Job CCXLI

 Cogito, ergo sum, is how Descartes defined his existence. I think, therefore I am was the summation of the first principle of his philosophy, although it doesn’t sound nearly as cool in French. Perhaps that’s why he decided to go the Latin route, because, let’s face it, few things sound robust and masculine in French. 

Eliphaz had come to the same conclusion about Job, insisting that he had committed wickedness; therefore, he was justly suffering as punishment for those sins. You suffer, therefore you’ve sinned. To him, it was a simple premise of cause and effect. What has befallen you is a direct result and consequence of what you did, and there could be no other explanation for it. Therefore, snares are all around you, and sudden fear troubles you, or darkness so that you cannot see, and an abundance of water covers you.

Job wasn’t in a court of law; he wasn’t being tried by a jury of his peers, but it sure felt like it by this point. What’s worse, the prosecution had no evidence, no witnesses, no tangible proof that their accusations had any teeth or legs upon which to stand. There wasn’t even the pretense of a kangaroo court. The jury wouldn’t be locked away for deliberation; there would be no appeal. As far as Job’s friends were concerned, it was a done deal. Job’s suffering was proof of his wrongdoing and wickedness. The guilt as well as the sentence was predetermined, baked in the cake, regardless of the evidence or lack thereof. Guilt had already been pronounced, and all that was left was for the accused to admit to it. Just say you did the things we’re accusing you of, and we can move on from this!

An accusation without proof is, by definition, a false accusation: groundless, unfounded, and unsubstantiated. When the Word tells us that Satan is the accuser of the brethren, who accused them before God day and night, we can infer that his accusations were as baseless as the accusations Eliphaz was making against Job.

There is a difference between exposing sin in the camp and making false accusations. One is biblical, right, and noble, and should be done if the underlying purpose is to have a healthy, vibrant body of believers, while the other is something the devil would do. I’m coming up on forty years of ministry. I started out as my grandfather’s interpreter at the age of twelve, and over the course of four decades, I’ve seen it all. I’ve seen people who, under the guise of exposing wickedness, were just trying to tear someone down so they could take their place, I’ve seen true and actionable evidence brought forth for the purpose of exposing wickedness, and everything in between.

You learn to tell which is which, even when the individual who is letting you into their confidence is a good actor. If it comes in the form of gossip, if what they’re inferring is second and third-hand innuendo, your duty isn’t to entertain it or give it credence, but ask for evidence, witnesses, or something that will make the situation more than an attempted smear campaign. I heard it from a friend, who heard it from a friend, isn’t evidence; it’s gossip. If no such witnesses or evidence exists, shut it down, do not entertain it, because the purpose of the interaction isn’t truth but rather the planting of seeds in the hope of making you pick a side, get into a clique, and adopt a narrative.

Monsters exist, but not everyone who is labeled a monster is one. Evil exists, but not everyone you may disagree with on some tertiary issue is evil. Just because I like pineapple on my pizza and you don’t, it doesn’t make me Ichabod.

Two things can be true at the same time: there is sin in the camp that must be exposed and excised, but the enemy is also doing his utmost to sow division, cause chaos, and bring on a barrage of baseless accusations in the hopes of creating a rift among the household of faith. If we’re busy with the infighting, chances are, we won’t be fighting Satan, and the enemy knows this.

Just because someone takes offense at the way a message was delivered, if it was biblically sound and the individual who delivered it is above reproach, it does not mean they are disqualified from ministry because feelings were bruised. Just because some individuals don’t like what the Bible says, it doesn’t mean we must change the Bible in order to suit their worldview. It is man who must submit to the authority of Scripture, and not Scripture to the authority of man.

The sad reality is that if the unrepentant can’t attack God in person, they’ll seek to undermine, defame, and destroy His representative. To them, it’s nothing personal; it’s a way of validating their unrepentant nature by tearing down the individual who had the temerity to preach the unadulterated truth that convicted them in the moment.

That there are sheep, goats, true shepherds, and hirelings among church-going folk is undeniable. The secret is to be a sheep and not a goat, to find a shepherd and not a hireling, and make certain that what you are being fed is the meat of God’s Word and not just the milk. A true shepherd’s duty is not to accommodate or cater to your flesh but feed your spiritual man. It’s why the consumer-based model of Christianity can never produce true warriors of the faith. The devil knows that, too, so he’s more than happy to prop up, promote, and advance anyone whose mainstay is the superficial, earthly, and fleeting.

The enemy is tenacious. He won’t give up after the first time he fails, nor after the fifth. Satan knows God is omniscient. He knows God knows the end from the beginning of all things, yet that didn’t stop him from repeatedly attempting the same failed tactics. If at first you don’t succeed, try and try again is the enemy’s motto, and this is why we are instructed to be on guard, vigilant, and aware of the enemy’s devices.

Eliphaz had allowed himself to be used by Satan to level soul-crushing accusations against Job without a shred of evidence. If anything, this should be a teachable moment for all: do not be an Eliphaz.  

With love in Christ,

Michael Boldea, Jr.