Man Alive

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

Mankind/ man – As we learned yesterday, the Hebrew verse encompasses three important parallels.  We have isolated two of them for investigation.  We discovered that ʾĕnôš and geber, both translated “mankind,” actually reveal ethical and ontological distinctions that bolster Eliphaz’ argument.  But what about ṣādēq and ṭāhēr?  I have highlighted them below:

הַֽאֱנוֹשׁ מֵֽאֱל֣וֹהַּ יִצְדָּ֑ק אִ֥ם מֵֽ֜עֹשֵׂ֗הוּ יִטְהַר־גָּֽבֶר

In literal translation:

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

What is the nuanced difference between ṣādēq and ṭāhēr and why should it matter?

ṣādēq:

This root basically connotes conformity to an ethical or moral standard. It is claimed by Snaith (N. Snaith, Distinctive Ideas of the ot, Schocken, 1964, p. 73) “the original significance of the root ṣdq to have been ‘to be straight.’ ” But he adds that it stands for a “norm.” Perhaps the origin of the word is not so clear or even significant. Words having a secular origin often are baptized into special meanings and a word originally meaning straight may develop easily into a moral term just so canon “rod,” “measuring rule” becomes a standardized list of sacred books. ṣedeq, then, refers to an ethical, moral standard and of course in the ot that standard is the nature and will of God. “The Lord is righteous (ṣaddîq) in all his ways and holy in all his works” (Ps 145:17).^[1]

If ṣādēq is about normative behavior according to God’s instructions, then Eliphaz’ argument really says, “No one follows all the rules all the time.  No one can claim this kind of obedience.”  Of course, this is precisely what the prophets tell us.  No man is completely observant (righteous).  In our context, Eliphaz is simply pointing to the fact that even Job can’t measure up to this standard since no one can, and if this is true, then why is Job complaining about his treatment?  Isn’t he assuming that his “righteousness” is sufficient?  But who is he to determine what measure of observance God attaches to each of us?

Now let’s consider ṭāhēr.  “It is used almost exclusively of ritual or moral purity.”^[2]

Hauck says: “Because the religion of Israel emphasises so strongly the holiness of God, it develops the concept of purity with corresponding energy. The law works out a whole series of regulations. Some purifications are preparatory. They set man in a necessary state of holiness for encounter with God (Ex 19:10; Num 8:15). Some are expiatory. They restore forfeited purity by lustrations (Lev 16:1ff., 19:23ff.; Ezk 39:12; II Chr 29:15; 34:3, 8 (TDNT, III:416). . . . Not external appearance but an inward attitude is what is required for true purity. . . True purity cannot be achieved by any man on his own. . . Only God can cleanse. ^[3]

Now we see the scope of Eliphaz’ argument.  It’s not enough to focus only on the normative requirements of the law.  True purity is also a matter of the heart, and once again, the prophets remind us that no man, absolutely no one, has an entirely pure heart.  Eliphaz’ employment of the parallels of ṣādēq and ṭāhēr capture both the external and the internal—and both come up short.

“Do you feel God is unfair?”  “Do you think you have a better understanding of the demands of righteousness and purity than God does?”  “Do you think God isn’t consistent in the way He treats you and others?”  Now ask yourself these same questions about your own behavior and thoughts.  You don’t have the same standard toward everyone.  You aren’t consistent?  You vacillate in your thinking and observance.  How, then, can you argue that God should treat you better?

Eliphaz has a point, doesn’t he?

Topical Index: ṣādēq, ṭāhēr, righteousness, purity, norm, ritual, Job 4:17

^[1] Stigers, H. G. (1999). 1879 צָדֵק. In R. L. Harris, G. L. Archer Jr., & B. K. Waltke (Eds.), Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament(electronic ed., p. 752). Moody Press.

^[2] Yamauchi, E. (1999). 792 טָהֵר. In R. L. Harris, G. L. Archer Jr., & B. K. Waltke (Eds.), Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament (electronic ed., p. 343). Moody Press.

^[3] Yamauchi, E. (1999). 792 טָהֵר. In R. L. Harris, G. L. Archer Jr., & B. K. Waltke (Eds.), Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament (electronic ed., p. 344). Moody Press.