07 June

Bible In 365 Days                                                                        

Job 21-23

Job 21

Here, as in the first cycle, Job answered not merely Zophar, but the whole argument. First of all, he set over against their statement and illustrations the fact patent to all that often the wicked are prosperous. This prosperity he described in detail. It is personal, they "live," and "wax mighty." It is continued to their children, who are established. It is manifest in their possessions, "their houses are safe." Their increase is successful. It is seen in their habits, in the dance and the song, and the general circumstances of prosperity. It is evident in their death, for not through long suffering, but in a moment, they go down to Sheol. All this is true in spite of their godlessness. They have exiled God, have not sought His knowledge, have become agnostic, and have denied the benefit of prayer. This prosperity, Job declared, is not due to themselves. His inference is that God had bestowed it, and therefore had not punished the wicked as they have declared He does.

Continuing his answer, Job declared their philosophy to be wholly at fault by asking how often is it true that "the lamp of the wicked is put out." He surmised that they might reply that the judgment falls upon their children, and repudiated such suggestion by declaring that the man who sins is the man who should be punished, and that God has no pleasure in the punishment of posterity. He ended his answer by addressing himself to them more personally. With a touch of satire he suggested that they had learned their philosophy from travelers, and declared their conclusions to be wrong. Therefore their attempted comfort was vain, seeing that their answers contained falsehood. Thus ends the second cycle.

Job 22

Here begins the third cycle in the controversy, and again EIiphaz is the first speaker. His address consisted of two movements. First, he made a definite charge against Job (1-20); and, second, he made his final appeal to Job (21-30). He approached his charge by practically declaring, in a series of questions, first, that a man's righteousness is no direct gain to God, and consequently that it is inconceivable that God punishes a man for his goodness. He then proceeded to declare the sins which, according to his philosophy, would naturally account for the suffering through which Job had passed. By adroit quotation of some of the things Job had said he attempted to account for the sins Job had committed.

Here Eliphaz made his great mistake. Without proof, save such as he was able to deduce from his own reasoning, he had charged Job with the most terrible crimes. Had his deductions been correct, the advice he now gave would indeed have been the highest and the best. What man needs in order himself to be blessed and to be made a blessing is the knowledge of God. This truth is declared, first, by the statement of human condition, and, consequently, by the declaration of the issues of fulfilment. The whole matter is first stated in the great words:

Acquaint now thyself with Him, and be at peace; Thereby good shall come unto thee.

The method by which the conditions are to be fulfilled is described. The law is to be received. There is to be return by putting away unrighteousness. All human treasure is to be abandoned as worthless. Then the answering God is described. Instead of earthly riches, treasure will be possession of the Almighty. In Him there will be delight, and communion with Him; through Him there will come triumph, and the result will be ability to deliver others.

Job 23

In answer to Eliphaz, ob took no notice of the terrible charges made against him. That is postponed to a later speech. Rather, he discussed Eliphai conception of his view of God as being absent from the affairs of men, and boldly affirmed his own consciousness of the great problem.

As to his own case, he admitted that his complaint was accounted rebellious because his stroke was heavier than his groaning. He sighed after God, and principally for His judgment seat. He would fain stand before Him to plead his cause, but he could not find Him, though he went forward and backward. He was conscious of God's presence, but he could not see Him. Suddenly there flames into the midst of the complaint the most remarkable evidence of the tenacity of his faith. His conclusion concerning God was not as Eliphaz had insinuated. He was aware that God knew the way he was taking. He even affirmed his confidence that he would "come forth," and insisted that he had been loyal to God. Then again faith merged into fearful trembling. Whatever God was doing, he could not persuade Him to desist. He knew God's presence, but it troubled him. He was afraid of Him, because He had not appeared to deliver him.