Most Western readers will not understand what happens here. Eastern philosophers typically skip over a great deal of explanation that they would consider obvious.
Bildad’s short speech was true as far as it went. The problem is he carries it too far. If no man is right in God’s sight, what would be the point of clinging to an upright life? And how could any man, least of all Bildad, have standing to castigate another man for sin? We have to recognize the difference between parabolic statement and something entirely too literal.
Job’s response implies this without stating it bluntly. First, he blasts Bildad with sarcasm. Bildad would have been utterly useless helping someone who actually didn’t understand God’s revelation. He was a moral bumpkin in a world where moral education was almost mandatory for existence in that Ancient Near Eastern culture. Not just ignorant of moral truth, Bildad and his friends were militant in their rejection of it, even as they abused and perverted common expressions of that truth.
Job hammers home his point by restating Bildad’s argument in superior terms. That is, using the full reach of parabolic expression, he declares how God is beyond comparison. It is critical that readers understand this, as it would seem his words at face value aren’t very accurate theology. That’s the whole point: God is beyond human intellect and every attempt to confine Him to formulas, regardless how carefully worded, will always fall short. Thus, Job makes Bildad look silly, both in using better symbols and in clearly stating that they cannot be taken literally. Job can say it better than Bildad, but it’s still just parable and poetry.
