ChristadelphianBooksOnline
David Baird
The Education of Job

Chapters 4, 5 - The First Cycle of Speeches - Eliphaz

	4:1-7	Eliphaz commends then criticises Job
	4:8-11	His theory of observation
	4:12-21	He claims divine revelation
	5:1-7	The wicked suffer due to personal folly
	5:8-16	Suffering is divine punishment: repent
	5:17-27	God delivers the righteous

In introducing the character, Eliphaz the Temanite, Brother Mansfield has this to say: "A descendant of Esau (Gen 36:15). The Temanites were noted for their wisdom (Jer 49:7). Eliphaz was evidently the eldest of the three, and the most courteous also. He was the religious moralist and spoke from the standpoint of personal observation and experience. He claimed a personal revelation based upon a weird experience he had (4:12-21). His speeches are hard, cruel and rigidly dogmatic and his theme is summarised in 4:7. He emphasised the unapproachable majesty and purity of God (4:17-21, 15:12-16) but attempted to justify God by pressing Job into the mould of his theory relating to sin.

"He commences on a very polite note, but he is obviously irritated and severer in his second speech (15:2-16). In his third speech he outrightly condemns Job (22:5-9) where he flatly contradicts his own commendation of Job in his first speech."

4:1-7 Eliphaz commends then criticises Job

Eliphaz feels that Job's outburst requires a response. He begins courteously and favourably recalls Job's past. Eliphaz could detect that Job was not in an appropriate frame of mind to receive criticism - "If one should address a word to you, will you endure it? Yet who can keep silent?" But Eliphaz had to speak. Seven days of extra-ordinary silence were broken by Job. It was now Eliphaz's turn. He commends Job in 4:3-4 as one who was a father figure, one who "admonished" (Roth; "chastise" Strong; "instructed" AV) many, who strengthened the feeble, the wavering, the overburdened.

This gives us a valuable insight into the stature Job once possessed and the work he previously accomplished. He was not merely a religious rich man. He was active in the service of God. He was concerned about the welfare of others and worked among the poor and needy. Job confirmed this in 29:12-13 when he declared, "I delivered the poor that cried, and the fatherless, and him that had none to help him. The blessing of him that was ready to perish came upon me: and I caused the widow's heart to sing for joy." One wonders where all the people were to help him now? Surely, many were assisted by Job's benevolence and wisdom. Perhaps the prevailing theology of God punishing only sinners turned them against him. There is also a New Testament echo when the chief priests ridiculed the crucified Messiah with "He saved others; himself he cannot save" (Matt 27:42).

Then comes that telling word, "But." "You helped others when they were in trouble, but now that you are smitten you can't take it." Eliphaz either deliberately or accidentally harks back to earlier words and events. Job feared a loss of God's favour (3:25). Eliphaz says it has arrived, "But now it is come upon thee, and thou faintest." Job was "touched" (naga) in 1:11, 1:19 ("smote") and 2:5. Eliphaz comments, "It toucheth (naga) thee, and thou art troubled." After a complimentary opening Eliphaz utters hard sayings. Job was suffering more than any other man, yet Eliphaz compares him to those Job had helped. These are not compassionate statements. Perhaps Eliphaz thought he could jolt Job into repentance so that Job could start afresh with a divine blessing. The problem was Job's inability to reveal the required sin and this was a source of frustration to his friends whose simplistic solutions were made obsolete by the complexity of the situation.

What is Eliphaz inferring in 4:6-7? If Job is convinced of his piety he should show more confidence in God. In Eliphaz's estimation, the fact that Job lacks confidence implies his guilt. 4:7 is the crux of Eliphaz's argument:

"Think now: who ever perished, being innocent?!
And where have the righteous been cut off?!" (Delitzsch).

Is Eliphaz right? No. God does not forsake the righteous (Psa 37:25) but that does not mean the righteous are protected so that they never suffer personal tragedy or a violent death (Ecc 7:15, 9:1-2). Examples abound of righteous people being cut down (e.g. Abel, Samson, Jonathan) or suffering greatly (Heb 11:36-38). The point is, God will not forsake them because ultimately they will be rewarded and ultimately the wicked will be cut off.

