TEXT [Commentary]
N. Eliphaz: Job Is a Guilty Sinner (22:1-30)
1. Wealthy Job is wicked (22:1-11)
1 Then Eliphaz the Temanite replied:
2 “Can a person do anything to help God?
Can even a wise person be helpful to him?
3 Is it any advantage to the Almighty if you are righteous?
Would it be any gain to him if you were perfect?
4 Is it because you’re so pious that he accuses you
and brings judgment against you?
5 No, it’s because of your wickedness!
There’s no limit to your sins.
6 “For example, you must have lent money to your friend
and demanded clothing as security.
Yes, you stripped him to the bone.
7 You must have refused water for the thirsty
and food for the hungry.
8 You probably think the land belongs to the powerful
and only the privileged have a right to it!
9 You must have sent widows away empty-handed
and crushed the hopes of orphans.
10 That is why you are surrounded by traps
and tremble from sudden fears.
11 That is why you cannot see in the darkness,
and waves of water cover you.
NOTES
22:2 Can a person do anything to help God? The Heb. verb sakan [TH5532, ZH6122] is capable of many meanings. Habel adopts a second usage common in later Heb., “Can a hero endanger El?” (1985:332). The intent of Eliphaz in this line is made clear by the next verse; the goodness of a righteous person does not contribute anything to God.
be helpful to him. The verb sakan (be helpful, profitable) is repeated from the previous line, but it is not clear exactly how this line is to complement the first. It could be synonymous and provide a heightened emphasis (NLT, NRSV, REB), but the object is ambiguous. It is more likely that Eliphaz is saying a wise man should be of benefit to himself (KJV, RSV, NAB, NJB). This would be in harmony with other statements about Job. According to Elihu (34:9), Job had said it is of no benefit to be in favor with God. At some point, Job had asked what benefit there had been for him for having stayed away from sin (35:3). The wise, Eliphaz says, benefit themselves.
Gordis would make this verse completely parallel to 34:9 (1978:244); he shifts the meaning of the verb in this line to “be in harmony” and subordinates it to the first: “does one benefit God when one wisely is in harmony with him?” The two verses complement each other in sense, but they are not synonymous. The conjunction of the second line in 22:2 (ki [TH3588, ZH3954]) is used to state a contrast after a negative sentence (Gesenius §163a; cf. Gen 18:15; 19:2). In this case, the question expects a negative answer; the next line is joined as a response. One cannot be of benefit to God, but surely a wise person would benefit himself.
22:8 You probably think. The Heb. does not explicitly indicate that Eliphaz views these words as Job’s thoughts; this is gathered from the context. 11QtgJob has the words “you think” here (van der Ploeg and van der Woude 1971:22-23).
22:9 crushed the hopes of orphans. The LXX and many modern versions make Job the subject of the verb “crush,” but the Heb. is the equivalent of the passive, implying that the strength of the orphans has been crushed because Job has sent their widowed mothers away empty-handed, giving them no assistance.
22:11 That is why you cannot see. Many translations say “your light is darkened, so that you cannot see” (RSV, REB, NJB). The change is based on the addition of one letter to the Heb. to create the word “light” and is usually justified on the basis of the Gr. text. Though the LXX has the word “light,” it is not evidence of a textual variant; this is simply another example of the translator being influenced by the Gr. translation of other verses (Heater 1982:72-73).
COMMENTARY [Text]
This last speech of Eliphaz inadvertently raises a crucial question about an area where traditional wisdom lacks consistency: If human righteousness is of no interest to God (22:3), then why should human iniquity be of such a concern to God? Job had earlier raised this very question (7:20-21); at the very minimum, God should be able to forgive the sin of short-lived mortals. Eliphaz did not allow that point to enter the discussion (Hermisson 1996:339); evil is a matter of justice and God metes out the penalties accordingly. The reader, however, knows that Eliphaz is wrong. If iniquity affects God, then righteousness does as well. If righteousness is of concern to God, then it is not so certain how God will deal with the righteous. This is at the heart of Job’s main question, which Bildad is about to repeat (25:4; cf. 4:17; 9:2; 15:14), and it is at the heart of the scene in heaven in which the Accuser had challenged God. The last speech of Eliphaz shows that traditional wisdom has no awareness of the possibility that God may bring suffering to the righteous because he takes an active interest in their righteousness. This point will be taken up by Elihu as he seeks to correct both the friends and Job.
In the meantime, we need to examine Eliphaz’s final speech more closely. Eliphaz had begun his previous speech by asking whether a wise man should respond to useless words (15:3). It would seem to be a deliberate choice to begin this speech with the same word about “usefulness,” but now attached to another theme. According to Eliphaz, if Job would lay aside his useless arguments and consider his situation in the light of wisdom, he would not need to suffer this pain. Job was a fool (nabal [TH5036A, ZH5572]); he was not a wise person either in the sense of being a noble patron (nadib [TH5081A, ZH5618]) or a person with knowledge (maskil [TH7919, ZH8505]). According to the Scriptures, “Only fools say in their hearts, ‘There is no God’” (Pss 14:1; 53:1). Since Job thought that God was far off in the heavens and knew nothing (22:13), he was obviously the fool described by the Psalter. The wise not only seek God, but they derive a benefit from doing so. Job needed to lay aside his useless words, become wise, and derive some benefit for himself.
Furthermore, Eliphaz argued, there is a reason for suffering; and it must be self-evident to all that one does not suffer because of excessive righteousness. These words were meant to taunt Job. One axiom of traditional wisdom is that righteousness results in blessing; Job could benefit himself (see note on 22:2). Though the wicked might be temporarily wealthy, it was unthinkable that the righteous could be temporarily poor. The reasoning of Eliphaz cannot countenance anything of what had transpired in the heavenly places. His certainty blinded him entirely to his error, and, more grievously, compelled him to charge Job with guilt. The only basis he had for such charges was Job’s suffering, but he felt solidly supported by the prophets in condemning Job. He told Job that he must have committed some sin that brought God’s judgment upon him. Eliphaz reiterated the law that says it is wrong to take as security an item required as a necessity for life—like a millstone (Deut 24:6) or clothing (Deut 24:17); should the loan default, the creditor might then be endangering someone’s life. This was the worst of the sins of the wealthy, which brought the judgment of God upon Israel (Amos 2:8) and Judah (Ezek 18:12). Not only had Job committed such heinous sins, he had confiscated such pledges for no reason at all. He deserved everything that had happened. The care for the dependent, particularly widows and orphans, was a constant concern of the prophets. Isaiah names injustice to the widows and orphans as the primary manifestation of covenant violation, which brought God’s curse (Isa 1:17). Special care was to be taken to be sure the widow and orphan received both justice (Deut 10:18) and charity (Deut 14:29; 16:11, 14). Eliphaz reasoned that Job had both defrauded and despised the poor (22:9); he had utterly crushed them in his greed. The land belonged to the mighty men in the thinking of tyrants such as Job. He was the wicked wealthy patron he had complained about (cf. 21:28). His house was gone, so the truth of wisdom had been proven once again—Job himself was the best example of the truth his friends had been expounding.
According to Eliphaz, Job had no one but himself to blame for his situation. Job had given a correct description of his life (3:24-25); everything he feared had come upon him—groaning was his food and sighing was his water. Eliphaz knew that Job was in fear, in darkness, and swept away by a flood (22:10-11), but he said Job should not be surprised by these things—Job had thought God was not watching, but he was wrong. According to the larger context of the narrative, however, Eliphaz could not be more wrong. God had observed Job scrupulously, and Job had always known that was the case (7:17-18).