As Job's friends continue their dialogue and come to the third round of encounters, they tend to take off their kid gloves and start directly accusing Job of having sins which are the cause of all his problems. Thus, in this chapter even the earlier mild Eliphaz is caught up in the blame game. But the thrust of his argument is sometimes a little difficult hard to follow. Often it is helpful in trying to understand Scripture to look at the paragraphing proposed in various English translations and Bible commentaries so that the flow of a speaker's thought becomes more evident. In this case, what we find is shown below:
Source Divisions (verses)
NIV 1-3 4-11 12-20 21-30
Heavenor 1-5 6-20 21-30
Living Bible 1-5 6-11 12-14 15-20 21-25 26-30
The Message 1-11 12-14 15-18 19-20 21-25 26-30
TEV 1-11 12-14 15-20 21-30
And finally, RSV, Hartley, JB, Clines, and NRSV all divide the passage into three parts: 1-11, 12-20, and 21-30. Note that all but one of the other translations also accept these three divisions, with possible sub-section breaks after verses 5, 14, and/or 25. There is also good justification for the first two of these subdivisions since verses 1-5 and 12-14 are set apart by the number of rhetorical questions found in both (4 to 7 each, depending on the English translation). Thus, this basic tripartite scheme is probably a good place to start. Hartley labels them, respectively, Accusations; Disputation Concerning God's Activity; and Call to Repentance.
Accusations (Job 22:1-11)
We will start with comments from several scholars regarding the first three verses of this section:
“The point of the argument seems to be that God can have no ulterior motive in dealing with Job, since there is nothing Job can do to benefit Him.” (Pope)
“Eliphaz proceeds to demonstrate that there must be some reason for human affliction. The key cannot be found in God...The explanation must be sought, therefore, in man. Is Job being punished for piety? Inconceivable! Then he must be paying for wickedness...In his situation., the aloof God in the icy altitudes of His remote heaven could not be concerned in His own person about human virtue or vice.” (Heavenor)
“Job had suggested that the wicked had dismissed piety as an unprofitable enterprise (21.5). Eliphaz now defends God, maintaining that the deity has no need of any mortal and does not profit from anyone's piety.” (Seow)
“In his role as the self-appointed upholder of a lofty form of theism, Eliphaz stretches a truth to the absurd. Surely God does not need man (the word suggests a strong, vigorous man) or even a wise man [such as, for example, himself]...The friend implies a doctrine of an impassive deity, which is quite contrary to Biblical thought (Hos ch. 9; Is. 62.5; Lk. 15.7).” (Terrien)
The problem with Eliphaz's comments is that he does not have the benefit we do of reading the introductory chapters of Job in which it is clearly revealed that God does take an almost inordinate interest in the actions of his creation. Since Deism (one of the most popular religious beliefs among the founding fathers of the American Revolution) proposes a God who set the world in motion and then sat back and had no further interaction with or interest in it, Eliphaz would have been right at home in their philosophical discussions.
Then concerning the litany of faults of which Eliphaz accuses Job, the following scholars weigh in:
“This list of faults [vv. 6-9] with which Eliphaz falsely taxes Job is notable for its insistence on sins against justice and charity towards others, even by omission.” (Jerusalem Bible)
“The specific charges leveled against Job are crimes perpetrated by the rich: avarice and callousness to the needs of the poor.” (Seow)
Clines says, “Eliphaz...apparently accuses Job of untold wickedness (5), mainly of the nature of social injustice (6-9). These are the most specific, most harsh, and most unjust words spoken against Job in the whole book, and it is strange to find them on the lips of Eliphaz, of all the friends.” Clines feels that perhaps Job is being criticized for passive, not active sins, i.e. he failed to address these various societal wrongs when he could have done something to prevent them.”
Bullock addresses this apparent change in attitude on Eliphaz's part as follows: “In the clearest and most caustic indictment yet, the once gentle Eliphaz recapitulated argument from his initial speech, adding a liberal touch of sarcasm...In his original speech Eliphaz had acknowledged Job's benevolent conduct (4:3-4), but now the intervening arguments and emotions had come so to dominate his objectivity that he was fully convinced that Job had required illegal pledges and taken undue advantage of the poor generally (22:6-9). Eliphaz's theological system had overpowered his objectivity. He now disbelieved what experience had once validated.”
