Job 5:3-7 and Eliphaz and human beings are born to trouble and cursing his dwelling

Sometimes you can tend to get ahead of yourself when you are making an argument. You may not realize it, but you are so emotionally involved in the issue you are discussing that you just don't think straight. You say words that don't make much sense, but you are very vehement about the point you are making . Then, when all is said and done, you either try to justify your argument, move on to other issues or, less frequently, feel sheepish about the way you have spoken. This, I think, is what Eliphaz does in Job 5:3-7.

Let me illustrate what I mean. During my last year of theological seminary (I received an Evangelical education at a seminary in Massachusetts), I attended a very liberal church. I think I saw myself at the time as the friend of everyone--liberals and conservatives alike, and I was trying to "make it" in both cultures. The issue de jour at that time among the most progressive churches was called the "language of God." That is, had Christianity unwittingly, or wittingly, contributed to the oppression of women by using patriarchal language in reference to God (Father, Son and Holy Spirit)? Actually, as the argument went, God has both male and female characteristics, on the one hand, or is beyond sex, on the other. God is "Mother-Father God," "Parent of us all," or "Spirit of the Universe." We either had to "desex" language about God or be "inclusive" of the feminine side of God in our prayers, hymns and Scripture readings. Simply presented, that was the argument.

We discussed the issue again and again in education hour. Many people were sold on the idea of using "new language" for God. But, at the time, I wasn't. I railed against it. I remember in one discussion making an argument that made no sense at all. Here is the gist of what I said. "Well, if we depersonalize language of God (God as "spirit"), we will eventually depersonalize each other." Huh? I knew the moment I uttered the argument that it made no sense at all, but I said it nevertheless. I now know that what was happening at that moment was that my neatly constructed Evangelical world, where God was a He and every doctrine was neatly arranged in the proper pigeon-hole of the desk, was really being subject to scrutiny, and I "screamed," as it were, by making an irrational argument. I think people just rolled their eyes, or ignored me, and the discussion continued.

Back to Eliphaz

I tell this story because I think it is helpful in understanding what Eliphaz does in 5:3-7. In three instances he says things that make no sense, in my judgment. Rather than trying to "clean up his language," as many scholars do, with the result that his argument is perfectly coherent, I prefer to let the literal language stand and conclude that Eliphaz just wasn't speaking clearly. And, I would hasten to add, I think the reason he speaks unclearly here is that he is so emotionally tied up in trying to distance himself and sympathize with Job at the same time that his emotions completely overcome him. I would also argue that by the time Eliphaz gets to 5:8ff he has "caught himself," and then is able to move into a more "coherent" argument. But here are three instances, briefly noted, where Eliphaz's argument falls apart for me.

1. Job 5:3. I provide a very defensible translation. "I have seen the fool sink down his roots, and I suddenly cursed his house." Scholars quibble over the word "suddenly," but most agree that it is a good translation. But, what is Eliphaz doing by cursing the house of a fool? The impression given is that the resulting trauma suffered by the fool may be more the result of Elliphaz's curse than the fool's foolishness. This, of course, would weaken the flow of Eliphaz's argument. Because of this, many scholars have tried to "save" Eliphaz by translating the verb "cursed" to mean "I recognized" or "I declared" his house accursed--as if Eliphaz was simply noting something that already had occurred. I suppose the Hebrew can bear the weight of this translation, but why stretch it so? I think the "weakness" of scholars is to try to make rational sense out of every verse they meet. Sometimes things just don't easily make sense. So it is here. Eliphaz's emotions have taken control of him, and he says something foolish. I think he is saying what he may be thinking about Job. Maybe in a secret way he already is "cursing Job." But, I don't know. All I know is that we ought not to save Eliphaz from his verbal infelicity.

2. Job 5:5. The overall sense of this passage is fairly clear, even though the middle line is obscure. Eliphaz is saying that the possessions of the fool's children will be taken away. The first clause literally reads, "which his harvest the famished eats," and that really causes no difficulty, but the next clause, literally, is "and unto from thorns he takes it." Ok. Deep breath. Because translation committees are paid for (or have the honor of) making translations and not saying, "I don't know what it says," all the versions have a neat translation of this clause, but just to tell you confidentially, it doesn't make sense.

I think I need another short essay to lay out the third problem.

[Next]

1020