The Ontological Asymmetry: a Systematic and Exegetical Report on the Interplay of Job 35:7 and Luke 17:9-10

1. Introduction: The Theological Crisis of Reciprocity

The history of religious thought is largely the history of humanity’s attempt to establish a transactional relationship with the Divine. From the sacrificial cults of the Ancient Near East (ANE), which sought to feed the gods in exchange for rain and harvest, to the contemporary prosperity gospels that view faith as a lever to extract blessings, the human impulse has consistently drifted toward the concept of reciprocity. This impulse assumes a symmetry of needs: the deity needs worship, and the human needs blessing; therefore, a contract of exchange can be established.

However, the Judeo-Christian scriptural tradition launches a sustained assault on this symmetry. Two texts, separated by nearly a millennium of history and distinct literary genres, stand as the twin pillars of this critique: the wisdom disputation of Elihu in Job 35:7 and the dominical parable of the master and the slave in Luke 17:9-10. When analyzed in concert, these passages dismantle the possibility of "profit" in the God-man relationship. They posit an ontological asymmetry so vast that it renders the concept of human merit not merely theologically erroneous, but metaphysically impossible.

Job 35:7 asks the question from the perspective of the Creator’s sufficiency: "If thou be righteous, what givest thou him? or what receiveth he of thine hand?". This rhetorical interrogation asserts the doctrine of Divine Aseity—God’s absolute self-existence and lack of need. Luke 17:10 answers from the perspective of the creature’s insufficiency: "So likewise ye, when ye shall have done all those things which are commanded you, say, We are unprofitable servants: we have done that which was our duty to do".

This report provides an exhaustive analysis of the interplay between these two texts. It explores the philological nuances of the Hebrew nathan (give) and the Greek achreios (unprofitable), the historical reception of these verses in the debates over merit between Rome and the Reformation, and the existential implications for the believer’s psychology. By synthesizing the wisdom of the Old Testament with the parables of the New, we arrive at a theology of worship that is entirely non-commercial—a worship that brings an empty bucket to a fountain that cannot be filled, only enjoyed.

---

2. Part I: The Voice from the Whirlwind’s Antechamber (Job 35:7)

2.1. The Dramatic Context: Elihu’s Intervention

To fully grasp the theological weight of Job 35:7, one must situate it within the dramatic architecture of the Book of Job. The dialogue has stalled. Job’s three friends—Eliphaz, Bildad, and Zophar—have exhausted their arguments, which essentially amount to a rigid retribution theology: suffering is the result of sin; therefore, Job must have sinned. Job, maintaining his innocence, has effectively backed himself into a corner where his vindication seems to require God’s indictment. If Job is innocent, and he is suffering, then God must be unjust.

Into this impasse steps Elihu. Scholarly opinion on Elihu has historically been divided. Some critics view him as an arrogant youth, a mere repetition of the three friends, or even a later editorial insertion meant to soften the transition to God’s appearance. However, a close reading suggests a distinct theological function. Unlike the three friends, Elihu is not rebuked by God in the epilogue of the book. While God commands Eliphaz and his companions to offer sacrifices for their folly (Job 42:7), Elihu is passed over in silence. This silence is often interpreted not as dismissal, but as tacit endorsement. Elihu serves as the "antechamber" to the Whirlwind, preparing the theological ground for Yahweh’s own self-disclosure.

Elihu’s speech shifts the focus from the anthropocentric (Job’s suffering) to the theocentric (God’s nature). In Chapter 35, he addresses Job’s subtle implication that righteousness is futile if it does not guarantee favorable treatment. Job is quoted as asking, "What profit shall I have, if I be cleansed from my sin?" (Job 35:3). Elihu’s response in verses 6-7 is a radical decoupling of human morality from divine necessity.

2.2. Exegesis of Job 35:7

The text of Job 35:7 reads in the King James Version: "If thou be righteous, what givest thou him? or what receiveth he of thine hand?". The Hebrew structure relies on two parallel rhetorical questions that demand a negative answer.

