Job 5:1–5

Eliphaz suggests to Job that he call out to creatures for help, even to holy ones — holy men or angels — and see if anyone will answer him (v.1). He is implying that Job is not seeking God in his affliction. In contrast, Eliphaz claims, "As for me, I would seek God, and to God I would commit my cause" (v.8).

He holds to the sure righteousness of God's way: God could never forsake the innocent, any more than He would spare the guilty… He insists on the folly of turning to creature help. All things are in the hand of Him who suddenly deals with the foolish man who thought himself secure. Last of all, he calls on Job to repent: if he would only humble himself before God, this trial would not only be turned away, but would leave him more blessed than ever.

He tells Job it will be no use to cry for aid to the "saints," the holy ones. His only help is in God. If he complains against Him, he will only lay himself open to divine anger… He is describing the result of his experience and observations: that in the end, even in this life, suffering is the portion of the sinner. It hardly needs saying how incomplete and unsatisfactory this is.

For instance, Job 5:1 reads: "Call now if there be any that will answer you, and turn to some of the saints."… It is easy to see how renderings like this make texts of Scripture appear to support the doctrines of saint-worship, the worship of Mary, and the honouring of images.

Next he gives Job some of his experience, which is very true indeed. But the insinuation is wrong. He reasons from experience that suffering is the lot of the wicked, and therefore Job must belong to that class.

Verse 3 begins, "I have seen …," and if we turn to Job 15, his second speech, again we find him saying, "That which I have seen I will declare" (verse 17). So whether his argument holds depends mainly on his own powers of observation. He trusted those powers for his opinion about the meaning of the disasters that had fallen on Job.

"I have seen the foolish taking root; but suddenly I cursed his habitation." Ah, there it is! No prayer for him — cursing his home! No pity for him! That was just the spirit produced by this readiness to judge, and to base the judgment on how things look… Sometimes a good man is in a position where appearances are very much against him. There we have to take great care. So judging by appearance is very dangerous ground. That is exactly where these friends were.

The One who takes up the part of Daysman or Mediator must Himself be God to fully represent God, and must be Man to rightly represent man. The Man Christ Jesus is He. Being Man, we have no need of further men to come in as subsidiary mediators between Him and ourselves.

He fears that Job has been guilty of resembling a foolish man too closely (v.2). So he warns him about what he had seen: the fool taking root (v.3), then suddenly exposed to a curse, his sons far from safety and crushed in the gate (v.3). Job's sons had died suddenly. Was Job therefore a foolish man? Eliphaz did not say so, but he implied that Job might be dangerously close to such a charge. He had watched foolish people suffer. So he reasoned that since Job was suffering like this, there must be something seriously wrong in Job.

"I have seen the fool taking root" — he was an old man and enjoyed looking back on his experience — "I have seen the fool taking root, but suddenly I cursed his dwelling." Ah, there it is! No prayer for him — cursing his home! No pity for him! That was just the spirit produced by this readiness to judge, and to base the judgment on appearance.

All he says is true in principle but in Job's case false. It is right in itself, but wrong in the place he puts it. The wicked often grow old in their sin, while good people are cut down in the strength of their youth. The ungodly often live in plenty while those who fear God have to do without the common necessities of life. Eliphaz and his two friends drew false conclusions, just as often happens nowadays.

Verse 3 begins, "I have seen …," and in his second speech in Job 15 he says again, "what I have seen I will declare" (verse 17). Clearly, then, his argument rests for its validity mainly on his own powers of observation. He trusted those powers to tell him what Job's disasters meant.

"Do not judge by appearances," said the law. We must wait for solid fact. Sometimes a bad man puts on a good appearance, and we are not deceived by that at all. Sometimes a good man is in circumstances where appearances are very much against him. There we have to take great care.

