As I indicated in my previous study, saying that Job seems to have paused to allow his friends to speak, but they didn’t, so Job went on speaking. I believe it was the fact that they didn’t speak that troubled Job. Elihu would, later, rebuke the friends for accusing Job of sin, but were not able to support their belief. Yet, when they couldn’t prove their argument, neither did they concede to Job’s point (Job 32:3). It was this obstinate attitude expressed in the friends’ silence that Job found extremely disheartening. Their silence proved their defeat, yet they refused to concede, which, had they done so, would have at least encouraged Job in his depression over his chaotic circumstances. Nothing made sense anymore, and even his closest friends were no help. In fact, the opposite was true, in that they condemned him as though they were his enemies.
Before his present dire circumstances, Job used to be a magistrate, who took his place in the most important area of the city (Job 29:7). When folks saw him coming, immediately, everyone, of all walks of life: young and old, common folk and nobility, even the rulers held their peace (Job 29:8-10). Things were different now! Instead of the young men holding Job in high esteem, they despised him. Instead of listening to him, when he rose up, they spoke against him, seemingly bent on the ways of destruction (Job 19:18; cp. 30:12). Obviously, if the young men were able to speak against Job in such a manner, without being rebuked, neither did Job any longer enjoy the respect of the princes and the nobles, and no one arose in honor of his presence. Job was forced to face his suffering alone.
Concerning the former things, while one may enjoy them properly and humbly during one’s prosperity, they are noticed when they are no longer offered. How one reacts to their absence is telling, as one considers the Lord’s table.
From the beginning Job’s attitude reflected his acceptance of the Lord’s will, as we are able to read in Job 1:21 and 2:10. When the friends showed nothing but contempt of Job’s argument, he was discouraged. When one proves himself correct, and yet one’s friends refuse to concede to one’s point, it is very disheartening. Even Jesus found himself in the same position in Mark 3:1-5. A trap for him had been laid by the Jewish authorities, the scribes and Pharisees, who had the Herodians standing by (Mark 3:2, 6; cp. Luke 6:7). Jesus’ argument was: ‘how can you authorities outlaw healing on the Sabbath (doing good), when you allow killing on the Sabbath (doing evil), when one is attacked by one’s enemy?’ Obviously, the matter was logically in Jesus’ favor. Yet, the authorities remained silent. Even though they practiced and approved of the things Jesus claimed they did, they still refused to agree that he was correct in his argument about healing on the Sabbath. Therefore, Job was understandably upset that the friends showed their contempt for his point through their silence. They absolutely refused to admit error, even when their arguments obviously proved false.
There is little difference between Jesus’ attitude and Job’s. Jesus went ahead and did the good and accepted the consequences. He accepted the table his Father had set before him and did the good, whether it promised praise or peril. As for Job, his life continued to deteriorate and his friends abandoned him without an ounce of encouragement in his suffering. Yet, he didn’t condemn them or single any of them out to embarrass them. He simply defended his integrity and submitted to the table the Lord had prepared for him. He was confused and alone, but he refused to compromise his integrity or accuse God of unrighteousness.
.
Smoodock's Blog 