Making a Point

Are the consolations of God too little for you, or the word spoken gently to you?  Job 15:11  NASB

Too little for you – Eliphaz makes a good point.  Perhaps in our desire to reach Job’s pinnacle conclusion and find some justification for his suffering, we are too quick to pass over the objections raised by his friends.  If we pause long enough to truly consider Eliphaz’ argument, we’ll hear some echoes from our own experiences.

Are God’s consolations too little for you?  The question is like a hammer blow to our egos.  Yes, of course we have questions about the necessity of suffering, about the fairness of God’s benevolence, about the apparent ease of the wicked.  But do those questions really matter?  Are they so crucial that they override the “consolations” of God?  Well, we better know what “consolations” means before we jump to defend Job against this objection.

tanḥûm describes easy breathing.  It’s one of those “body language” Hebrew metaphors.  It is a derivative of the verb nāḥam, a most peculiar verb in Hebrew.  Why?  Because of its application to God.  We need to do some serious investigation.

The KJV translates the Niphal of nḥm “repent” thirty-eight times. The majority of these instances refer to God’s repentance, not man’s. The word most frequently employed to indicate man’s repentance is šûb (q.v.), meaning “to turn” (from sin to God). Unlike man, who under the conviction of sin feels genuine remorse and sorrow, God is free from sin. Yet the Scriptures inform us that God repents (Gen 6:6–7: Ex 32:14; Jud 2:18; I Sam 15:11 et al.), i.e. he relents or changes his dealings with men according to his sovereign purposes. On the surface, such language seems inconsistent, if not contradictory, with certain passages which affirm God’s immutability: “God is not a man … that he should repent” (I Sam 15:29 contra v. 11); “The Lord has sworn and will not change his mind” (Ps 110:4). When nāḥam is used of God, however, the expression is anthropopathic and there is not ultimate tension. From man’s limited, earthly, finite perspective it only appears that God’s purposes have changed. Thus the otstates that God “repented” of the judgments or “evil” which he had planned to carry out (I Chr 21:15; Jer 18:8; 26:3, 19; Amos 7:3, 6; Jon 3:10). Certainly Jer 18:7–10 is a striking reminder that from God’s perspective, most prophecy (excluding messianic predictions) is conditional upon the response of men. In this regard, A. J. Heschel (The Prophets, p. 194) has said, “No word is God’s final word. Judgment, far from being absolute, is conditional. A change in man’s conduct brings about a change in God’s judgment.”^[1]

In this verse in Job, we’re dealing with the noun derived from this verb.  Wilson remarks:

The second primary meaning of nāḥam is “to comfort” (Piel) or “to be comforted” (Niphal, Pual, and Hithpael). This Hebrew word was well known to every pious Jew living in exile as he recalled the opening words of Isaiah’s “Book of Consolation,” naḥămû naḥămû ʿammî “Comfort ye, comfort ye my people” (Isa 40:1). The same word occurs in Ps 23:4, where David says of his heavenly Shepherd, “Thy rod and thy staff, they comfort me.” Many passages, however, deal with being comforted for the dead (II Sam 10:2; I Chr 19:2; Isa 61:2; Jer 16:7; 31:15). People were consoled for a death of an infant child (II Sam 12:24), teenage son (Gen 37:35), mother (Gen 24:67), wife (Gen 38:12) et al. A mother might comfort her child (Isa 66:13) but it is God who comforts his people (Ps 71:21; 86:17; 119:82; Isa 12:1; 49:13; 52:9). God’s “compassion (niḥûm, a derivative of nḥm) grows warm and tender” for Israel (Hos 11:8).^[2]

Pay attention to Wilson’s circumnavigation of the “repentance” question.  “The expression is anthropopathic and there is not ultimate tension. From man’s limited, earthly, finite perspective it only appears that God’s purposes have changed.”  Ah, so the doctrine of immutability rejects the idea that God actually changes His mind, and therefore the explanation is that we just don’t have the capacity to understand this.  Sounds like Eliphaz, doesn’t it?

Now that we’ve put the atrocity aside, let’s ask, “What are these consolations that Job should embrace?”  Well, you and I might have the same list as Job.  We could start with life itself.  As my Filipino army friend says, “Every day above ground is a good day.”  Then there’s seeing, hearing, tasting.  Think about life without these.  Have you thanked God for your senses?  They are acts of grace, especially if you know someone who doesn’t have one or more.  Job can converse.  His mind is awake.  That’s a blessing, isn’t it?  But perhaps these are too simple to list.  Perhaps we should think deeper about tanḥûm.  If tanḥûm is connected to God changing His mind, isn’t that the greatest consolation of them all?  Life isn’t fixed.  Your destiny isn’t determined for you before you were born.  God can alter His plans.  What greater consolation could we have, or could Job have, than to know that God can change.  He’s not an insensitive stone idol, unresponsive and uncaring about His people.  tanḥûm is a word that implies compassion, and compassion is the very first characteristic God tells us about Himself (Exodus 34:6).  Despite everything we endure, isn’t the fact that God can change the greatest of all our hopes?

Eliphaz uses the phrase m^eʿăṭ mim’m^ekā (“small for you”).   The added emphasis “too” might be implied but it isn’t in the text.  Why does this matter?  Because Eliphaz isn’t asking if God’s “consolations” aren’t enough, that is, Job experiences consolation but wants more.  Rather, he’s asking if any consolation is sufficient.  Every act of compassion that God shows is more than enough no matter how we think about it.  Why?  Because God could not care at all!  And that He does care is overwhelming.  Even the very smallest of consideration by God should be cause for infinite gratitude.

Topical Index: consolation, tanḥûm, repent, m^eʿăṭ mim’m^ekā, small, care, Job 15:11

^[1] Wilson, M. R. (1999). 1344 נָחַם. In R. L. Harris, G. L. Archer Jr., & B. K. Waltke (Eds.), Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament(electronic ed., p. 571). Moody Press.

^[2] Ibid.