Job 35 3

Job 35:3 kjv

For thou saidst, What advantage will it be unto thee? and, What profit shall I have, if I be cleansed from my sin?

Job 35:3 nkjv

For you say, 'What advantage will it be to You? What profit shall I have, more than if I had sinned?'

Job 35:3 niv

Yet you ask him, 'What profit is it to me, and what do I gain by not sinning?'

Job 35:3 esv

that you ask, 'What advantage have I? How am I better off than if I had sinned?'

Job 35:3 nlt

For you also ask, 'What's in it for me?
What's the use of living a righteous life?'

Job 35 verses

Job 35 3 Meaning

This verse encapsulates Elihu's interpretation of Job's underlying grievance. He perceives Job as articulating a cynical view, suggesting that righteous living offers no discernible advantage or profit over sinning, especially given Job's extensive suffering despite his piety. Elihu attributes to Job the sentiment that God's ways do not yield a greater reward or protection for the upright, thereby questioning the utility of ethical conduct and, by implication, God's just governance of the world.

Job 35 3 Context

Job chapter 35 is part of Elihu's third speech, immediately following Job 34. In this address, Elihu directly challenges Job's understanding of God's justice and sovereignty. Elihu argues that Job has effectively accused God of indifference or unfairness, believing that God does not reward righteousness nor punish wickedness distinctly enough to make ethical living worthwhile. This particular verse, Job 35:3, serves as Elihu's summary or distillation of Job's supposed attitude: an implicit or explicit assertion by Job that pursuing a life of integrity yields no more benefit than a life of sin, a claim Elihu perceives as blasphemous and an attack on God's character. Historically, the discussion touches on common ancient Near Eastern debates regarding the nature of the divine, particularly whether gods are swayed by human actions for their own benefit, or if human piety truly alters divine interaction. Elihu counters such notions by emphasizing God's transcendence; God gains nothing from human righteousness, nor is He diminished by human sin.

Job 35 3 Word analysis

• For you say (כִּֽי־אָמַ֙רְתָּ֙ - kī-'āmartā): Elihu frames this as a direct statement from Job, but it's more accurately his interpretation of Job's laments and complaints. Job hasn't explicitly used these exact words, but his persistent questioning of God's justice in his suffering, particularly compared to the prosperity of the wicked, leads Elihu to conclude this is Job's internal dialogue or an implied belief. This highlights Elihu's role as an interpreter and accuser, not just an observer.
• What advantage (מַה־יִּתְרוֹן - mah-yitrôn): The Hebrew word yitrôn (profit, advantage, gain) is notably used throughout Ecclesiastes to question the ultimate value or lasting benefit of earthly endeavors (e.g., Eccl 1:3; 2:11). Here, Elihu uses it to represent Job's perceived lack of tangible return for his righteousness. It signifies a concern for ultimate efficacy or lasting impact in a transactional sense, implying that if there's no visible "profit," the action is futile.
• will it be to you? (לָךְ - lāk): "To you" refers to Job, implying the individual who strives for righteousness. This focuses the question on personal experience and benefit, which aligns with Job's own focus on his personal suffering.
• What profit (מַה־אֽוֹעִיל - mah-'ō‘īl): The Hebrew verb yā‘al (to profit, to gain, to be beneficial or useful) here is in the Hiphil imperfect form, 'ō‘īl, meaning "what will I gain?" or "what good will it do me?". This reinforces the idea of personal gain or beneficial outcome as the perceived motivator for righteous living, from Elihu's perspective of Job's mindset. It underscores a utilitarian, rather than devotion-driven, approach to faith.
• will I have ('ֽוֹעִיל - 'ō‘īl): The first-person singular 'I' reflects the self-centered query Elihu imputes to Job. This indicates a focus on one's own standing and benefit relative to God, rather than on God's character or sovereignty.
• more than if I had sinned? (מֵֽחַטָּאתִֽי - mêḥaṭṭā'tī): The Hebrew term ḥaṭṭā’t often means "sin," "fault," or even "sin offering." Here, it clearly refers to the act of sinning. The comparison "more than if I had sinned" presents a stark juxtaposition: the seemingly equal outcomes (suffering, lack of apparent profit) for both righteousness and wickedness. This directly challenges the principle of divine justice, suggesting that moral choices are inconsequential from an experiential standpoint in this life. This thought directly echoes lament Psalms (e.g., Ps 73) and other portions of Scripture that wrestle with the prosperity of the wicked.

Words-group analysis

• "What advantage will it be to you? What profit will I have": This pairing of phrases highlights the central query Elihu attributes to Job: a question about the utility and benefit of living righteously. It expresses a transactional outlook on obedience, where one expects a favorable return for ethical behavior. This thinking can sometimes reflect a contractual understanding of the divine-human relationship, where blessings are earned rather than being a function of grace and God's sovereign wisdom.
• "more than if I had sinned?": This phrase brings the polemic against the value of righteousness into sharp focus. By comparing his perceived profit from righteousness to that from sin, Job (as interpreted by Elihu) challenges God's moral order. It suggests a perception of divine indifference, where moral distinctions have no practical consequence in this life. This perspective directly undermines the core Biblical teaching that God sees and responds to human actions justly, even if His ways are beyond human comprehension.

Job 35 3 Bonus section

This verse subtly introduces a theological distinction that will be crucial for the discussion in Job. Elihu, by highlighting Job's focus on personal 'profit,' prepares the way for his argument that human righteousness does not benefit God Himself. This anticipates Elihu's later points in verses 6-8, where he states that Job's wickedness or righteousness affects only fellow humans, not God. This distinction sets Elihu apart from Job's earlier friends, who often assumed a direct quid pro quo between sin/righteousness and divine blessing/curse impacting Job personally. Elihu raises the question of why humans should be righteous if God is so transcendent, preparing for a more profound theological answer than simply "for personal gain."

Job 35 3 Commentary

Job 35:3 captures Elihu's stern interpretation of Job's deepest, though perhaps unspoken, anxieties: that God does not visibly distinguish between the righteous and the wicked in this life, thus rendering a life of integrity seemingly "unprofitable." Elihu is here articulating a concern that resonates throughout human history and particularly within the book of Job: why do the righteous suffer while the wicked often prosper? By attributing this direct question of "profit" to Job, Elihu portrays Job as implicitly challenging God's justice and righteousness, implying God's lack of interest or incapacity to administer consequences directly in the present. This challenges a purely transactional view of faith. However, Elihu's portrayal misrepresents the depth of Job's despair and his persistent struggle to understand God, mistaking Job's anguish for a cynical conclusion about God's character. Ultimately, while Job did question the fairness of his situation, he did not abandon God or deny the principle of right and wrong, even when struggling with the 'why'. This verse sets the stage for Elihu to argue that God's transcendence means human actions neither add to nor detract from God's being, therefore God judges human actions based on their inherent rightness or wrongness, not His own personal gain.