We have observed in Job a definite distinction between Job’s approach to suffering and that of his friends. His friends shared a very neat and simple systematic theology, in which God blesses the righteous and punishes the wicked. Job’s affliction was evidence that he was wicked. Job was learning that theology is not always that simple.
Yesterday, we considered Zophar’s first speech, in which he concluded that Job was getting, not what he deserved but, in fact, far less than he deserved. His affliction would have been far greater had God given him what his sins deserved.
Chapters 12–14 form Job’s response to Zophar’s first speech, though, at the same time, it appears to be directed more generally to all three friends. As with his other responses, he first addressed his friends (12:1–13:19) before addressing God directly (13:20–14:22). It is the longest of his speeches, so we must be especially brief in our survey of it.
Job’s response to Zophar consists of four parts. The paragraph divisions in the ESV do a good job of capturing this arrangement.
He argues, first, that his friends’ neat systematic theology was insensitive to those who are suffering (12:1–6). In their system, those “at ease” rightly held those suffering “misfortune” in “contempt.” They considered misfortune to be “ready for those whose feet slip.” In other words, the friends’ system justified people notundergoing affliction viewing those undergoing affliction with a spiritual superiority complex because affliction was evidence of sin.
He argues, second, that his friends’ neat systematic theology was inadequate to deal with the real questions that affliction raises (12:7–12). The “you” in 12:7–8 is singular in the Hebrew. Job appears in this section to be taking the role of one of his friends addressing him, telling him to ask the beasts, birds, bushes, and fish. His friends were claiming that things were so simple that even animals and inanimate creation could answer Job’s questions (12:9). If the evidence of these was insufficient, Job should simply remember that his friends were “the aged” and that wisdom was with them (12:12). One senses an almost sarcastic tone in his voice. It is as if he was saying, “You guys make it so simple that it is clear your counsel is superficial and inadequate to deal with realities of suffering.” Suffering is never as simple as they made it sound.
He argues, third, that his friends’ neat systematic theology was insufficient to address the mystery of God (12:13–25). In his walk with God, Job had learned that God was not always predictable. Any theology that made it so was deeply flawed. He had learned that God both builds and destroys and doesn’t always explain why. His friends’ theology was far too simplistic to address the God who is.
He argues, fourth, that his friends’ neat systematic theology was, in the end, insignificant to his specific situation (13:1–12). Despite the many things they said that sounded right, they were still “worthless physicians” (13:4) and would be better of maintaining silence (13:5).
Having evaluated his friends counsel, Job determined that he would be better off taking his struggles directly to God (13:13–19). He addresses God directly in 13:20–14:22.
For the moment, his friends take a back seat as they witness what it is like for a blameless man to wrestle with God in his affliction. Job pleads with God to allow him a personal audience to air his grievances (13:20–22). He then acknowledges that, even though he had not sinned in a particular way to invite affliction, sin was nevertheless at the root of affliction (13:23–27). If there was no sin, there would be no suffering. Worse still, sin highlights the reality of human mortality (13:28–14:6) so that Job felt the sting of death before him (14:7–12). Though he maintained his blamelessness, he knew that he was nevertheless a sinner, and that death was his destiny. This caused even greater despair. What was the use of maintaining his integrity if his inherent sin was going to lead to death? It is at this point that hope enters the picture.
In 14:13–17, we have some of the most glorious, poetic language in Scripture promising the hope of resurrection. If death is the outcome of sin, resurrection is the only hope for humanity. Job was headed for “Sheol”—the grave—the common destiny of humanity. Common wisdom taught that Sheol was a place of no return (see 7:9). But Job had hope that God would watch him in Sheol and appoint a set time at which he would remember him (14:13). This remembering would take the form of “renewal” (14:14), which I take to be a reference to resurrection. Apart from resurrection, sin renders humanity hopeless (14:18–22), but the promise of resurrection—which we know comes through Christ—gives us hope.
Quite apart from exposing the shallowness of his friends’ theology, Job’s address to God highlights two realities to which every Christian must dearly cling: the reality of sin and the hope of resurrection. Job did not minimise the seriousness of sin. Even as he maintained his integrity in this particular instance, he knew that he was a sinner who deserved death. But he did not allow the certainty of sin-induced death to spiral him into hopelessness. He knew that the promise of resurrection defeated the despair of death. We need the same realism about sin and the same hope of resurrection.
As you meditate on Job 12–14 this morning, ask God to give you a biblical realism about your sin but to not allow that to lead you to despair as you cling firmly to the biblical hope of resurrection.