In probing Job's wounds, Eliphaz is being heartless. It was not so long ago that the children he loved and made burnt offerings for (1:5) were dead - "Who ever perished, being innocent?!" Commenting on this verse Reichert notes, "If one is visited by suffering, afflicted with disease, or has buried his children, one must not speak to him as his companions spoke to Job."

4:8-11 His theory of observation

Eliphaz says that his theory is reinforced by observation. But he goes too far. In the case of Job what is happening does not comply with his previous observations. Eliphaz will accept no exception to his rule. Therefore, Job's instance must conform to it. The inference is that Job must have plowed for iniquity (aven - "nothingness, vanity" Strong; "bad conduct flowing from the evil desires of a fallen nature" CompB - see Roth) and sown wickedness (amal - "wearisome labour" Ges; "sin viewed in the light of the trouble it causes" CompB) because he is reaping the same (note Job's use of amal "sorrow" in 3:10).

The problem is that there is an element of truth in what Eliphaz is saying (Psa 7:14-16; Prov 22:8; Hos 8:7; 2Cor 9:6; Gal 6:7-8), but Eliphaz is classifying a limited experience as a universal law and most verses that seem to support Eliphaz are contexted in the long-term; the judgment, the grand punishment of the wicked, and the Kingdom, the ultimate vindication of the righteous.

In 4:9-11 Eliphaz begins to wax eloquently as he uses a number of figures of speech and five different words for "lion". As Andersen pens, "What Eliphaz's argument lacks in substance he makes up for with rhetoric ... it gives Eliphaz's words that touch of pomposity that betrays his limits as a counsellor."

Bullinger identifies the figures of speech as:

i)	"The blast of *Eloah" - Antimereia* - A vehement blast; and
ii)	"By the breath of his nostrils" - Anthropopatheia - used twice in this phrase where "breath" and "nostrils" are attributed to God - "by his anger" AVmg.

The image portrayed in 4:9 is that of the judgment of the wicked. They are overtaken by a fiery breath (2Thess 2:8), which scorches and withers up the grass of the field (Isa 40:7; Amos 1:2; Jas 1:11).

The five words that Eliphaz uses, in the space of two verses, for "lion" are:

i)	"lion" - *aryeh* - general term for "lion" (Gibson);
ii)	fierce "lion" - *shakhal* - the roaring lion (Gibson);
iii)	young "lions" - *kephiyr* - a young lion, already weaned, beginning to ravin (Ges);
iv)	old "lion" - *layish* - crushing (Strong), strong lion (Gibson) - only found here and in Prov 30:30; Isa 30:6;
v)	"lion's" whelp - *labhi* - a lioness (Ges).

This illustration of the lions is a second description of the discomfiture of the wicked. Eliphaz's overdone metaphor indicates that as far as the wicked are concerned it does not matter whether they are young or old, small or great, ferocious beasts, they will not survive the wrath of God.

4:12-21 He claims divine revelation

Eliphaz has already proclaimed that he was a man of experience. He had seen what he was professing. But, as if his observations were insufficient (and they were in their superficial treatment of Job's excellent character), he provides another witness to his credibility. He claims divine revelation. In 4:12-16 in a graphic, metaphysical way he describes a vision. In 4:17-21 he declares the words that were spoken by the indiscernible form that inhabited his vision.

Some commentators consider the vision to be authentic. If it was it did not come from God. The words spoken by the shape about angels clearly identified Eliphaz's imagination as the source of the vision. Perhaps he has dreamed and because it supported his theory he therefore adduced a divine origination. Nobody else would have experienced this dream. Who can tell him it was all a mistake? Once I was confronted by a member of a Pentecostal church who claimed he saw Jesus Christ while under the influence of marihuana. To tell him otherwise only invoked the response that I was deficient. I had not received the same sensation. Eliphaz has placed Job in a similar position.

