Job Chapter 5

Eliphaz Explains the Cause of Job’s Troubles

A. The fate of the foolish man

1. (Job 5:1–2) Eliphaz appeals to common wisdom

“Call now, if there be any that will answer thee; and to which of the saints wilt thou turn? For wrath killeth the foolish man, and envy slayeth the silly one.”

a. Call now, if there be any that will answer thee: Eliphaz challenges Job to appeal beyond himself. The force of his words is essentially this, “Job, appeal to the wider community of the godly and see if anyone disagrees with me.” Eliphaz assumes that common wisdom, shared by all righteous men, will support his conclusions. He presents his view as self evident and universally accepted. In his mind, Job’s lament is not only misguided, but isolated, no wise or holy person would affirm it.

b. And to which of the saints wilt thou turn? Eliphaz believes that no holy one, no godly person, no angelic or righteous being would defend Job’s complaint. This again reveals his assumption that Job’s suffering automatically disqualifies him from innocence. Eliphaz equates orthodoxy with agreement to his theology, leaving no room for mystery or exception.

c. For wrath killeth the foolish man, and envy slayeth the silly one: Eliphaz moves from challenge to warning. He does not yet openly accuse Job, but he places him dangerously close to the category of the foolish. In Eliphaz’s thinking, uncontrolled emotion, protest, or lament reveals folly. Wrath and envy, whether inward resentment or outward complaint, eventually destroy the man who harbors them. The implication is clear, Job must be careful that his grief does not prove him foolish.

2. (Job 5:3–7) The fate of the foolish man

“I have seen the foolish taking root: but suddenly I cursed his habitation. His children are far from safety, and they are crushed in the gate, neither is there any to deliver them. Whose harvest the hungry eateth up, and taketh it even out of the thorns, and the robber swalloweth up their substance. Although affliction cometh not forth of the dust, neither doth trouble spring out of the ground; Yet man is born unto trouble, as the sparks fly upward.”

a. I have seen the foolish taking root: Eliphaz again appeals to personal experience as his authority. He claims to have observed foolish men prospering temporarily, taking root, establishing themselves securely. Yet in his worldview, such prosperity is always short lived. Eliphaz believes that God inevitably exposes and judges foolishness.

i. This repeated phrase, “I have seen,” reveals Eliphaz’s fundamental error. He relies on observation rather than revelation. He assumes that his experience is comprehensive enough to explain all of God’s dealings with men. What he has seen becomes, in his mind, what must always be.

b. But suddenly I cursed his habitation: Eliphaz presents himself as pronouncing judgment on the foolish man’s dwelling. Whether he means he verbally cursed it or recognized it as cursed by God, the sense is the same. Sudden calamity falls, confirming Eliphaz’s belief that prosperity followed by disaster proves hidden sin.

c. His children are far from safety, and they are crushed in the gate, neither is there any to deliver them: This is one of the most painful elements of Eliphaz’s speech. Though indirect, it is an unmistakable allusion to Job’s own children. The gate was the place of justice and protection in ancient cities. To be crushed there meant to suffer public ruin with no legal defense and no rescuer.

i. Clarke explains that the city gate functioned as a court of law, where disputes were settled and protection should have been found. To be crushed there meant that justice itself failed them. Eliphaz implies that such a fate only befalls the children of the foolish.

ii. Though Eliphaz does not explicitly name Job, the application is obvious. Job’s children died suddenly and without deliverance, therefore Eliphaz assumes their father must have been foolish or sinful. This is theology applied without compassion and truth applied without love.

d. Whose harvest the hungry eateth up… and the robber swalloweth up their substance: Eliphaz continues describing total loss. Crops are devoured, possessions seized, wealth stripped away. This again mirrors Job’s experience. Eliphaz’s argument is cumulative, loss of children, loss of property, loss of security, all point, in his mind, to moral failure.

e. Although affliction cometh not forth of the dust, neither doth trouble spring out of the ground: Eliphaz insists that suffering does not arise randomly. It does not emerge accidentally, like weeds from the soil. Trouble has a cause. In his theology, that cause is always human sin met by divine judgment.

i. Smick rightly notes that Eliphaz rejects the idea of meaningless suffering. Yet he replaces it with an overly simplistic explanation. He assumes that every instance of suffering must be traced directly to personal wrongdoing.

