SERIES: The Book of Job
Round One of the Garbage Dump Debate
SPEAKER: Michael P. Andrus
Introduction: A Junior High School teacher was showing her class through an art museum. As they passed from gallery to gallery, she enthusiastically extolled the abilities of the men and women whose paintings graced the walls. “A truly great artist,” she was heard to say, “can turn a smiling face into a frowning one with a single stroke of his brush.” In response one of the boys remarked in a loud whisper, “That’s nothing—so can my father!” I wonder if that student wasn’t a descendent of Job. With one stroke of His brush, Job’s heavenly Father, whom he loved and served so faithfully, turned Job’s smile into a frown, reducing him to nothing and allowing him to remain week after week as an outcast on the garbage dump of the town in which he lived.
Three friends heard of his plight and came immediately to sympathize with him and comfort him, a job they performed well for 7 days and 7 nights as they sat and mourned with him without saying a word. Finally, Job speaks in chapter 3 of the anguish of his soul and of his wish to die. That serves as a trigger for these three friends to reveal what they are really thinking, namely that Job must be guilty of some serious sin for all this to come upon him. And before we know it, a full‑blown debate develops between Job and his three “acquaintances.”
I have wrestled much with the question of how to preach the material in chapters 4‑37. One option, of course, would be to preach through the entire 34‑chapter debate verse by verse. That’s what John Calvin did in Geneva when he preached 156 consecutive sermons on Job starting in 1549. That would take approximately 3 1/2 years. After much prayerful consideration I have decided upon a different approach. I will instead attempt to preach these 34 chapters in 3 sermons, one for each round of the debate. Obviously, we will be merely providing an overview and relying upon you to read much of the text for yourself and fill in the details. Much profit awaits those who do. Taking this approach means I have 11 chapters to cover this morning, so I think we’d best get started. And we will forego our usual public reading of the entire text.
In Round One of the Debate the three friends of Job seem bent on establishing the truth of a certain proposition: “Be it resolved that suffering is always attributable to sin in the sufferer’s life.” Now we know that isn’t true, because Jesus said so in John 9, but if we were living several millennia before Christ, as these men were, we might wrestle with the same proposition; in fact, many Christians still do in spite of what Jesus said.
It’s not difficult to understand why Eliphaz, Bildad and Zophar seem dedicated to this idea. Job had a reputation for being a very godly man. He was also a very prosperous man. He is now no longer a prosperous man. There must be some reason for the change in his status. The simplest explanation is that Job must no longer be a godly man. To these three men everything is black or white—they see no gray areas. Either they must justify Job at the expense of God, or they must justify God at the expense of Job. And since they see no other alternatives, it’s really no contest. Job must be the culprit. He must be hiding something. He must have some unconfessed sin in his life. Otherwise, God would not have brought such calamity upon him.
First speaker, Eliphaz the Temanite
The debate begins on a very low key. Eliphaz knows the brutal, confrontational approach often backfires, so he decides to broach the subject in a gentle and subtle way. He begins with an exhortation to Job which deals not with any alleged sin in his life but with his attitude in response to suffering. You will recall that in chapter 3 Job had delivered a very plaintive soliloquy about his suffering, ruing the day of his birth and wishing he could die. To this Eliphaz directs a restrained rebuke in 4:1-6:
Then Eliphaz the Temanite replied:
2 “If someone ventures a word with you, will you be impatient?
But who can keep from speaking?
3 Think how you have instructed many,
how you have strengthened feeble hands.
4 Your words have supported those who stumbled;
you have strengthened faltering knees.
5 But now trouble comes to you, and you are discouraged;
it strikes you, and you are dismayed.
6 Should not your piety be your confidence
and your blameless ways your hope?
In essence he says, “Job, practice what you’ve preached. You’ve encouraged others when they were depressed. You’ve taught others to be strong and to maintain hope. But now when some problems come your way, you can’t handle it.”
There’s a certain measure of justification in this criticism of Job. All of us must be aware that our exhortations to others may eventually come back on ourselves. But while that is true, it doesn’t need to be said now. When a child ignores a parent’s advice and makes a mistake, that’s not generally the best time to say, “I told you so.” And when Job is suffering severe depression, it’s not the best time to say, “You’ve cheered up others—now you ought to be cheerful.”
Having given this back‑handed exhortation, Eliphaz proceeds to his primary argument, which we will call, “The argument from EXPERIENCE.” The key phrase is found in verse 8: “as I have observed.” But let’s start our reading with verse 7.
