This chapter may be a bit painful for some who have recently suffered a loss or affliction.
It will remind you of emotions you felt.
But please, keep reading, for it may also help to alleviate any guilt you may have felt for being angry or crying out “God, why have you done this?” during that time.
Many translations have this as “my words are rash” (verse 3).Job 6 KJV
(1) But Job answered and said,
(2) Oh that my grief were throughly weighed, and my calamity laid in the balances together!
(3) For now it would be heavier than the sand of the sea: therefore my words are swallowed up.
Job is in severe anguish and pain. It is overwhelming and consuming.
He’s not holding anything back. He is telling it like it is.
If his grief were measured with the calamity that fell upon him, his grief would far outweigh them.
On the side of the balance where his grief is, it would be as heavy as all the sand.
Anyone who has ever lifted a small bag of sand knows ….. IT’s HEAVY!
And that’s just one small bag. Image ALL the sand.
Job is doing his best to describe just how much grief he is feeling.
Make no mistake; while it was Satan doing the direct attack on Job, it would not have happened unless God Himself had pulled back His protective hand. If not for that action of God Himself, this would not have happened.(4) For the arrows of the Almighty are within me, the poison whereof drinketh up my spirit: the terrors of God do set themselves in array against me.
Doesn’t matter if one person does good things for you, and another does bad things against you; BOTH were allowed by God to do so.
Job describes 2 scenarios here.(5) Doth the wild *** bray when he hath grass? or loweth the ox over his fodder?
(6) Can that which is unsavoury be eaten without salt? or is there any taste in the white of an egg?
If one receives what is satisfactory, one does not cry out.
If one receives what is not satisfactory, one does not want to have anything to do with it.
Job is using a poetic description of the “comfort” his friend was serving up to him compared with food/meat.
If that comfort were indeed satisfactory, Job would swallow it.
If not satisfactory, Job would not swallow it.
His friend had been offering up the “meat” (that Job had committed some wrong deed).(7) The things that my soul refused to touch are as my sorrowful meat.
Job wasn’t going to swallow that sorrowful meat at all! For he knows he had always refused that “meat”.
Job’s request was for God to take his life, let him die. That would be a sweet release he would welcome from God. Even for death, Job would not conceal the words of God.(8) Oh that I might have my request; and that God would grant me the thing that I long for!
(9) Even that it would please God to destroy me; that he would let loose his hand, and cut me off!
(10) Then should I yet have comfort; yea, I would harden myself in sorrow: let him not spare; for I have not concealed the words of the Holy One.
As he said in chapter 1, the Lord gives and the Lord takes away.
Job realized that his life and his death were in the sure hands of the Lord, and no one else.
Again, Job describes his sorrow and pain in such poetic majesty.(11) What is my strength, that I should hope? and what is mine end, that I should prolong my life?
(12) Is my strength the strength of stones? or is my flesh of brass?
(13) Is not my help in me? and is wisdom driven quite from me?
I’m flesh and blood, with feelings. Not some piece of stone or brass that feels nothing.
And even a healthy body does not hold up as long as a piece of stone or brass would.
While a healthy body can have some amazing strengths to heal itself, an unhealthy body falls prey to deterioration.
Job knows this. He knows his body cannot last much longer in the shape it is in.
The light is growing dim.
.
.
.
.
This post is already long, so I will continue chapter 6 in the next post, when Job really lays it on the line what he thinks about the “comfort” from his friend.
As if his suffering isn't already worse than anything they could imagine, he has to defend himself of false accusations too!!!!
I can almost hear the wheels turning in Job’s mind ….. “With friends like you, who needs enemies!”
This will be a chapter by chapter study of the book of Job.
Job is an interesting study.
We have the privilege of knowing what went on behind the scene.
Job and his friends didn't.
The dialogues between Job and his friends are going to cause us to ponder a lot about how we approach theology.
We are going to see that Job's friends were wrong, even though their theology could be said to be sound.
They basically tell Job that he must have done something offensive, otherwise this calamity would not have befallen him.
You reap what you sow.
That's scriptural and sound theology, and is the basis of the theology of Job's friends.
Problem is, even though it was sound theology, it was wrong in the case of Job.
Sometimes sound theology is not as black and white as one would wish.
There always seems to be an exception somewhere.
And this is why we often see one scripture pitted against another, as if one is right and the other wrong.
When the fact is, both are right, but it depends on the situation at hand.
There is a time and place for everything under the sun.
The question one should always ask first is ..... what time is it?
So, let us begin to study and discuss the book of Job.
God bless our studies.
We are going to see that Job's friends were wrong, even though their theology could be said to be sound.
They basically tell Job that he must have done something offensive, otherwise this calamity would not have befallen him.
You reap what you sow.
That's scriptural and sound theology, and is the basis of the theology of Job's friends.
Problem is, even though it was sound theology, it was wrong in the case of Job.
Eliphaz came as a friend to comfort Job.
Job had become desolate with nothing.
