THE BOOK OF JOB. CHAPTER XXII. ANALYSIS OF THE CHAPTER. THIS chapter commences the third series in the controversy. As before, Eliphaz begins the argument, and replies to Job. He maintains his former sentiments, and does it with great energy, and is evidently roused by the argument of Job. Job had attacked their main position in the previous chapter, and it became necessary now to fortify it if possible. There is, also, much severity in this discourse, and far more than usual that is personal. Job is openly charged with aggravated guilt, which, before, had been rather implied than said. But here is no concealment; and, perhaps, this is an instance, such as often occurs, where, when a man has the worst of the argument, he resorts to a personal attack on him who has confuted him. The argument of Eliphaz comprises the following points:-(1.) That it could not be any advantage to God that a man was righteous, and that he set up a claim to perfection. God had nothing to lose in treating men as they deserve, and could not be deterred by fear from dealing with them according to their real character, vs. 1-4 By these remarks, he seems to be replying to Job, as if it must be true, that if God did not deal with them according to their real character in this life, as Job had maintained, it must be either because he feared the wicked man, or because there was some advantage which he expected to derive from the fact that he lived. Instead of meeting the facts, to which Job had appealed, he goes into an abstract argument, of a very sophistical character, to show that it could not be so-a very common mode with controversialists. (2.) Eliphaz then openly attacks Job; appeals to him as an instance of the truth of his position ; says that it was an indisputable fact, that he was a great sinner, that his iniquities were infinite, and that, therefore, he had been overwhelmed with these calamities, vs. 5-11. He argues from it, as a point which could not be called in question, that Job's calamities had come upon him in consequence of a guilty life; and that whatever he might say about the theory of the divine government, his own case was one which would confute it all. Job was himself, he maintains, a full demonstration that God would punish the wicked in this life. In these unkind remarks. the course of the argument is somewhat changed. Before this, the friends of Job had maintained the abstract position, that the wicked would be dealt with in this life according to their deserts, and had given a great variety of illustrations of this. But it had been left to be inferred that Job had this character BECAUSE these calamities had come upon him. But, now, the argument is changed. It is maintained, as an indisputable point, that he is an eminently wicked man, and that these calamities have come upon him in consequence of his crimes; and that, therefore, his own case showed that God would punish the wicked in this life. (3.) In vs. 12-14, Eliphaz says, that it was implied in the argument of Job that God could not distinguish between the actions of men, and the reasons why he did not treat them as they deserved must be, that thick clouds interposed between them and God, so that he could not see their conduct, or that the distance between God and man was so great that he was not able to mark what man was doing. Job had, in fact, maintained no such position; but Eliphaz inferred that this must be his meaning, or that his sentiments must lead to this. (4.) Eliphaz then (vs. 15-20) refers Job to the case of those who perished in the flood, and speaks as if Job had adopted their sentiments. They lived in prosperity. They said to God, Depart from us. Their houses were filled with good things. Yet, he says they were suddenly destroyed, and that at so signal a judgment the righteous rejoiced-implying that it was not improper to be gratified when so heavy calamities had come upon one who had shown himself as wicked as Job was now proved to be. (5.) In the conclusion, Eliphaz urges Job to become truly acquainted with God, assuring him that he would then be at peace, and then gives a glowing description of the prosperity to which he might look, as a reward, vs. 21-30. He would be rich; the Almighty would be his defence; he would find happiness in God; his prayer would be heard; light would shine upon his ways; and when others were humbled, he would be exalted. THEN Eliphaz the Temanite may be profitable unto himself? answered and said, 3 Is it any pleasure to the Almighty that thou art righteous? or is it gain to him that thou makest thy ways perfect? something to dread by punishing them. In the general sentiment, he was right; in the inference he was wrong-since Job had not affirmed that they are spared from any such cause, and since many other reasons may be assigned. 3. Is it any pleasure to the Almighty that thou art righteous? This is the same sentiment which was advanced in the previous verse. The meaning is, that it can be no advantage to God that a man is righteous. He is not dependent on man for happiness, and cannot be deterred from dealing justly with him because he is in danger of losing any thing. In this sense, it is true. God has pleasure in holiness wherever it is, and is pleased when men are righteous; but it is not true that he is dependent on the character of his creatures for his own happiness, or that men can lay him under obligation by their own righteousness. Eliphaz applies this general truth to Job, probably, because he understood him as com 2. Can a man be profitable unto God? Can a man confer any favor on God, so as to lay him under obligation? Eliphaz supposes that Job sets up a claim to the favor of God, because he was of service to him, or because God had something to fear if he was cut off. He maintains, therefore, that a man can confer no favor on God, so as to lay him under obligation. God is independent and supreme. He has nothing to gain if man is righteous-he has nothing to apprehend if he is punished. He is not dependent at all on man. ¶ As he