Job Chapter 4

The First Speech of Eliphaz

This section begins the long dialogue portion of the Book of Job. Job’s three friends speak to him in successive rounds, and after each speech Job responds. When their words are exhausted, the LORD Himself will speak and settle the matter. Eliphaz, as the eldest and most courteous of the three, speaks first.

A. The opening comments of Eliphaz

1. (Job 4:1–6) Eliphaz calls upon Job to remember the advice he has given to others as a helper of the weak

“Then Eliphaz the Temanite answered and said, If we assay to commune with thee, wilt thou be grieved? but who can withhold himself from speaking? Behold, thou hast instructed many, and thou hast strengthened the weak hands. Thy words have upholden him that was falling, and thou hast strengthened the feeble knees. But now it is come upon thee, and thou faintest; it toucheth thee, and thou art troubled. Is not this thy fear, thy confidence, thy hope, and the uprightness of thy ways?”

a. Then Eliphaz the Temanite answered: Eliphaz is identified by both name and origin. Teman was an Edomite city renowned for wisdom. The prophet Jeremiah later alluded to this reputation when he wrote in Jeremiah 49:7, “Concerning Edom, thus saith the LORD of hosts; Is wisdom no more in Teman? is counsel perished from the prudent? is their wisdom vanished?” Eliphaz likely spoke as the senior and most respected of Job’s friends, which explains why he takes the lead in the discussion.

b. If we assay to commune with thee, wilt thou be grieved? Eliphaz begins carefully and respectfully. He acknowledges the risk of speaking to a man in deep pain and wonders aloud whether Job will be offended or exhausted by further words. This gentle introduction shows tact and restraint. Eliphaz had, in a real sense, earned the right to speak. He had sat silently with Job for seven days and seven nights, sharing his grief without offering premature counsel, as recorded in Job 2:13, “So they sat down with him upon the ground seven days and seven nights, and none spake a word unto him: for they saw that his grief was very great.”

c. But who can withhold himself from speaking? Eliphaz explains his motivation. He feels compelled to speak out of concern for Job. His silence has reached its limit, not because his sympathy has ended, but because he believes he now has something necessary to say. This makes Eliphaz’s error more tragic. His words will be spoken from sincerity and affection, not cruelty, yet they will still be wrong. The LORD later rebukes Eliphaz and the others for speaking incorrectly about Him, saying in Job 42:7, “My wrath is kindled against thee, and against thy two friends: for ye have not spoken of me the thing that is right, as my servant Job hath.”

d. Behold, thou hast instructed many… but now it is come upon thee, and thou faintest: Eliphaz begins his confrontation by reminding Job of his former role as a counselor and encourager. Job had been a man known for strengthening the weak, supporting those who stumbled, and steadying the feeble. Eliphaz acknowledges this reputation openly. Yet he contrasts Job’s past ministry to others with Job’s present despair.

Eliphaz sees an inconsistency. The one who taught endurance now seems unable to endure. The one who strengthened others now appears fainthearted. Speaking such words required courage, because Job was not only suffering intensely but was also widely respected for his godliness.

i. Eliphaz is clearly referring to Job’s lament in the previous chapter. Job’s wish that he had never been born struck Eliphaz as incompatible with the wisdom and faith Job had previously shown. From Eliphaz’s perspective, Job appears unable to practice what he preached.

ii. Andersen correctly notes that Eliphaz is already insinuating something troubling, that Job cannot apply to himself the truths he once gave to others. This implication plants the seed of accusation that will grow stronger throughout the dialogue.

iii. Trapp sharply observes the danger of this approach. To commend a man and then immediately undermine that commendation with a “but” is not true praise but a subtle form of reproach. What appears gentle on the surface can wound deeply, especially when spoken to a man already crushed by grief.

