Answer to Job | Carl Jung

Exploring an interpretation of Job, the oldest story in canonical scripture, by the founder of analytical psychology

I recently read Carl Jung’s Answer to Job in which he explores the ancient biblical story of Job. It always interests me to read the writings of people who explore biblical stories or ideas from an unorthodox perspective. My use of the word “unorthodox” generally refers to positions that do not take the bible to be fundamentally true both historically and metaphysically; an apt synonym might be a “non-fundamentalist” perspective. My interest is not so much in that I might learn more than my own orthodox (Primitive Baptist specifically, not any “orthodox church” by name) interpretation of the Bible, but to see to what degree other thinkers are able to extract the truth of these stories without the grounding of religious fundamentalism, and to see evidence of the various fruitful applications of these truths in the world or kingdom of God. Additionally, it strengthens my understanding to go back to the bible in reference to new ideas and discern if they are aligned with scripture. 

I find Carl Jung to be a very interesting thinker, largely due to his Christian upbringing and influence. He is considered the founder of “analytical psychology” - an empirical approach to the psyche. He interprets religious texts through the lens of his psychoanalytical discipline which leads to some really strange ideas about the character of God. For this reason I don’t think I will be reading any of his other works any time soon. 

Reading this book was very dissonant to my own beliefs and theology, and was not a very enjoyable experience. I think this would be different if I was not as closed/conservative in my interpretation of scripture, but it is my belief/conviction that there must be a conservative approach to scripture in order for a complete and congruent systematic theology to be achieved. In other words, I do not think the bible can be stretched and analyzed at the level, or to the degree, that Jung makes an effort to do so, and still maintain a logically coherent and self-consistent corpus of knowledge/truth. This leads to my personal disallowance to hold these ideas with very much weight due to their direct biblical contradiction. For the remainder, I will largely be summarizing Jung’s thoughts and showing where I believe they are directly misaligned with bible truth. If you have no interest in strange, low-utility, and unbiblical ideas, I applaud you for skipping the rest of this essay.

Jungian scholar Murray Stein (author of following quote) claims Jung viewed the Book of Job as an example of a Scriptural religious experience:

"In Jung’s interpretation, Job is completely innocent. He is a scrupulously pious man who follows all the religious conventions, and for most of his life, he is blessed with good fortune. This is the expected outcome for a just man in a rationally ordered universe. But then God allows Satan to work on him, bringing misfortune and misery. Being overwhelmed with questions and images of divine majesty and power, Job is then silenced. He realizes his inferior position vis-a-vis the Almighty. But he also retains his personal integrity, and this so impresses God that He is forced to take stock of Himself. Perhaps He is not so righteous after all! As Marc Fonda observes, God’s omniscience precludes self-awareness. Being omniscient, God has no concentrated self to speak of. Being a part of everything, God has no opportunity to distinguish self from non-self. However, as God knows the thoughts of humans, through the thoughts of his creation he can experience what self-awareness is. And out of this astonishing self-reflection, induced in God by Job’s stubborn righteousness, He, the Almighty, is pushed into a process of transformation that leads eventually to His incarnation as Jesus. God develops empathy and love through his confrontation with Job, and out of it a new relationship between God and humankind is born."

This does a good job in my estimation of summarizing many of the key takeaways of Jung’s position on the story of Job. Much of this stands out to me immediately as being incongruent with scripture. I will attempt to supply direct quotes for these subpoints from Jung and from scripture throughout. I will also add one more subpoint that I took note of which is lacking from this summary:

Jung entertains the idea of a fourth person of the Godhead at great length. He posits that there is a feminine quality to the person of God that he calls ‘Sophia’ (derived from the Greek word for wisdom - σοφία ‘sofía’) which fills the fourth position of the ‘quaternity’. This character is partly drawn from ‘lady wisdom’ in the book of Proverbs and extended further by Jung’s eisegesis. His understanding of this imagined aspect is that Sophia is the more conscious and feminine psychological aspect of God that negotiates with, or guides, the sub/un-conscious God the Father.

I: The Innocence of Job

[This note is not in direct opposition to Jung’s position. It’s unclear what his thoughts are on the doctrine of total depravity and humanity’s innate sin-state, or negative moral orientation. So this is more for clarification of my biblical interpretation than a response to Jung.]