“Consider now: Who, being innocent, has ever perished?
Where were the upright ever destroyed?
8 As I have observed, those who plow evil
and those who sow trouble reap it.
9 At the breath of God they perish;
at the blast of his anger they are no more.
10 The lions may roar and growl,
yet the teeth of the great lions are broken.
11 The lion perishes for lack of prey,
and the cubs of the lioness are scattered.
Eliphaz is basing his argument on experience, on personal observation. What he has observed can be summarized in the words of Gal. 6:7: “a man reaps what he sows.” Now that’s a good general biblical principle. The difficulty is that it’s a principle for the long run, not necessarily for the short haul. One cannot always make a direct one‑to‑one connection between sowing and reaping. But Eliphaz feels he can; Job must have sown wild oats because that’s what he’s reaping.
An argument from personal observation is often useful, but we must be careful with such arguments, for our observation or experience is never complete. There is always the possibility that we have overlooked some relevant facts, and that certainly is the case with Eliphaz. He overlooked the dispute between God and Satan, which was the real cause of Job’s troubles, and of course, he overlooked it because he was totally ignorant of it.
I wonder if Eliphaz didn’t see that his argument from personal observation was a bit unconvincing, because in verse 12 of chapter 4 he adds another kind of argument from experience. Instead of looking merely at personal observation, he now appeals to personal revelation.
“A word was secretly brought to me,
my ears caught a whisper of it.
13 Amid disquieting dreams in the night,
when deep sleep falls on people,
14 fear and trembling seized me
and made all my bones shake.
15 A spirit glided past my face,
and the hair on my body stood on end.
16 It stopped, but I could not tell what it was.
A form stood before my eyes,
and I heard a hushed voice:
17 ‘Can a mortal be more righteous than God?
Can even a strong man be more pure than his Maker?
18 If God places no trust in his servants,
if he charges his angels with error,
19 how much more those who live in houses of clay,
whose foundations are in the dust,
who are crushed more readily than a moth!
20 Between dawn and dusk they are broken to pieces;
unnoticed, they perish forever.
21 Are not the cords of their tent pulled up,
so that they die without wisdom?’
Eliphaz is claiming divine revelation of some kind. He is playing his trump card, for how does one refute a direct message from God?
Whenever I hear someone try to establish a theological point by means of personal revelation, I get nervous. The reason is that there are no controls on such arguments. How can we know that God was the source of the vision, rather than some gastrointestinal disorder, or, worse yet, some diabolical source. There was a time, of course, when God’s will for his people came primarily by way of revelation through prophets and apostles, but even then, claims of personal revelation had to be evaluated.
It is quite clear (when the entire book of Job is taken into account) that Eliphaz was either lying about this revelation or he received it from some other source than God. Today we must be even more careful about accepting revelational claims at face value, for while God is certainly still in the business of giving personal guidance to His people, normative truth (i.e., truth that is obligatory for the whole Church) resides in this Book, and any personal revelations that lead contrary to this Book must be shunned.
In chapter 5 Eliphaz continues his argument from experience by returning once again to personal observation. In verse 3 he says, “I myself have seen a fool taking root, but suddenly his house was cursed,” and in verse 7 he generalizes by saying, “Man is born to trouble as surely as sparks fly upward.” For the rest of the chapter Eliphaz continues with his personal observations regarding God’s blessing on the righteous and his judgment on the wicked, sprinkling in here and there a few incriminating exhortations, like verse 8, “But if it were I, I would appeal to God; I would lay my cause before him,” and verse 17, “Do not despise the discipline of the Almighty.”
Finally, Eliphaz sums up his argument in 5:27: “We have examined this, and it is true. So hear it and apply it to yourself.” In other words, “we have found from experience that suffering is due to sin. Case closed. The sooner you accept it, Job, the sooner you will find your fortunes reversed.” Now if you were Job, how would you respond to this not‑so‑subtle condemnation? Well, Job begins in his rebuttal where Eliphaz began—namely the issue of his attitude.
A rebuttal from Job
1. He defends his complaining. (6:1-13) In the first 13 verses of chapter 6 Job admits that his words have been rash, but he justifies them based on the degree of his suffering. He argues that if his suffering were put on a scale, it would weigh more than the sand of the seas. “The arrows of the Almighty are in me,” he complains. In other words, God is using him for divine target practice. In verses 8 & 9 he again expresses the same death‑wish he made back in chapter 3, but in begging for a speedy death he establishes a very crucial point, verse 10: “If I died today I would still have this consolation that I had not denied the words of the Holy One.” In other words, “Yes, I’ve complained and wished aloud that I could die, but at least give me credit that I haven’t turned my back on God.”