f. Yet man is born unto trouble, as the sparks fly upward: Eliphaz concludes with a statement that is partly true and partly misleading. It is true that man’s life is marked by trouble. It is also true that sparks naturally rise upward. Yet Eliphaz connects this inevitability of trouble with guilt. Because all men are born sinners, he reasons, they deserve the trouble that comes upon them.

i. This statement subtly shifts from specific accusation to universal guilt. If man is born to trouble, then trouble proves nothing more than what all men deserve. Yet Eliphaz still uses Job’s extraordinary suffering as evidence of extraordinary sin, contradicting his own generalization.

ii. The phrase “as the sparks fly upward” may also be rendered “as the sons of Resheph fly upward.” Resheph was a known Canaanite deity associated with plague, fire, and destruction. Andersen notes that this may preserve imagery from ancient mythological language. Even if so, Eliphaz uses it poetically to communicate inevitability. Trouble rises as naturally as sparks from fire.

Summary of Eliphaz’s Error

Eliphaz’s reasoning is consistent, logical, and deeply flawed. He believes suffering always reveals guilt, prosperity reveals righteousness, and experience confirms theology. He leaves no room for righteous suffering, divine testing, or unseen spiritual realities. His counsel is sharp, indirect, and devastating, especially to a man already crushed by grief.

What Eliphaz lacks is humility before mystery. He knows much about general truths, but nothing about God’s specific purposes in Job’s life. His theology sounds wise, but it is wisdom without revelation, certainty without compassion, and truth without grace.

B. Eliphaz defends God

1. (Job 5:8–16) Eliphaz praises God’s omnipotence and justice

“I would seek unto God, and unto God would I commit my cause: Which doeth great things and unsearchable; marvellous things without number: Who giveth rain upon the earth, and sendeth waters upon the fields: To set up on high those that be low; that those which mourn may be exalted to safety. He disappointeth the devices of the crafty, so that their hands cannot perform their enterprise. He taketh the wise in their own craftiness: and the counsel of the froward is carried headlong. They meet with darkness in the daytime, and grope in the noonday as in the night. But he saveth the poor from the sword, from their mouth, and from the hand of the mighty. So the poor hath hope, and iniquity stoppeth her mouth.”

a. I would seek unto God, and unto God would I commit my cause: Eliphaz presents himself as a model of proper spiritual response. His statement is polite and indirect, yet the implication is unmistakable. He assumes that Job is not truly seeking God and has not committed his case to Him. Eliphaz frames his counsel as personal testimony, but the underlying accusation is that Job’s lament proves spiritual failure. In Eliphaz’s thinking, a righteous man would respond to suffering with quiet submission rather than anguished questioning.

b. Which doeth great things and unsearchable; marvellous things without number: Eliphaz now moves into praise of God’s greatness. He emphasizes God’s transcendence, power, and incomprehensibility. God’s works cannot be traced or fully understood by man. This is true theology. Scripture repeatedly affirms God’s unsearchable wisdom, as seen in Psalm 145:3, “Great is the LORD, and greatly to be praised; and his greatness is unsearchable.” Yet Eliphaz uses this truth not to comfort Job, but to silence him. The implication is that Job should not question what he cannot understand.

c. Who giveth rain upon the earth, and sendeth waters upon the fields: Eliphaz points to God’s providence in creation. God sustains life, controls the natural order, and provides for the earth. This is meant to remind Job that God is active and powerful. However, Eliphaz subtly suggests that the same God who provides rain also withholds blessing when He chooses, reinforcing the idea that Job’s suffering must reflect divine displeasure.

d. To set up on high those that be low; that those which mourn may be exalted to safety: Eliphaz describes God as the One who reverses fortunes, lifting the humble and rescuing the sorrowful. Ironically, this statement conflicts with his conclusion about Job. Job is lowly and mourning, yet Eliphaz believes God is working against him, not for him. Eliphaz cannot reconcile this tension, so he resolves it by assuming Job must not truly be humble or righteous.

e. He disappointeth the devices of the crafty… He taketh the wise in their own craftiness: Eliphaz affirms God’s moral justice. God overthrows the schemes of the wicked and frustrates human pride. This statement is later cited by the apostle Paul in 1 Corinthians 3:19, “For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it is written, He taketh the wise in their own craftiness.” The theology is sound, but Eliphaz misapplies it. He assumes Job belongs among the crafty whose plans God is overturning.

f. But he saveth the poor from the sword… So the poor hath hope, and iniquity stoppeth her mouth: Eliphaz concludes this hymn-like section by affirming that God ultimately defends the weak and silences injustice. Again, the theology is correct in principle. God does vindicate the poor and humble. Yet Eliphaz’s application implies that Job’s lack of deliverance proves that Job is not truly among the righteous poor, but among the guilty whose mouths should be stopped.

