I have argued that we should not look at Old Testament stories as either true or fiction. Ancient writers did not look at their environment with the scientifically literate perspective we enjoy. They focused on function. We do this to a degree in our modern language. The term ‘dozen’ does not always mean 12; it is often a function that represents a fairly large group – not so large that you need crowd control, and not so small that they could fit into a smart car. At least not comfortably. Likewise the expression ‘I have told you a thousand times’ – well, you have not told me anywhere close to a thousand times, but the amount ‘1,000’ is used as a function to express the idea that you have told me something more times than any reasonable person should expect to be told.

When we read ancient stories, we have to understand that the events may be real, but the details are often a matter of function rather than part of the literal course of events. When you watch a play, often one of the characters will walk to the front of the stage and talk to the audience. In the play, they are just thinking the words, but they go to the front and talk to the audience to function as a person thinking to themselves. In real life, a person can stay with the group, even stay engaged in the conversation, but proverbially remove themselves mentally from the conversation in their mind. This is how you want to examine the details of a story such as Job. It is extremely unlikely that someone followed Job around and wrote down everything he and his friends had to say about his woeful condition. It is also very unlikely that God would make a deal with the devil to destroy one of His children’s lives on a bet. Satan serves as a function of a solicitor. Just as in real life we do not normally carry out full and concise conversations with ourselves, contrary to what a playwright would have you believe, Job may not have engage in all those conversations, or even experience all those calamities in the matter it is portrayed.

The book of Job is without a doubt book of literature with a prologue (Chapters 1-3), three acts (3-31, 32-37, 38-42:6) and an epilogue (42:7-17). The author is concerned about teaching a principle, and the author used the events in Jobs life to teach it. The details were turned from real events into functions to propel the narrative along. This does not make the story a parable; it is simply how ancient writers wrote things. Facts were not as important to them as they have become to us.

The primary message of Job is that God does not bless the righteous with wealth and health, and curse the wicked with poverty and sickness; but rather that by enduring through trials, we will be lifted up at the last day. Ones position in life is not a reflection of ones position with God. The story is about the end of the journey and not the journey itself. It provides no insights on how to endure suffering, or how to deal with people who feel it their self-righteous duty to condemn you. In the story, Job suffers immeasurable losses with the death of his family, the loss of his livelihood, and the ravage of a debilitating disease. Three friends, Eliphaz, Bildad and Zophar, come to comfort him, and I use that term loosely. Rather than offer comfort, they try to find what he did wrong to invite the wrath of God. Their paradigm is that God’s blessings are manifest in material abundance so of course, when they see Jobs affliction they set about to advise him accordingly.

Some examples of their not-so sage advice includes:

‘if thou wert pure and upright’ surely now he would awake for thee, and make the habitation of thy righteousness prosperous. (8:6),

‘god will not cast away a perfect man, neither will he help the evil doer (8:20),

the wicked man travaileth with pain all his days (15:20),

he (the wicked) shall not be rich, neither shall his substance continue’ (15:29),

triumphing of the wicked is short (20:5).

In an attempt to help Job understand why he has been cursed, they suggest

he robbed the poor and rejected the widow (22:6-9).

Thus, in their sincere desire to help Job, they try to make him see what he is doing wrong rather than to offer any genuine comfort or assistance.

Next comes Elihu who is younger than Job and the three friends. Out of respect for their age, Elihu remains silent through the discussion as the three offer their advice and Job responds in his own defence. After all have spoken, Elihu criticizes Job because he feels Job justifies himself rather than God (32:2) and criticizes the three friends because, with all their accusations, they provided no evidence to support their claims (32:3). He also faulted the three friends for failing to respond to any of Jobs claims (32:12). Turning to Job, Elihu makes a number of declarations that are technically correct and would fit in with any gospel discourse which suggests that, just because you are using sound doctrine, it does not justify being another man’s judge. While it is true to say ‘it is unthinkable that God would do wrong (34:12), or that God does not listen to empty plees (35:13-14), nor is it inherently wrong to ‘consider Gods wonders’ (37:14). What is wrong is to use these teachings in a condescending way because you feel it is your role to correct others. We apply gospel principles to our own lives, but we should be cautious to impose them on others based on our flawed perception of the condition of their soul.

There are three sources of our troubles: those inflicted upon us by others, those inflicted upon us by circumstances beyond our control, and those we bring upon ourselves. But even those we bring upon ourselves are not entirely avoidable simply because we all make mistakes. It is not our place to judge why someone is suffering, it is our duty to give them a hand up.

A final adversary is, strangely, Jobs wife. It is significant, I think, that she remains nameless. Rather than belonging to the house of the pitied, she is portrayed as an antagonist. Unlike the four men, however, she does not look for cause, she simply tells Job to curse God and die (2:9). To be fair, she witnessed the death of her 10 children (1:13-19), went from great wealth to abject poverty (1:13-22), and became, no doubt, the caregiver of her now completely incapacitated husband who was so ravaged by disease that his friends did not recognize him. (2:12). Despite our desire to find compassion for his wife, however, I don’t think she was included to garnish our empathy. Daniel Darling writes in his essay ‘The most misunderstood woman in the Bible”, that her suggestion to die was born out of compassion rather than out of self pity. Certainly God never condemns her and she stays with him to have 10 more children and to enjoy the doubling of his wealth. Nevertheless, we have to be careful not to let modern sensitivities cloud our understanding of the text. In real life, I have no doubt she was a remarkable person, but the woman in the text serves, in my opinion, the purpose of being another adversary (Mattew 10:36, Micah 7:6). Not only did his friend’s condemn him but his family too. But he forgives them all and eventual overcomes all. She is serving a function. In modern parlance, she is a plot device.

Was Job a real person? This question cannot be answered definitively, but the fact is the format of the book does not preclude him from being a real person. His life is an example of a number of gospel principles such as 1) there is no correlation between temporal blessings and your position before God. 2) We should not judge why others are struggling no matter how obvious it may appear to us. 3) Sometimes bad things happen to good people and this is simply part of the mortal experience. 4) As difficult as it may be, we should forgive those who feel it their duty to criticize us. At least, that is how I see the book of Job.