The vision is an absolute gem. Eliphaz succeeds in creating a supernatural atmosphere. The vision is mysterious, solemn and one that would evoke great curiosity. We could imagine Bildad and Zophar craning forward to hear this eerie tale from the old man. The Jerusalem Bible captures the mood of the phantasm as well as retaining accuracy of translation:

	"Now, I have had a secret revelation,	12
	a whisper has come to my ears.
	At the hour when dreams master the mind,	13
	and slumber lies heavy on man,
	a shiver of horror ran through me,	14
	and my bones quaked with fear.
	A breath slid over my face,	15
	the hairs of my body bristled.
	Someone stood there - I could not see his face,	16
	but the form remained before me.
	Silence - and then I heard a Voice"

Amazing! Unlike the prophets who heard the word of God with all their faculties operational, Eliphaz has difficulty seeing and hearing. Anyway, 4:17, the first words spoken by the form, needs clarification. It seems highly unlikely Eliphaz believed that Job considered himself more just than God. Eliphaz, to this point, has only directly accused Job of weakness (4:5) and Job has only exclaimed how miserable he feels and how he wished he were dead. The Revised Standard Version translates 4:17 as: "Can mortal man be righteous before God? Can a man be pure before his Maker?" (RVmg, Gibson, JB, Delitzsch, Soncino, Moffat, LXX support this translation).

The implied answer is, "No." Eliphaz does not attempt to show how man can be made righteous in the eyes of God because to him it is not possible. Instead he outlines just how unrighteous man is. In doing this he makes some extreme statements that only indicate that this vision is not of God. As Brother Styles points out, "According to Eliphaz God is stern, rigid, unapproachable, finding no pleasure or happiness in His creation but seeing evil all around him. This is, of course, a wrong view of God."

The words of 4:18 are clearly not words of spiritual revelation. Angels are not prone to "folly" (toholah "error" BDB - only here in the Old Testament - see Exo 23:20-23; Psa 34:7, 103:20-21 for verses that contradict Eliphaz) and, for that matter, it seems far-fetched to believe that God cannot trust his faithful "servants" (a term used of Job in 1:8, 2:3). The fact that God professed trust in his servant Job and it was vindicated (1:22, 2:10) demonstrates another error of 4:18.

Eliphaz's vision continues in 4:19-21 by saying that if the angels, spirit-bodied creatures, can be charged with folly then how little must God think of man who dwells in a house of clay (2Cor 5:1); his foundation is the dust (Gen 2:7). In fact, man is like a moth. Delitzsch translates the end of 4:19, "They are crushed as though they are moths" (see also NIV, Roth, JB, CompB). "Moth" (ash) is derived from asheh which means to "shrink" or "fail" (Strong). The moth is an unwelcome member in a household as they destroy garments etc. They are killed mercilessly and nobody cares (4:20). To Eliphaz the same happens to man because of his wickedness, his destructive ways. God crushes him as easily as one would crush a moth. Again Eliphaz is exposing the limitations of his experience. The righteous do not perish forever nor do the wicked always suffer. They often prosper (Psa 73).

The literal translation of 4:21 is, "Is not their tent-rope within them torn away? They are disrobed of wisdom!" (Roth see also Gibson, NIV, Soncino).

What does that mean? This is Eliphaz's final simile of man's frailty. Man is like a tent held up by one tent-rope. Remove that rope and it is sudden death. Some commentators compare the tent-rope to a life thread. The effect is dismal to the extreme. Man perishes before he has attained wisdom. Eliphaz is well-meaning in his magnification of God but he has placed man in an absolutely appalling state.

5:1-7 The wicked suffer due to personal folly

The spook in the vision has finished and Eliphaz now speaks from his own observations and wisdom. Despite the many attempts to portray Eliphaz as the most sagacious, polite and respectful of Job's three friends, this section demonstrates the heartlessness of his character. He is at once cold, cruel, callous yet seemingly courteous. His friendship appears genuine but superficial. He presents as concerned yet self-righteous. Such is the paradox of Eliphaz and those like him. While offering advice and friendship we could be pushing the knife in just that little bit further. Eliphaz has travelled many kilometres to be with his afflicted friend only to increase his pain. There is no doubt he is trying to help and that he feels Job will benefit from his comments. Job would beg to differ.

Brother Mansfield breaks this section into three sub-sections:

	5:1-2	General Proposition;
	5:3-5	Proof; and
	5:6-7	Trouble Inevitable.