2. He rebukes his “friends.” (6:14-30) He claims that a despairing man deserves kindness from his friends, lest he forsake the fear of God. Instead, he likens his 3 friends to a wadi, a dry creek bed, which when it rains cuts a new course and meanders at will through the countryside, but in the summer, when it is needed most, it dries up. The problem is not that Job is unwilling to listen to good advice. In fact, in verse 24 he says to his friends,
“Teach me, and I will be quiet;
show me where I have been wrong.
How painful are honest words!
But what do your arguments prove?
Do you mean to correct what I say,
and treat the words of a despairing man as wind?
You would even cast lots for the fatherless
and walk over your grandmother (that last phrase is my own marginal reading).
In chapter 7 Job cries out again in bitter despair, addressing himself in part to his friends and in part to God.
3. He cries out in bitter despair. (7:1-21) After describing the dreadfulness of his physical suffering, Job asks God if he is some kind of monster so that God never lets him alone, and finally asks in verse 20, “If I have sinned, what have I done to you, O watcher of men? Why have you made me your target?… Why do you not pardon my offenses and forgive my sins?” Do you remember two weeks ago how we demonstrated the importance of alleviating unnecessary guilt when we are trying to comfort the afflicted? Well, Eliphaz has apparently succeeded in doing exactly the opposite. He has brought Job to the point of questioning his own integrity and godliness without any cause whatsoever.
As Job closes his first speech there’s a touch of humor in this suffering servant’s words. He doesn’t mean it humorously, but that’s how it comes across. The last verse in chapter 7 goes, “For I will soon lie down in the dust; you will search for me, but I will be no more.” In other words, “The last laugh will be on you, God. You’ll be sorry when I’m 6 feet under!” What a pitiful and pitiable sight is this poor man!
So much for the first speaker and the first rebuttal. We’ll obviously have to move a little quicker on the next two speeches.
Second speaker: Bildad the Shuhite
Bildad also begins with an exhortation, only he’s not quite as subtle and indirect as was Eliphaz. He begins immediately in chapter 8 by calling Job a bag of wind and by asserting with no small degree of dogmatism, “Your children sinned and God punished them. And if you would repent, He would restore you.” It’s that simple to Bildad. But where this great intellect of a man goes wrong is in failing to prove the very points he assumes. Did Job’s children sin? Does Job himself need to repent? So far neither Eliphaz nor Bildad have been able to specify any sins on the part of Job or his family. These guys are great gatherers of generalities but very short on specific evidence. If Eliphaz’ main argument was based on experience, Bildad’s is based on tradition.
An argument from tradition. (8:1-19) The key phrase from Bildad is found in 8:8: “Ask the former generations and find out what their fathers learned.” Read the history books, Job! They’ll confirm the truth of our proposition: suffering is always attributable to sin in the sufferer’s life. He then proceeds to compare the ungodly (meaning Job) with a papyrus in a desert. Papyrus grows only in a swamp, and even there it dries up faster than any other plant. “Such is the destiny of all who forget God.” (8:13). And he continues his analogies from nature and history down through verse 19.
Bildad’s brief but windy speech ends with a conclusion in verses 20‑22: “Surely God does not reject a blameless man or strengthen the hands of evildoers. He will yet fill your mouth with laughter and your lips with shouts of joy. Your enemies will be clothed in shame, and the tents of the wicked will be no more.” On first reading it appears Bildad is offering Job some real hope here. But all his promises are predicated upon the assumption that Job will repent, for Bildad’s controlling passion is his assumed fact that God will not allow a righteous man to suffer. Once again, the logic comes through loud and clear: “God will not reject a man of integrity. Job has been rejected. Therefore, Job must not be a man of integrity.”
A rebuttal from Job. Job’s rebuttal to Bildad is found in chapters 9 & 10. And it is in this speech that we begin to get a little nervous about Job. Oh, he starts off well enough. He asserts first that God is great, but then he deduces from the fact of God’s greatness and the fact that he (Job) is suffering, secondly that God must also be arbitrary, and thirdly that He is simply unfair.
