Events of so disastrous a nature occurring in the life of a man of Job’s standing in the community would, of course, be responsible for considerable comment. Friend and foe would undoubtedly be free in their speculations as to the cause of these unusual series of calamities. We are granted a look through the eyes of the wise men of the day in the persons of Job’s three friends, and learn what the judgment of most of the people of Job’s society was concerning the whole affair.
But, before considering what the three friends had to say to Job, a word concerning their origin: Eliphaz, apparently the eldest and the most important of the trio, was called a Temanite. Teman was a grandson of Esau (Gen. 36;15) and evidently gave his name to a part of the land of Edom—in Ezekiel 25;12-14, Teman appears to be the northern part of the land of Edom. Bildad is called a Shuhite. Gen. 25 ;1-2 tells us that when Abraham took a second wife, one of the sons she bore him was called Shuah, and there is reasonable evidence to support the suggestion that the Shuhites were descendants of Keturah’s son Shuah. (In Pliny’s History, a statement is made that an Arab location called El Saiak was originally Shuahk and that this was named after Shuah, but this is hardly conclusive evidence). Zophar the Naamathite, the Companion Bible Editor notes, was in all probability from Naamah, south of Judea. A quite remarkable analysis on the book of Job by a Reverend Carteret, now out of print, shows the changes that take place in the names of people and places in the East, and proceeds to demonstrate how the name of a relatively modern Bedouin tribe called the Ben Naaim can be traced back to the Naamathites. There is therefore a possibility that the Naamathites were descendants of the family of Ishmael. It seems a rather curious coincidence, if coincidence it is, that the three friends who play so prominent a part in the life of a man who is a descendant of the line of promise, out of Abraham, should be men of the three main lines of the alien side of Abraham’s family. In all the narrative, arrangement, balance and selection of characters appears so important that we feel there is a very good reason for the introduction of these men into the story.
It may be noticed by the reader of the Book of Job, that there is a certain element of relish shown by these “friends” at Job’s plight. In the case of Eliphaz it is cloaked in polite form, but underlying the attitude of all three is the atmosphere of gloating. Zophar, particularly, exhibits an almost sadistic enjoyment of Job’s cruel experiences. (Chap. 20) We suggest therefore, that underlying the narrative of the problems and suffering of a single man, that there is the allegory of the nation of Israel—self righteous, stiff necked, proud, subjected by God to the severest experiences in order to turn them into the right way, and whose “brothers” boasted of their afflictions and helped forward the affliction. It is interesting to read the prophecy of Obadiah and note the basis of Divine condemnation on the Edomites. We will refer to the suggestion again when we consider the significance of Elihu, and the final “returning again of the captivity of Job.”
As we begin to consider the speeches of the five men who occupy so large a place in the Book, we are struck by the extraordinary skill of characterization shown by the writer of the Book. With an almost complete absence of physical description, or any of the usual methods a writer may use to bring his characters “alive” to his readers, the five men are clearly identifiable as to character, religious philosophy, age and personality—solely by the words they speak. Eliphaz, for example, emerges as a man of great age and experience ; opinionated, as learned and aged men frequently are—disliking any challenge to his judgment in the matter. Note Chapter 5;3, “I have seen the fool taking root” etc.; Chap. 4 ;8, “Even as I have seen ; Chap. 5;27, “Lo this we have searched out, it is true” ; Chap. 15;9-10, “What do you know that we do not know—both the gray-haired are among us, older than your father.” This is the opinionated attitude of an old man with long experience, and also added to it, is the fact that Eliphaz takes precedence among the three friends—an indication that he was the eldest. Bildad appears as a cool logical reasoner, whose approach to the problem is based on rule and tradition. Note that his handling of the problem is that of the lawyer—interrogative—and it (8;3, 8;8-10) is quite in harmony with this man’s character that he remains completely unruffled as the debate becomes heated. His final speech in Chapter 25, is as cool as the first. Zophar, obviously the youngest, is savage and vigorous in his attack without any attempt to politeness, or any attempt to be considerate of Job’s feelings! One writer commenting on this man remarks that his was typical of a “bull in a china shop” approach. He was the first to make a definitely wrong statement of Divine method-11 ;6, “know then that God “exacts” nothing of anyone. God exacts of you less than you deserve”—and of course, God “exacts nothing of anyone.
