In Job 22:5 Eliphaz accuses Job of being wicked or of being a great sinner, whose iniquities are infinite. According to Gill’s commentary, “strictly speaking nothing is infinite but God…” and this is true, but most scholars go on to say that Eliphaz means Job’s sins are without number. The problem with this understanding is twofold. First, Eliphaz went on to enumerate what he presumed to be Job’s sins, which were only three in number (Job 22:6-9). Secondly, if Eliphaz meant Job’s continuance in these three sins was numberless, how is it that they had once considered Job righteous? If Job’s sins were numberless and, therefore, obvious, how could they have misinterpreted his character and considered him righteous? Wouldn’t there have been an abundance of obvious evidence against such a conclusion? If there was, they certainly have erred in not presenting a single damning piece of that evidence!
The word infinite in the KJV translation is taken from two Hebrew words. The first is ‘ayan (H369) and is usually translated into: no, none or without. The second Hebrew word is qets (H7093) and is translated infinite only in Job 22:5. It is usually translated end, but I believe the sense is in its translation into borders (2Kings 19:23). If Job’s iniquities are without end, Eliphaz means there is nothing Job wouldn’t do secretly to increase his wealth and still maintain his reputation. He has no borders, no conscience, and would defraud the poor and the weak of what is rightfully theirs and have no shame in doing so.
In the game of chess, a gambit is a move or a set of moves, which one player uses in order to try to gain advantage over his opponent. One of the characteristics of folks who embrace false doctrine is that they keep looking for evidence to prove their dogma, and they tend to willingly receive such evidence from any quarter, regardless of its foundation. This appears to be the case for Eliphaz’s accusations in Job 22:6-9. He accepted slanderous remarks from disreputable sources in an effort to support his doctrine that, since the Lord punishes all the wicked in their lifetimes, Job must be guilty of terrible, albeit, secret crimes, because the Lord had brought down upon Job such dreadful calamities. The friends’ position is a classic example of a strawman, vis-à-vis someone who says: “This is true! Now find me the evidence!” Job’s presumed sins were: He trusted no one and exacted collateral for no good reason, depriving the poor of the necessities of life (Job 22:6). He offered no hospitality for the thirsty or the hungry (Job 22:7), and, although he was a mighty and wealthy man, he expressed no philanthropy toward the poor, and sent the widow away empty and even kept the fatherless from obtaining a way out of their poverty (Job 22:8-9).
In Job 22:10-11 Eliphaz repeats what Bildad had said about the wicked (Job 18:5-10), and he applies it directly to Job, accusing him of evil on the sole ground of the friends’ bad theology! Because Job is suffering, like the friends presume the wicked suffer, Job must be guilty of wickedness.[1] Moreover, one of the errors of groups, who are unable to logically defend their own position, is to create a strawman out of their opponent’s argument, and the friends are no different.
Eliphaz misrepresents Job’s argument by attributing words to him that he hadn’t said. Perhaps using Job’s words in 12:6 or 21:9, Eliphaz claimed Job didn’t believe God saw or was interested in what occurs on earth, because he was so highly exalted in the heavens, above the stars and covered in darkness, that he couldn’t see (Job 22:12-14). Strawmen are made to be taken down and destroyed. While it may look like Eliphaz and the friends soundly defeat their opponent, in all actuality Eliphaz merely twisted Job’s words to mean what Eliphaz interpreted them to mean. Obviously, the strawman looks evil and is easily given that appearance, because it is the creation of Eliphaz, who is supported by the friends. However, whatever else the strawman may be, it certainly isn’t Job!
________________________________________________________
[1] In the context of my previous study: Bad Theology, the modern argument is: “Abortion is murder. Therefore, anyone who participates in the act of abortion: the mother, the doctor, the assistants etc., are guilty of murder and infanticide.” Yet, the logic doesn’t hold true, for many who claim abortion is murder, would permit “murdering” the fetus to save the life of the mother, or in cases of rape or incest. Murder is murder. One can’t disapprove of it here, but approve of it there.
Smoodock's Blog 