Can People of Faith Emulate the Character Job?

I: Introduction

This essay critiques as two-dimensional the way in which Job is often characterised by people of faith — a characterisation perhaps stemming from an emphasis on the prose material[1] in the Book, to the neglect of the Dialogue. Adopting a literary and final-form approach to the Book of Job, careful attention will be placed upon how the Dialogue, with its various silences, reticence and speeches, aid in the characterisation of the man from Uz called Job. It is concluded that a holistic reading of the Book reveals a fuller, more three-dimensional Job. This, however, is a Job whose character is complex and at times ambiguous. If the man Job is to be taken as an example to be emulated by Jews or Christians, then perhaps a readjustment in the assessment of his character is necessary.[2]

II: Job in the Prose

The man Job is characterised in a rather stereotyped manner by people of faith as the perfect example of patient endurance.[3] In his response to suffering he is deemed the exemplary model of “one who fears God” (yerē’ ‘elōhīm). This approach is perhaps typified in Walter Moberly’s interpetation: “Job’s unswerving adherance to God in the midst of disaster and desolation represents true wisdom and understanding. Thus if we the readers/hearers want to know what wisdom looks like, we should look at Job — and, in principle, emulate him.”[4] It is worth noting, however, that in his treatment of the Book of Job, Moberly only properly examines the Prologue (chapters 1 and 2) and the famous wisdom discourse (chapter 28). Surely, this is not suffice for a holistic reading of Job’s character?

To examine Job’s character from only the Prologue,[5] written in narrated prose and containing only a few terse words of direct speech on the part of Job, seems somewhat reductionistic. Here, Job, and his response to his suffering, appears a little superficial and robotic. The brevity of his speech, which contains no real lament or catharsis, means that Job does not come across as very relatable or like one easily emulated. Job’s reticence in response to the news of devastation from the four successive messengers seems disproportionate to the scale of his loss.[6] The Epilogue ends in a similar manner to the book’s beginning, again with little direct speech afforded to Job. Satan has afflicted Job in an attempt bring disgrace upon him,[7] accusing him of interested love.[8] In the final denoument, however, it would appear that Job has passed the test,[9] has demonstrated his worthiness, and is duely rewarded with good health and the two-fold restoration of his fortunes. Plein’s aptly describes the setting of the prose material as akin to a “fairy tale world”.[10] Can the Job of this far-off world truly speak into ours, and provide any kind of example for today?

III: What about the Dialogue?

Job’s silence in the prose is starkly contrasted with his incessant and repetitive speech in the Dialogue.[11] However, there is a risk that the vision of Job’s character in the prose is too readily superimposed onto the Dialogue. If so, the Job of the Dialogue, with all his idiosyncrasies, is warped into a softer, maybe more palatable character. J. Jonathan Schraub makes a similar point: “For centuries, the purposes of institutional religious authorities, both Christian and Jewish, were served by bastardising the language of Job in an effort to make the poetic heart of the book fit the prose folktale.”[12] The Dialogue, whether taking it to have a pre-history apart form the prose material, or if reading the book of Job in its final form, should be allowed to speak for itself.[13]

Perhaps a better way of making sense of the prose material is to understand it as a frame for the Dialogue,[14] providing a “context of meaning”[15] for the dialogue-bound events that follow. In the Dialogue material the tempo of the narrative slows, perhaps suggestive of the author’s prioritisation of this material and the material’s significance in the overall message of the Book of Job.[16] The dialogue between Job and his friends — Eliphaz, Bildad, Zophar, and Elihu — has a sense of immediacy, drawing the reader closer into the big questions of life posed within, being led to speculate. Should the friends’ advice be taken, with their explanation of suffering founded largely upon God’s retributive justice? Or should we believe Job when he protests innocence? Maybe all we can do is acknowledge God’s untamable sovereignty and stop trying to rationalise the perils of life.[17] Indeed, the narrator’s silence lends to the dialogue some authorial impassivity, where the words of Job and his friends are often left uncommented on. Hence, with the immediacy comes a degree of ambiguity.