In chapter 20, this man is particularly brutal where he seems to enjoy describing the agony of suffering as the sword is thrust into the bowels of the wicked man. It seems reasonable to suggest, therefore, that the writer of the Book of Job has drawn for us three distinct points of view towards the problem of Job :1. Age and experience; 2. Traditional and legal 3. The purely human. But, underlying their whole approach, there appears also, that subtle evidence of the envy and jealousy that was used by God to bring Job’s problem into the open that he might perceive himself in the Divine perspective.
Now, while we note that temperament, age, experience, did create variety of expression, there was nevertheless a startling harmony between the three, in the major points on the basis of which they condemned Job. In their belief in the retributive justice of God, there was, in their point of view, a direct connection between sin and calamity, and an equally direct connection between obedience to God and resultant tangible and material blessings. In chapter 4:7, Eliphaz says, “Think now, who that was innocent ever perished ?” 22:2, “Agree with God and be at peace.” Bildad says, in 8 4, “If your children have sinned against him”; etc. Zophar, in 20:29, “This is the wicked man’s portion from God”. Strictly speaking, this is a narrow interpretation of the blessings and cursing of the Law of Moses. without any allowance for the Grace of God, and of course, a belief that God’s favour could be earned. This is the philosophy of the Pharisee, and we have a recorded example in John 9, in the question directed to Christ, “Did this man sin or his parents that he was born blind ?” The second and third phases of their religious beliefs are closely elated. They are a cold conception of the remoteness, greatness and holiness of the Deity. Zophar, for example, speaks of the limitless nature of the Divine Person, in a passage that is reminiscent of Isaiah 55 ;9— “Can you find out the deep things of God ? Can you find out the limit of the Almighty?”—Job 11;7-12. Eliphaz, in 22;12, “Is not God high in the heavens ?” The perfection of the Almighty and His Exalted Holiness is stressed in such passages, by Eliphaz in 12:14-15, and by Bildad in his third talk in Chap. 25.
Now, in all they had to say concerning God, there was considerable truth. But their point of view was narrow. It is true that He is of unequalled majesty, but He is also compassionate; it is true that He is Holy so that none are truly righteous in His sight, but He is forgiving and merciful; it is true that he is unapproachable by man, but nevertheless He ha, for man, a glorious purpose. There appeared no recognition of this purpose in the reasoning of the three friends.
The one major fault however, that we find in their approach to Job’s problem is in that it was unsympathetic and dishonest—they could find no fault in him yet they condemned him. Elihu was later to condemn them on anther count—they listened to all Job’s complaints but made no attempt to defend God in the matter. The effect of all this on Job was crushing ; particularly so, as their point of view on the Deity was obviously the same as Job’s. To him, disaster was related to sin as closely as cause and effect ; yet, from the point of view of law, he was “perfect”.
He would agree to the reference to Divine remoteness for he had searched for Him and could not find Him ; and to God’s Power and Holiness, but this was a matter of power, from Job’s view, as we shall see later. There seems little doubt that the failure of the friends to comfort and sustain him, and their unqualified condemnation was the “last straw” so-to-speak, and it accomplished what all the loss of possessions and family and personal suffering and degradation had failed to do. They were the final factors which broke his tremendous self-discipline and caused him to talk and reveal the real man.
It seems reasonable to suggest that the role of the three friends was part of the whole pattern—it was necessary to destroy Job’s previous conception of a way of life that was subject to Divine approval. Each set of experiences played their part—first, the loss of all personal possessions and children; second, the infliction of personal suffering; and finally, the condemnation of his “brothers” brought him to the point of examining all his previous ideas concerning righteousness and God. What happened to him as he attempted to reason a way out of the dilemma, we will consider in the next article
The Origin of the Organic World – Part One