Hebrew Lemma	Transliteration	Meaning	Theological Implication
צָדַק	tsadaq	To be righteous/just	Refers to adherence to the covenantal or moral standard.
נָתַן	nathan	To give	Implies a transfer of goods, adding to the recipient's assets.
לָקַח	laqach	To take/receive	Implies the recipient had a lack that is now filled.
יָד	yad	Hand	Anthropomorphic symbol of human agency and capability.

The Argument Against "Theomorphic Projection": Elihu is attacking the error of projecting human limitations onto God. In human relationships, righteousness is profitable. If a citizen obeys the law, the king’s realm is stable. If a child obeys a parent, the household runs smoothly. Human authority figures need the obedience of their subordinates to succeed. Elihu argues that Job has committed a category error by applying this sociopolitical dynamic to the Creator.

• The Sin Argument (v. 6): "If thou sinnest, what doest thou against him?" Human rebellion does not diminish God’s essential glory. It does not threaten His throne. God is not "hurt" by sin in the way a human victim is hurt by a crime. His judgment against sin is, therefore, not an act of self-defense or emotional lashing out, but an act of pure, dispassionate justice.

• The Righteousness Argument (v. 7): Conversely, human virtue does not "add" to God. He does not "receive" (laqach) anything. This verb is crucial; it denotes taking something into one's possession that was previously external. If God were to "receive" something from a human hand, it would imply that God was previously lacking that thing, or that the thing originated independently of God.

2.3. Ancient Near Eastern Context: The Rejection of Divine Dependence

The radical nature of Job 35:7 is best appreciated against the backdrop of ANE religion. In the Babylonian creation epic, Enuma Elish, and the Atra-hasis epic, humanity is created specifically to relieve the gods of labor. The lower gods (Igigi) rebel against the toil of digging canals, so the high gods create humans to take over the workload and to provide food through sacrifices.

In this worldview, the relationship is symbiotic. The gods provide order and rain; humans provide food and housing (temples). If humans stop sacrificing, the gods starve (as depicted in the flood narrative of Gilgamesh, where the gods swarm like flies around the first sacrifice after the waters recede).

Elihu’s theology, which is later confirmed by Yahweh’s speech in Job 38-41, represents a polemical rejection of this symbiosis. Yahweh does not need "feeding." As Psalm 50:12 echoes, "If I were hungry, I would not tell thee: for the world is mine, and the fulness thereof". Job 35:7 is the philosophical formulation of this truth: God is Self-Sufficient. He has no needs that human hands can supply. Therefore, religion cannot be a system of meeting God’s needs in exchange for favors.

2.4. The Doctrine of Divine Aseity

The theological term for the truth of Job 35:7 is Aseitas (Aseity)—from the Latin a se, meaning "from himself." God’s existence and beatitude are derived solely from His own nature.

• Implications for Justice: Because God needs nothing, His justice is impartial. He cannot be bribed by human righteousness because He has no price. A judge who needs money can be corrupted; a Judge who owns the universe cannot.

• Implications for Worship: Worship is not a "service" to God in the sense of maintenance. It is a response to reality. We do not worship to sustain God’s glory, but to acknowledge it.

The Open Theism Debate: Contemporary debates regarding Open Theism challenge the classical understanding of Aseity. Open Theism suggests a more mutually influential relationship, where God is arguably "affected" by human choices to the point of changing His plans. However, texts like Job 35:7 stand as a bulwark against this. While God relates to humans relationally (grieving, rejoicing), Elihu insists this does not cross the threshold into ontological dependence. God’s essence remains untouched by human "profit" or "loss".

