Eliphaz seems to have been a gentle critic of Job’s expression of grief in chapter three. It also seems Eliphaz was a true friend who wanted the best for Job. His own insights into the goodness of God is unparalleled in scripture, and some of what he says here is even quoted or alluded to in the New Covenant text. This may be surprising to some, because the mention of Job’s friends has often been done by modern religious folks to refer to the unjust criticism they’ve received from others. As for myself, I was pleasantly surprised to unfold this man’s worldview of God. It is much like that, which I hold. Nevertheless, there is a difference, because, as I mentioned in previous studies, the reader of this book, from the very beginning, is given information, concerning which these four men are ignorant. Therefore, however well-intentioned Eliphaz was, and whatever truth he possessed about the goodness of God, it was misapplied with respect to Job’s trial. Thus, we must keep this in mind, not only while reading and interpreting Eliphaz’s remarks, but also in the manner in which we, ourselves, use and interpret the truth we have been given, as that pertains to our attitudes toward others.
Eliphaz invites Job to reply to his heavenly vision (Job 4:15-18), and he tells him to ask any of the saints or holy ones (Job 5:1), if they would agree with him, to say God was unjust. However, we need to ask ourselves at this point, who are the saints, whom Eliphaz mentions? Some authorities conclude they are angels, others say it could be God, himself, who speaks of himself in the plural (cp. Isaiah 41:21-23; cp. Daniel 4:17). Still others will say Eliphaz refers to older and wiser men who have put their trust in God.
If we presume the saints are angels, how could this be since they have no free will, but merely carry out the will of God. It would be illogical to require analysis from beings who cannot think for themselves. On the other hand, how could the holy ones be God? Later in their dialogue, Job would request a mediator between himself and God (Job 9:33), so how could the saints or holy ones refer to God? Therefore, by process of elimination, saints must refer to men. Since Eliphaz couldn’t mean wicked men, who would definitely conclude God was unjust, he must mean those aged men, who have yielded themselves to know God and to do his will.
What difference would it make who the saints are? I believe that many of us seek to prove our theology by forcing the ancient text to refer to what we believe, rather than derive what we believe from the text. Job and his friends didn’t have much choice. Not having scriptures written down as we do, the friends believed what was handed down to them and embraced any heavenly vision or revelation that was given to them personally. Scripture, on the other hand, warns us by Jesus, himself, that the traditions of men often deny the word of God. Moreover, it is understood that Jesus and his disciples have given mankind the final word or revelation from God. If it isn’t in the text, we need to beware, if it contradicts the text. Everything becomes subject to the judgment of the recorded word of God.
Angelology, is a more modern understanding of angelic hierarchy, but this comes from later traditions and doctrines of men. One would be hard pressed to prove modern doctrines of angelic hierarchy from either the Old or New Covenant texts. So, how could Eliphaz be referring to angels, when angelology, as we understand it to be, didn’t exist in his day? If one sticks strictly with the text, Eliphaz’s saints (Job 5:1) must be aged wise men. Therefore, Eliphaz’s argument is simple. It is a kind of rabbinic argument which argues, first, from the higher principle or the heavenly vision, and then to the lower position, vis-à-vis that of wise men, implying both positions would agree with him against Job. In fact, some commentaries even see a challenge at this point for Job to seek out an advocate, a lawyer, who would try his case against Eliphaz’s heavenly vision. Eliphaz didn’t believe he could find such an advocate among the righteous to plead his case (Job 5:1), because Eliphaz’s argument is so sound.
How, then, would Job prove his argument that calls the Lord’s justice into question, as it was perceived in that day, namely, what one sows one will reap? This principle was universally accepted among righteous folks, as the truth for all walks of life, as that pertains to both the Lord’s discipline of the righteous and his judgment of the wicked.
Smoodock's Blog 