IV: Job’s Characterisation in the Dialogue

More remarkable than the narrator’s silence is the apparent absence of God from much of the Dialogue, until he finally appears in chapter 38. Pleins says, “God’s ‘silence’ dominates the discussions of Job with his friends. Where there is human speech, God is apparently silent. Only the ‘topic’ of God finds expression.”[18] An important aspect of Pleins thesis here is that God’s silence (not to be confused with his absence, so Pleins says) allows Job the opportunity to grieve: “Job is able to express his grief freely once he has encountered the reality of God’s ominous silent presence.”[19] Job has space to vent and express his feelings. And in doing so, what of his character is revealed?[20]

The Job in the prologue that accepts his lot is replaced by a Job in the Dialogue who often protests against his circumstances.[21] The beginning of the Dialogue has Job cursing the day he was born (Job 3). Whilst Job does not ‘curse God’ as his wife encourages him to, surely such a statement of preferring death to the life God has given him borders on blasphemy?[22] Furthermore, Job’s own words would certainly make uncomfortable any reader that looks to them for an affirmation of normative, institutionalised religion. Job questions why God should care about sin[23] and also doubts the value of prayer.[24] He goes even further, questioning why God rejects the righteous in favour of the wicked,[25] and accuses God of cruelty and violence: “You have turned cruel to me; with the might of your hand you persecute me.”[26] Katherine Dell, in exploring how Job is characterised, says that the Job is of the Dialogue is “the more profound character who rails, protests and has moments of downright impiety when he accuses God of cruelty.”[27]

For friends that come to Job to offer comfort, they are not treated very well. Job becomes so frustrated with the ‘advice’ of his friends that he says of them, “miserable comforters are you all. Have windy words no limit? Or what provokes you that you keep talking?”[28] Bildad asks Job why he considers his friends to be stupid.[29] Job longs that his words be written down for his future vindication, warning that if his friends accuse him they ought to fear judgment by the sword.[30] Whilst the counsel of Job’s friends may not be wholly satisfying or correct — indeed, the reader is in the privileged position of knowing more about Job’s suffering than any of the book’s characters — Job does not think to show gratitude to the attempts that they make.

Perhaps, as Weeks suggests, Job is an egotist.[31] He harkens back to the day when he used to be received with awe and reverence: “O that I were as in the months of old…when I took my seat in the square, the young men saw me and withdrew, and the aged rose up and stood.”[32] Furthermore, Job’s desire for positive reception amongst his friends, and great agitation when they criticise him, is unusual when compared to his incredible composure upon hearing of the death of his own children in Job 1.

V: Towards a Conclusion — Embracing Ambiguity

It is clear from considering the speeches of the Dialogue that Job’s character is far more multi-faceted than is often presumed. In the vocalisation of his confusion and frustration, Job appears much more emotionally complex and perhaps dislikable than often observed through the rose-tinted spectacles of popular assumption.[33] Surely the stereotypical, two-dimensional Job who quietly accepts his lot cannot remain a plausible reading of Job’s character?

The question posed from the outset now looms large: Can the person of faith emulate Job in any meaningful way? Stuart Weeks makes this observation: “[Job] is, however, a complicated figure, and efforts to make him a role model for the pious or oppressed can idealise him, or overlook his less attractive characteristics.”[34] If the person of faith seeks to emulate Job he must not neglect the facets of Job’s character that appear problematic.

As has already been eluded, the relatively silent Job of the prose does not appear particularly easy to emulate. As a character, he risks being superficial. However, the Job that is revealed in the Dialogue appears, by comparison, much more human. His expression of grief and longing for wholeness is much more typical of any human being experiencing trauma and pain. For this reason, I would argue that the Job of a holistic, final-form reading comes across as more relatable. His experiences and his responses to them can be mapped onto the general experience of the human condition with far less difficulty.

The ambiguity of the human condition, as in Job, seems more faithful to the whole of the Biblical witness. Jacob betrays his brother Esau and wrestles with God. David is a man after God’s own heart yet commits an extravagant act of adultery and tries to cover it up through murder. Thomas is known to this day as doubting the reality of Christ’s resurrection. Paul and Peter have, at times, fractious arguments, whilst both men are heralded as pillars of the early church. The Bible offers multiple, sometimes-paradoxical perspectives on its characters. This, however, could be seen as theologically appropriate. Robert Alter says, “The Bible’s strategies of narrative exposition reflect a sense of the unknowable and unforeseeable in human nature”[35]. Perhaps, if the Bible posits a more complex system of causation than simply retributive justice, the ambiguity of Job’s character seen to arise through his silences and speeches is an apt translation into art of this view of the human subject as a free agent. Alter is again helpful here: “every human agent must be allowed the freedom to struggle with his or her destiny through his or her own words and acts.”[36]

VI: “I hate you, Daddy!”

