Restoring Mephibosheth (II Samuel 4:4)

How old was Mephibosheth when the nurse dropped him and he became lame? Five years (II Samuel 4:4)

Much like Russia’s Romanov dynasty was collectively expunged in 1917, Israel’s royal family is largely eradicated in one day when King Saul and three of his sons are killed in battle on Mount Gilboa (I Samuel 31:1-2). After their deaths, the kingdom is temporarily divided as David and Saul’s remaining son, Ishbosheth, make competing claims on the vacant throne (II Samuel 2:1-11). The resulting civil war ends when Ishbosheth is assassinated by two of his own commanders, Rekab and Baanah (II Samuel 4:1-7).

While recounting Ishbosheth’s murder, the text adds in passing that there was another tragic consequence of the battle at Mount Gilboa: the crippling of Jonathan’s son (and Saul’s grandson) Mephibosheth (II Samuel 4:4).

Now Jonathan, Saul’s son, had a son crippled in his feet. He was five years old when the report of Saul and Jonathan came from Jezreel, and his nurse took him up and fled. And it happened that in her hurry to flee, he fell and became lame. And his name was Mephibosheth. (II Samuel 4:4 NASB)

Though the narrative aside introduces the recurring character of Mephibosheth (II Samuel 4:4, 9:1-13, 16:1-4, 19:24-30, 21:7-8), it reads as a non sequitur.

Hans Wilhelm Hertzberg (1895-1965) acknowledges:

The description of how this—evidently the only—son of Jonathan became lame has no connection with this narrative. It would be in place in chapter 9, to which some commentators would transfer it. Perhaps it is meant to say here, ‘that after the death of Ishbaal there was no suitable claimant to the throne from the house of Saul’ (Friedrich Nötscher [1890-1966]). This is, of course, uncertain (cf. II Samuel 21), but not impossible. The marginal note would have been incorporated into the text with other gloss. The narrative proper has II Samuel 4:5 immediately after II Samuel 4:2. (Hertzberg, I & II Samuel: A Commentary (Old Testament Library), 264)

Ronald F. Youngblood (b. 1931) speculates:

Jonathan’s son Mephibosheth is introduced parenthetically to demonstrate this his youth and physical handicap disqualify him for rule in the north. Symon Patrick [1606-1707]...provides another possible reason: “to show, what it was that emboldened these Captains [Banaaj and Recab] to do what follows: Because he, who was the next Avenger of Blood, was very young; and besides was lame and unable to pursue them.” (Tremper Longman III [b. 1952] and David E. Garland [b. 1947], 1 Samuel-2 Kings (The Expositor’s Bible Commentary), 337)

Whatever the reason for his inclusion at this point, as soon as Mephibosheth is mentioned, the subject is immediately dropped (pun intended).

Mephibosheth is also known as Merib-baal (I Chronicles 8:34, 9:40). It has been speculated that the name has been bowdlerized.

A.A. Anderson (b. 1924) surmises:

“Mephibosheth” may be a deliberate distortion of the original name by substituting one element of the compound proper name by “bosheth” (בחת) meaning “shame”...However, some scholars regard “bosheth” as a divine epithet...The former alternative is more likely because in the Books of Chronicles we find what appears to be the original form of the proper name. There are two variants: Meribaal (בעל ’מר) in I Chronicles 9:40 and Meribbaal (בעל ב’מר) in I Chronicles 8:34, 9:40. The former variant may be derived from the latter (so Matitiahu Tsevat [1913-2010]) meaning, perhaps, “Baal contends.” (Anderson, 2 Samuel (Word Biblical Commentary), 69-70)

Peter R. Ackroyd (1917-2005) asserts:

The name has undergone a double change. The first part was altered so as to suggest the meaning ‘exterminator or Baal,’ and the second part to avoid uttering the detested name of Baal. (Ackroyd, The Second Book of Samuel (Cambridge Bible Commentaries on the New English Bible), 49)

Mephibosheth’s fate is tragic. In the aftermath of the defeat at Gilboa, the fear of reprisals sets off panic within Saul’s household and they flee. Five year old Mephibosheth is crippled during the escape when his nurse, who has presumably scooped up the child in an effort to save time, drops him (II Samuel 4:4). This misfortune would plague Mephibosheth for the remainder of his life (II Samuel 9:3, 19:26). Unable to walk, Mephibosheth would never ascend the throne.