1. God is great. (9:1-12) Job answers Bildad, “Indeed, I know that this is true, but…. ” In other words, he is willing to grant many of the things Bildad has said about God. In fact, he is willing to go beyond what he has said and assert God’s absolute greatness and His transcendence beyond anything human. But his problem, stated in verses 2 & 3, is how to relate to such a God. How can a mere man, no matter how godly he tries to be, ever measure up to God’s standards? And how can a man ever plead his case before such a great God? Listen to Job as I read beginning in 9:4:
“His wisdom is profound, his power is vast.
Who has resisted him and come out unscathed?
He moves mountains without their knowing it and overturns them in his anger.
He shakes the earth from its place and makes its pillars tremble.
He speaks to the sun and it does not shine; he seals off the light of the stars.
He alone stretches out the heavens and treads on the waves of the sea.
He is the Maker of the Bear (the Big Dipper) and Orion,
the Pleiades and the constellations of the south.
He performs wonders that cannot be fathomed, miracles that cannot be numbered.
When he passes me, I cannot see him; when he goes by, I cannot perceive him.
If he snatches away, who can stop him? Who can say to him, ‘What are you doing?'”
From these words about God’s greatness Job moves to assert His arbitrariness.
2. God is arbitrary. (9:13-24) The key verse is 9:22: “It is all the same; that is why I say, ‘He destroys both the blameless and the wicked.'” It doesn’t matter, says Job, whether one is guilty or innocent—God will find something wrong with which to judge him. And Job’s feelings about God’s arbitrariness lead directly to an assertion that God is unfair.
3. God is unfair. (9:25-10:22) Here Job leaves us almost breathless with his accusations against God. Listen once again as I read beginning in 9:27 through verse 31.
If I say, ‘I will forget my complaint,
I will change my expression, and smile,’
28 I still dread all my sufferings,
for I know you will not hold me innocent.
29 Since I am already found guilty,
why should I struggle in vain?
30 Even if I washed myself with soap
and my hands with cleansing powder,
31 you would plunge me into a slime pit
so that even my clothes would detest me.
Perhaps the most moving statement in all the 11 chapters we are glancing at today is the one in 9:33, in which Job laments, “If only there were someone to arbitrate between us, to lay his hand upon us both.” Job saw the need for a mediator between God and man, someone who could listen to both sides and help him understand God and His dealings with men. But he knew of no such person.
In a sense he was way ahead of his time, for eventually God sent just such a Mediator, namely His Son Jesus Christ, who could indeed lay His hand upon both God and man and enable us to understand and accept suffering as never before. Here’s how the author of Hebrews put it: “He had to be made like His brethren in all things, that He might become a merciful and faithful high priest . . . For since He Himself was tempted in that which He has suffered, He is able to come to the aid of those who are tempted.”
Third speaker: Zophar the Naamathite
Just as Bildad was less subtle and less gentle with Job than was Eliphaz, so Zophar continues the downward spiral. He simply opens with a blazing condemnation of Job. He says in effect, “Job, you’ve been complaining because God is silent. I too wish He would speak because if He did, He would cut you down and put an abrupt end to all your silly talk about innocence.” In fact, Job (and this is the end of 11:6), “Know this, God has even forgotten some of your sin.” In other words, He is doubtless punishing Job for less than he deserves.
From that swift and direct condemnation Zophar proceeds to his main argument, which I call an argument from Theology, or an argument based on the nature of God. At first glance that appears to be an improvement. Eliphaz based his argument on experience and Bildad based his on tradition. Now here’s someone willing to consider God’s character.
An argument from theology (11:7-12). But look where Zophar goes with his argument in 11:11-12: “Surely God recognizes deceitful men; and when he sees evil, does he not take note? But a witless man can no more become wise than a wild donkey’s colt can be born a man.” Who is the deceitful man he is speaking of? Who is the witless idiot? Right, it’s Job. In other words, Zophar is saying that God is so inscrutable in His wisdom and His omniscience that He can see Job’s sin without looking for it. But I see a problem with Zophar’s thought processes at this point, a little contradiction, perhaps. If God’s ways are so unknowable, then how does Zophar know that God is judging Job for sin in his life? Maybe the idiot is Zophar instead of Job.
Just as we must be careful with arguments based upon experience and those based upon tradition, so we need to be careful, too, with some arguments based upon theology. I’ve heard people argue, “God is love. Therefore, He couldn’t allow anyone to suffer in Hell for eternity.” Or, “God is sovereign. Therefore, man has no free will to choose or reject Christ.” Theology is a most useful discipline, but our theological deductions must never carry the same weight as Scripture. Zophar concludes with a rather lengthy appeal to Job to repent and allow God to restore him to prosperity and peace and hope.
