The idea that good should be rewarded and evil should be punished is something that’s ingrained in all aspects of our lives. It’s in the stories we heard as children, it’s evident in our justice systems, and its what we all supposedly value. We’ve got to be “good for goodness sake”. The notion of rewarding good and punishing evil is necessary because it preserves our social system. Without an incentive to act “good” and even more so without consequences for acting badly, we would have rampant chaos. Job is great at that whole righteousness for the sake of righteousness thing, but I think some of us need a goal, need an incentive to act a certain way. Whether we’re running from the negative consequences (the punishments), toward the rewards, or both, there’s always something pushing or pulling us, and it’s not always inert. Others though, are more like Job in that they have this inert want to be good and act good.
The problem with this idea of the benefits of being good and the consequences of being bad, is that it’s not always true. We always think that if you work hard, it’ll pay off and if you are “good”, you will be rewarded. How then do we fathom failure after hard work? How do we reconclile the tragic events that plague “good people”? If we know that we can be punished no matter how good we are or how hard we work; why do we even try? I think the answer to this is two-fold. First, there’s the weighing of benefits vs. non-benefits. People weigh what “benefits” they have for being good versus the relative bad they have received. Then, there’s hope. People generally act “good” for the hope they’ll be rewarded, despite any punishments they may receive. They are also quick to ask what they have done wrong, what they have done bad if they are “punished”. Rather than just talking about punishments, people can also just have bad things happen to them, even the most simple ones. This isn’t because they’ve acted badly, and it’s not because they didn’t work hard, it’s just that bad things happen. Even harder to accept than bad things happening to good people is good things happening to bad people. In our want to believe that good things are for good people, and that they are sometimes accompanied with suffering or bad things, it is ever more complicated when we have to reconcile the successes or the good things that happen to a person that we observe does bad things. Why doesn’t it happen to them, we think. Overall, we need to act ethically in an effort to preserve order and keep us from chaos. Acting good means respecting others and acting with the interest of others in mind in addition to those “good” actions that are purely of self-interest.
No matter how many times a person reads the book of Job, I think what God does to Job is never something that sits right with people. Long-term plan or not, trust or not, God seems to act evil himself by amounting suffering onto a “good and righteous man” such as Job. The most reconcilable reason is that God has a bigger plan for Job, that he knows that Job will endure the suffering and will be better and will thrive because of it. For a god-fearing person, that’s probably a reassuring answer, that you could be chosen by God and that he would have that trust in you. Other than that, we as humans have basic empathy enough to still question why Job had to suffer that much for God’s point. While there really is no justification given for God’s replacement of Jobs children, we have to consider what Job gained. Job gained a greater understanding of God, as well as his own role. And as an example for all humans, Job served as a reminder that suffering is inevitable, and it is inevitable no matter whether you’re good or bad.