Job addresses his friends together as if they had all agreed with the words of Eliphaz. What kind of arrogance is it that dismisses the suffering of another simply because one feels no pain? Job begins by reasserting that this is no minor discomfort as Eliphaz suggests. Job’s words seemed a little extravagant in his sorrow because he actually couldn’t begin to tell how bad it was. To our Western minds it seems Job is accusing God of targeting him unfairly, but that’s the wrong emphasis. The point is how severe and relentless is the suffering because it’s not something cooked up in this world, but clearly the result of events outside this world. This is truly deep suffering.
Animals don’t complain when they have everything they need. They don’t make a lot of noise for no reason. So distracting is this whole experience that Job can hardly eat. The finest cuisine seems tasteless to him. What would be the point if all food is uniformly unpleasant? Even that simple joy is denied him.
Job would be glad to embrace the mortality of which Eliphaz spoke. Dying would be a relief, at least. It’s a puzzle why God prolongs Job’s life with all this sorrow. If he simply knew it was coming in due time, he would be able to rejoice in the midst of pain. But because he knows he has not defied God’s revelation, Job worries death will remain far from him. How does a man bear such things? Job admits he’s whining because it hurts so much.
But adding insult to injury, his friends pick at him as if it was all his own fault. Not a single tear was shed. It was like a wandering caravan coming to look for a stream bed that was dryer than the surrounding hills. It’s hard to picture the sense of disappointment having come so far out of their way to a place where they should have surely found some relief. Job has none from his dearest friends, either. Were they afraid God would do the same to them if they showed any sympathy for Job? Has he requested anything from them that would compromise their own sense of safety? Was their own righteousness so very fragile?
Yet for their sharpness of tongue, they could produce no evidence that Job had sinned. Their logical arguments were empty and missing the facts of the case. Their pitiful theology had huge holes in it. All they’ve done is pick at his words, not beginning to address reality. That sort of cheap moral reasoning would lead them to casting lots to divvy up homeless orphans because there’s no one to protect them, or auction off your friends to slavery because of a small debt. This is not the argument of someone who actually cares about people; it’s a lifeless legalism.
Had they paid any attention at all how he must have felt? Had they given a moment’s real consideration to what was happening before their very eyes? This was Job the Righteous they were discussing with such glib dismissal.