e. Is not this thy fear, thy confidence, thy hope, and the uprightness of thy ways? Eliphaz concludes this opening section with a probing question. He implies that Job’s present despair reveals a collapse of the very foundations Job once claimed. Eliphaz’s reasoning is essentially this, if Job truly feared God, trusted Him, and walked uprightly, then Job should not be speaking as he has in chapter 3.

i. Trapp paraphrases Eliphaz’s implication bluntly. Affliction, in Eliphaz’s view, exposes true character. If Job is now faltering, then perhaps his former piety was not as solid as it appeared.

ii. This question marks the beginning of the friends’ central error. Eliphaz assumes that suffering is always the result of personal sin, and that emotional anguish proves spiritual failure. From this point forward, he and the other counselors will try to convince Job that his calamities must be rooted in some hidden guilt that needs confession and repentance.

iii. Eliphaz bases his argument entirely on Job’s lament in Job 3. He reasons that a righteous man would not speak this way unless he were guilty. This assumption is false. Job’s lament is not the voice of a guilty conscience but the cry of a righteous man in unbearable pain. As the prologue has already made clear, Job’s suffering was not punitive but testing, and Eliphaz’s theology, though sincere, is fundamentally flawed.

2. (Job 4:7–11) Eliphaz explains what he believed to be the source of Job’s troubles

“Remember, I pray thee, who ever perished, being innocent? or where were the righteous cut off? Even as I have seen, they that plow iniquity, and sow wickedness, reap the same. By the blast of God they perish, and by the breath of his nostrils are they consumed. The roaring of the lion, and the voice of the fierce lion, and the teeth of the young lions, are broken. The old lion perisheth for lack of prey, and the stout lion’s whelps are scattered abroad.”

a. Remember, I pray thee, who ever perished, being innocent? Here Eliphaz reaches the core of his theology. He asserts that innocent people do not perish and that the righteous are not cut off in the manner Job has been. In Eliphaz’s reasoning, suffering of this magnitude must be the direct result of personal sin. His question is rhetorical and forceful, designed to leave Job with only one conclusion, that Job cannot be innocent.

In this context, the phrase cut off carries the sense of being forsaken by God and removed from blessing. Later in Israel’s history, the phrase would often be associated with divine judgment and even execution. Eliphaz assumes that Job’s condition proves divine abandonment, an assumption that the opening chapters of the book have already shown to be false.

b. They that plow iniquity, and sow wickedness, reap the same: Eliphaz appeals to personal observation, saying “even as I have seen.” He argues from experience rather than revelation. His logic is straightforward. Job is reaping calamity, therefore Job must have planted sin. Trouble does not arise randomly. It is harvested from seeds of wickedness.

i. This counsel sounds reasonable and is often true in a general sense. Many times sinful actions do lead to painful consequences. Eliphaz’s error is not that the principle is never true, but that he treats it as an absolute and universal law. In Job’s case, it is entirely wrong. The reader already knows that Job’s suffering is not the result of sin but of divine testing. God Himself later condemns Eliphaz’s reasoning in Job 42:7, “My wrath is kindled against thee, and against thy two friends: for ye have not spoken of me the thing that is right, as my servant Job hath.”

ii. This same error persists in many forms today. Some appeal to Galatians 6:7, “Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap.” While this principle is true, it must be understood in context. Paul was addressing stewardship and generosity toward the support of ministry. He was not establishing a rigid law of spiritual karma where every act of righteousness guarantees prosperity and every act of sin guarantees immediate suffering. If such a law existed, none could stand. Scripture teaches grace, mercy, patience, and long suffering alongside justice.

iii. Andersen rightly summarizes the dilemma. The friends infer guilt from suffering, while Job must infer injustice from innocence if their system is correct. This creates a theological trap. Either Job is secretly wicked, or God is unjust. Eliphaz chooses to preserve his theology by sacrificing Job’s integrity.