This section demonstrates a recurring pattern in Eliphaz’s counsel. He speaks profound truths about God, but applies them mechanically and without compassion. Great theology, when misapplied, becomes a burden rather than a comfort.

2. (Job 5:17–26) Eliphaz attributes Job’s suffering to God’s chastening for sin

“Behold, happy is the man whom God correcteth: therefore despise not thou the chastening of the Almighty: For he maketh sore, and bindeth up: he woundeth, and his hands make whole. He shall deliver thee in six troubles: yea, in seven there shall no evil touch thee. In famine he shall redeem thee from death: and in war from the power of the sword. Thou shalt be hid from the scourge of the tongue: neither shalt thou be afraid of destruction when it cometh. At destruction and famine thou shalt laugh: neither shalt thou be afraid of the beasts of the earth. For thou shalt be in league with the stones of the field: and the beasts of the field shall be at peace with thee. And thou shalt know that thy tabernacle shall be in peace; and thou shalt visit thy habitation, and shalt not sin. Thou shalt know also that thy seed shall be great, and thine offspring as the grass of the earth. Thou shalt come to thy grave in a full age, like as a shock of corn cometh in in his season.”

a. Behold, happy is the man whom God correcteth: Eliphaz now explicitly defines Job’s suffering as divine correction. In his view, Job is experiencing chastening because of sin. This statement closely resembles later biblical teaching, such as Proverbs 3:11–12, yet Eliphaz makes a fatal error. He assumes all suffering is corrective discipline. Scripture teaches that God does chasten His children, but not all suffering is chastening. In Job’s case, the suffering is not correction for sin, but testing and vindication.

b. Therefore despise not thou the chastening of the Almighty: Eliphaz urges Job not to resist or resent what he believes is corrective discipline. His counsel is sincere. He believes that Job’s path to restoration lies in humble repentance. Yet this counsel is dangerous because it presses Job to confess sins he has not committed. It confuses repentance with resignation and humility with self condemnation.

c. For he maketh sore, and bindeth up: he woundeth, and his hands make whole: Eliphaz emphasizes God’s restorative power. God wounds, but He also heals. This is true. Deuteronomy 32:39 declares, “I kill, and I make alive; I wound, and I heal.” Eliphaz intends to comfort Job with the promise of healing, but his comfort is conditional. Healing, in Eliphaz’s theology, requires confession of sin.

d. He shall deliver thee in six troubles: yea, in seven there shall no evil touch thee: This poetic expression emphasizes completeness and certainty of deliverance. Eliphaz promises total protection and restoration if Job responds correctly. The problem is that this promise is not one God has actually made in this situation. Eliphaz presumes to speak for God, offering guarantees God has not given.

e. Thou shalt be hid from the scourge of the tongue: Eliphaz includes protection from slander and accusation. Clarke rightly observed that the tongue can wound more deeply than the sword. Ironically, Eliphaz himself is now part of that scourge, accusing Job under the guise of counsel.

f. Thou shalt know that thy tabernacle shall be in peace… thy seed shall be great: Eliphaz paints a picture of complete restoration. Peace at home, abundant offspring, security, prosperity, and long life. These promises directly contrast with Job’s present reality, making the implication unmistakable. “Job, this is what you could have again, if only you would repent.”

g. Thou shalt come to thy grave in a full age, like as a shock of corn cometh in his season: Eliphaz concludes with a beautiful image of a peaceful death. The metaphor is rich and moving. A life ripened fully, gathered at the proper time, honored and complete. Spurgeon later preached powerfully on this image, highlighting the inevitability, timeliness, and dignity of death for the righteous. Yet again, the problem is application. Eliphaz offers this hope on false premises.

Eliphaz’s final appeal is persuasive, eloquent, and sincere. Yet it rests on a mistaken assumption, that Job’s suffering is punishment for sin. His theology contains much truth, but it is truth arranged in the wrong order and applied to the wrong situation. He defends God’s justice by accusing God’s servant. In doing so, he unknowingly opposes the very God he seeks to honor.