A rebuttal from Job
1. He asserts that experience and history confirm God’s arbitrariness. (12:1-13:17) If his friends want to argue from experience and tradition, so be it, but they should know that in trying to prove something about God’s treatment of man, one’s conclusions depend upon what examples one feeds into the computer. Garbage in, garbage out. “I can show you plenty of examples,” says Job, “where the just and blameless man is a laughingstock (12:4) and “where those who provoke God are secure (12:6). “Even the dumbest beast knows that.” (12:7)
2. He again protests his innocence. (13:18-25) No matter how convincing their argument—whether from experience or tradition or theology—Job knows he is innocent of any sin that could account for the level of his suffering. Listen to him counterattack in 13:4,5: “You, however, smear me with lies; you are worthless physicians, all of you! If only you would be altogether silent! For you, that would be wisdom!” And then toward the end of chapter 13 and throughout chapter 14 Job laments his situation with desperation.
3. He almost despairs of hope. (13:26-14:22). I say “almost” because hidden among his anguished cry is a ray or two of hope. Note verse 15 of chapter 13: “Though he slay me, yet will I hope in him.” As the Student Bible notes observe, “This statement more than any other shows the depth of Job’s faith, and the reason he made good on God’s challenge against Satan. He valued his faith in God even above his own life. He asked only for a ‘day in court,’ a chance to confront God personally and hear an explanation.”
Conclusion: Job’s comforters have failed miserably to prove their proposition that suffering is always attributable to sin in the sufferer’s life, and in the process have utterly failed to comfort Job. Their arguments have been fallacious; they have assumed their conclusions; and they have tragically misjudged an innocent man. On the other hand, Job in his despair has complained about God, sometimes bitterly and sometimes rashly.
If I hadn’t already read the last chapter of this book, I’m afraid my entire estimate of Job might have been destroyed in these chapters. But I have read the last chapter, and I see there how the Lord said to Eliphaz: “I am angry with you and your two friends, because you have not spoken of me what is right, as my servant Job has.” Doesn’t that surprise you? Surely the things Job has said about God here in chapters 4‑14 are not right! How can God be more pleased with Job’s speeches than with the speeches of his comforters? Why does God tolerate Job and denounce the others?
Is it because Job has suffered much and can, therefore, plead insanity? No, I think there is more to it than that. Job’s friends, in their attempt to justify God’s actions toward Job, have limited His sovereignty. They have put God in a box and sealed the lid and said, “God can only act in this way: if you’re righteous, He’ll bless you. If you’re not, He won’t. If you suffer, it’s because God is punishing you. We’ve got God all figured out. Period.” Job, on the other hand, while speaking rashly at times about God and drawing many wrong conclusions about God, has not boxed God in. He has acknowledged God’s freedom and self‑sufficiency and unaccountability.
Friends, God does not take kindly to being put in a box, no matter how good our motivation for putting Him there. He will overlook a lot of theological misconceptions and inadequacies in our view of Him. But He will not tolerate being demoted to finite status. He does not like to hear us say, “God must….” or “God can’t….” or “God always….” We must let God be God. We must admit that God has the right to allow some things that make no sense to us at all.
There are two lessons we must learn from all this, and the first is not to judge others by their suffering. I quote here the words of Job from 13:7‑9, paraphrased: “Must you go on ‘speaking for God,’ when He never once said the things that you are putting into His mouth? Does God want your help if you are going to twist the truth for Him? Be careful that He doesn’t find out what you are doing.” The Apostle Paul said something similar in I Cor. 4:6 when he urged us to “learn not to exceed what is written.” What a crucial lesson to learn! Job’s friends were well‑intentioned. Their desire was to uphold the honor and the good name of God. But in the process of doing so, they put words in God’s mouth and went beyond what He had revealed. We must also learn not to judge God by challenging His motives or His justice. He may allow things we don’t understand, but never will He be untrustworthy.
A final word to those who are suffering today. Job’s friends have failed to prove that suffering is always attributable to sin in the sufferer’s life. It may be; it may not be. If you have confessed every known sin and still you suffer, then hold your head high, pray for God’s mercy, and wait until His sovereign purposes are completed in your life.
DATE: July 4, 1993
Tags:
Tradition
Unfairness