in knowing that his defeat is written in stone with the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus Christ. God hasn't ended his creation despite the suffering that permeates it not out of fondness of the devil but despite the devil. There's still more for us to say and to do in my humble, uninformed opinion.
There's a few traditional viewpoints Jung also favors that aren't scriptural but, to varying degrees, have had impact to tradition - both to Christian tradition and otherwise. First, Jung's examination of a female correspondent to God, Sophia, was intriguing to me. Though I think the Holy Trinity is complete and doesn't need this counterpart, the idea and citations in scripture that he offers are interesting. Ultimately, I don't believe that this traditional belief is consistent with God and the true extent of God's glory.
Separately, Jung favors the belief that Mary was almost divine in nature and remained a virgin throughout her life. This despite the Bible speaking of Jesus as having had four brothers and at least two sisters. I understand that Mary's relationship to Jesus is very special and that she had influence over him - for instance, at the wedding at Cana. She was his mother. This makes sense. I don't believe it follows from that that she never consummated her marriage with Joseph or that she didn't have natural children despite having had an immaculate conception with Jesus Christ. Some believe that the brothers and sisters may have been from a previous undocumented marriage of Joseph's, but, in the absence of evidence of that, I am hesitant to come to that conclusion. Others believe that the brothers and sisters were really cousins, but, if that is so, why would the known cousin of John the Baptist not also be named in the scripture when listing the males? I believe and continue to believe that Jesus had siblings and, with at least six of them, it is likely there are descendants today from his nuclear family. That's kind of neat to think about.
Here's another fun fact to think about - it takes about twenty years for air released into the atmosphere to become evenly distributed throughout the Earth's atmosphere. That said, when Jesus said "It is finished," on the cross, the air he exhaled has been breathed by us throughout our lives. Indeed, for everything he said, we have shared the air he breathed. That is kind of neat to think about as well.
Jung also notes that Job's passing the test pushed God to cause the creation of God as man through Jesus Christ. I believe that Jesus existed before creation and that the necessity of his crucifixion and resurrection dated from the beginnings of creation, not that God was trying to react to Job.
Another premise I struggled to agree with was Jung's references to Satan as God's son. While it is true, as an angel (albeit a fallen one) that Satan was made rather than begotten, I believe it is disingenuous at least and outright distortive at worst to represent him as God's son. Jesus was his only son.
Finally, near the end of the book, Jung examines the book of Revelations. He has concluded that the John that wrote Revelations is the same John that wrote the epistles that bear his name. I have heard that from a number of people. I have always wondered, but am not convinced one way or the other. I note it here as a curiosity rather than as a disagreement.
Although Revelations is terrifying, and I do agree with Jung's point that one would have to both love and fear God if one believes at all. God, though, isn't malicious in his judgement even though his judgement is the very thing that Jesus offered himself as a sacrifice to protect us from. It isn't intractability on God's part in my view, as Jung posits. But, rather, the awesomeness of God's divinity and purity that cannot be approached by an impure sinner without a price.
Let me be clear. Nothing is free, but Jesus's sacrifice, which provides a path for our salvation - a path for each and every one of us - paid the price. Why did his righteous blood need to be shed to accomplish this path? I can't profess to explain it but I believe it. Why is God's justice so complete and thorough? Again, I can't profess to explain it but I do believe it. I am blessed with the grace of God that I believe and accept Jesus as my personal savior, which has offered me a hope and peace with which to navigate this tumultuous world riddled with blessings and with suffering. I falter and come up short, but will continue to strive to be focused on following Jesus.