3. (Job 5:27) Eliphaz declares his confidence in his words

“Lo this, we have searched it, so it is; hear it, and know thou it for thy good.”

a. Lo this, we have searched it: Eliphaz closes his first speech with a strong assertion of confidence. He appeals not merely to personal opinion, but to what he presents as settled, collective wisdom. The phrase “we have searched it” suggests careful investigation, reflection, and agreement among the wise. In effect, Eliphaz is saying, “Job, this is not just my view. This is the conclusion of thoughtful, godly men. We have examined life, suffering, and God’s ways, and we are certain.”

i. This appeal to consensus gives Eliphaz’s counsel an air of authority, yet it is a false authority. The LORD Himself later rebukes Eliphaz directly, 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.” Eliphaz’s great failure was not that everything he said was false, but that he presumed to speak exhaustively and conclusively about God’s purposes. As Andersen noted, true words can be thin medicine for a man crushed by grief.

ii. Bradley observed that although Eliphaz spoke many truths, they brought no comfort and produced no conviction. To Job, these truths felt like poison rather than nourishment. They were accurate in abstraction but deadly in application.

b. So it is: Eliphaz states his conclusions with absolute certainty. There is no humility, no acknowledgment of mystery, no allowance for unseen purposes. To him, the matter is settled. Job’s suffering proves Job’s sin. God’s justice is simple, immediate, and mechanically predictable. Repentance will bring restoration. There are no unknowns left to consider.

i. Smick insightfully notes that Eliphaz’s problem was not ignorance of doctrine but ignorance of God’s hidden purposes. Eliphaz did not know of the heavenly council, the testing of Job’s faith, or Satan’s accusations. Because he lacked this knowledge, his eloquent theology became a snare rather than a guide.

ii. Mason illustrates this error well. Advice can be true in itself yet completely useless when misapplied. Like medicine given for the wrong disease, Eliphaz’s counsel does not heal, it harms. His theology treats Job’s suffering as a moral infection when it is actually a proving ground.

iii. Eliphaz preaches a God who can be fully figured out. In his system, there is no room for divine mystery, no hidden drama in the heavens, no purposes beyond immediate reward and punishment. Yet the reader knows, from the opening chapters of Job, that unseen realities are precisely what govern Job’s suffering. Job does not know those details, but he senses that Eliphaz’s explanation does not fit his experience.

iv. Oswald Chambers aptly described the danger of such preconceptions. If one begins with the assumption that God never allows the innocent to suffer, then the suffering of a righteous man must be explained by denying his righteousness. This same reasoning later led religious leaders to condemn Jesus Christ. Seeing Him suffer, they concluded He could not be righteous, and therefore mocked Him as He hung on the cross.

v. Even critics of Christianity have recognized this danger. The atheist Huxley once said that he objected to Christians because they claimed to know too much about God. Eliphaz and his friends exemplify this error. As Chambers observed, if the Book of Job teaches us reverence for what we do not understand, then it has accomplished its purpose. There is suffering before which words fail, and silence becomes the only faithful response.

c. Hear it, and know thou it for thy good: Eliphaz ends with an exhortation. In his mind, Job’s problem is not complexity but resistance. If Job would only listen, accept these truths, and apply them, his crisis would be resolved. Eliphaz assumes that understanding leads directly to healing.

i. Morgan notes that the friends’ persistent mistake was attempting to explain everything within the limits of their knowledge. Their theology was spacious but still too narrow for the reality of God’s ways.

ii. Maclaren remarks on the self satisfied tone of Eliphaz’s conclusion. The appeal is not tender but authoritative. “We have searched it.” We wise men vouch for it. Yet an ounce of sympathy would have done more to commend the truth than a ton of dogmatic certainty.

iii. Mason highlights one of the great ironies of the book. It is only after the arrival of these well meaning friends that Job’s despair deepens most sharply. Their rigid theology, moral pressure, and subtle accusations wound him more deeply than his physical afflictions. This betrayal by friends, not the loss of wealth or health, becomes Job’s most severe trial.

Eliphaz ends convinced he has helped Job. In reality, he has misrepresented God, misunderstood suffering, and burdened a righteous man with false guilt. His speech closes with confidence, but it is a confidence built on incomplete knowledge and misplaced certainty.