Steven J. Andrews (b. 1954) and Robert D. Bergen (b. 1954) review:

Mephibosheth...was lame in both feet due to a tragic accident during his early childhood. At the time of his father’s death (I Samuel 31:2) there was a very real fear that the Philistines would continue their advances southward from Mount Gilboa to Israel’s then-capital city of Gibeah. Members of the royal family were evacuated from the area to preserve an heir to the throne. As Mephibosheth’s nurse picked him up and fled she fell, with the result that he became crippled. (Andrews and Bergen, I & II Samuel (Holman Old Testament Commentary), 214-15)

The family’s fear was understandable. Charles R. Swindoll (b. 1934) explains:

According to some ancient customs, when the king died and a new dynasty began to rule, all of the descendants of the old king were annihilated. So when Mephibosheth’s nurse heard that both Saul and Jonathan, Mephibosheth’s father, had been killed, she took matters into her own hands. (Swindoll, The Mystery of God’s Will, 126)

Mephibosheth is dropped by his “nurse” (ASV, CEV, ESV, KJV, MSG, NASB, NIV, NKJV, NLT, NRSV, RSV). Jo Ann Hackett (b. 1949) defines:

The nurse (Hebrew ’ōmenet) of Mephibosheth...is not necessarily a wet nurse (Hebrew mēneqet), but rather simply someone who takes care of him. The same root is used for female and male caretakers elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible...In this case the caregiver is made responsible for the lameness of her five-year old charge. The child falls as the nurse whisks him away from danger. (Carol L. Meyers [b. 1942], Toni Craven [b. 1944] and Ross S. Kraemer [b. 1948], Women in Scripture: A Dictionary of Named and Unnamed Women in the Hebrew Bible, the Apocryphal/Deuterocanonical Books, and the New Testament, 260)

Regardless of what her position entailed, a person enlisted to help the child is responsible for his greatest wound. Johanna W. H. Van Wijk-Bos (b. 1940) observes:

In the episode of Ishobshet’s murder, two...women appear, both in some way falling short in their responsibilities. First, a nurse appears, who fled in the aftermath of the defeat at Gilboa with one of Jonathan’s sons, Mephibosheth...“In her haste to flee,” the narrator reports, “he fell and was lame” (II Samuel 4:4). A change of subject in the sentence avoids a direct mention of the nurse’s failure—i.e., that she dropped the child—but the inference is clear enough. Finally, at the time the two killers enter their master’s quarters, a female guardian at the door may have been derelict in her duty: “And look, the woman who kept the gate, had been gleaning wheat and nodded and fell asleep” (II Samuel 4:6 in the reading of the Septuagint). Two women, even if they do not engage in outright criminal behavior, certainly participate in the demise of the house of Saul, one leaving the sole descendant lame, symbolic for a crippled house, the other unable to warn her master of his impending doom, futile though it might have been. (Wijk-Bos, Reading Samuel: A Literary and Theological Commentary, 170)

Mephibosheth’s injury is severe. V. Philips Long (b. 1951) diagnoses:

That...Mephibosheth...is described as lame in both feet may suggest a spinal cord injury. It is also possible that he received (compound) fractures that either were not or could not be set properly...Medicine designed to treat illness and injury was practiced in the ancient Near East from early times. An Egyptian medical papyrus copied by scribes from older texts (ca. 1700 B.C.), for example, provides systematic instructions for the diagnosis and treatment of a host of injuries, beginning with the head and moving downward (the text is discontinued and reaches no further than the upper arm and ribs). One section describes a serious spinal cord injury. (John H. Walton [b. 1952], Joshua, Judges, Ruth, 1 & 2 Samuel (Zondervan Illustrated Bible Backgrounds Commentary), 427)

Kevin J. Mellish (b. 1968) adds:

The term used for Mephibosheth’s inability to walk (vayîpāsēah) is etymologically similar to the term that refers to the “Passover” (pesah) in Jewish tradition. Ironically, whereas the slaughter of a lamb commemorated a series of events that led to the Israelites’ freedom from bondage in the Exodus tradition, in this setting, the crippling of a child’s feet is connected with the opportunity for David to take control of Saul’s kingdom. As much as the text anticipates David’s role as ruler over Israel it also looks forward to Mephibosheth’s future relationship with David. When David rules as king from Jerusalem, he had Mephibosheth stay with him and “eat at [his] table” (II Samuel 9:7-13). (Mellish, 1 & 2 Samuel: A Commentary in the Wesleyan Tradition (New Beacon Bible Commentary), 193)

The injury is life changing, even more so than it would be today. Elias Yemane evaluates:

The term “crippled in both feet” implies four characteristics: (1) economic vulnerability; (2) physical vulnerability; (3) permanent immobility; and (4) religious alienation. (Yemane, Mephibosheth: Transformation by a Covenant Love, 27)

Mephibosheth’s disability shapes his future and he allows it to largely define him. He will later refer to himself as a “dead dog” (II Samuel 9:8).

