The Complexity of Applying the Speeches of Job’s Friends

The closing stanza of Eliphaz’s third speech (Job 22:21-30) is one of the loveliest poems in the book. If you didn’t know who said it, or under which circumstances, you might stencil it on your wall or post it on your bathroom mirror. And this raises an important question when studying the book of Job: What are we supposed to do with the speeches of Job’s “miserable comforters” (Job 16:2)?

Job suggests that silence will be their best wisdom (Job 13:5), and he sarcastically proclaims they have a corner on the market of godly wisdom (Job 12:2). Elihu burns with anger at their failure to answer to Job’s defense (Job 32:3). Yahweh declares they have not spoken of him what is right (Job 42:7). Does this mean we ought to simply discard their speeches, or that we ought to treat them as examples of folly or wickedness to be avoided?

Paul Didn’t Get the Memo

Apparently the Apostle Paul didn’t get the memo.

Let no one deceive himself. If anyone among you thinks that he is wise in this age, let him become a fool that he may become wise. For the wisdom of this world is folly with God. For it is written, “He catches the wise in their craftiness,” and again, “The Lord knows the thoughts of the wise, that they are futile.” So let no one boast in men.” (1 Cor 3:18-21a)

That first citation Paul uses? Right from Eliphaz’s first speech:

As for me, I would seek God,
and to God would I commit my cause,
who does great things and unsearchable,
marvelous things without number:
he gives rain on the earth…
he sets on high those who are lowly…
He catches the wise in their own craftiness,
and the schemes of the wily are brought to a quick end…
But he saves the needy from the sword of their mouth…
So the poor have hope,
and injustice shuts her mouth. (Job 5:8-16)

As R.B. Hays asserts, “Paul cites Job 5:13 here [in 1 Cor 3:19] as an authoritative disclosure of the truth about God’s debunking of human wisdom” (quoted by Ciampa & Rosner in Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament, 704).

So Paul doesn’t ignore or contradict Eliphaz. He doesn’t qualify the citation in any way. He appears to use it straightforwardly in support of his point that God views the world’s wisdom as folly.

More to It

And yet, Paul’s argument in 1 Cor 1-3 is remarkably layered and clever. He keeps equivocating on his terms, defining them in different ways so he can play off the differences for didactic effect. For example, he uses the words “wisdom” and “folly” in at least two ways each: As defined by the world, and as defined by God.

So his point in 1 Cor 3:18 seems to be that if you think you are wise (by the world’s definition), you ought to become a fool (by the world’s definition) in order to become wise (by God’s definition). Paul keeps turning things upside-down and inside-out in order to play the terms “wisdom” and “folly,” or “wise” and “foolish,” off each other.

In light of this equivocation, it is altogether possible that Paul quotes Eliphaz as a matter of irony. In other words, Eliphaz presents himself as “wise,” but he’s really a “fool” (in the context of the book of Job). But God then does a “foolish” thing and takes the fool’s “wisdom” and makes it his own, but with an unexpected twist—in order to catch the wise in his own craftiness. In so doing, Paul declares that Eliphaz spoke even better than he knew, perhaps akin to John’s ironic use of Caiaphas’s prophecy that Jesus must die to rescue the nation and gather together God’s scattered children (John 11:49-53). Like Caiaphas, perhaps Eliphaz spoke that which was true from God’s perspective, but not in the way Eliphaz himself intended it.

Eliphaz thereby plays right into the part of the crafty who would be caught by his own craftiness.

Principles for Applying the Speeches of Job’s Friends

So how does this affect the way we read—and especially seek to apply—the speeches of Job’s three assailants? I propose the following principles:

1. Because the same Holy Spirit who inspired Job also said somewhere that “all Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable,” we must read the speeches of Job’s antagonists with the assumption that they are profitable for teaching, reproof, correction, and/or training in righteousness.
2. The point of those speeches must be something more than “suffering is a result of prior sin.” If that were all the Lord wanted us to see in those speeches, he could have done it with one speech instead of eight. We wouldn’t need pages of dialogue that only repeat precisely the same thing over and over again. Therefore, we must read those eight speeches of Eliphaz, Bildad, and Zophar with the assumption that each speech riffs on the theme in a nuanced way. Those three men clearly thought they were advancing the argument each time, so we ought to identify which particular angle each speech takes on the larger topic. Don’t skip over the speeches or lump them all together under the same vague interpretive heading.
3. Once we do that, we can compare any speech’s particular angle on suffering with the rest of Scripture. Following Paul’s example, we must read the speeches with the assumption that they might simply be speaking truth in the wrong setting. They might be saying something that was false in Job’s circumstance but would be true in a different circumstance. In other words, Eliphaz, Bildad, or Zophar might be saying something better and truer than even he realizes.

Back to Chapter 22

And so, circling back to Eliphaz’s third speech in Job 22, there is nothing wrong with seeing some truth mixed in with the error and the daft inconsiderateness. In many situations, it is true that someone will only find peace if they begin agreeing with God (Job 22:21, Prov 3:2). Many who reconsider their money and possessions in light of eternity will find the Almighty to be far more valuable (Job 22:24-25, 1 Tim 6:17). God does actually hear the prayers of the penitent (Job 22:27, Prov 15:29), and he delights to exalt the humble (Job 22:28-30, 1 Pet 5:6).

Conclusion

So if you’d like to stencil portions of Job 22 on your wall, I say have at it. Just be prepared for the unconsidered criticism of a few curmudgeons to come your way from time to time. But you’ll have your retort loaded for bear: “I offer my humblest apologies on behalf of both myself and the Apostle Paul, neither of whom got your memo.”