Daily Thought for: 1st August
Job 8. 1-22
Bildad was the second of Jobs three friends. He is called the Shuhite,
which probably means he belonged to Shuah, an area in the east country
in which Shuah, a son of Abraham, had settled, Gen. 25. 2, 6. Therefore,
he came from a land of wise men, 1 Kgs. 4. 30. He took part in each of the
three controversies which the friends entered into with Job, chs. 8, 18
and 25. His three speeches are very severe in tone; less so than those
of Zophar but more than the words of Eliphaz. Bildads speeches are largely
an echo of what Eliphaz had maintained, but charged with increased vehemence,
8. 2; 18. 3-4; because he rejects Jobs arguments. He attributes Jobs calamity
to wickedness and accuses his deceased children, 1. 19, of sin which accounted
for their punishment, 8. 4. He is a legalist and appeals to tradition,
8. 8-10. Like Eliphaz, he relates Jobs awful situation to cause and effect,
8. 11. From the literary stores of eastern wisdom, he contrasts the desperate
state of the wicked and the delightful state of the righteouswith obvious
implications for Job to reflect upon, 8. 11-22. Bildad considers suffering
is always the direct result of ones sin. As Eliphaz, he refers to the
hypocrite, 8. 13. In his second speech, he intensifies the description
of the woes of the wicked, which is evidently intended to correspond to
Jobs description of his own miserable condition; cf. 18. 5-21 with 16.
6-22. Thus, he is identifying Job with the wicked. His third speech, ch.
25, although more subdued, is his parting shot, and shows he is a die-hard
like Eliphaz, attributing Jobs suffering to his sin. Not only was Bildads
assumption wrong, but his advice was also faulty. His counsel to Job was
that he needed to repent, 8. 5-6. Subsequently, Bildad was rebuked by the
Lord for his untrue and unkind opinion of Job, 42. 7. In considering Bildad,
we offer the following acrostic based on his name
Belittling in his attitude to Job, 8. 5-6.
Insisting that Job must be an awful sinner, 8. 20.
Lacking sympathy towards a suffering saint.
Deciding that Jobs sin was the problem, not his suffering.
Associating suffering with sin always, contrast John 5. 14; 3 John 2.
Demonstrating he was a die-hard. His view is the only view!