Jeremy Schipper (b. 1975) reflects:

The David Story mentions his “lameness” almost every time his character appears in II Samuel (II Samuel 4:4, 9:3, 13, 19:27). While the royal ideal in the ancient Near East was a strong body with every physical feature properly placed (e.g. the depiction of Naram-Sîn), Mephibosheth is represented as “lame in both feet” (II Samuel 9:13)...By mentioning his disability in chapter 9, some suggest that the David Story contrasts Mephibosheth’s entrance into Jerusalem with David’s in chapter 6. In II Samuel 19:27, Mephibosheth’s disability marks him as one who has difficulty going out to war. When David asks him why he did not flee Jerusalem with the king, he cites his need for a donkey to ride because of his disability...A “lame” person who must ride a donkey hardly fits the ideal of the ancient Near Eastern king leading successful military campaigns. The representation of the last Saulide suggests to the reader that he lacks the properly portioned physique and military prowess of an ideal king. (Schipper, Disability Studies and the Hebrew Bible: Figuring Mephibosheth in the David Story, 96)

The injury effectively disqualifies Mephibosheth from the throne. James E. Smith (b. 1939) deduces:

The Beerothites felt confident that the assassination of Ish-Bosheth would lead directly to David’s succession. Only one other direct descendant of Saul remained alive, but he was not a viable candidate for the throne. Jonathan had a son named Mephibosheth who was lame in both feet, (literally, “smitten of feet”). Before the fateful battle of Gilboa, the Israelite army had been camped at Jezreel (I Samuel 29:1). When news came from Jezreel of the death of Saul and Jonathan, the nurse (nanny) fled with the child. Unfortunately she had dropped the child. This caused permanent lameness. The text does not relate where Mephibosheth and his nurse were when they heard the news; they could have been in Gibeah, Saul’s hometown. Both his youth (he was twelve at this time) and his disability made Mephibosheth unwilling or unable to press his claim to the throne. (Smith, 1 & 2 Samuel (The College Press NIV Commentary), 368)

Robert Alter (b. 1935) summarizes:

The notice is inserted here to make clear that after the murder of Ish-bosheth, there will be no fit heir left from the house of Saul, for Saul’s one surviving grandson is crippled. (Alter, The David Story: A Translation with Commentary of 1 and 2 Samuel, 218)

Through one unintentional slip, one unfortunate moment, a child who was born to be king instantaneously became a “dead dog” who moved from the forefront to the background of history.

When you meet someone who is injured, are you curious as to how they arrived at their condition? Why? Why is a nurse carrying a five-year old; could Mephibosheth have had a preexisting medical condition? What royals have been maimed in more modern times? Would you be less accepting of an injured leader? What national leaders have had significant disabilities, e.g. Franklin D. Roosevelt [1882-1945]? Who do you know who has been irrevocably affected by an incident from childhood?

Despite the tragedy, there is still hope for Mephibosheth and his family. Robert D. Bergen (b. 1954) contextualizes:

The most important event of II Samuel 4 is the death of Ish-Bosheth. But in order to dispel the notion that might arise in the reader’s mind that Ish-Bosheth’s death meant the final destruction of the Saulide family, the writer inserts here a note concerning Mephibosheth, son of “Jonathan son of Saul.” (Bergen, 1, 2 Samuel (New American Commentary), 316)

Whereas the nurse drops Mephibosheth, his father’s friend, King David will pick him up. Walter Brueggemann (b. 1933) comments:

This is an exceedingly curious note inserted in the middle of the Ishbosheth narrative. It disrupts the story line but does pertain to Ishbosheth’s fate. Ishbosheth is destined for death, whereas his nephew Mephibosheth is headed for mercy. In terms of the total David plot, this verse stands midway between I Samuel 20:14-17 and II Samuel 9:1-8. The subject of these two passages is the kindness (hesed) of David toward Jonathan. In the former, David promised Jonathan that he would not cut off his “loyalty” to the house and name of Jonathan. In the latter, David now keeps that promise by asking if there is anyone left of the house of Saul to whom the king may show kindness. David promises hesed and fulfills that promise. Mephibosheth is the channel for the fulfillment of the promise. Thus this verse sets the stage for the affirmation that David is a man of hesed who keeps vows, honors friends, and shows mercy to those with whom he is bound...The name of Mephibosheth is intended to remind the listener of David’s hesed. This peculiar verse, then, is a device for asserting that David would not do damage to Ishbosheth, who also comes under the vow made to Jonathan in I Samuel 20:14-17. II Samuel 4:4 reminds us of hesed in a chapter otherwise devoid of any dimension of mercy, fidelity, or generosity. (Brueggemann, First and Second Samuel (Interpretation: A Bible Commentary for Teaching and Preaching), 234)

In allowing Mephibosheth to routinely dine at his table (II Samuel 9:13), David violates his own royal decree forbidding “the blind or the lame from entering Jerusalem (II Samuel 5:6-8).

Eugene H. Peterson (b. 1932) notes:

David will deal with an actual individual who is lame—Mephibosheth (II Samuel 9). David will bring him into the city and into his home with honor, treating him with the utmost respect. David’s actions are better than his words. (Peterson, First and Second Samuel (Westminster Bible Companion), 159)

It is harder to discriminate against someone that is standing in front of you with their humanity on full display and David does not reject his friend’s son. After reaping the benefits of David’s kindness, Mephibosheth is a royal who is maimed but restored.

Max Lucado (b. 1955) correlates:

Mephibosheth is bracketed into the Bible. The verse doesn’t tell us much, just his name (Mephibosheth), his calamity (dropped by his nurse), his deformity (crippled), and then it moves on...But that’s enough to raise a few questions...If his story is beginning to sound familiar, it should. You and he have a lot in common. Weren’t you also born of royalty? And don’t you carry the wounds of a fall? And hasn’t each of us lived in fear of a king we have never seen? (Lucado, Cast of Characters: Common People in the Hands of an Uncommon God, 33-34)

Can you identify with Mephibosheth, a character presented largely as a victim? Why? Why not? What in your life is in need of restoration? Do you have hope that God will restore you?

“I am conscious of a soul-sense that lifts me above the narrow, cramping circumstances of my life. My physical limitations are forgotten- my world lies upward, the length and the breadth and the sweep of the heavens are mine!” - Helen Keller (1880-1968), The Story Of My Life: With Her Letters (1887--1901) And A Supplementary Account Of Her Education, Including Passages From The Reports And Letters Of Her Teacher, Anne Mansfield Sullivan, p. 111

With Friends Like These... (Job 2:11)

Eliphaz, Bildad and Zophar were friends of whom? Job

Job and his tale of woe have become synonymous with suffering. While the majority of the book that bears his name is a philosophical dialogue, the prologue relays how his vast holdings, children and good health are systematically eradicated (Job 1:1-2:13). When tragedy strikes one of their core group, Job’s friends, Eliphaz, Bildad and Zophar, spring into action and plot to console their friend (Job 2:11).

Now when Job’s three friends heard of all this adversity that had come upon him, they came each one from his own place, Eliphaz the Temanite, Bildad the Shuhite and Zophar the Naamathite; and they made an appointment together to come to sympathize with him and comfort him. (Job 2:11 NASB)

The friends opt to make the visit together; such awkward visits are always more pleasant when conducted in groups. Eliphaz, Bildad and Zophar assemble around Job in much the same way as God’s council gathers around Yahweh in the preceding chapter (Job 1:6).

The text does not indicate how the group learns of Job’s plight. The Targum relays that the friends are alerted by the sight of garden trees withering, meat regressing into raw meat while being eaten, and their wine transmuting to blood.

Unlike the four messengers who appear in hurried procession to inform Job of his catastrophic losses (Job 1:14, 16, 17, 18), Job’s friends’ trip is planned and lengthy (Job 2:11-13). As it took time for the news to reach them, they had to make long-distance arrangements to meet and then had to travel a considerable distance to reach Job’s side, it was possibly months between Job’s trials and his friends’ arrival.