I do not believe Job was completely innocent, he was still corrupted, as all of humanity is, with the effects of original sin and is cursed with the spiritual state of total depravity. But I only argue this because I do not think that Jung has an understanding of mankind’s total depravity. For the sake of the story, I don’t think it is particularly relevant, in that Job’s sins and failings were not the direct reason or cause of his suffering - despite his miserable comforters’ accusations. It seems that it was actually, or in contrast, his close fellowship with God and his spiritual maturity that led to him being “singled out” by God to Satan. 

[Job 1:1 KJV] 1 There was a man in the land of Uz, whose name was Job; and that man was perfect and upright, and one that feared God, and eschewed evil.

This description of Job being ‘perfect’ refers to his spiritual maturity, rather than true perfection according to the law of God. 

If it were true that he trusted Job perfectly, it would be only logical for Yahweh to defend him, unmask the malicious slanderer, and make him pay for his defamation of God’s faithful servant. But Yahweh never thinks of it, not even after Job’s innocence has been proved. We hear nothing of a rebuke or disapproval of Satan. Therefore, one cannot doubt Yahweh’s connivance. (Jung, C. G.. Answer to Job: 11 (Jung Extracts) (p. 28). Princeton University Press.)

II: Job retained his “personal integrity”

Job did not ultimately retain his “personal integrity” and ended up sinning through his attempt to claim his own righteousness. I also do not think that God was “impressed” either, by the firm rebuke God gave to Job. Job realizes his position of unworthiness and his error of arrogance. Although it is still interesting that God says Job has largely spoken “right” at the end of the story.

[Job 42:1-6 KJV] 1 Then Job answered the LORD, and said, 2 I know that thou canst do every thing, and that no thought can be withholden from thee. 3 Who is he that hideth counsel without knowledge? therefore have I uttered that I understood not; things too wonderful for me, which I knew not. 4 Hear, I beseech thee, and I will speak: I will demand of thee, and declare thou unto me. 5 I have heard of thee by the hearing of the ear: but now mine eye seeth thee. 6 Wherefore I abhor myself, and repent in dust and ashes.

[Job 42:7 KJV] 7 And it was [so], that after the LORD had spoken these words unto Job, the LORD said to Eliphaz the Temanite, My wrath is kindled against thee, and against thy two friends: for ye have not spoken of me the thing that is right, as my servant Job hath.

III: God’s omniscience precludes self-awareness

God’s omniscience does not logically preclude his inability to distinguish self from non-self. In the creation account, God had already created the universe and many living organisms when He then decided to make man in His own distinct image. His image, and self-identification of that image, was not marred or distorted by His omnipresence or omniscience of the rest of the universe already present. With God there is no change (variableness - Jas 1:17), if the creation of the universe led to a change in the character or manifest essence of God, then this statement would be false by the first verse of the bible. To my understanding, if this position is taken, it would lead to an unbiblical, perhaps pantheistic, view of God; and leads to many issues. The foremost among them, as it appears to me, is that moral evil would seemingly be present in the diffuse character of God. For example, moral evil exists, and God is present in every aspect of creation, both materially and spiritually, then God would be present in moral evil. This seems to be an assumption of Jung’s that results from the psychoanalytical analysis of God’s character without first considering God’s own self-descriptions to draw from. Even the name God ascribes to Himself as “I AM” in Exodus 3:14 conveys an unchanging and eternally fixed state for God’s character.

[Jas 1:17 KJV] 17 Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, and cometh down from the Father of lights, with whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning.

IV: Jesus’ sacrifice was a response for God’s offense to Job

The victory of the vanquished and oppressed is obvious: Job stands morally higher than Yahweh. In this respect the creature has surpassed the creator. As always when an external event touches on some unconscious knowledge, this knowledge can reach consciousness. The event is recognized as a déjà vu, and one remembers a pre-existent knowledge about it. Something of the kind must have happened to Yahweh. Job’s superiority cannot be shrugged off. Hence a situation arises in which real reflection is needed. That is why Sophia steps in. She reinforces the much needed self-reflection and thus makes possible Yahweh’s decision to become man. It is a decision fraught with consequences: he raises himself above his earlier primitive level of consciousness by indirectly acknowledging that the man Job is morally superior to him and that therefore he has to catch up and become human himself. Had he not taken this decision he would have found himself in flagrant opposition to his omniscience. Yahweh must become man precisely because he has done man a wrong. He, the guardian of justice, knows that every wrong must be expiated, and Wisdom knows that moral law is above even him. Because his creature has surpassed him he must regenerate himself. (Jung, C. G.. Answer to Job: 11 (Jung Extracts) (pp. 42-43). Princeton University Press.)