In 5:1-2 Eliphaz exhorts Job to call to any around him, to the holy ones if needs be, and they will reinforce the words of the vision. The words for "saints" (qadosh) means "sacred" (Strong) or "holy" (Ges) and can be used of both mortals and immortals (6:10). The Septuagint renders the word here as "holy angels" and this could be correct. Eliphaz is convinced that what he says has divine approval. After challenging Job, Eliphaz puts forward a proposition: "Vexation, grief (Strong) killeth the foolish man, and indignation (AVmg) slayeth the simple (NIV)."

Eliphaz is impressing on Job that his lot will only worsen if he complains about it or is indignant at the prosperity of others. Job's attitude is simply unacceptable and he is, in essence, labelling Job as foolish and simple.

In 5:3-5 Eliphaz outlines another personal experience ("I have seen" 4:8), this time to illustrate the proposition of 5:2. It is not difficult to see the parallel between this experience and what happened to Job. There is really no great subtlety being exhibited by Eliphaz. He describes the case of a man who had been prosperous and taking root (compare with Psa 37:35), when suddenly his prosperity was no more and his children were ruined. Sounds familiar, doesn't it?

Commentators struggle with the closing words of 5:3 - "I cursed (kabab) his habitation." This is literally correct (Green) but Soncino asserts that kabab should be nakab which means "marked." A number of authorities concur that Eliphaz marked or noted his destruction (see CompB, JB, NIV, LXX). This makes sense as Eliphaz was in no position to effectively curse an evildoer. As Eliphaz admits in 4:9 it is by the blast of God that the wicked perish.

In what could be a reference back to the incidents of 1:19, Eliphaz grimly outlines how this man was cursed. His children were far from safety. They were not protected by the government of the day. There was none to deliver them. Although these children were not put to death, as Job's children were, the parallel is more than coincidental. "To be crushed in the gate," refers to the children not obtaining justice in a court of judgment (Prov 22:22). The gate is the open area at the entrance of the city where judgment is given (Isa 29:21; Amos 5:10). The upshot of the matter is that due to the ruin of the father, his children are unable to receive equity. They are tarnished by the reputation of the father (see Psa 127:5 for an interesting contrast). The phrase, "Neither is there any to deliver them," is used in a number of places to refer to an act of God that nobody could prevent (Deut 32:39; Job 10:7; Psa 71:11; Isa 5:29, 43:13 etc). Maybe Eliphaz has such a connotation in mind.

In 5:5 the man of Eliphaz's experience suffers his possessions being pillaged by covetous men. This happened to Job (1:15,17) According to Brown, Driver and Briggs the word "robber" is translated from a doubtful Hebrew word and is considered by many to an error of transcription for the word meaning "thirsty" (JB, Gibson, RSV, NIV, RV). This provides a neat counterpart with the "hungry" in the verse. The hungry and thirsty are those that covet the possessions of others as opposed to the righteous (Psa 107:5) who "hunger and thirst after righteousness" (Matt 5:6). The expression, "taketh it even out of the thorns," is in reference to the thoroughness of the robbers in stealing the harvest. Thomson writes, "The farmers, after they have threshed out the grain, frequently lay it aside in the chaff in some private place near the floor, and cover it with thorn-bushes, to keep it from being carried away or eaten by animals. Robbers who found and seized this would literally take it from among the thorns" (W.M.Thomson, The Land and The Book, T Nelson and Sons, 1890, p348).

After describing the experience of a man he knew, experiences remarkably similar to those that afflicted Job, Eliphaz explains their cause (5:6-7). The problem is not environmental. Man's troubles are innate and, it would seem, inevitable. Affliction and wearisome labour are not things you find lying in the dirt. Man is born to trouble. Man's afflictions are brought upon him due to his mortal nature, from which vexation rises up "as the sparks fly upward." This proposition has, along with much of what Eliphaz says, an element of truth (14:1; Jer 17:9; Heb 12:15). However, Eliphaz is too narrow in his thinking and incorrect in his application. Contrary to the conclusion he is moving towards, dire affliction is not compulsorily and only brought upon people because of some great wickedness they have committed. Think of Abel. Consider the atrocities committed against the Lord Jesus Christ. There are also positive outcomes: "He that soweth to the Spirit shall of the Spirit reap life everlasting" (Gal 6:7-8). Here lies the key. Eliphaz in his restricted application paints too gloomy a picture.