Would we not expect some words of sympathy from a friend? The blessed Man of Sorrows did not take sufferers to task in this way. He was moved with compassion, even to tears, at human sorrow. This harshness shows a wrong principle in Eliphaz, and it comes out more clearly as he goes on. For him, sin and suffering are root and fruit. He knows no classes of suffering. He fails to tell the righteous apart from the wicked. So in the end he proves to be a false accuser of his friend.

Look for a moment at what Scripture says about it. It is clearly forbidden (Matthew 5:22; Romans 12:19). It is a work of the flesh (Galatians 5:20). It marks out fools (Proverbs 14:29; 27:3). It brings its own punishment (Job 5:2; Proverbs 19:19).

There is no saying how far even a child of God may be led, once he willingly allows this feeling. It grows so rapidly that, from only beginning to be envious of another's success, prosperity and position, we may soon begin to hate him, and then plot against him.

Verse 3 begins, "I have seen …". Turn to Job 15, which gives his second speech, and again we find him saying, "What I have seen I will declare" (verse 17). So it is clear that his argument stands or falls on his own powers of observation. He trusted those powers to tell him what Job's disasters meant.

These sentences make it very clear that Eliphaz was one of those people who argue mostly from their own experience. His motto was, "As I have seen." Now, what we have seen may be all true enough, so far as we are concerned. But it is a total mistake to build a general rule on one person's experience, and yet thousands make that mistake. What, for instance, had the experience of Eliphaz to do with Job? Perhaps he had never met a case quite like it. And if the two cases differ at even one point, the whole argument from experience counts for nothing.

He fears that Job looks far too much like a foolish man (v.2). So he warns him with what he had seen: the foolish taking root, then suddenly exposed to a curse, his sons far from safety and crushed in the gate (v.3). Job's sons had died suddenly. Was Job therefore a foolish man? Eliphaz did not say so, but he hinted that Job was dangerously close to that charge. He had watched foolish people suffer, and he reasoned that since Job was suffering like this, something must be seriously wrong in Job.

"I have seen the fool taking root, but suddenly I cursed his dwelling." Ah, there it is! No prayer for him — cursing his dwelling! No pity for him! Well, that eagerness to judge by appearance produced exactly this spirit. "Do not judge by appearances," said the law. We must wait for solid facts. Sometimes a good man is in circumstances where appearances are very much against him. There we have to take great care. So judging by appearance is very dangerous ground.

Wicked men have prospered for a little season, only to fall under the curse... He is describing the result of his experience and observation: in the end, even in this life, suffering is the sinner's lot. It hardly needs saying how incomplete and unsatisfactory this is. Even in the Old Testament the "man of the earth" prospers; the wicked spreads himself out "like a green laurel tree," and has no pangs even in death.

That principle is that all suffering is punishment rather than teaching, and that it rests on God's justice rather than on His love — though these two are always joined in all His ways. Such a principle must fail to tell the difference between the sufferings of the righteous and those of the wicked. Carried to its logical end, as the friends did carry it, this principle meant that Job's sufferings were for some sin not yet detected, and that his only hope of relief was to confess his sin and obtain mercy.

Jehovah made known to Eliphaz His anger against him and his two companions: they had not spoken to Him rightly, like His servant Job. So they had to come to Him with a sacrifice, through the very man they had so badly misjudged... And His servant Job, whose prayers they had despised, would pray for them.

He warns Job about what he had seen: the foolish man taking root, then suddenly exposed to a curse, his sons far from safety and crushed in the gate. Job's sons had died suddenly. Was Job then a foolish man? Eliphaz did not say so. But he hinted that Job might be very close to such a charge. Eliphaz had watched foolish people suffer, and he reasoned that since Job was suffering like this, something must be badly wrong in Job.

When Job saw his "help in the gate" — the judges ready to decide in his favor, not because they were bribed, but because they were giving him what he was owed — he did not press his case against the orphans.