Stephen M. Hooks (b. 1947) speculates:

The fact that these men met by appointment suggests that they know one another as well as Job. How they have learned of Job’s misfortune we are not told. News of Job must have spread far and wide. These developments imply the passing of some time, and information gleaned from the dialogues confirms this. In Job 7:3, for example, Job speaks of “months” of pain he has already endured. (Hooks, Job (College Press NIV Commentary), 79)

Job’s friends will serve as major players for the remainder of the book. Aside from their names and places of residence, little is revealed about them.

Eliphaz (whose name means “God is fine gold” or “God conquers”) has been identified with Edom as both his name and nationality (Teman) appear in Edomite genealogies (Genesis 36:4, 15). Some have speculated that Eliphaz is the oldest of Job’s counselors as he is listed first (Job 2:11, 42:9), speaks first, gives longer and more mature speeches and perhaps most tellingly God addresses him as representative of the group (Job 42:7).

Of Job’s counselors’ hometowns, only Eliphaz’s can be definitively located. Teman was a principle sight in the northern region of Edom (Ezekiel 25:13; Genesis 36:34). The location was known for its wisdom (Jeremiah 49:7; Obadiah 1:8).

The name Bildad (possibly meaning “son of Hadad”) does not appear elsewhere in the Bible. Bildad is a Shuhite which some associate with Shuah, a son born to Abraham by Keturah (Genesis 25:2). Others connect Bildad’s region to Sūhu, a site referenced in Akkadian documents located on the Middle Euphrates River below the mouth of the Khabur River.

Zophar (“young bird”) hails from Naamah. Naamah is both the name of a female descendant of Cain (Genesis 4:22) and an Ammonite princess who marries Solomon (I Kings 14:21). A site known as ‘Ain Sopar on the road between Beiruit and Damascus has been identified as a possible location of Naamah.

While the geography involving Job’s friends cannot be pinpointed with any certainty, it can be determined that ,like Job himself, his friends live outside of Israel and they descend upon him from diverse places. Job has international connections.

Job’s friends are literally three wise men. All three are old (Job 32:6), possibly older than Job (Job 15:10) and presumably all are eastern patriarchs.

Samuel E. Balentine (b. 1950) comments:

Three “wise” friends journey toward Uz, where Job’s life had exemplified Edenic harmony. Now, “evil” (Job 2:11: rā‘āh, NRSV: “troubles”) has fallen upon this once paradisiacal world, and the one who had always “turned away from evil (rā‘; Job 1:8, 2:3) is “sitting among the ashes.” With such a scenario, the prologue suggests that a world like Job’s requires the best insights wisdom can offer. (Balentine, Job (Smyth & Helwys Bible Commentary), 66-67)

The theology presented in Job will not come from anonymous voices; each of Job’s friends has a distinct personality. It has even been suggested that they represent varying strands of philosophy.

In addition to their social standing, these men are well intentioned friends (Job 2:11), not detached messengers (Job 1:14, 16, 17, 18). They have been described as comforters, companions, counselors and friends. The Hebrew rea’ is a very common word and in this context is universally translated “friends” (ASV, CEV, ESV, HCSB, KJV, MSG, NASB, NIV, NKJV, NLT, NRSV, RSV). James L. Crenshaw (b. 1934) defines, “The noun re‘a indicates an intimate, a companion from whom one accepts advice (Crenshaw, Reading Job: A Literary and Theological Commentary, 45).”

Norman C. Habel (b. 1932) analyzes:

These visitors have come to perform a traditional role of the friend in ancient society, namely, to “console” (nwd) and “comfort” (nhm). A “friend” (rēa‘) is characterized by deep loyalty and close bonds of faithfulness (hesed; cf. Proverbs 18:24; II Samuel 16:17)...It is precisely this loyalty which Job later accuses his friends of violating, thereby not fulfilling their true role as “friends”. (Habel , The Book of Job: A Commentary (The Old Testament Library), 97)

John E. Hartley (b. 1940) expounds:

The term for friends has a wide range of meanings, including an intimate counselor (I Chronicles 27:33), a close friend (Deuteronomy 13:6), a party in a legal dispute (Exodus 22:9). Friends often solemnized their relationship with a covenant, promising to care for each other under all kinds of circumstances. The relationship between Job and his three friends gives every evidence of being based on a covenant (Job 6:14-15, 21-23, 27). Such a relationship was characterized by loyal love (hesed; e.g., Jonathan and David, I Samuel 20:14-15)...With the noblest intentions, these three earnestly desired to help Job bear his sorrow. (Hartley, The Book of Job (New International Commentary on the Old Testament), 85)

Their visit constitutes a grand gesture. Job’s companions take great efforts to see him and risk contagion and public censure to be with their friend in his time of need.

