A Devotion from D.A. Carson
Genesis 42; Mark 12; Job 8; Romans 12
BILDAD THE SHUHITE IS SCANDALIZED BY Job’s response to Eliphaz and offers his own searing rebuttal
(Job 8).
“How long will you say such things?” Bildad asks. “Your words are a blustering wind” (8:2).
We would say they are nothing but hot air. From Bildad’s perspective, Job is charging God with
perverting justice. “Does the Almighty pervert what is right?” (8:3). But Bildad cannot let the
point linger as a merely theoretical point to be debated by theologians. The implications of his
rhetorical question Bildad now drives home in a shaft that must have pierced Job to the quick:
“When your children sinned against him, he gave them over to the penalty of their sin” (8:4). In
other words, the proper explanation of the storm that killed all ten of Job’s children (1:18–19) is
that they deserved it. To say anything else would surely mean, according to Bildad, that God is
unjust, that he perverts justice. So the way forward for Job is “to look to God and plead with
the Almighty” (8:5). If Job humbles himself and is truly pure and upright, God will restore him to
his “rightful place.” Indeed, all the fabulous wealth Job formerly enjoyed will seem like a mere
piffle compared with the rewards that will come to him (8:6–7).
For his authority Bildad appeals to longstanding tradition, to “the former generations.” The
opinions he and his friends express are not newfangled ideas but received tradition. Bildad and
his friends, regardless of how old they are, can only have learned by experience what can be
tasted in one lifetime. What they are appealing to, however, is not the experience of one
lifetime, but accumulated tradition. That tradition says that the godless and those who forget
God perish like reeds without water; they enjoy all the support of those who lean on spiders’
webs (8:11–19). Conversely, “Surely God does not reject a blameless man or strengthen the
hands of evildoers” (8:20).
Of course, this is roughly the argument of Eliphaz, perhaps somewhat more bluntly
expressed; and while Eliphaz appealed to visions of the night, Bildad appealed to received
tradition. Once again, parts of the argument are not wrong. At one level, on an eternal scale, it
is right to conclude that God vindicates righteousness and condemns wickedness. But as Bildad
expresses the case, he claims to know more about God’s doings than he really does (neither he
nor Job knows the behind-the-scenes setup in chapter 1). Worse, he applies his doctrine
mechanically and shortsightedly, and ends up condemning a righteous man.
Can you think of instances where premature or unbalanced application of biblical truth has
turned out to be fundamentally mistaken?