Job as Living Metaphor

James 5:7-11, my passage for tomorrow morning's sermon, mentions Job in verse 11.

Behold, we consider those blessed who remained steadfast. You have heard of the steadfastness of Job, and you have seen the purpose of the Lord, how the Lord is compassionate and merciful. (ESV)

Now, I haven't studied the commentaries on Job recently, and I don't mean to speak authoritatively on the issues I raise, but I just want to make an interesting observation and ask of possibilities. 

As an historical figure Job is curious.  His life circumstances seem odd, not just because of The Satan and God and their strange and revealed cooperation, but also because of how the things that happen seem so artificial.  For instance Job loses so much, but after it all he ends up exactly twice as much as before. 

Because of this perceived artificiality (does God ever really double the pleasure like this in real life?), some have determined Job wasn't a real guy after all.  His life is fiction in order to make a point, or something like that.  Others put on their armor and defend Job as no less historical than their grand-mother.  To say otherwise makes you a liberal.

The question that popped into my head tonight is, Why can't we see Job as a God-intended living metaphor?  In other words, maybe we aren't supposed to see Job as "this life" literal (It could happen to you!), but metaphorical literal, like how God used Ezekiel.  God cast Ezekiel in many different "living metaphor" roles in his ministry where he acted out in his life the realities of God's people and exile.  He would rip a hole in his wall, or lay on his side for so many days, or eat a scrumptious feces loaf.  In Ezekiel the living metaphor is obvious.  In Job, could it be the same thing, but not so explicit?

As far as I know, I may be the only person to think this, or the last person to think of this.  Whatever.  But I think makes sense of Job because we don't have to wonder why God only did these things to one guy.  Also, we can still believe that Job is a real guy which is important, I think.  And in Job's life we see on display what God wants us to know about suffering and the riches of God, which we know are ultimately found in Christ.

A little thinking outloud, pre-sermon.  Thanks for listening.  I need sleep.

Comments

[slamb]

I like what you are saying about metaphor... but in this case the Scripture with Scripture principle kicks in.

Ezekiel 14:14 and Ezekiel 14:20 prove a point by saying in effect, "Even if Noah, Daniel, and Job..." as a reference to how incredibly Godly these three men were. Without a doubt, Ezekiel intends that we understand all three of the men as literal historical figures.

Also, James in 5:11 says, "You have heard of the patience of Job..." If James thought of Job as less than historical, it kills the logic of the argument. Fictional characters do not inspire us to "go out there and do the same".

Of course, without a commitment to divine inspiration, it is possible to say that James and Ezekiel thought Job was literal when in fact he is metaphorical. But, I do not think that is where you were headed.

Good thoughts - I pray God's blessings on your proclamation tomorrow.

[Scot McKnight]

Steve,
Nice thoughts, and I can't agree that fictional characters would kill the logic of the argument.

Can I not say "Scrooge, after all, had to learn the hard way"?

What makes fictional characters so powerful is that the authors are able to make them "more than real" and "so real they speak of each of us" and therefore we return to them again and again. Is Santiago in The Old Man and the Sea "real" -- I think so, though not in the "historical" sense.

Whether historical or not, what makes Job so powerful is that his experience speaks to us at a deep level -- and his experience becomes ours over time as we process our life with him as a friend.

Blessings,

[Steve McCoy]

slamb, and so all understand, I'm saying Job is (in my opinion) a real guy. I'm only trying to speak to the nature of his sufferings as living metaphor.

Scot, I'll respond later. I'm heading to lunch. :)

[Steve McCoy]

Scot, without speaking to the issue of the realness of Job, I think you are right about the power of fictional characters. I don't deny that one bit, and I'm glad to made the point better than I could.

It's just not my intention here, as I think you can see, to speak to him as real or not. I'm accepting Job as real and wondering if the circumstances of His life are possibly a God directed play of sorts. If he is real, does that sound plausible to you? All of us are living metaphors in so many ways, but it seems very intentional with God doing this with Job.

[slamb]

The example of Scrooge proves that story/fiction is powerful in our lives - "Don't be like Scrooge"... but in the case of the James passage, the argument is that you too can persevere like Job.

So, I think it does kill the force of the argument. If you struggled with a broken relationship with your father, and I said, "I know that it is possible for you to mend the relationship...it CAN be done... just think of Luke Skywalker and Darth Vader... if they can do it so can you!"... you would rightly say back - "well, yeah, but that is just a story - a powerful one - but those kinds of reconciliations don't really happen in real life."

Just my thoughts...thanks for the exchange.

[Steve McCoy]

slamb, per your example of a broken relationship with a father, what about the prodigal son (gracious father)? If the fictional characters (for the sake of argument) are God-created, then the story would still have the same power as if they were real. Agree?

[slamb]

Steve, Yes absolutely!

However, I was not trying to make the point that parabolic metaphor is less powerful than real life - that is not necessarily the case - I cannot think of a more powerful gut-image of miserliness than "Scrooge" - except for this old man named Richard Jones in Alabama... but wait a minute, you don't know Richard Jones... so it would be more powerful for me to refer to "Scrooge".

So, you are correct in saying that the power in Jesus' parables is in their power, not in their literalness. Regarding Jesus' parables, I often wonder if the "Parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus" is a parable or a historical event Jesus is referring to. Most say parable, but it is unlike a parable for Jesus to give a character a name. But if a parable, is Jesus giving literal details about the ability of people in heaven and hell to communicate with one another? Or are the details fictional in order to communicate a powerful point?

Please forgive the length of this, but I must come back to the original point- Job in James. In my understanding of the text, the context demands a historical Job, because James is not creating an image of patience... he is actually referring to a historical example of someone who endured - and the reference is for our own inspiration to do the same.

What if we young men suddenly unearthed information that the entire Jim Elliot story - getting killed by Auca indians was actually a PR story created by Evangelical mission boards to inspire career missionary service? It would do no good to say, "Yeah, but it is a powerful metaphor for ultimate sacrifice".

Or what if the story of the absolute courage found in Polycarp at his execution.. what if it were shown to be a farse... There was no Polycarp. All of those sermon illustrations I have heard extolling us to be courageous in the midst of persecution, using Polycarp as an example, would be deflated.

I believe James is making the same point - Job really lived like this - you can and should do so too.

Sorry for the length.

[Joe Thorn]

Steve - good words man.

slamb, you and I agree on Job, but still - The difference between your hypotheticals and a parable or tale is that one was taught as history but was not (a lie), the other was taught as parable and properly received. If it is given and understood to be myth/parable the power is not lost. Not a fair comparison IMO.

[Scot McKnight]

Steve,
I agree completely that Job is a "living metaphor" -- and he is because he tells the story of others and so gets inscripturated.

In other words, you are saying that God asked Job to be a "role" for the sake of history and others -- like Hosea, that poor fella, naming his kids things like "Antietam" and "Viet Nam" and "No Mercy."

When you used "metaphor" I hopped on the historical/non-historical issue.

Without wanting to go over a well-worn path, whether or not Job is historical doesn't impact James at all. What is needed is that what James means by "Job" can be understood by his readers -- and "Job" had patience whether he was real or not. Just as Scrooge experienced conversion to benevolence. Sorry for making this a long one.

[Steve McCoy]

Thanks Scot. I agree with you.