Even if Job seems now far more human and relatable, ought he be emulated? For the person of faith, who has a particular understanding of the Book of Job’s significance that is contingent upon its presence within the canon, Job certainly ought to be emulated. However, a more pressing question is whether or not Job can be emulated. If Job, as we have seen, if not the perfect example of wisdom or patient endurance, then what kind of example does he now offer? If Job is not the man often presumed, who is he, and what lesson can his story provide? I would suggest that people of faith are able find an example in the man Job, but with the caveat that a crucial readjustment of Job’s character is required.

God’s approval of Job’s speech at the end of the book provides perhaps the greatest surprise, the biggest twist, in the entire story. How, after all that has come forth from the lips of Job, can God say that he has still spoken “what is right”?[37] Especially when God has earlier accused Job of ignorance.[38] A distinction here can be drawn between the content and mode of Job’s speech. Whilst Job is inaccurate concerning his God-talk, at least he engages in exactly that: talk with God, or at least directed towards God. Job frequently addresses God himself in his speeches, using the pronouns ‘you’ or ‘your’. His friends, on the other hand, certainly speculate about God as a topic but do not address him personally. Perhaps, then, Job’s speech can be deemed “right” before God in his speech has what Jones describes as a “Godward trajectory and raw honesty.”[39] Perhaps it is this that the person of faith can seek to emulate in Job — an approach to God that does not seek to neutralise[40] feelings of anger toward Him. Job might teach people of faith in the way that he goes to God with all of himself. Belief can at times entail deep discomfort. As Irving Greenberg says, “Anger is more compatible with love and involvement than pleasant niceties and old compliments.”[41]

Gerald Janzen writes about an occasion when he demands that his eleven-year-old daughter prepare for her violin lesson despite her lack of enthusiasm or desire for practice. In this story, the argument becomes so heated that the young girl stomps her feet and exclaims, ‘I hate you, Daddy!” This encounter had a profound effect on Janzen, and he retrospectively interprets the event in the following way: “The ‘I hate you!’ that belonged to that specific occasion and its issues was grounded in and made possible by a relationship in the word ‘Daddy.’”[42]

Endnotes

[1] That is, the Prologue and Epilogue (See Job 1–2, 42.7–17).

[2] It is understood that to look for the possibility of emulating Job assumes that the Book of Job has a lesson or teaching to offer — one that is bound up in the book’s main protagonist. The understanding of the Book of Job offering a lesson for people of faith is predicated upon an (a priori) appreciation of the value or significance of the text that stems from its inclusion within the Biblical canon. Therefore, even if a book’s presence within the canon is today inexplicable, people of faith will still accept its presence and attribite worth to it. Although some scholars consider there not to be one univocal lesson or teaching in the Book of Job, for the sake of seeking to answer this essay’s question this will not be of primary concern.

[3] The Hebrew Scriptures themselves testify to Job’s righteousness, along with Noah and Daniel, in Ezekiel 14.14, 20.

[4] Walter Moberly, Old Testament Theology: Reading the Hebrew Bible as Christian Scripture (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2013), p.265. For an interesting discussion on ways that “fearing God” is understood, see p.245.

[5] Job 28 does not appear particularly helpful for characterising Job. Especially as it is interpreted so variedly, and it is debated as to which character is speaking. Carol A. Newsom, ‘Reconsidering Job’, Currents in Biblical Research, 5.2 (2007), 155–182, <10.1177/1476993X06073806> [accessed 16 November 2015], esp. 161–164.

[6] Perhaps comparable at this juncture is The Akedah — another perplexing testing scene. Here, Abraham is commanded by God to kill his son Isaac. Isaac, qualified by “your son, your only son…whom you love”, is clearly very dear to Abraham, as would be any son to a Father. Furthermore, Isaac is the son of the promise. The covenantal blessing of Abraham and his offspring is directly contingent upon the very life of Isaac himself. It is, therefore, startling for God to demand Isaac’s death. God seems to be going against his own word. Remarkably, however, Abraham is not depicted as giving any response. The confusion created by Abraham’s silence here is all the more pronounces when compared with his protesting against God’s plan to destroy the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah in Genesis 18. The verse immediately following God’s command has Abraham rising early in the morning, springing into action and immediately making preparations to ensure that his obedience to God is swift and throrough. Abraham’s silence, like Job’s reticence in the prose, seems disjointed from the reality of his circumstances. In this, both Job and Abraham appear somewhat two-dimensional.