His body had become so distorted that his friends couldn't even recognize him.
His pain never ceased.
In later chapters we will get further insight of how the public had been treating Job. They had scorned him, made him an outcast, laughed and mocked at him, physically attacked him while he is defenseless, and even spit on him as they walked by.
The children even made up mocking songs about him.
So, let's see how Eliphaz decides to comfort Job, after just hearing the great lamentation from Job.
If you will think about your own situations in life, you will realize that we have just about all used this tactic when we have a friend who is angry or upset and starts complaining. We say things like,Job 4 KJV
(1) Then Eliphaz the Temanite answered and said,
(2) If we assay to commune with thee, wilt thou be grieved? but who can withhold himself from speaking?
“Please don’t get mad at me for pointing this out, but you asked, so I‘m gonna be upfront with you and tell it like it is".
(3) Behold, thou hast instructed many, and thou hast strengthened the weak hands.
(4) Thy words have upholden him that was falling, and thou hast strengthened the feeble knees.
(5) But now it is come upon thee, and thou faintest; it toucheth thee, and thou art troubled.
To paraphrase:
“Haven’t you seen others in the situation you are now in, Job? Didn’t you counsel them?
Now it is you in the predicament, and you are the one in need of being counseled.
You should practice what you preach, Job.”.
I do find it interesting that the same characteristics of Job are mentioned that we learned about him (behind the scene).(6) Is not this thy fear, thy confidence, thy hope, and the uprightness of thy ways?
He feared the Lord and was upright.
Eliphaz seems to recognize that this was the correct characterization of Job, and thus, he was blessed for it ….. in the past.
But what about now, Job? Why have things drastically changed for you now?
Sound doctrine.(7) Remember, I pray thee, who ever perished, being innocent? or where were the righteous cut off?
(8) Even as I have seen, they that plow iniquity, and sow wickedness, reap the same.
(9) By the blast of God they perish, and by the breath of his nostrils are they consumed.
You reap what you sow.
We see many examples in scripture of God richly bestowing blessings on the righteous, but famine, plagues, and despair are cursed upon the wicked.
But is this true in the case of Job?
NO!
(((Reminder: Job, himself, was blameless for all the suffering that befell upon him.)))
(10) The roaring of the lion, and the voice of the fierce lion, and the teeth of the young lions, are broken.
(11) The old lion perisheth for lack of prey, and the stout lion's whelps are scattered abroad.
These are verses that actually make me kinda mad at Eliphaz.
It seems as if he is purposely using the metaphors of the old powerful lion and his young lions becoming desolate and broken as an implication of what has happened to Job and his children.
Eliphaz does not implicitly say that Job is being afflicted because of some wrong doing he has done.
But the implications are still there, and perhaps he is hoping Job will recognize it.
Sorta like when Nathan told David about a man’s only little lamb being stolen from him (2 Samuel 12).
He was really setting David up to realize how bad that was. And Nathan was using that analogy to really show David wrong doing in stealing another man’s wife (Bathsheba).
Eliphaz starts off rather mildly with just hints of his true feelings about the situation.
As the dialogues with him and the other friends progresses, they will become more direct and outspoken of their accusations toward Job.
I realize Eliphaz (as a friend) is trying his level best to be helpful to Job.
But man, to start bringing into the conversation implications about one’s children is just sooooooooo wrong to do right after one (Job) has just lost all his children.
To me, that is just downright inappropriate, and will being no comfort at all to a grieving one.
(12) Now a thing was secretly brought to me, and mine ear received a little thereof.
(13) In thoughts from the visions of the night, when deep sleep falleth on men,
(14) Fear came upon me, and trembling, which made all my bones to shake.
(15) Then a spirit passed before my face; the hair of my flesh stood up:
(16) It stood still, but I could not discern the form thereof: an image was before mine eyes, there was silence, and I heard a voice, saying,
(17) Shall mortal man be more just than God? shall a man be more pure than his maker?
(18) Behold, he put no trust in his servants; and his angels he charged with folly:
(19) How much less in them that dwell in houses of clay, whose foundation is in the dust, which are crushed before the moth?
(20) They are destroyed from morning to evening: they perish for ever without any regarding it.
(21) Doth not their excellency which is in them go away? they die, even without wisdom.
Hmmmm.
How many times have you heard one say to another, I have direct knowledge given me through a vision, or a dream, or a still small voice from a spirit being?
Sound doctrine. We have many instances in scripture where revelation was given to man through such.
And it is true that no creature formed is more pure than the Creator.
But what does this have to do with Job’s situation??????
(((Reminder: Job, himself, was blameless for all the suffering that befell upon him.)))
The problem I see with this statement (by the spirit being) is that it is only a partial truth. It paints mankind in a seemingly hopeless perpetual unworthy state, and completely leaves out any hope or remedy of being cleansed from that state.
So, what exactly did the spirit being say that was supposed to comfort Job?