5:8-16 Suffering is divine punishment: repent

Brother Sargent writes, "[Eliphaz] therefore suggests a remedy, 'I would seek unto God,' with the implication that in this, too, Job had fallen short. Was there a subtle emphasis on the first person pronoun? What a human impurity is the self-righteous ego! Along with the other two friends in the first round of replies, Eliphaz is convinced that the purpose of Job's suffering is disciplinary. Where they err is in the thinking that the strokes of the rod are measured retribution for specific sins, and that Job has only to turn to God to be healed."

The "I" emphasis of 5:8 is strong (CompB, Delitzsch, Roth). The way of a comforter is one of patience and humility. Eliphaz is patient but humility is not listed in his personality profile. 5:8 also contrasts with 5:7 as Eliphaz attempts to switch from his mournfulness to a cheerful, optimistic tone. The New International Version correctly translates the start of the verse, "But if it were I". Delitzsch has, "On the contrary, I."

What is puzzling about 5:8 is the two different words used for God: "I would seek unto El, and unto Elohim would I commit my cause." Brother Lovelock includes in his book an appendix on the use of the Names of God in the Book of Job. He states that in the Book of Job, El is the title which expresses "the absoluteness of God in all His attributes, His omnipotence, omniscience, holiness and authority." Eloah, the singular of Elohim, is frequently used in the Book and primarily refers to God "as upholder and sustainer of His universe." But this was the only time Elohim was uttered by Eliphaz. How does the plural, Elohim, fit into 5:8. Brother Lovelock's answer: "In patriarchal times the One, supreme and eminent in all His creation, was recognised as Eloah, and when His intervention was through a plurality of agents, the plural form Elohim was used ... One such passage is of great interest in this connection, from a speech of Zophar:

'This is the portion of a wicked man from Elohim,
And the heritage appointed unto him by El' (20:29)

"Here the man receives the punishment from the divine agent, but the appointment of that heritage comes from God as El."

Therefore, in similar vein, it could be said that although reward or healing is provided by the divine agent, it originally comes from God as El. Eliphaz instructs Job to seek El by committing his case to Elohim and these would logically be the angels. Ironically, in adopting this optimistic outlook Eliphaz inadvertently softens some of his earlier comments. The rigidity of his opinions cannot be sustained by Eliphaz. If 4:18 is correct then approaching angels could be a move that produces a response that Job could not trust. Despite the contradictions and smugness of Eliphaz his advice, in this matter, is sound (Psa 37:5; Prov 16:3).

In 5:9-16 Eliphaz declares how marvellous God is. This section is one of the clearest in the Book of Job, thus not necessitating detailed explanation, and also replete with truth. But, as we have said a number of times already, his application of truth is somewhat suspect. His words may have been of value to Job. Job seems to present his condition as irreversible (3:24-25) but Eliphaz correctly points out that nothing is impossible with God. It is as if a touch of humanity has got the better of the religious severity of Eliphaz.

God's universal goodness is demonstrated in rain, that oft-used symbol of divine beneficence (5:10; Psa 65:10, 68:9, 104:13).

In 5:11 Eliphaz, using an expression found throughout Scripture, says that God sets up on high those that are low. How low could Job go? According to Eliphaz, if Job repented of his evil then it was likely he would be lifted up. Job was eventually elevated in his lifetime and the words of Hannah (1Sam 2:6-8) and the Psalmist (Psa 113:7) seem to be drawn from that incident. However, the application of this concept in Psalm 18:27 and Matthew 23:12 is future as are the final comments of Hannah. This is where Eliphaz errs. Although Job's calamity was reversed in his lifetime, it was not guaranteed nor was it directly related to his repentance. God will elevate the needy in the time of His Kingdom on earth. This exaltation (sagab - "be high and steep, inaccessible" Delitzsch) will exceed the hyperbole of Eliphaz - "Those who go in dirty, black clothes because they mourn, shall ... come to stand on an unapproachable height of prosperity" (Delitzsch).

