Birthday (Yes, It’s Mine)

“Can mankind be righteous ^[h]before God?  Can a man be pure ^[i]before his Maker?”  Job 4:17  NASB

Mankind/ man – The translators have given us a double-barreled version of a single question.  The Hebrew text wraps it all up in one line:

הַֽאֱנוֹשׁ מֵֽאֱל֣וֹהַּ יִצְדָּ֑ק אִ֥ם מֵֽ֜עֹשֵׂ֗הוּ יִטְהַר־גָּֽבֶר

Looking at this verse in Hebrew requires careful deliberation.  First, we should notice the parallelism.  I will provide a schematic in English transliteration:

The man (mankind – ʾĕnôš) before Elohim be righteous (ṣādēq) before his Maker pure (ṭāhēr) a man (geber)?

Now notice that הַֽאֱנוֹשׁ parallels גָּֽבֶר and יִצְדָּ֑ק parallels יִטְהַר.  So, there are two different words translated “man” or “mankind,” and two words for ethical standards (ṣādēq and ṭāhēr).  Typically when a thought is repeated in Hebrew, the idea is slightly modified to reveal another  facet.  So we need to ask, “What is added by using two words rather than one in each of these cases?”  Of course, you might have noticed the same pattern with “Elohim” and “Maker.”

Let’s start with ʾĕnôš.  “The basic meaning of ʾĕnôš is ‘man’ in the sense of ‘mankind.’ The word can refer to an individual only in the most general sense (e.g. ‘blessed is the man who does this’ [Isa 56:2]) and thus lacks the specificity of ʾîš. It is used mainly in the poetic material.  The verbal root of ʾĕnôš is uncertain.”^[1]  Its root might suggest frailty or weakness, or it might belong to a group implying social connections.  Mccomiskey also notes:

A major theological concept underlying the use of this word is the fundamental distinction between God and man. Elihu sets forth this concept in his affirmation that God is greater than man (Job 33:12). The Psalmist calls on God to exercise his might so that man may recognize his insignificance before him (Ps 9:19–20 [H 20–21]). This fundamental difference is the basis of the affirmation in Ps 10:17–18 that “man who is of the earth” will no more strike terror. Man’s sphere is earth, not heaven. He is mortal, not divine, and so cannot prevail against God. The distinction is also evident in man’s mortality (Ps 90:3) and God’s immortality (vv. 2, 4). God’s nature as opposed to man’s is set forth in such questions as, “Do you see as man sees?” (Job 10:4) and, “Are your years the years of a man?” (Job 10:5).^[2]

Ontological difference may be Eliphaz’ perspective, but we should also note that there was a man in the Genesis story named ʾĕnôš who was taken away by God.  Perhaps this ontological difference is accompanied by a moral element.  In that case, even the righteousness of man is not comparable with the righteousness of God.

Finally, we should note that Eliphaz does not use the term ʾādām which also can mean “mankind.”  We need to ask why.  Could it be that ʾādām suggests the physically created being, the raw material of humanity, while ʾĕnôš leans toward ethical considerations including social connectedness?  Eliphaz isn’t interested in the unique creation of Man.  He’s interested in the unique obligation of Man.

And what of the parallel, geber?

In Arabic the basic meaning of the root is “to rise, raise, restore,” with the idea of being strong, or prevailing over coming only in the derived stems. That the Hebrew may share a similar range of meaning is seen in the Hithpael where the idea is not so much to make oneself prevail over God, as it is to raise oneself up in arrogance and stand in his face (Job 15:25; 36:9; Isa 42:13). The Hebrew root is commonly associated with warfare and has to do with the strength and vitality of the successful warrior.^[3]

The nuance added by this parallel focuses on the strength of mankind, a strength that has similarities with the Maker.  But, of course, this is not about omnipotence.  In fact, it suggests just the opposite.  Even the strongest of warriors is no comparison to God.  “God is the true prototype of the mighty man, and if an earthly warrior’s deeds are recounted, how much more should God’s be.”^[4]  Just as even the most righteous is of no consideration before God’s righteousness, so the strongest is no measure of God’s strength.

Our investigation still needs to consider the parallels of ṣādēq and ṭāhēr before we can appreciate all Eliphaz says.  But this much we’ve learned.  Eliphaz’ argument follows the lines of Aquinas’ via negativa.  What God is, man isn’t.  He’s made his point.  Who are we to ask anything of the incomparable Sovereign?

Topical Index: ʾĕnôš, geber, mankind, Job 4:17

^[1] Mccomiskey, T. E. (1999). 136 אנשׁ. In R. L. Harris, G. L. Archer Jr., & B. K. Waltke (Eds.), Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament(electronic ed., p. 59). Moody Press.

^[2] Ibid.

^[3] Oswalt, J. N. (1999). 310 גָּבַר. In R. L. Harris, G. L. Archer Jr., & B. K. Waltke (Eds.), Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament (electronic ed., p. 148). Moody Press.

^[4] Ibid.