c. By the blast of God they perish, and by the breath of his nostrils are they consumed: Eliphaz now explicitly attributes suffering to divine judgment. He portrays God’s anger as a destructive force that sweeps away the wicked effortlessly. The implication is unmistakable. Job’s calamity is the blast of God against him.

i. Trapp notes that Eliphaz presents God’s judgment as requiring little effort. The mere breath of God’s nostrils is enough to destroy His enemies. This imagery intensifies the accusation. If Job has been struck so severely, then Eliphaz assumes Job must be among those enemies.

d. The roaring of the lion… the teeth of the young lions are broken: Eliphaz concludes with imagery drawn from the animal world. Lions represent strength, dominance, and terror. Even these mighty creatures are rendered powerless when God acts against them. Their teeth are broken, their prey is lost, and their offspring are scattered.

The implication is again directed at Job. If even the strongest fall under God’s judgment, then Job’s collapse proves he too has been brought low by divine wrath. Eliphaz views Job as a lion whose strength has been shattered because of hidden guilt.

This section exposes the fundamental flaw in Eliphaz’s theology. He believes suffering always reveals guilt and prosperity always reveals righteousness. He leaves no room for testing, mystery, delayed justice, or sovereign purposes beyond immediate moral cause and effect. His argument is confident, logical, and persuasive, yet it is profoundly wrong. It sounds wise, but it is wisdom without revelation, observation without omniscience, and theology without grace.

B. A revelation regarding the frailty of man

1. (Job 4:12–16) A spirit comes to Eliphaz by night

“Now a thing was secretly brought to me, and mine ear received a little thereof. In thoughts from the visions of the night, when deep sleep falleth on men, Fear came upon me, and trembling, which made all my bones to shake. Then a spirit passed before my face; the hair of my flesh stood up: It stood still, but I could not discern the form thereof: an image was before mine eyes, there was silence, and I heard a voice, saying,”

a. Now a thing was secretly brought to me: Eliphaz now seeks to strengthen the authority of his argument by appealing to a personal revelatory experience. He claims that what he is about to say did not originate merely from observation or reasoning, but from a secret communication received in the night. The language emphasizes mystery, secrecy, and exclusivity. Eliphaz presents himself as one who has been granted special insight unavailable to ordinary men.

This shift is important. Up to this point, Eliphaz has argued from experience and general principles. Now he argues from alleged revelation. He implies that his conclusions about human sinfulness and divine judgment are not only logical but divinely confirmed.

i. As noted, Eliphaz bolsters his position by invoking a supernatural encounter. The experience is described as eerie and unsettling, marked by fear, trembling, and physical reaction. The tone is meant to inspire awe and authority. Yet Scripture never confirms that this revelation was from God.

b. In thoughts from the visions of the night, when deep sleep falleth on men: Eliphaz situates this experience in the context of nocturnal visions, a time often associated in Scripture with divine revelation. God did speak to men in dreams and visions, as seen in Genesis 28:12, “And he dreamed, and behold a ladder set up on the earth, and the top of it reached to heaven.” Yet not every dream or vision is from God. Scripture also warns that false or misleading messages may come through dreams.

The mere fact that this experience occurred at night does not authenticate it as divine.

c. Fear came upon me, and trembling, which made all my bones to shake: Eliphaz emphasizes the emotional and physical impact of the experience. Fear and trembling accompany many genuine encounters with God, but they are not proof by themselves. The emphasis here serves to heighten the drama and weight of what follows.

d. Then a spirit passed before my face; the hair of my flesh stood up: Eliphaz describes the manifestation as a spirit, undefined and indistinct. The reaction is instinctive terror. The physical description is vivid, but the nature of the spirit is never identified. Eliphaz assumes that the message must therefore be true and authoritative.

i. As Clarke wisely observed, Scripture does not tell us whether this spirit was from God or from another source. The content of the message that follows exposes the problem. It diagnoses human frailty but offers no comfort, no grace, no remedy. It wounds without healing.

e. It stood still, but I could not discern the form thereof… there was silence, and I heard a voice: The ambiguity continues. Eliphaz cannot clearly see the spirit. There is no identifying mark, no name, no confirmation. Silence precedes the voice, increasing suspense. Eliphaz presents this as a solemn oracle, but Scripture gives no indication that God sent this messenger.