[7] Permitted by God Himself, who holds up Job as praiseworthy (Job 1:8–12; 2:3–6).

[8] “Satan does not believe that the righteous man is rewarded. It is rather the rewarded man who is righteous” (David S. Shapiro, ‘The Book of Job and the Trial of Abraham’, Tradition: A Journal of Orthodox Jewish Thought, 4.2 (1962), in JSTOR, 216,

[9] One of the only other comparable testings in the Hebrew Scriptures is, as mentioned above, The Akedah in Genesis 22. Drawing parallels between these two events has some precedence. For example, see J. van Ruiten, ‘Abraham, Job and the Book of Jubilees: the Intertextual Relationship of Genesis 22.1–19, Job 1.1–2.13 and Jubilees 17.15–18.19’, in The Sacrifice of Isaac: The Aqedah (Genesis 22) and its Interpretations (Boston: Brill. 2002), pp.58–85; Joanna Weinberg, ‘Job Versus Abraham: The Quest for the Perfect God-Fearer in Rabbinic Tradition’, in The Book of Job (Louvain: Leuven University Press, 1994), pp.281–296.

[10] J. David Pleins, ‘“Why Do You Hide Your Face?” Divine Silence and Speech in the Book of Job,’ Interpretation, 48.3 (1994) in ATLA, 231.

[11] There is a sense of irony to this. Pleins cleverly remarks, “The paradox of the Book of Job is that the debate about God has left God out of the debate” (Why Do You Hide Your Face? (1994), 231).

[12] J. Jonathan Schraub, ‘For the Sin we have Committed by Theological Rationalisations: Rescuing Job from Normative Religion’, Soundings: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 86.3/4 (2003), 432, in JSTOR. Note also, with respect to comparing Abraham and Job above, that Schraub sees the silence of the two men as protest against God.

[13] David Shapiro, The Book of Job (1962), 211.

[14] After all, the Dialogue dominates the whole book of Job both in scale and content. See Stuart Weeks, An Introduction to the Study of Wisdom Literature (London, T&T Clark, 2010), p.49.

[15] Robert Alter, The Art of Biblical Narrative, 2nd ed. (New York: Basic Books, 2011), p.96.

[16] That is, if there is an message overall message to the Book of Job. The Dialogue is effective in creating an ambiguity of meaning by juxtaposing multiple conflicting or competiting voices against one another.

[17] Stuart Weeks, An Introduction to the Study of Wisdom Literature (2010), p.70.

[18] J. David Pleins, Why Do You Hide Your Face? (1994), 230.

[19] J. David Pleins, Why Do You Hide Your Face? (1994), 229.

[20] Although attention here is given to how Job is characterised, it might also be interesting to consider how God appears. Is God’s silence during Job’s troubles kind, or actually cruel?

[21] Katherine J. Dell, Job: Where Shall Wisdom Be Found? (Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix Press, 2013), p.75. Although not all would establish such a sharp contrast between the prose and the Dialogue, for the sake of Job’s characterisation through silence and speech this juxtaposition appears helpful.

[22] Ibid., p.78

[23] “If I sin, what do I do to you, you watcher of humanity? Why have you made me your target?” (7:20)

[24] “What profit do we get if we pray to him?” (21.15)

[25] “Does it seem good to you to oppress, to despise the work of your hands and favour the schemes of the wicked?” (10.3)

[26] Job 30.21. See also the remarkably forceful language Job uses against God in 16.9–14.

[27] Katherine J. Dell, Job (2013), p.79.

[28] Job 16.3.

[29] Job 18.3

[30] Job 19.23–27

[31] Stuart Weeks, An Introduction to the Study of Wisdom Literature (2010), p.69.

[32] Job 29.2a, 7b, 8.

[33] This, along with the irony that when God does speak he does not seem to answer Job’s questions, might lead some to suggest that the book of Job should not be taken as propounding a univocal lesson or teaching. Dell, for instance, says, “Perhaps at the end of the day what the author of Job is doing is raising questions for his audience to contemplate rather than attempting to provide definitive answers” (Katherin J. Dell, Job (2013), p.79).