that is wise. Marg. or, if he may be profitable, doth his goodness depend thereon. The meaning of the passage is, a wise man may promote his own advantage, but he cannot be of advantage to God. All the result of his wisdom must terminate on himself, and not on God. Comp. Ps. xvi. 2. Of the correctness of this sentiment there can be no doubt. It accords with reason, and with all that is said in the Scriptures. God is too great to be benefited by man. He is in-plaining of the dealings of God with finite in all his perfections; he is the original fountain of blessedness; he is supremely wise; he has all resources in himself, and he cannot be dependent on his creatures. He cannot, therefore, be deterred from punishing them by any dread which he has of losing their favor-he cannot be induced to bless them because they have laid him under obligation. Eliphaz meant this as a reply to what Job had said. He had maintained, that God did not treat men according to their character in this life, but that, in fact, the wicked were often prospered, and suffered to live long. Eliphaz at once infers, that if this were so, it must be because they could render themselves serviceable to God, or because he must have him, as if he had laid God under obligation by his upright life. He supposes that it was implied in the remarks of Job, that he had been so upright, and had been of so much consequence, that God ought to have continued him in a state of prosperity This supposition, if Job ever had it, Eliphaz correctly meets, and shows him that he was not so profitable to God that he could not do without him. Yet, do men not often feel thus? Do ministers of the gospel not sometimes feel thus? Do we not sometimes feel thus in relation to some man eminent for piety, wisdom, or learning? Do we not feel as if God could not do without him, and that there was a sort of necessity that he should keep him alive? Yet, how 4 Will he reprove thee for fear of thee? will he enter with thee often are such men cut down, in the very midst of their usefulness, to show (1) that God is not dependent on them; and (2) to keep them from pride, as if they were necessary to the execution of the divine plans; and (3) to teach his people their dependence on Him, and not on frail, erring mortals. When the church places its reliance on a human arm, God very often suddenly knocks the prop away. 4. Will he reprove thee for fear of thee? Or, rather, will he come into trial, and argue his cause before a tribunal, because he is afraid that his character will suffer, or because he feels himself bound to appear, and answer to the charges which may be brought? The language is all taken from courts of justice, and the object is, to reprove Job as if he felt that it was necessary that God should appear and answer to what he alleged against him. ¶ Will he enter with thee into judgment? Will he condescend to enter on a trial with one like thee? Will he submit his cause to a trial with man, as if he were an equal, or as if man had any right to such an investigation? It is to be remembered, that Job had repeatedly expressed a desire to carry his cause before God, and that God would meet him as an equal, and not take advantage of his majesty and power to overwhelm him. See Notes on ch. xiii. 3, 20, 21. Eliphaz here asks, whether God could be expected to meet a man, one of his own creatures, in this manner, and to go into a trial of the cause. He says that God was supreme; that no one could bring him into court; and that he could not be restrained from doing his pleasure by any dread of man. These sentiments are all noble and correct, and worthy of a sage. Soon, however, he changes the style, and utters the language of severe reproach, because Job had presumed to make such a suggestion. Perhaps, also, in this verse, a special • Will God enter into trial with theea man whose wickedness is so great, and whose sin is infinite?' vs. 5, 9. a No 5. Is not thy wickedness great? That is, 'Is it not utter presumption and folly for a man, whose wickedness is undoubtedly so great, to presume to enter into a litigation with God?' Eliphaz here assumes it as an undeniable proposition, that Job was a great sinner. This charge had not been directly made before. He and his friends had argued evidently on that supposition, and had maintained that one who was a great sinner would be punished in this life for it, and they had left it to be implied, in no doubtful manner, that they so regarded Job. But the charge had not been before so openly made. Here Eliphaz argues as if that were point that could not be disputed. The only proof that he had, so far as appears, was, that Job had been afflicted as they maintained great sinners would be, and they, therefore, concluded that he must be such. facts are referred to, except that he was a great sufferer, and yet, on the ground of this, he proceeds to take for granted that he must have been a man who had taken a pledge for no cause; had refused to give water to the thirsty; had been an oppressor, &c. ¶ And thine iniquities infinite? Heb. "And there is no end to thine iniquities"—that is, they are without number. This does not mean that sin is an infinite evil, or that his sins were infinite in degree; but that if one should attempt to reckon up the number of his transgressions, there would be no end to them. This, I believe, is the only place in the Bible where sin is spoken of, in any respect, as "infinite ;" and this cannot be used as a proof text, to show that sin is an infinite evil, for (1) that is not the meaning of the passage even with respect to Job; (2) it makes no affirmation respecting sin in general ; and thine iniquities infinite? 7 Thou hast not given water 2 man of arm. 1 clothes of the naked. and (3) it was untrue, even in regard to Job, and in the sense in which Zophar meant to use the phrase. There is no intelligible sense in which it can be said that sin is an infinite evil; and no argument should be based on such a declaration, to prove that sin demanded an infinite atonement, or that it deserves eternal sufferings. Those doctrines can be defended on solid grounds-they should not be made to rest on a false assumption, or on a false interpretation of the Scriptures. 