Job tells his friends that he is willing to change his mind, if he has misunderstood his predicament, or if he has misunderstood Eliphaz’s argument (Job 6:24). However, Eliphaz and his friends need to show just cause for their opinions, not merely say Job is wrong, and not merely say they hold the correct point of view. This is largely the fault of many, today, who approach the truth. They assume their understanding about a matter is correct, so they argue according to the presumed correctness of that worldview. Nevertheless, if their worldview doesn’t work, if it is wrong, their conclusion about the matter under discussion will inevitably be wrong, as well. Yet, it is very difficult to bring these same folks to understand that they, like Job’s friends, are in error.[1]
Job claims he is willing to be taught, if the words spoken have the ring of truth. The words of truth are powerful and weighty, and Job is accustomed to their sound, how they move his heart. Nevertheless, he claims, Eliphaz’s argument was weak. He thought to reprove Job, but never identified Job’s error. His argument was so generalized and so off-topic that it reproved nothing (Job 6:25).[2]
Next, Job waxes sarcastic by pointing out that Eliphaz had taken issue with Job’s words of desperation, finding in them reason to accuse him of sin and foolishness. I believe that Job was really put off by his friend’s opinion of him. Rather than consider Job’s more weighty argument, vis-à-vis he didn’t deserve how the Lord was treating him, Eliphaz never questions the supposition that Job must be wrong. In other words, Job contended that his predicament didn’t answer to sins he had committed. Therefore, if God is just, and both Job and his friends agree that God is just, then, what has occurred to Job challenges the commonly held worldview of God. On the other hand, if it is so, that God was punishing Job for the small sins everyone commits, often without thinking, then the Lord would certainly be a cruel taskmaster. Yet, Eliphaz didn’t consider this weighty matter. Instead, he took issue with Job’s groans (complaints) and desperate cries of pain, accusing Job of being a fool. Therefore, Job accuses his friends of oppressing him, as though he were a helpless orphan. He claims, they’ve dug a pit for their own friend, as if he should be hunted down like a wild animal (Job 6:26-27).
Nevertheless, Job is convinced that, if his friends were so disposed, they would be able to know the truth of the matter at hand. Was Job sincere or playing the hypocrite? Was he brushing aside the truth and lying about his righteousness, or were his words truthful? If Job was truthful, then something unforeseen was at work, and it was apparently misunderstood by the then current worldview of God. Job wanted his friends to look him in the eye, and, if they did, he was confident they would realize he was telling the truth (Job 6:28).
Job pleaded with his friends to reconsider what they believed, which caused them to believe he was a great sinner. Don’t assume he is unrighteous. Don’t assume he is wicked. Instead, let him be as righteous as they once held him to be, and from that vantage point consider his predicament. Reconsider what God has done to him. Job’s suffering, his pain, and his destitute status doesn’t fit the then current worldview of how God treated mankind (Job 6:29). ‘Are my words the words of a hypocrite? Are they the words of a wicked man’ (cp. John 10:21)? ‘Haven’t I been able to discern truth in the past? What has happened that causes you to believe this is no longer so’ (Job 6:30)?
______________________________________________________________
[1] An example of this kind of thinking (albeit off topic for the Book of Job) is how the majority of Christians understand the Second Coming of Christ. They continue to look for his coming in the future, even though he claimed he would return in the expected lifetimes of those to whom he preached (Matthew 16:27-28). The New Covenant writers also predicted the first century return of Christ. This cannot be denied, if one accepts the truth of the text as it is written. Yet, the stronghold of this wrong worldview of Christ’s future return is held without question. It denies the truth, and its adherents read the Biblical text through the glasses of a literal and yet future return of Christ. They will not change that point of view, no matter what one’s argument is to the contrary, and no matter how one shows their worldview is in error.
[2] Once again, and speaking in terms of the Second Coming of Christ, most Christians today merely say what they believe about Jesus’ return is true, has always been true, and continues to be so. If Christ said he would return in the first century, but they argue for a yet future coming, how do they speak for Christ? Will Jesus return because of what they say, or because of what he said? Will he return according to their timing or according to his timing? If he would return according to his own words, then we must believe he has already returned, and we need to adjust our worldview of the Second Coming, according to what Jesus actually said, not according to our fancy. If the truth is rejected out of hand, how can one’s conclusion about a matter be correct? This, in essence, is what Job claims here.
Smoodock's Blog 
2 responses to “What Is the Proof of One’s Worldview?”
Greetings Eddie!
…a few comments to add:
regarding the 2nd coming, it is doubly sad and reprehensible that Evangelical leaders are taking advantage of the Isreali war to peddle these same tired ridiculous claims!
While I am decidedly pro Israel, it is not because they are the chosen people, it is because they are a democratic republic, a strategic partner in the region, and its people are being unfairly persecuted again!
Regarding the current study, this is probably one of the most difficult to come to terms with, not because you are wrong, but because your study continues to dispell many Christian misunderstandings. The big one is that when bad things happen it is God punishing us! Nonsense! Especially in this age of Grace! However, I am still in the camp of a literal Satan, but I may come around! Part of my understanding is influenced by experience that I won’t elaborate on here.
Greetings Dave, and thank you for reading my studies and for your comment. Lord bless you, my friend.
It is always sad and reprehensible that leaders of a religious community take advantage of tragedy in order to promote their worldview. It’s all about money and/or power. It is sad to say that many who preach the word of God don’t believe in God, or at least not a God who cares what they do or say in his name.
I was surprised to find, when I first began to study this book, that it was all about changing one’s wrong or out-dated worldview. God must reveal himself in phases. First, he needed to show he cared about righteousness and abhorred wickedness. When good folks received this, he had to go further, and this is what Job is all about, seeing and accepting a different worldview of God. When Jesus came, he showed us what God was like by living God out in the flesh. It would be wrong to assume that we could take all that is God and fleshed out in Jesus in a moment of time, or even wholly in one lifetime. Life in Christ is all about discovery and change, but many, and sadly to say the ‘many’ have been drawn to power and authority, preach a frozen god. While it is true that God doesn’t change, it is not true that we shouldn’t change as we discover our God anew. Life is about imaging God, and we aren’t born with a natural knowledge of who he is, and we are unable to discover him in a moment of time. Therefore, as we live, we image him and as we discover him anew, we change to image him better. God doesn’t change. He created us in his image, but we rebelled. Life is about returning to the Lord’s original plan to image him.
If God is all about punishing us, why does he begin with you and me? Why not correct the wickedness in government, or in commercialism/business or in the evil done by evil men in organized crime, drug pushing, human trafficking etc. It is a small, powerless god who would take issue with you and me and leave the others to do as they please. Sad to say, but the authorities in the religious community preach a very, very small and weak/human-like god. There are exceptions, of course, but the ‘exceptions’ by their very nature are not prevalent.
GRACE! Ah, yes. This is how mankind was treated from the very beginning, but when the Lord assumed a ‘hands off’ policy (grace), man assumed he didn’t care, and/or they needed to take control: “I’ll tell you what is good for me and what is evil for me!” etc. Everyone preaches grace, but no one (with exceptions) really like grace. They want a cruel taskmaster, and they hope to be his favorite ‘servant’ to carry out his policy–in the name of ‘grace’ of course (whatever that means in their hearts). Sad to say, the study of the word of God has changed me into a cynic–toward religious men in power. I need to guard against going too far. I keep praying about that. Surely, there are enough ‘exceptions’ to still call the Christian Church “Christian!”
Concerning not elaborating on one’s “experience” with the mysterious unknown. I understand. I’ve had a little, too little to change my mind about my understanding of spiritual evil. Lord bless you, Dave.