Mike Mason (b. 1952) observes:

What a blessing it would be to have just one friend like this in time of need—one friend who would drop everything at a moment’s notice, travel any distance, and stick by one’s bedside night and day for an entire week! Job, apparently, had not just one such friend-in-need, but three. Even in the Bible we do not often hear of people having this many close friends. One memorable exception is the paralytic of Mark 2:3-4, who had no less than four friends who loved him so much that they actually went to all the trouble and embarrassment of carrying him through a large crowd and then digging down through a roof in order to get him to Jesus. In the New Testament, understandably, heart-to-heart friendship becomes an increasingly common phenomenon, and the long genealogical lists of the Old Testament gradually give way to a very different sort of list, such as the one in the last chapter of Romans in which Paul gives us just a glimpse into the vast network of people who, far more than being mere friends, were his true family, his brothers and sisters in the Lord. These are blood ties indeed, for here the family tree is the cross. (Mason, The Gospel According to Job: An Honest Look at Pain and Doubt from the Life of One Who Lost Everything, 49)

What makes a person a friend? Who are your best friends? Who would travel to meet you during your darkest hour? When have friends come to your rescue during a time of need? When have you seen someone suffer? What did you do? Why do Eliphaz, Bildad and Zophar visit Job? What can they possibly do to ameliorate Job’s situation?

Eliphaz, Bildad and Zophar’s visit has a two-fold objective (Job 2:11). Gerald H. Wilson (1945-2005) appraises:

The purpose of the friends’ visit is to sympathize with him and comfort him. The Hebrew verb for “sympathize” is nud, which denotes shaking the head or body back and forth as an indication of taking on the pain or grief of another. The Hebrew for “comfort” is nkhm, which normally means (in the Piel stem as here) to comfort with words—in contrast to the silent waiting that ultimately characterizes the friends’ vigil. (Wilson, Job (New International Biblical Commentary), 33)

Though they plan to bring words of comfort and have a long trip in which to gather their thoughts, when they arrive, they realize that they have no words for this occasion. Sometimes there is nothing that can be said. In these instances, silence is golden.

In a touching scene, Job’s friends bind themselves to Job even in his suffering. They simply sit with him, saying nothing, for an entire week (Job 2:13). James A. Wharton (b. 1927) analyzes:

Like God’s servant in Isaiah 52:14, Job is so ravaged by suffering that he is “marred...beyond human semblance,” so that his friends cannot recognize in him the Job they had known before. Rather than turning away from this horror, however, they join Job in the signs of ritual mourning (compare Job 1:20 and Job 2:12), indicating that Job’s distress is their distress, to be lamented before God. The high-water mark of their compassion comes during these seven days when they found grace just to be there with Job—and to keep their mouths shut, “for they saw that his suffering was very great.” Consoling words rarely improve on the silent comfort of a friend’s presence. (Wharton, Job (Westminster Bible Companion), 23)

Charles R. Swindoll (b. 1934) imagines:

As he sits there covered with skin ulcers that have begun erupting with pus, swelling his body with fever and giving him a maddening itch that will not cease, he looks up into the faces of three friends who arrive on the scene. They sit and stare at the man for seven days and nights without uttering a word. Just imagine. First, they don’t recognize him, which tells you something of the extent of his swelling and the sores that covered his body. The sight causes them to be at a loss for words for a full week. (Swindoll, Job: A Man of Heroic Endurance, 5)

Beth Lueders (b. 1959) commends:

Now, that’s a ministry of presence and a ministry of waiting. These guys don’t check Job and themselves into a luxurious hotel room with a wide-screen TV. They don’t pull up overstuffed couches or recliners. They don’t hit the hot tub, shoot some hoops, or go off-roading in their souped up-chariots...The four men just hunkered down on the ground...in silence...for nearly 170 hours. (Sorry, gals, but I know of no woman who’d even attempt that!) And this no-talk gathering around Job is no feat to set a Guinness World Record or to win Survivor: The Land of Uz. Eliphaz, Bildad, and Zophar are three amigos who just want to comfort their hurting friend. (Lueders, Two Days Longer: Discovering More of God as You Wait For Him, 146)

Simply by their very presence Eliphaz, Bildad and Zophar convey compassion and sympathy, enter into Job’s sorrow and demonstrate that they are in this together with him.