The sacrifice of Jesus Christ was not a reaction or apology to mankind due to the story of Job. Firstly, to accredit God with any moral fault is impossible, as He is the source of morality and truth. But secondly, there is no biblical ambiguity regarding whose transgressions Jesus was sacrificed to atone for: He bore the sins of the elect family of God (Isa 53:5, 1Pe 2:24, 2Co 5:21). God’s eternal character and qualities were unchanged by the redemptive act of Christ - He was a perfect Judge, Holy, and Righteous before and after the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus. My interpretation of God’s rebuke at the end of the book of Job is that God feels no obligation to even defend Himself to Job. God essentially declares Himself and His mighty sovereignty, and this powerful understanding and perspective of God’s absoluteness alone is what led to Job’s immediate self-abasement. 

[Isa 53:5 KJV] 5 But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed.

[1Pe 2:24 KJV] 24 Who his own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree, that we, being dead to sins, should live unto righteousness: by whose stripes ye were healed.

[2Co 5:21 KJV] 21 For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.

[Job 40:8-14 KJV] 8 Wilt thou also disannul my judgment? wilt thou condemn me, that thou mayest be righteous? 9 Hast thou an arm like God? or canst thou thunder with a voice like him? 10 Deck thyself now with majesty and excellency; and array thyself with glory and beauty. 11 Cast abroad the rage of thy wrath: and behold every one that is proud, and abase him. 12 Look on every one that is proud, and bring him low; and tread down the wicked in their place. 13 Hide them in the dust together; and bind their faces in secret. 14 Then will I also confess unto thee that thine own right hand can save thee.

V: The Godhead is a four-part quaternity

[Jung’s usage of this idea can be seen in the preceding quote]

I do not believe the idea of a quaternity, or fourth feminine aspect of God, is a biblically valid idea. ‘Lady wisdom’ is an anthropomorphism used by Solomon to personify wisdom as a noble desire for young men. Solomon wants young men to leave the pursuits of the foolish and to pursue wisdom, the beginning of which is the acknowledgment and fear of God (Psa 111:10). But that is the extent of Solomon’s use of the caricature and we cannot take it any further. The Godhead is aptly defined as a trinity (although that specific word is never explicitly used in scripture) due to 1 John 5:7 and John 1:1-2. 

Wisdom:

[Psa 111:10 KJV] 10 The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom: a good understanding have all they that do his commandments: his praise endureth for ever.

[Pro 9:1-6 KJV] 1 Wisdom hath builded her house, she hath hewn out her seven pillars: 2 She hath killed her beasts; she hath mingled her wine; she hath also furnished her table. 3 She hath sent forth her maidens: she crieth upon the highest places of the city, 4 Whoso is simple, let him turn in hither: as for him that wanteth understanding, she saith to him, 5 Come, eat of my bread, and drink of the wine which I have mingled. 6 Forsake the foolish, and live; and go in the way of understanding.

Trinity:

[1Jo 5:7 KJV] 7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.

[Jhn 1:1-2 KJV] 1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 The same was in the beginning with God.

I’m aware that this was an incomplete analysis of the book, and an openly biased perspective. My goal in reading it was to understand other approaches in studying and interpreting scripture, especially from the angle of psychological abstraction. While I do believe there are many levels of applicability and truth that God has woven into scripture, and there are many things we can learn about human psychology and nature from the word of God, I find it to be entirely flawed and foolish to apply the same techniques to the mind of God. God has revealed what we need to know of Him directly in the word, and our probability of success in accurately classifying anything beyond what He has revealed seems low indeed. I could see from this reading that there is a potential for this approach to lead the person who attempts it to utter confusion regarding God’s character and the truths of His word, rather than coming to a deeper understanding. This also illuminates the importance of a belief in divine inspiration and preservation of the word of God. If we take the bible to be ancient embedded wisdom alone, and not pure and undefiled truth, then we will quickly go astray in our stretching interpretations of the word, rather than giving the word itself the primary authority. 

[2Ti 3:16 KJV] 16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

[Luk 16:17 KJV] 17 And it is easier for heaven and earth to pass, than one tittle of the law to fail.

[Mat 24:35 KJV] 35 Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away.