---

3. Part II: The Sociology of Grace (Luke 17:7-10)

3.1. The Literary Context: From Faith to Duty

If Job 35:7 establishes the view from above (God’s independence), Luke 17:7-10 establishes the view from below (Man’s dependence). The placement of this parable is critical. In Luke 17:5, the apostles ask the Lord, "Increase our faith." The context implies a desire for visible power—faith that can perform miracles, faith that validates their status as leaders.

Jesus responds first with the image of the mustard seed (v. 6), suggesting that the quantity of faith is less important than its presence. He then immediately launches into the parable of the master and the servant. The juxtaposition is jarring but intentional. Jesus is diagnosing a hidden pride in the disciples' request. They viewed "increased faith" as a means to spiritual heroism. Jesus counters by framing the life of the disciple not as a hero’s journey, but as a slave’s duty.

3.2. Historical Criticism: The Reality of 1st-Century Slavery

To feel the force of Jesus’ argument, one must suspend modern democratic sensibilities and enter the harsh sociology of the 1st-century Roman and Jewish world.

• The Doulos: The Greek word doulos describes a bond-servant or slave. In the agrarian economy, the slave was an extension of the master’s household. The slave had no legal standing to demand "rights" or "rest" before the master was satisfied.

• The Scenario: A slave returns from "plowing or feeding cattle" (v. 7)—exhausting physical labor. A modern employer might say, "Great job, take a break." But the master in the parable operates on the logic of ownership: "Make ready wherewith I may sup, and gird thyself, and serve me... and afterward thou shalt eat and drink" (v. 8).

Jesus does not endorse the cruelty of the institution; rather, He uses the acknowledged reality of the master-slave dynamic to illustrate a theological point. If a human master, who is merely a man, expects total priority over his servant, how much more does the Creator, who is the source of the servant’s very life? The disciples are told to identify not with the master, but with the slave. The "thanks" (charis) of the master is not owed to the slave, because the slave is merely functioning according to his design.

3.3. Philological Deep Dive: The Meaning of Achreios

The pivot point of the parable—and its connection to Job 35—is the adjective in verse 10: "Say, We are unprofitable (achreios) servants." The translation of achreios has generated significant debate among lexicographers and theologians, as it shapes the anthropology of the text.

Table 1: Lexical Analysis of Achreios (ἀχρεῖος)

Translation	Source/Context	Nuance	Theological Risk
Useless	Lit. derivation (a + chreios)	"Of no use," "good for nothing." (See Matt 25:30).	Contradicts the context—the servant did plow and serve. He was useful.
Worthless	NRSV, Some Patristics	Emphasizes moral depravity or lack of value.	Can lead to a theology of self-hatred or "worm theology."
Unprofitable	KJV, NKJV, Douay-Rheims	Economic metaphor. Bringing no gain or surplus.	Aligns best with Job 35. The servant balances the books but creates no surplus.
Unworthy	NASB, NIV, ESV	Relational/Meritorious. Deserving no special praise.	Captures the humility required, but loses the economic link to "profit."

The "Profit" Connection:

The KJV/NKJV translation "unprofitable" preserves the link to the Joban wisdom tradition. In Job 35:7, man cannot "give" to God. In Luke 17:10, man is "unprofitable."

• Why Unprofitable? The servant has done "all those things which are commanded." He has been perfectly obedient. How is he unprofitable?

• The Explanation: He is unprofitable because he has not generated a surplus of merit. He has not put the Master in his debt. The Master is not "richer" in a way that requires him to pay the servant a dividend. The servant has simply consumed his own existence (which belongs to the Master) in the service of the Master.

3.4. The Grammar of Gratitude: Charis

Verse 9 asks: "Doth he thank (me echei charin) that servant?"

Literally, "Does he have grace toward that servant?" In this context, charis implies a debt of gratitude, a favor owed in return for service. Jesus expects the answer "No."

This is the linguistic key to the connection with Job 35.

• Job 35: God receives nothing -> God owes nothing.