"Do not judge by appearances," said the law. We must wait for solid facts... Sometimes a good man may be in such circumstances that appearances are very much against him. There we have to take great care. So judging by appearance is very dangerous ground. That is exactly where they were... "His children are far from safety; they are crushed in the gate, and there is no one to deliver them." That was a very painful thing for Job to hear. Job had been most careful about his children. Job watched over them with much prayer to God, and burnt offerings... Eliphaz did not make it personal; still, there are many ways of giving a hint.

So far he barely hints at Job's family, and yet verses 4 and 5 could be read as a description of them — children crushed with no one to rescue them, and harvests taken by the hungry robber... This picture of life is plainly incomplete and unsatisfactory. Even in the Old Testament the "man of the earth" prospers; the wicked spreads himself "like a green bay tree."

All he says is true in principle, but false in Job's case. It is right in itself, yet wrong in the way he applies it. The wicked often grow old in their sin, while good people are cut off in the strength of their youth. The ungodly often live in plenty, while those who fear God go without the basic necessities of life... In his view, Job's sufferings proved that his earlier righteousness was nothing but spiteful hypocrisy.

Despite all the burnt offerings Job made for his children, God did not spare their lives. It was not a divine judgment because of their sins. It was what God allowed in His government to test Job.

He looks at the other side, at the case of the prosperous wicked... They live to old age and grow mighty in power. Their families grow up around them, everything stays quiet, and the rod of God never falls on them... Their children — in sad contrast to the now childless speaker — are like a flock of lambs skipping around the home, and the home rings with the sound of tambourine, harp and pipe.

(1) A rebuke for Job's despair (Job 4:1-5). (2) God's favour to the righteous (vv. 6-11). (3) A vision of God's greatness and holiness (12-21). (4) Experience of God's ways (Job 5:1-5). (5) A call to Job to seek God (vv. 6-11). (6) God's triumph over evil (vv. 12-16). (7) What affliction is for (vv. 17-27).

Eliphaz had observed foolish people suffering, and reasoned that since Job was suffering as he did there must be something seriously wrong in Job. Job's harvest (all the substance he had gained) was eaten up… Trouble does not happen by chance. This is true, for there is no doubt that God is behind it.

As we open Job 5, we find Eliphaz going on in the same way, and again he refers to what he had seen. Verse 3 begins, "I have seen …". Turn to Job 15, where he gives his second speech, and again we find him saying, "What I have seen I will declare" (verse 17). So his whole argument clearly stands or falls on his own powers of observation.

But it is a total mistake to build a general rule on one person's experience, and yet thousands of people are prone to it. What, for instance, had the experience of Eliphaz to do with Job? Perhaps he had never met a case quite like it. And if there is even one point of difference between the two cases, then the whole argument from experience counts for nothing.

"Do not judge by appearances," said the law. We must wait for solid fact… Sometimes a good man is in such circumstances that appearances are very much against him. There we have to take great care. So judging by appearance is very dangerous ground… Eliphaz did not make it personal; still, there are many ways of giving a hint… Something very like that had happened to Job. I do not say that he charged it against him, but that was still the spirit at work.

Some of the things Eliphaz says in this chapter are quite true… But we can see that he brings all these facts forward in a way that turned them against poor Job. He had seen men take root and then suddenly come under a curse, but these were "the foolish." Their children were struck down too, and robbers swallowed up their possessions. All these remarks clearly carried a veiled charge against Job.

Suppose Abraham, Jacob, or David reasoned like this about their sufferings: then they were wicked, because they suffered! And in the New Testament, how could anyone glory in the suffering that produces patience? How could "this light momentary affliction" be said to prepare "for us an eternal weight of glory beyond all comparison"? Eliphaz, with all his experience, shows that he knows little of God's ways with His suffering people.

This is plain from Job 42:7-8. There the LORD says to Eliphaz the Temanite, "My anger burns against you and against your two friends, for you have not spoken of me what is right, as my servant Job has."… They had utterly failed to bring God before the soul of their friend, and so they failed to produce the self-judgment Job needed.