Eliphaz continues by declaring that God confounds the crafty so that they cannot perform in accordance with their enterprise (tushiya - "wisdom" 6:13; "counsel" Ges; "intrigues" JB). The reasoning of the crafty recoils on their own heads (Psa 7:15, 9:15) as it is hastily conceived and executed and thus easily detected and frustrated. Instead, an utter confusion overtakes them (Deut 28:29).

The New International Version offers a good translation of the difficult 5:15: "He saves the needy from the sword in their mouth." The sense is similar to that of Psalm 57:4, 64:3 where the tongue is likened to a sharp sword cutting deep with bitter words. The crafty can inflict pain through the use of the tongue. Ironic words, nestled as they are within the hurtful statements Eliphaz has directed to Job.

Eliphaz completes his description of God's methods with a message of hope. The poor have hope and iniquity (i.e. the iniquitous person - use of metonymy) will stop her mouth (Psa 107:42).

5:17-27 God delivers the righteous

The speech of Eliphaz becomes more persuasive as it moves to its conclusion. Since God humbles him who exults himself, and He humbles in order to exalt, it is a happy thing when He corrects. Therefore, His chastisement should not be received with a turbulent spirit, but resignedly, even joyously (Psa 94:12; Prov 3:11-12 possibly a citation from Job 5:17; Heb 12:5).

In emphasising the chasm that exists between God and man, Eliphaz uses Eloah and Shaddai to describe God and enosh to describe man. As Brother Lovelock writes, "With the couplets and triplet containing Eloah and Shaddai we come to a more interesting distinction, for both express similar ideas; Eloah is God supreme in directing His creation, and Shaddai is God in love guiding His sons. In the first speech of Eliphaz we catch the subtle extension which thinks of fatherly chastisement as an extension of divine correction - the addition of the personal emotion and response to the impersonal but righteous act:

'Behold, happy is the man whom Eloah correcteth:
Therefore despise not thou the chastening of Shaddai' (5:17)."

Enosh is the least flattering of words to be translated "man". According to the Companion Bible it is always used in a bad sense and speaks of man being morally depraved and physically frail. The contrast is unmistakable - man's inability and weakness in the face of God who is able to nourish albeit through chastening.

This section is probably the most beautiful of all the words of the comforters. But for all their sweet and soothing eloquence and their promises of peace and restoration they did not assist Job as they were based on a fundamental assumption that Job's suffering was a direct punishment for sin. Instead of consoling Job they confronted and stung.

In striving to establish the point that God's harsh treatment is ultimately to the sufferer's good and that God's wounding hand is also that which heals (5:18; Deut 32:39; Hos 6:1), Eliphaz lists six troubles out of which God delivers (5:19-22). He uses "ascending enumeration" (Gibson) in 5:19 whereby the speaker after mentioning one number adds a still higher one to denote emphasis and completeness. Six troubles are listed but Eliphaz adds the comment, "Yea, in seven," to indicate that the six listed do not represent the limits of God's ability to deliver. The six troubles are:

i)	Famine - *raab* - "hunger, scarcity of grain" (Ges) - Psa 33:19;
ii)	War - *milchamah* - "battles" (Strong) - Psa 27:3; Zech 14:2;
iii)	The scourge of the tongue - a vigorous phrase for the sin of slander. Slander which is like a whip (Soncino) - Isa 28:15;
iv)	Destruction - *showd* - "violence" (Strong);
v)	Destruction (*showd) and famine - kaphan* from a word meaning "to bend" (Ezek 17:7). *Kaphan* is only found in 5:22 and 30:3 in the Old Testament. Many interpretations exist and Strong is one of the better ones, "hunger (as making to stoop with emptiness and pain)." To laugh at "destruction and famine" is a use of metonymy to express security against them; and
vi)	Beasts of the earth.

If Job advances from correction to blessing he will find himself in the idyllic circumstances outlined from 5:23. He will "be in league (beriyth) with the stones of the field." In other words, a covenant (usual translation of beriyth) will be made with the stones that they should not cause damage and, as Eliphaz continues, with the wild beasts that they will not attack his flocks or tread down his crops. As well as this, the tent and homestead of Job will be undiminished and in peace. The word "visit" here has the connotation of "inspect" (Andersen). It infers that Job's estate will not show any reduction at each annual stocktake. Beautiful words but harsh to Job, whose previous prosperity was based on grazing. The phrase, "and shall not sin," is an odd translation and is more correctly rendered as, "and find nothing missing" (NIV, Roth). In 5:25 the knife is pushed in a bit further. Job is given the promise of numerous descendants. This is not overly comforting to a man who has been recently made childless.