Despite being Gentiles, Job’s friends follow Jewish tradition. Harold S. Kushner (b. 1935) notes, “In accordance with the custom followed by observant Jews to this day, Job’s comforters sit quietly until Job breaks the silence in an outburst of pain and grief (Kushner, The Book of Job: When Bad Things Happened to a Good Person, 49).”

Sitting seven days in silence demonstrates true compassion. Unfortunately, in time, silence gives way to speech (Job 3:1) and a debate ensues. As soon as the friends speak, their sympathy is replaced by professional pride and the need to defend God (Job 13:8). Eliphaz (Job 4:1-5:27, 15:1-35, 22:1-30) and Bildad (Job 8:1-22, 18:1-21, 25:1:5) address Job three times each while Zophar speaks twice (Job 11:1-20, 20:1-29). They follow conventional wisdom, concluding that Job’s suffering must be the result of some deep rooted personal sin. In doing so they become disputants, each time confronting Job with the sin that they perceive he has committed.

Job’s own friends prove to be the biggest challenge the Accuser throws at him. Their arrival symbolizes bringing in the big guns. What could not have been predicted was who they would be firing upon.

Steven J. Lawson (b. 1951) determines:

Next came the greatest assault Satan would hurl at Job—the counsel that came from his friends. What the devil spoke through Job’s wife [Job 2:9], he would speak even more convincingly through his three friends. Satan’s lies can be spoken through another person, even from the lips of another believer (Matthew 16:22-23). (Lawson, Job (Holman Old Testament Commentary), 27)

The fact that Job’s friends account for his greatest assault is evidence by the results. His companions do what the calamities could not: they break Job. Instead of friends, they function more as the requisite three witnesses needed to convict by Hebrew law (Deuteronomy 17:6, 19:15; II Corinthians 13:1). Job will eventually question their friendship (Job 6:14) and God, when finally intervening, expresses divine displeasure with his “defenders” (Job 42:7). Throughout the dialogue, Job wants God to start talking (Job 13:22) and his friends to stop. Unfortunately for most of the book, he experiences just the opposite.

Even so, Job’s friends, at one time, model true friendship at its finest. Ewan R. Kelly reminds:

When Job’s friends were willing in the face of his suffering to be with him and say nothing, not offering him advice, sharing their worldview, not judging him or asking about his feelings, at this time they were truly his comforters. (Kelly, Marking Short Lives: Constructing and Sharing Rituals Following Pregnancy Loss, 87)

This “ministry of presence” exhibited by Job’s friends is often what is most needed in crisis. Frank G. Honeycutt (b. 1957) advises:

Shared silence (see Job 2:13) is better than quick Hallmark-like pastoral sound bites. There will be times, says Eugene H. Peterson (b. 1932), when we won’t feel like doing this ministry and even the church will lure clergy to mouth theological nonsense that goes down easily. However, pastors “are not the minister[s] of our changing desires, or our-time conditioned understanding of our needs, or our secularized hopes for something better. With these vows of ordination we are lashing you fast to the mast of word and sacrament so that you will be unable to respond to the siren voices.” (Honeycutt, The Truth Shall Make You Odd: Speaking with Pastoral Integrity in Awkward Situations, 98)

Richard J. Foster (b. 1942) and Julia L. Roller (b. 1976) conclude:

Job has lost his children, all that he owns, and is now covered head to foot with “loathsome sores” (Job 2:7). The friends come to Job in his need. They weep with him and sit quietly with him. Their quiet ministry of presence speaks loudly to those who think that only words heal. (Foster and Roller, A Year with God: Living Out the Spiritual Disciplines, 322)

What would you have said to Job? How would you characterize Eliphaz, Bildad and Zophar? Do you think that Job still considered them friends at the end of his story? How could they have best achieved their goals of providing sympathy and comfort (Job 2:11)? When in your life has a true friend not acted like one? When have you thought you were acting for God when in reality you were aiding the opposition? Have you ever experienced the “ministry of presence”?

“It is better to have a heart without words than words without a heart.” - Mahatma Ganhdi (1869-1948)