Well, the book of Job is a profound work on human suffering and is worth a lifetime of study and reflection. But was Job himself a real historic character like John Bunyan? Or is Job a mythic legend like Paul Bunyan? And does it really matter in the end which he was, fact or folklore?

The question comes from a listener named Lori. "Dear Pastor John, I have enjoyed your messages on the book of Job. Recently I was at a memorial service at a Reformed church in which the pastor said Job was a fictitious character. The lessons of the book, he said, are still helpful, but what do you think?

Was Job a real person or not? Why or why not? And do you think it really matters in the end?" Yes, if I heard my pastor make the confident statement that Job was a fictitious character, I would seriously consider finding another church. Now, I want to be sure here that I'm not assuming that Lori got it right.

That is, that she's really quoting her pastor accurately. She may not be. And I say that not because it can't be true and the Bible still be infallible. I say it because, that is, I say I would consider leaving the church. I say that because there are no grounds for being dogmatic that Job is fictitious.

That's my first reason. Second reason, the inclination to take the book as fiction with a moral truth, fiction with a moral truth, betrays a mental leaning that I think throws the pastor's biases into question. That's the way I would put it for myself. I'd say his biases are leaning in the wrong direction.

That's my concern. Now, are there good reasons for taking the book of Job as an accurate account of events that really happened? Or do we just say, "Well, it's a draw." I read some commentators who said, "It's just a draw. We don't know if it's a parable or if it's history.

It doesn't matter," they say. Let me give three reasons for taking the story as real history rather than a parable with good morals and good theology. Number one, take the way the book opens. There was a man in the land of Uz whose name was Job and compare that with the beginning, say, of Judges 17.1, the beginning of the story there.

There was a man in the hill country of Ephraim whose name was Micah. Or compare it with the beginning of 1 Samuel 1.1. There was a certain man of Ramoth, Zopharim, of the hill country of Ephraim whose name was Elkanah. Now, one of the ways to assess whether a piece of writing is history or whether it bears the traits of, say, fiction would be to compare how the books are written.

And the fact that Job begins the way those chapters begin which are not presented as parable or fiction is at least one pointer, just one pointer to the way readers would have taken it as they begin to read this book. They would have taken it the way they began to read Judges or 1 Samuel as an account of things that really matters.

That's my first argument. Number two, in Ezekiel 14.12-20 where the prophet is showing how hopeless Jerusalem is under God's judgment because of how much immorality there is in the land, it says this, "The word of the Lord came to me, 'Son of man, when a land sins against me by acting faithlessly, and I stretch out my hand against it to break the supply of bread and send famine upon it and cut off from it man and beast, even if these three men, Noah, Daniel, and Job, were in it, they would deliver but only their own lives by their righteousness.'" Verse 19, "Or if I send a pestilence into that land and pour out my wrath upon it with blood to cut off from it man and beast, even if Noah, Daniel, and Job were in it, as I live, declares the Lord God, they would deliver neither son nor daughter.

They would deliver but their own lives by their righteousness." Now, I know that there are more or less conservative scholars who say that these names, Noah, Daniel, Job, are mentioned here not because they're historical, but because they're all eminently righteous in the books that tell their story. Nevertheless, the case of Jerusalem is so bad, this writer, Ezekiel, chooses three people, two of which are manifestly historical, and the other of which we would presume is historical.

Think with me. Notice two things. Noah and Daniel are unmistakably historical. The Bible does not treat them as fictional ever. And Job is listed with them with no distinction made at all. And that would be really strange if Job were not like them, historical. And here's the second thing to observe.

Ezekiel entertains the hypothetical possibility that Noah and Daniel and Job might be, quote, "in the land." Like if they were in the land, if they came into the land, you know, came back from where they are. I mean, one of them is contemporary. It is a real stretch to think he is saying Noah and Daniel, the historical persons, might be in the land as real people, but Job has to be thought of as in the land in a totally different way.

In other words, it just seems to me that we would need very strong reasons to think Job is fictional if we're going to take Ezekiel 14, 14 in such a unnatural way. Two historical figures, one fictional functioning in the same way, I doubt it. Here's the last point. In James 5, in the New Testament, James 5, verses 10 and 11, James says this, "As an example of suffering and patience, brothers, take the prophets." That's important.

"Take the prophets." Think about the prophets. "Who spoke in the name of the Lord. Behold, we consider those blessed who remain steadfast." You've heard of the steadfastness of Job, and you have seen the purpose of the Lord, how the Lord is compassionate and merciful. Now again, there are those who say, "This proves nothing about Job's historical reality.

He's just being used as a fictional character the way we might use Shakespeare's Hamlet as an example of tragic indecision, say, and Job's being used as an example of perseverance." Really? I mean, James says, "Take the prophets who spoke in the name of the Lord. Behold, we consider those blessed who remain steadfast." You've heard of the steadfastness of Job.

He's not speaking about Job in a vacuum. He's treating Job like one of the prophets. He's putting him in the category with others in history who remain steadfast. So I would say that we have at least these three lines of evidence that Job is historical, internal similarity to some of the other historical works, the treatment of Job in Ezekiel and the treatment of Job in James.

And then Laurie asks, "So do I think it matters?" Of course fiction can teach real flesh and blood truth. The parables of Jesus do that. It's not wrong to write fiction to communicate truth. So it's not as though the theology of Job would have to be sacrificed if the book were inspired fiction.

But I would say it matters for other reasons. Given the way Ezekiel and James treat the book and the person of Job, the readiness to treat the book and the man as fictional signifies a kind of mindset, a kind of soul inclination which leans more easily toward critical trends than I think is healthy.

And that would be a concern to me. That's a good word, and a good soft warning, too, about exegetical biases, Pastor John. Thank you. Well, for everything you need to know about this podcast, go to desiringgod.org/askpastorjohn. Well, do human technologies threaten God's sovereign reign over humanity? And isn't this the main takeaway for why God confused human language in Genesis 11?

It is a really great question and it's next time on Monday. I'm your host Tony Reinke. Have a great weekend. We'll see you then.