6. For thou hast taken a pledge | from thy brother for nought. The only evidence which Eliphaz seems to have had of this was, that this was a heinous sin, and that as Job seemed to be severely punished, it was to be inferred that he must have committed some such sin as this. No way of treating an unfortunate and a suffering man could be more unkind. A pledge is that which is given by a debtor to a creditor, for security for the payment of a debt, and would be, of course, that which was regarded as of value. Garments, which constituted a considerable part of the wealth of the Orientals, would usually be the pledge which would be given. With us, in such cases, watches, jewelry, notes, mortgages, are given as collateral security, or as pledges. The law of Moses required, that when a man took the garment of his neighbor for a pledge, it should be restored by the time the sun went down, Ex. xxii. 26, 27. The crime here charged on Job was, that he had exacted a pledge from another where there was no just claim to it; that is, where no debt had been contracted, where a debt had been paid, or where the security was far beyond the va to the weary to drink, and thou hast withholden bread from the hungry. 3 2 8 But as for the mighty man, he had the earth; and the honourable man dwelt in it. 3 eminent, or, accepted for countenance. lue of the debt. The injustice of such a course would be obvious. It would deprive the man of the use of the property which was pledged, and it gave him to whom it was pledged an opportunity of doing wrong, as he might retain it, or dispose of it, and the real owner see it no more. ¶ And stripped the naked of their clothing. Marg. clothes of the naked. That is, of those who were poorly clad, or who were nearly destitute of clothes The word naked is often used in this sense in the Scriptures. See Notes, John xxi. 7. The meaning here is, that Job had taken away by oppression even the garments of the poor, in order to enrich himself. 7. Thou hast not given water to the weary. That is, thou hast withheld the rites of hospitality. -one of the most grievous offences which could be charged on an Arabian. Comp. Notes on Isa. xxi. 14. In all the Oriental world, hospitality was re garded, and is still, as a duty of the highest obligation. 8. But as for the mighty man. Heb. as in the margin, man of arm. The arm, in the Scriptures, is the symbol of power. Ps. x. 15, "Break thou the arm of the wicked.' Ezek. xxx. 21, “I have broken the arm of Pharaoh." Ps. lxxxix. 13, "Thou hast a mighty arm. Ps. xcvii. 1, "His holy arm hath gotten him the vic tory." The reason of this is, that the sword and spear were principally used in war, and success depended on the force with which they were wielded by the arm. no doubt that this is intended to be applied to Job, and that the meaning is, that he had driven the poor from their possessions, and he had taken forcible occupancy of what belonged There can be 9 Thou hast sent widows away empty, and the arms of the fatherless have been broken. 10 Therefore snares α are 11 Or darkness, that thou canst not see; and abundance of waters cover thee. 12 Is not God in the height of round about thee, and sudden heaven? and behold the 1height fear troubleth thee; of the stars, how high they are! a c. 18. 8-10. Ps 11 6. to them. The idea is, that he had done this by power, not by right. ¶ Had the earth. Took possession of the land, and drove off from it those to whom it belonged, or who had an equal right to it with him. T And the honorable man. Marg. eminent, or accepted of countenance. Heb. "Lifted up of countenance;" that is, the man whose countenance was elevated either by honor or pride. It may be used to describe either; but, perhaps, there is more force in the former, in saying that it was the great man, the man of rank and office, who had got possession. There is, thus, some sarcasm in the severe charge • The great man-the man of rank, and wealth, and office, has got possession, while the humble and poor are banished.' Job had had great possessions; but this charge as to the manner in which he had acquired them seems to be wholly gratuitous. Eliphaz takes it for granted, since he was so severely punished, that it must have been in some such way. 9. Thou hast sent widows away empty. That is, without regarding their wants, and without doing any thing to mitigate their sorrows. The oppression of the widow and the fatherless is, in the Scriptures, every where regarded as a crime of peculiar magnitude. See Notes on Isa. i. 17. ¶ The arms of the fatherless have been broken. Thou hast taken away all that they relied on. Thou hast oppressed them, and taken advantage of their weak and defenceless condition to enrich yourself. This charge was, evidently, gratuitous and unjust. It was the result of an inference from the fact that he was thus afflicted, and about as just as inferences, in such cases, usually are To all this, Job 10. Therefore snares are round about thee. Snares were used for catching wild animals and birds, and the word then came to denote any sudden calamity. See ch. xvii. 8–10, Eliphaz here says, that it must be that these calamities came upon Job in consequence of such sins as he had specified. About that he took it for granted there could be no dispute. And sudden fear. The calamities of Job came upon him suddenly, ch. i. It was to this, doubtless, that Eliphaz alluded. 11. Or darkness. Darkness and night in the Scriptures are emblems ¶ of calamity. That thou canst not see. Deep and fearful darkness; total night, so that nothing is visible. That is, the heaviest calamities had overwhelmed him. T And abundance of waters. An emblem, also, of calamities. Ch. xxvii. 20. Ps. Íxix. 1, 2, lxxiii. 10. 12. Is not God in the height of heaven? In the highest heaven. That is, Is not God exalted over all worlds? |