"_Show me wherefore Thou strivest with me. Is it pleasant to Thee that Thou should'st oppress, That Thou should'st despise the work of Thy hands And shine upon the counsel of the wicked? Hast Thou eyes of flesh? Or seest Thou as man seeth? Thy days--are they as the days of man? Thy years--are they as man's days, That Thou inquirest after fault of mine, And searchest after my sin, Though Thou knowest that I am not wicked, And none can deliver from Thy hand? Thine hands have made and fashioned me Together round about; and Thou dost destroy me._" (_Chap. x._ 2-8.) XI. _A FRESH ATTEMPT TO CONVICT._ ZOPHAR SPEAKS. CHAP. xi. The third and presumably youngest of the three friends of Job now takes up the argument somewhat in the same strain as the others. With no wish to be unfair to Zophar we are somewhat prepossessed against him from the outset; and the writer must mean us to be so, since he makes him attack Job as an empty babbler:-- "_Shall not the multitude of words be answered? And shall a man of lips be justified? Shall thy boastings make people silent, So that thou mayest mock on, none putting thee to shame?_" True it was, Job had used vehement speech. Yet it is a most insulting suggestion that he meant little but irreligious bluster. The special note of Zophar comes out in his rebuke of Job for the mockery, that is, sceptical talk, in which he had indulged. Persons who merely rehearse opinions are usually the most dogmatic and take most upon them. Nobody reckons himself more able to detect error in doctrine, nobody denounces rationalism and infidelity with greater confidence, than the man whose creed is formal, who never applied his mind directly to the problems of faith, and has but a moderate amount of mind to apply. Zophar, indeed, is a man of considerable intelligence; but he betrays himself. To him Job's words have been wearisome. He may have tried to understand the matter, but he has caught only a general impression that, in the face of what appears to him clearest evidence, Job denies being any way amenable to justice. He had dared to say to God, "Thou knowest that I am not wicked." What? God can afflict a man whom He knows to be righteous! It is a doctrine as profane as it is novel. Eliphaz and Bildad supposed that they had to deal with a man unwilling to humble himself in the way of acknowledging sins hitherto concealed. By pressure of one kind or another they hoped to get Job to realise his secret transgression. But Zophar has noted the whole tendency of his argument to be heretical. "Thou sayest, My doctrine is pure." And what is that doctrine? Why, that thou wast clean in the eyes of God, that God has smitten thee without cause. Dost thou mean, O Job! to accuse the Most High of acting in that