2. (Job 4:17–21) What the spirit said

“Shall mortal man be more just than God? shall a man be more pure than his maker? Behold, he put no trust in his servants; and his angels he charged with folly: How much less in them that dwell in houses of clay, whose foundation is in the dust, which are crushed before the moth? They are destroyed from morning to evening: they perish for ever without any regarding it. Doth not their excellency which is in them go away? they die, even without wisdom.”

a. Shall mortal man be more just than God? shall a man be more pure than his maker? The message begins with a question that seems unassailable. Of course no man is more righteous than God. Eliphaz uses this truth as the foundation for his accusation against Job. The implication is that Job’s protest and lament amount to a claim of moral superiority over God.

Eliphaz assumes that questioning God’s ways is equivalent to asserting one’s own righteousness over God’s. This is a false equivalence. Job never claimed to be more righteous than God. He cried out in pain, not in arrogance.

b. Behold, he put no trust in his servants; and his angels he charged with folly: Eliphaz expands the argument from men to angels. If even angels are not fully trusted, if even they may be charged with error, then surely frail man has no standing to claim innocence. Eliphaz uses this to reinforce the idea that Job must have sinned.

i. Ironically, this statement touches closer to the truth than Eliphaz realizes. One of the angels charged with error was Satan himself, who was in fact the immediate agent behind Job’s suffering. Revelation 12:9 states, “And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world.” Eliphaz is correct that angels fell, but he misapplies the truth by assuming Job is like them in guilt.

ii. Scripture also teaches that redeemed believers will one day judge angels, as written in 1 Corinthians 6:3, “Know ye not that we shall judge angels?” Eliphaz unknowingly alludes to a cosmic reality he does not understand.

iii. As Morgan notes, Eliphaz speaks eloquently but without knowledge of the heavenly councils described in Job chapters 1 and 2. He forces all reality into his philosophical system, unaware that his system is incomplete.

c. How much less in them that dwell in houses of clay, whose foundation is in the dust: Man is described as fragile, temporary, and easily crushed. This imagery emphasizes mortality and weakness. Eliphaz’s conclusion is that humans are inherently flawed and therefore deserve suffering when it comes.

This description of human frailty is true in a general sense. Genesis 2:7 states, “And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground.” Yet Eliphaz again misuses truth. Frailty does not equal guilt, and weakness does not prove sin.

d. They are destroyed from morning to evening: they perish for ever without any regarding it: Eliphaz presents human life as brief, insignificant, and easily extinguished. His words carry a tone of cold detachment. There is no compassion here, no pastoral sensitivity. Spoken to a man sitting in ashes, covered in sores, grieving his children, these words cut deeply.

Maclaren perceptively observed that Eliphaz seems unaware that his eloquence is driving a knife into Job’s heart. He is more concerned with constructing an argument than with comforting a suffering man.

e. They die, even without wisdom: Eliphaz concludes by asserting that men perish without understanding. The implication is that Job’s death, if it comes, will simply confirm human ignorance and guilt. There is no hope offered, no path to restoration, only the demand for submission to Eliphaz’s theological framework.

This revelation, whether sincerely believed or not, exposes the fundamental problem with Eliphaz’s counsel. It magnifies God’s transcendence but denies His mercy. It affirms human frailty but denies the possibility of righteous suffering. It sounds profound, but it is incomplete and ultimately misleading.

Eliphaz’s vision teaches truth without grace, doctrine without love, and theology without revelation. What he says contains elements of truth, yet the way he applies it to Job is profoundly wrong. The spirit he appeals to may have spoken eloquently, but it did not speak redemptively.