Finally, if Job responds to the chastisement of God he is promised a long and healthy life. Again there is a component of truth in Eliphaz's comments and his comparison of an old man's contented death to the harvesting of fully ripened grain adds a touch of beauty. The astonishing aspect of Eliphaz's closing comments is the irony of it all. Job did live a full life and died a contented old man. Eliphaz in his eloquent, though uncaring, words has accurately prophesied the closing years of Job's mortal existence. However, this ironical outcome does not validate Eliphaz's theory of exact retribution.

Eliphaz concludes his first speech with a restatement of his authority base ("We have searched it, and so it is.") and a final exhortation for Job ("Hear it, and know thou it for thy good."). Eliphaz is confident that what he has said is true and it is Job's responsibility to do something about it.

What of this speech? Delitzsch writes, "The skill of the poet is proved by the difficulty the expositor has in detecting that which is false in the speech of Eliphaz." Doctrinally, the speech is reasonably sound and snippets of it can be favourably compared to the Law and the Psalms. Where is the defect? Why is it that Eliphaz is singled out for special attention by God in 42:7 as "being one that did not speak that which was right"?

Eliphaz was inept as a counsellor. He was cruel in the way he twisted truth to sting a man in the depths of depression. He never once offered words of sympathy. Instead he finished by deflecting Job's mind to a promise of health, while Job is scratching himself in the town dung-hill; to a promise of wealth, while the Chaldeans and Sabeans were returning to their lands with Job's animals; to a promise of numerous descendants while Job's ten children lie crushed to death.

Eliphaz's speech fits his theology but it does not fit Job's case. He is correct in his description of the power and justice of God but he restricts God to the rules of his religion.

Job possesses a more detailed understanding of God. He has learnt to view his good life as a gift, not a reward, so he does not curse God when it is removed. God can give and retrieve His gifts at His pleasure (1:21). He can send good or bad (2:10).

If Eliphaz is right then the fate of Jesus is proof that it is futile to be good. It is futile to be good, unless. Eliphaz does not understand the "unless" of the gospel. Unless the vindication of serving God lies beyond the grave, when the victory of resurrection proves the indestructibility of a faithful life when combined with God's grace; when God bestows His greatest gift to mortal man, eternal life (Rom 6:23).

SPEECH 1 - ELIPHAZ - TECHNIQUES

Polite Start Followed By Harsh Words - 4:3-4, "But" 4:5⇒
Third Person Recollection - 4:7; 5:3-5 - Not A Direct Assault
Speaks From Actual Experience - 4:8; 5:3 - "I Have Seen"
Speaks With Eloquence - 4:9-11
Speaks From Supernatural" Experience - 4:12-21 - "A Thing Secretly Brought"
Use Of Extreme Language To Impress A Point - 4:18-19 - "His Angels He Charged With Folly"
Focus On Job's Two Most Sensitive Areas: Job's Loss Of Family And Loss Of Status
"If I Were You" - 5:8

Digression - Eliphaz and 1Corinthians 3:19

The Apostle Paul cites the words of Eliphaz (Job 5:13) in 1Corinthians 3:19. Bearing in mind the divine condemnation of Eliphaz's words in 42:7, what conclusions can we draw from this citation? The following are suggested:

We cannot declare everything said by Eliphaz to be incorrect. While his overall philosophy is wrong many of his individual statements possess truth.

The citation does not declare Eliphaz to be working under inspiration. Peter's citation in 1Peter 3:6 of the thoughts of Sarah was used to indicate Sarah's healthy regard for her husband couched as it was in her unhealthy disregard of the message of the angels.

Paul's use of Eliphaz's speech brilliantly fits the message he was conveying in 1Corinthians 3:19. Not only were the words appropriate but Eliphaz himself fell victim to them. His wisdom was foolishness with God and he was taken in his own craftiness. Paul's skilful citation would have sent his readers back to the Book of Job where the vanity of man is placarded and the righteousness of God is upheld.