Are You Sure?

He puts no trust even in His servants; and He accuses His angels of error.  How much more those who live in houses of clay, whose foundation is in the dust, who are crushed before the moth!  Job 4:18-19  NASB

No trust – Eliphaz is pretty stark.  According to him, God doesn’t “trust” men and He accuses angels of error.  He evaluates humankind, concluding they are nothing more than dust.  This is depressing . . . but is it true?  It certainly characterizes the pagan gods of the ancient Middle East.  Not only did they consider men totally unreliable, they were angry about it.  But is this the picture we get of YHVH?

It seems to me that Eliphaz’ hyperbole drives home the point of his argument but it doesn’t align with YHVH’s interactions with human beings.  From the perspective of the ancient world, Eliphaz’ depiction of God might seem normal.  Ancient pagan gods either ignored men or were vindictive.  Recall all the placating rituals.  But YHVH isn’t like that.  He is a face-to-face friend of Moses.  He acts as spiritual guide and confidant with David.  He is the prompter of the prophets.  And most importantly, He endorses completely the human agent of the Messiah.  No, I don’t think characterizing God as a being who puts no trust in His servants is correct.  Humans may disappoint, and often do, but that doesn’t seem to deter God’s desire to have a genuine relationship with His creatures.  Eliphaz is interested in the ontological difference between men and gods.  He emphasizes this to the extreme because he wants to argue that men have no right to question the behavior of gods.  He sees Job suffering.  He empathizes.  But in the end, his perspective is simply that the gods do whatever they wish and we humans have no say in the matter.  Furthermore, there is no ethical obligation on the part of the gods to treat any particular human being with special care.  If a man suffers, it is either because he deserves it or because the gods desire it.  Probably some of both.  End of explanation.

If Eliphaz is correct, what is the point of attempted obedience?  We all mess up.  We are all at the mercy of the gods.  Fortunately, YHVH is the imminent deity.  He is portrayed as totally empathetic with human frailty.  He is emotionally involved.  The strange theological dichotomy between the transcendent sovereign and the imminent father never disappears from Scripture.  Eliphaz’ argument focuses on one side of the coin, a side he needs in order to accuse Job of obstinance.  But he misses the side that is most important to Job, that is, God’s compassion.  The stern nature of a disconnected Ruler might lead us to find Job guilty of the cosmic offense of questioning, but the compassionate care of a Creator Father suggests something else—something unexplainable, that is, why a loving God would allow such tragedy in the life of one of His favorites.  Job never lets go of the Father element.  That’s why he’s so distressed.  If he simply erased this, he would agree with Eliphaz.  But Job knows better.  Job has experienced the blessing and mercy of the Father God.  In Job’s experience, God cares—and that’s why he wrestles with his circumstances.  A stone-faced idol could care less.  But this God, YHVH, is a living God who feels for His creation.  Eliphaz is wrong.  Job knows he’s wrong, but that doesn’t resolve the issue.  He is not a theologian.  He’s a follower.  There’s a difference.

The fundamental characteristic of the God of Israel is simply this: God cares.  Unlike all the other ancient deities, this God is concerned with the well-being of His creation.  Job is stressed but he is not distressed.  Job knows God cares.  But care in the face of suffering is the whole reason for this story.  Eliphaz’ theological rationale leads to fatalism.  Care doesn’t.  Care leads to perseverance, to hope, to faithfulness despite suffering.  Care is the ground of questioning, not capitulation.

Topical Index: trust, transcendent, imminent, Job 4:18-19