Eliphaz to Job: the third colloquy: the second controversy: 1. A fallacious syllogism.
I. A SOUND PREMISS. That God's government of mankind is entirely disinterested, his judicial retributions not being affected by considerations of personal benefit or hurt arising from the conduct of his creatures.
1. Not by expectation of advantage. (Verses 2, 3.) Here is:
2. Not by fear of damage. (Verse 4.) Eliphaz appears to mean that God has as little reason to dread loss from man's wickedness (Job 35:6) as to expect gain from his godliness, and therefore no need to defend himself against man by either punishing him with undeserved calamities, or weakening him through unmerited rebukes. The sentiment may remind us
(1) of man's weakness, which can do nothing against God, who sits enthroned in heaven far beyond the reach of man's puny arm;
(3) of God's greatness, which remains unaffected by all the conspiracies of men and devils against his throne, his Law, his grace, his Person;
II. THE MISTAKEN INFERENCE. That Job was a sinner.
1. The inference appeared obvious.
2. The inference was wrong. Since
Learn:
1. That the best saint has no more claim on God's grace and favour than the worst sinner.
2. That God's salvation of sinful men can in the case of none be of work and merit, but in the case of all must be of faith and grace.
3. That, as a special mark of condescension and kindness, God is pleased to accept and reward the services of his people as if they had been profitable unto himself.
4. That if God has no need of man's righteousness, man has infinite need of God's.
5. That, notwithstanding God derives no advantage from the piety of his creatures, he commands all men to make their ways perfect,
6. That, though God never reproves men out of fear, he sometimes does out of love.
7. That good people's piety is sometimes better than their logic.