SUMMARY:
Eliphaz’s begins his first speech fairly tactfully.
He ‘ventures’ to have a word with Job (4.2),
and is careful to make mention of Job’s godliness and integrity (4.3–6).
But the subtext of Eliphaz’s statements and questions soon becomes clear.
Eliphaz’s begins his first speech fairly tactfully.
He ‘ventures’ to have a word with Job (4.2),
and is careful to make mention of Job’s godliness and integrity (4.3–6).
But the subtext of Eliphaz’s statements and questions soon becomes clear.
‘What innocent man has ever been brought to ruin?’ (מִי הוּא נָקִי אָבָד), Eliphaz asks (4.7).
The question is clearly a rhetorical one.
Innocent men are not brought to ruin. That is simply not how the world works.
Consequently, Job must be guilty of transgression.
The question is clearly a rhetorical one.
Innocent men are not brought to ruin. That is simply not how the world works.
Consequently, Job must be guilty of transgression.
What Job must now, therefore, do is learn from God’s ‘chastisement’ (מוסר) of him (5.8–16),
and all will then be well (5.17–26).
and all will then be well (5.17–26).
Suffice it to say, Eliphaz’s attitude towards Job is quite remarkable.
Job does not mention anything about his sin (or otherwise) in his lament (3.3–26),
and Eliphaz does not ask him about it in chs. 4–5.
He simply assumes Job *must* be guilty and proceeds from there.
Job does not mention anything about his sin (or otherwise) in his lament (3.3–26),
and Eliphaz does not ask him about it in chs. 4–5.
He simply assumes Job *must* be guilty and proceeds from there.
Eliphaz’s logic is simple and inescapable:
⟨A⟩. Innocent men are not brought to ruin;
⟨B⟩. Job has been brought to ruin;
⟨A⟩. Innocent men are not brought to ruin;
⟨B⟩. Job has been brought to ruin;
⟨C⟩. Consequently, Job cannot be innocent (although he may only be ‘impure’ in the general sense in which not even angels are pure in God’s sight: 4.18).
Unfortunately, however, since premise ⟨A⟩ is false, Eliphaz’s conclusion is false.
Wrong presuppositions lead to wrong conclusions.
Wrong presuppositions lead to wrong conclusions.
SOME BRIEF COMMENTARY:
For all 4.2–6’s apparent politeness, its subtext is far less polite.
‘You have instructed many, and you have strengthened the weak hands’, Eliphaz says. ‘Yet now disaster has befallen *you*, and you are dismayed!’.
For all 4.2–6’s apparent politeness, its subtext is far less polite.
‘You have instructed many, and you have strengthened the weak hands’, Eliphaz says. ‘Yet now disaster has befallen *you*, and you are dismayed!’.
In other words, ‘You’ve been quite happy to impart your ‘wisdom’ to others all these years, Job. Yet now it’s *your* turn to suffer, and you don’t want to take your own medicine!’.
Needless to say, Eliphaz has badly misjudged Job,
which is brought out clearly in 4.6 (cp. also 15.4, 22.4), since Eliphaz there calls into question the very qualities for which God praises Job at the outset of the book (4.6 ),
which is brought out clearly in 4.6 (cp. also 15.4, 22.4), since Eliphaz there calls into question the very qualities for which God praises Job at the outset of the book (4.6 ),
namely his integrity (תם) and his fear (ירא) of God (1.1, 8, 2.3).
Note: In reality, *Eliphaz* is the one who lacks a fear of God, since he has ‘withheld kindness’ from his friend (6.14).
Note: In reality, *Eliphaz* is the one who lacks a fear of God, since he has ‘withheld kindness’ from his friend (6.14).
Furthermore, while elegantly worded and constructed, Eliphaz’s argument clearly does not pass muster.
Consider, for a start, its central premise.
‘Those who sow trouble reap the same’, Eliphaz says.
Consider, for a start, its central premise.
‘Those who sow trouble reap the same’, Eliphaz says.
‘They are destroyed by the very breath of God. I have seen it with my own eyes!’ (4.8–9; so also 5.2–6).
Even if Eliphaz’s claim is true, it does little to prove Job’s guilt.
(That ‘those who sow trouble’ reap disaster does not mean ‘those who reap disaster’ must have sown trouble; that is to say, P ⇒ Q is not equivalent to Q ⇒ P).
(That ‘those who sow trouble’ reap disaster does not mean ‘those who reap disaster’ must have sown trouble; that is to say, P ⇒ Q is not equivalent to Q ⇒ P).
Still less helpful to Eliphaz’s argument is his next statement, viz., ‘The strong lion perishes for lack of prey, and the cubs of the lionness are scattered’ (4.11).
If it is possible for lions to perish due of a lack of food through no fault of their own, then surely it is possible for Job to be afflicted through no fault of his own. 
Furthermore, when the children of the wicked perish (like the cubs of 4.11’s lionness), they do not perish as a result of their own sins (5.4),
so why should Job be thought to have been afflicted as a result of *his* own sins?
so why should Job be thought to have been afflicted as a result of *his* own sins?
Eliphaz’s claim in 5.7 is problematic for a different reason.
‘Man is born to hardship (עמל)’, Eliphaz says.
In other words, man is destined to experience hardships in the present world (as is common knowledge: 14.1). It is part and parcel of life.
‘Man is born to hardship (עמל)’, Eliphaz says.
In other words, man is destined to experience hardships in the present world (as is common knowledge: 14.1). It is part and parcel of life.
Yet if hardship is inevitable, then surely *Job’s* hardships are no indication of his guilt.
In short, Eliphaz’s argument does not pass muster.
Conscious of these things, perhaps, Eliphaz punctuates his argument with an account of a vision (4.12–21) (cp. the preacher’s note, ‘Weak point; shout louder!’).