Another partial truth from this spirit being is that God puts no confidence in angels, and even less in man. True in some situations, but not for all.
There have been times when angels and men have been entrusted to reveal God’s truths.
So, while what the spirit being told Eliphaz can be viewed as correct in some cases, it does not tell the whole story of the trustworthiness of all angels and men at all times.
This spirit being needed Paul Harvey alongside him to tell “the rest of the story”. (You older folks will get that!)
Eliphaz came as a friend to comfort Job.
And while this 1st speech is the more gentle of the 3 speeches Eliphaz gives; just exactly what was in this speech, so far, that is supposed to be COMFORTING for Job????
Eliphaz will continue his answer to Job in chapter 5 (in my next post).
The Good & the Bad in Eliphaz's Words:
(Job Chapter 5):
The Bad:
One thing is for sure, Eliphaz was not telling the whole story about God and man. Yes, man lives in a house of clay that turns to dust and man's life can be snuffed out like swatting a moth or pulling down a tent. But man is also made in the image of God and the God who made him is a God of grace and mercy as well as a God of justice.
Eliphaz's second argument is based upon his own personal observations of life (Job 5:1-7). He has seen sinners prosper and take root, only to be destroyed and lose everything. This was a not-so-subtle description of Job's situation. It must have hurt Job deeply to hear that it was his sin that killed his children.
In fact, Eliphaz's observations about life was one of the popular theologies of that day; For it was the thought that if a person suffered, it was because they had some type of sin within their lives. A person should not suffer if they are not innocent. That theology was present in Jesus day as it is in our day. The reason it hangs on is because in some cases it is true. Some people do suffer because of what they have done. “You reap what you sow.” – is scriptural. However, there are cases when innocent people suffer also. The crucifixion of Jesus is such a case and the story of Job is too.
So Eliphaz reasoned, "Trouble doesn't grow out of the ground, like weeds; It's a part of man's birth, because man was born a sinner" (Job 5:6-7). If Job is in trouble concludes Eliphaz, he caused it himself because he sinned against God. Therefore, Job must repent of his sins and ask God's forgiveness.
Eliphaz's conclusions were wrong. The text doesn't say "man was born a sinner." I think this is a pretty good example of what Tam is teaching in this study of Job.
Job 5:6-7
Although affliction cometh not forth of the dust, neither doth trouble spring out of the ground; Yet man is born unto trouble, as the sparks fly upward.
That is true.
The thing is that Job was experiencing in his flesh what God was experiencing from man all along.
This is why King David lost his son Absolum. He then knew what he had done to the Lord.
People think God can take it as if he has no feelings.
Suffering his sufferings, changes people and makes them fit to reign with Him.
LA
We have the privilege of knowing what went on behind the scene.
Job and his friends didn't.
Excellent subject for a thread.
I wholeheartedly agree with this. Many people get stuck on God vs Satan and so fail to appreciate that the book is really nothing to do with that issue at all.
In the case of the book of Job, I don't think this is correct. Job's three 'friends' were criticised for having bad theology. They were not wrong about Job but about God. Their theology was:We are going to see that Job's friends were wrong, even though their theology could be said to be sound.
They basically tell Job that he must have done something offensive, otherwise this calamity would not have befallen him.
You reap what you sow.
That's scriptural and sound theology, and is the basis of the theology of Job's friends.
Problem is, even though it was sound theology, it was wrong in the case of Job.
"God rewards the righteous and punishes the wicked in this life."
It was a kind of prosperity theology. It was from this theology that they derived their conclusion that Job, irrespective of appearances, must have done something sinful to displease God. They didn't misjudge Job. Job was simply the object lesson of their theology. They weren't judging him at all. They weren't looking at his actual life; they weren't using their eyes but their minds. Had they looked at his life, had they been open to him as a person, they could not possibly have come to that conclusion.
The problem is that Job had the same theology. But this translated into 'God is unjust' because he knew that he had done nothing wrong and everything right.
Job needed to repent in the end because he realised that this theology puts man at the centre of the world. It makes God simply a reactionary, there to judge man's deeds. Whenever man did anything, God had to say whether it was good or bad and act accordingly. He became just a slave to man. Elihu, at the end of the book, scotches this view by putting God back in the centre and making the bold statement that God is not really interested in what man thinks of himself. He says that the good we do is for ourselves and the evil we do only affects men, not God. In other words we should judge our own deeds and let God get on with the business of running the world. He also points out that there are many reasons why God might want to cause some suffering apart from just to punish someone and that we need to get a bigger picture of this.
Sometimes sound theology is not as black and white as one would wish.
There always seems to be an exception somewhere.
And this is why we often see one scripture pitted against another, as if one is right and the other wrong.
When the fact is, both are right, but it depends on the situation at hand.
Openness is shy of formulating doctrines for this reason. Doctrines are often abstractions. The same goes for ethical rules - there is always a situation that renders the rule obsolete. Salvation is fundamentally a relationship, not a concept or theory.
I will.Please continue Tambora.