Christian Inflexibility
The book of Job is a fascinating part of the Bible, no? I think that most of the time when we talk about it, we focus the most on the first chapter or two and the last chapter or two, because we gain a lot of insight about God, the spiritual realm, and the character of Job. We tend to skip the stuff in the middle because it’s long and boring, right? But if you give them a chance, you’ll find yourself equally intrigued by the guys who are talking to Job throughout: Eliphaz, Bildad, and Zophar.
People are usually pretty quick to villainize people in Scripture. We hate on the Israelites for being so dense throughout their history as a nation and always turning away, even though we as individuals are pretty much the same way. What about Samson? We think he’s foolish for keeping Delilah around for so long. The Pharisees? What a bunch of hypocritical losers…we’ll never be like them!
So it is with the friends of Job. People are told that these guys are no good and that everything they say is no good and that they are exceedingly wicked people and such, and so we believe it. But I’ve seen them differently. I think it’s because I can see myself in these guys. This isn’t a new thing for me; I can see myself as an Israelite, I’ve had times in my life where I found myself vulnerable to Delilahs, and I know I’ve acted Pharisaical at times. So let’s try to get into the heads of these three characters with cool names and see where they’re coming from.
Eliphaz, Bildad, and Zophar aren’t all bad. I don’t think they came from faraway places to be jerks. When they first meet Job, they stay silent for a week and just kinda mourn with him (2:13). One thing I know about bad sympathizers is that they won’t wait a week to talk, so this really speaks to their intentions. They saw a problem and genuinely wanted to help.
The men were sympathetic for awhile, but when Job was willing to talk they were willing to play hardball and try to get Job to repent because they genuinely thought that that was what had to happen. In fact, if it wasn’t for the beginning where Job is pronounced as blameless and the end where God rebukes the guys, I would even go as far as to say that I agree with them! I mean, they all basically agree on what the problem is (”confirmed by two or more witnesses”), they don’t back down, and they don’t water down their message (”correct, -rebuke-, encourage”). Eliphaz even points out specific things that Job is doing wrong (22:6-9). What’s more, they say some things that are very wise and have some cool insight about God!
So where did they go wrong?
Inflexibility.
These guys had their minds made up. They knew exactly how it was and they weren’t going to change how they viewed things. A lot of the stuff they say isn’t wrong, just misapplied. It wasn’t relevant. But that didn’t matter. They had it in their heads that wicked people get God’s wrath and were unable to change their perspective. Because of this, they accused an innocent man and probably frustrated him to no end. In the end, it was they who needed to repent, not Job.
Can we ever be so set in our ways that we refuse to hear another viewpoint? Truth is absolute, but it is difficult to find at times. Do we want to have a God that is completely explainable? I should hope not! What kind of God is a God that we can understand? Is it possible that the right answer is that there is no answer at all?
Romans 11:33-34
33 Oh, the depth of the riches and wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are his judgements and how inscrutable his ways!
34 “For who has known the mind of the Lord, or who has been his counselor?”
In my limited Christian experience, the only truth that we can know for sure is the one who claims to be “The Truth” - Jesus Christ. If he is truth, then everything he did is truth as well. So when he was crucified, died, was buried, and rose again on the third day so that the entire world could be redeemed, that is truth. Inflexibility is encouraged here.
But anything else? I believe that we can get close. I think we can have a solid Scriptural base for what we believe and have an argument that makes sense. I think we should pursue answers instead of throwing up our hands and saying that a real answer is impossible. But we have to be able to let our views be challenged, or else we might end up looking as silly as Eliphaz, Bildad, and Zophar.
There are times for close-mindedness, but close-mindedness can be a poison to Christianity. A brick wall tends to divide one side from another.
I talk a big game. Call me out if I become too much like these well-intentioned but misguided friends of Job.
Grace and peace,
Brendan
July 29th, 2008 at 6:03 pm
“Pharisaical”
Good word. Awesome message too! I like near the end:
“There are times for close-mindedness, but close-mindedness can be a poison to Christianity. A brick wall tends to divide one side from another.”
Just like inflexibility during the reformation, and in the hundreds of years since. People get so set in their idea of absolute truth that they forget to consult God. They refuse to understand that some answers are a mystery to us, and new answers are being given to those who seek God righteously.
This message also touches on pride…”I must be right, because I’m never wrong. I know things.” This even goes along with your concealing knowledge article.
July 29th, 2008 at 9:01 pm
Pride. Good! That adds a whole new level of depth to the article. They were inflexible, but why were they inflexible? I think pride would certainly be a correct answer. I know I’ve argued stuff well after I knew I was wrong, just because I wanted to be right. Also, when we think we have all the answers, we won’t look further, even if we’re wrong. 1 Cor 8:2 has something to say about that.
Sweet, dude!