Conscious of these things, perhaps, Eliphaz punctuates his argument with an account of a vision (4.12–21) (cp. the preacher’s note, ‘Weak point; shout louder!’).
His vision is quite remarkable.
Late one night, Eliphaz says, a spirit glided past his face and materialised before his eyes (though he could not discern its exact form).
Eliphaz was hence filled with fear.
His bones began to shake, and his hair stood on end.
Late one night, Eliphaz says, a spirit glided past his face and materialised before his eyes (though he could not discern its exact form).
Eliphaz was hence filled with fear.
His bones began to shake, and his hair stood on end.
And then, amidst the silence and darkness of Eliphaz’s vision, the spirit began to *speak*.
It is high octane stuff.
As listeners, we therefore prepare ourselves to hear a revelation of great profundity.
Yet the spirit’s ‘revelation’ turns out to be entirely unremarkable.
It is high octane stuff.
As listeners, we therefore prepare ourselves to hear a revelation of great profundity.
Yet the spirit’s ‘revelation’ turns out to be entirely unremarkable.
‘How can a mortal man be deemed pure in the eyes of his Maker?’, it asks,…
…the answer to which is fairly obvious (‘He can’t!’), as Job and Bildad have already worked out without the help of a mysterious spirit (cp. 9.2, 14.4, 25.4).
…the answer to which is fairly obvious (‘He can’t!’), as Job and Bildad have already worked out without the help of a mysterious spirit (cp. 9.2, 14.4, 25.4).
In any case, the spirit’s revelation is entirely irrelevant to the issue at hand.
True, mortal man *is* impure in the eyes of his Maker.
But the specific disasters which have befallen Job cannot be explained by recourse to the general fallenness of mankind.
True, mortal man *is* impure in the eyes of his Maker.
But the specific disasters which have befallen Job cannot be explained by recourse to the general fallenness of mankind.
In sum, then, Eliphaz’s argument simply doesn’t stack up.
What, therefore, will Eliphaz do?
Will he allow certain exceptions to his claims? Or will he double down?
We’ll find out soon enough (in chs. 15 and 22).
What, therefore, will Eliphaz do?
Will he allow certain exceptions to his claims? Or will he double down?
We’ll find out soon enough (in chs. 15 and 22).
In the meantime, Eliphaz concludes his speech with a flurry of claims,
which range from the sublime to the ridiculous (5.8–27).
‘If I were you’, he says to Job, ‘I would seek God and commit my cause to him…’ (5.8), as if the idea has not occurred to Job.
which range from the sublime to the ridiculous (5.8–27).
‘If I were you’, he says to Job, ‘I would seek God and commit my cause to him…’ (5.8), as if the idea has not occurred to Job.
‘God lifts up the lowly’, Eliphaz says, ‘and raises up those who mourn’ (5.11),
which seems an odd thing to say to a recently bereaved man seated on an ash-heap.
which seems an odd thing to say to a recently bereaved man seated on an ash-heap.
‘Blessed is the one whom God reproves’, Eliphaz goes on to say, as if Job has been afflicted in order to ‘reprove’ him (which he hasn’t).
‘In famine, God redeems from death, and, in war, (God redeems) from the power of the sword.’
‘In famine, God redeems from death, and, in war, (God redeems) from the power of the sword.’
One wonders what kind of world Eliphaz inhabits.
When famines afflicts a land in Eliphaz’s world, are the righteous miraculously left with food?
And when an army sweeps through a region, are the righteousness miraculously spared? (Job’s sons certainly weren’t.)
When famines afflicts a land in Eliphaz’s world, are the righteous miraculously left with food?
And when an army sweeps through a region, are the righteousness miraculously spared? (Job’s sons certainly weren’t.)
Eliphaz’s world is merely a theological construct.
And if Eliphaz’s speech is indicative of what is to come, then Job is in for a long night.
And if Eliphaz’s speech is indicative of what is to come, then Job is in for a long night.
Next up in our discussion, Job’s reply (chs. 6–7).
But first a brief reflection to close.
But first a brief reflection to close.
Eliphaz provides Job with absolutely no comfort in chs. 4–5.
That is not (or at least it may not be) because Eliphaz has no *desire* to comfort Job;
it is because Eliphaz’s theology provides him with no *means* to do so.
That is not (or at least it may not be) because Eliphaz has no *desire* to comfort Job;
it is because Eliphaz’s theology provides him with no *means* to do so.
For Eliphaz, the cause of Job’s problem is sin.
And all Eliphaz can reasonably, therefore, do is call Job to repentance (5.8–27),
which Job does not appreciate a great deal.
And all Eliphaz can reasonably, therefore, do is call Job to repentance (5.8–27),
which Job does not appreciate a great deal.
Indeed, Eliphaz’s message is ultimately a message of works.
Disaster has struck. Heavenly assistance is out of the question (5.1). And it is all down to Job now.
Disaster has struck. Heavenly assistance is out of the question (5.1). And it is all down to Job now.
Thankfully, the message of the Gospel is a different ballgame.
The Gospel tells Job his affliction is not a manifestation of God’s displeasure.
It tells him God does not afflict his children ‘voluntarily’ or do so without a good reason (Lam. 3.33).
The Gospel tells Job his affliction is not a manifestation of God’s displeasure.
It tells him God does not afflict his children ‘voluntarily’ or do so without a good reason (Lam. 3.33).
It tells him where the trial is great, the glory will be greater.
And it tells him he has been chosen out by God the Father, forgiven by a crucified Saviour, assigned a cross to bear in the present world, granted the help and comfort of the Spirit, and promised unspeakable joy in the world to come (Eph. 1, 1 Pet. 1).
That is a far cry from the message of Eliphaz.
THE END.
THE END.