[34] Stuart Weeks, An Introduction to the Study of Wisdom Literature (2010), p.69.

[35] Robert Alter, The Art of Biblical Narrative (2011), p.159.

[36] Robert Alter, The Art of Biblical Narrative (2011), p.109.

[37] Job 42.7. The right-ness of Job’s God-talk is intensified by the repetition in 42.8, and also the juxtaposition of Job with his friends who have not spoken what is right of God.

[38] “Who is this that darkens counsel by words without knowledge?” (Job 38.2).

[39] Paul Hedley Jones, Job’s Way Through Pain: Karma, Clichés and Questions (Milton Keynes: Paternoster, 2014), p.74.

[40] J. Jonathan Schraub, For the Sin we have Committed (2003), 437.

[41] Irving Greenberg, “Clouds of Smoke, Pillars of Fire: Judaism, Christianity and Modernity after the Holocaust”, in Auschwitz: Beginning of a New Era? Reflections on the Holocaust, ed. Eva Fleischner (New York: KTAV, 1977), p.40.

[42] Gerald Janzen, At the Scent of Water: The Ground of Hope in the Book of Job (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009), p.93.

Bibliography

Alter, Robert, The Art of Biblical Narrative, 2nd ed. (New York: Basic Books, 2011)

Dell, Katherine J., Job: Where Shall Wisdom Be Found? (Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix Press, 2013).

Clines, David J. A., A Very Short Commentary on the Book of Job (2015), <https://www.academia.edu/15367767/A_Very_Short_Commentary_on_the_Book_of_Job> [accessed 16 November 2015].

Clines, David J. A., Why Is There a Book of Job, and What Does It Do to You If You Read It? (1994), <https://www.academia.edu/2467348/Why_Is_There_a_Book_of_Job_and_What_Does_It_Do_to_You_If_You_Read_It> [accessed 16 November 2015].

Glazov, Gregory Yuri, ‘The Significance of the “Hand on the Mouth” Gesture in Job XL 4’, Vetus Testamentum, 52.1 (2002), 30–41, in JSTOR, <http://www.jstor.org/stable/1585101> [accessed 20 November 2015]

Greenberg, Irving, “Clouds of Smoke, Pillars of Fire: Judaism, Christianity and Modernity after the Holocaust”, in Auschwitz: Beginning of a New Era? Reflections on the Holocaust, ed. Eva Fleischner (New York: KTAV, 1977), p.40.

Greenberg, Moshe, ‘Job’ in The Literary Guide to the Bible, ed. by Robert Alter and Frank Mermode (London: Fortana Press, 1989), pp.283–304.

Janzen, Gerald, At the Scent of Water: The Ground of Hope in the Book of Job (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009).

Jones, Paul Hedley, Job’s Way Through Pain: Karma, Clichés and Questions (Milton Keynes: Paternoster, 2014).

Moberly, R. W. L., Old Testament Theology: Reading the Hebrew Bible as Christian Scripture (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2013).

Newsom, Carol A., ‘Reconsidering Job’, Currents in Biblical Research, 5.2 (2007), 155–182, <10.1177/1476993X06073806> [accessed 16 November 2015].

Pleins, J. David, ‘“Why Do You Hide Your Face?” Divine Silence and Speech in the Book of Job’, Interpretation, 48.3 (1994), 229–238, in ATLA, <http://search.ebscohost.com.ezphost.dur.ac.uk/login.aspx?direct=true&db=rfh&AN=ATLA0000881165&site=ehost-live> [accessed 20 November].

Schraub, J. Jonathan, ‘For the Sin we have Committed by Theological Rationalisations: Rescuing Job from Normative Religion’, Soundings: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 86.3/4 (2003), 431–462, in JSTOR, <http://www.jstor.org/stable/41179119> [accessed 20 November 2015].

Shapiro, David S., ‘The Book of Job and the Trial of Abraham’, Tradition: A Journal of Orthodox Jewish Thought, 4.2 (1962), 210–220, in JSTOR, <http://www.jstor.org/stable/23255357> [accessed 20 November 2015].

Weeks, Stuart, An Introduction to the Study of Wisdom Literature (London, T&T Clark, 2010).