• Luke 17: The servant gives only duty -> The Master owes no charis. The theological implication is shattering: God is never grateful to us. Gratitude implies that the recipient has been benefited by the giver. Since God cannot be benefited (Job 35), He never owes us gratitude. Conversely, we owe Him infinite gratitude. The flow of charis is strictly one-way, from Heaven to Earth.

---

4. Part III: The Wars of Merit – Historical Theology

The interplay of these texts became the central battlefield in the Western Church's struggle to define the doctrine of merit. How can a just God reward works if those works are "unprofitable" and "due"?

4.1. The Patristic Consensus

The early Church Fathers generally used Luke 17:10 to preach humility. Augustine of Hippo, in his debates with Pelagius, wielded this text to destroy the idea that human free will could initiate salvation. Augustine’s famous dictum, "God crowns his own gifts, not our merits," is essentially an exposition of the Job-Luke synthesis. If we are unprofitable servants, then any reward we receive is a result of God’s generosity, not our generated value.

4.2. The Medieval Synthesis: Aquinas on Job and Luke

Thomas Aquinas faces the tension head-on in the Summa Theologiae (I-II, q. 114, a. 1). He asks: Can man merit anything from God?

• Objection 1: Cites Luke 17:10 ("We are unprofitable servants") to argue merit is impossible because we only do our duty.

• Objection 2: Cites Job 35:7 ("What receiveth he of thine hand?") to argue merit is impossible because our works do not benefit God.

Aquinas’s Solution:

Aquinas distinguishes between two types of value in human works: Profit and Glory.

1. Profit (Reply to Obj. 2): Aquinas concedes that man cannot "profit" God. God is perfect. Therefore, strict commutative justice (giving equal value for value received) does not exist between God and man.

2. Glory/Ordination (Reply to Obj. 1): However, Aquinas argues that God seeks Glory—the manifestation of His goodness. He has ordained that man should receive eternal life as a reward for working by grace.

   This leads to the distinction between Condign Merit and Congruous Merit:

• Condign Merit: A claim to reward based on the intrinsic value of the work. Aquinas denies this in the absolute sense between Creator and creature but allows it in a relative sense because the Holy Spirit moves the believer.

• Congruous Merit: A reward given because it is "fitting" for God’s generosity.

Aquinas uses Job 35 and Luke 17 to set the boundary (we don't profit God), but he constructs a system of merit within that boundary based on God’s ordination.

4.3. The Reformation Rupture: The Death of Merit

The Reformers viewed the Thomistic distinction as too subtle and prone to abuse (e.g., indulgences). They returned to the "brute fact" of the Job-Luke synthesis.

• Martin Luther: For Luther, the "unprofitable servant" is the definition of the Christian. He famously argued that all our good works are "mortal sins" if done with the intention of earning justification. He utilized Job 35:7 to argue that God does not need our works; our neighbors need our works. Therefore, the "profit" of righteousness (Job 35:8) is entirely horizontal.

• John Calvin: In his commentary on Luke 17, Calvin is ruthless. He argues that the parable proves God "claims all that belongs to us as his property." There is no room for merit because there is no room for private ownership of our actions. If I am God’s property, my actions are God’s property. One does not pay one's hammer for hitting the nail.

Comparison of Confessional Standards:

Document	Usage of Texts	Doctrinal Conclusion
Heidelberg Catechism (Q. 63)	Cites Luke 17:10 to explain why good works cannot be our righteousness.	Reward is of Grace, not Merit. Even "best works" are stained with sin.
Westminster Confession (Ch. 7 & 16)	Cites Job 35:7-8 and Luke 17:10 to establish the "infinite distance" between God and man.	Reward is only possible by "voluntary condescension" (Covenant). Merit is impossible by nature.
Council of Trent (Canon 32)	Implicitly rejects the Protestant reading of "unprofitable" as "sinful."	Upheld that good works are meritorious (condignly) for the increase of grace, though grounded in Christ.