Years ago at a church I was attending at the time, I experienced an interesting example of a quite gentle man expressing a harsh and unexpected statement regarding others. We were walking from one part of the church to another when, out of the clear blue, he made the observation that although Hitler was thoroughly evil, he did do one good thing while he was alive, namely, round up and exterminate all the gays he could locate. So I personally see no contradiction in Eliphaz seemingly swinging from one end of the spectrum to the other on occasion.
Disputation (Job 22:12-20)
Eliphaz begins his argument in in verses 12-14 in a most unfair manner to Job, as commentators seem to agree:
“Eliphaz's insinuation that Job thinks God does not see is contradicted by Job's own words; cf. vii 19, v 6,14, xiv 3,6.” (Pope)
“The claim that God is too far removed to know what is happening on earth is elsewhere attributed to the wicked...Here Eliphaz appears to be distorting the arguments of Job, who had in fact only affirmed God's ability to see and to know what is on earth (cf. 7.19-20; 14.3; 16.9).” (Seow)
The following words in this section are fraught with problems. Terrien notes that vv. 17-18 are almost identical with those of Job in 21:14-16; perhaps Eliphaz is quoting in order to rebuke.” And Heavenor adds: “Many scholars treat these verses as an insertion. They strongly remind us of the words of Job in 21:7-16 (see especially vv. 14 and 16). 18a sounds especially strange on the lips of Eliphaz and 19 certainly follows v. 16 much more smoothly than it does v. 18.” Despite Heavenor's comments, all modern translations of which I am aware treat these “dubious” words as authentic.
Eliphaz continues his unfair accusations against Job in vv. 17-18. As Seow says, “Job's own characterization of the attitude of the wicked (21.14-16) is taken out of context and represented as Job's own perspective.”
Call to Repentance (Job 22:21-30)
And now for a change of pace, “The mild spirit of Eliphaz breaks through the fire-and-brimstone preaching, in a passage full of beauty and spiritual truth.” (Heavenor)
Eliphaz begins this new section with what Pope labels as “essentially the same as the ancient Sumerian view, that a man in straits like Job had no recourse or hope except to bow to his fate and importune the god to reverse his fortunes.”
Regarding the final verse in this chapter, Pope says: “This verse has been a vexation to exegetes.” The reason for his statement is that we run into a textual and translation problem in v. 30 in that some versions such as RSV opt for reading “innocent man” ('et naqi) while others prefer to stick with the Hebrew wording of 'i naqi (“him that is not innocent”). (Hulst) Supporting the Hebrew version, NRSV simply translates the verse with the words: “He will deliver even those who are guilty; they will escape because of the cleanness of your hands.” This makes perfect sense, respects the Hebrew original, has OT precedents in stories of the intercession by godly leaders with God on behalf of sinners, and sets the stage for Christ's atoning death.
Pope agrees with this assessment and says, “The idea that a righteous man...had great influence with God, even to the point of nullifying a divine decree, or saving the wicked out of consideration for the righteous, is implicit in the story of Abram's plea on behalf of Sodom, Gen xvii 21-33.”
Despite Eliphaz's best intentions at this point, I can't help wondering how Job received this advice. After all, his friend still did not at all believe Job's protestations of innocence and only held out the hope expressed in these last verses if and only if he will only confess his wicked deeds, whatever they might be. My own feeling is that Job received Eliphaz's words as cold comfort at best.
I was once in a somewhat similar situation when my wife and I were having trouble with a family member. Without revealing the identity of this problem relative or sharing the details, my wife sent out a prayer request to our closest friends and relatives. All of them but one were very encouraging, but one relative who lived across country and whom we hadn't really communicated with for years unexpectedly gave us a phone call in the evening. He sounded quite excited and announced to us that he had the answer to solving our problem. It turned out that the night before he had attended a Bible study in which the pastor had explained that any time we had any trouble in our personal life, it all stemmed from our own rebellion against God. Therefore all we needed to do is admit our sin and repent and all our problems would be solved.
I don't think it even crossed his mind that he was in effect judging us with no knowledge of the facts as being rebels against God. Perhaps that was what was behind meek and mild Eliphaz's advice to Job; he thought he was helping out Job the best way he knew how.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment
Comments