Eliphaz now renews his attack on Job:
After hearing Job’s response, Eliphaz does not answer the depth of his reasoning but tries to calumniously misrepresent certain words Job has spoken and interpret them according to their superficial meaning, not the depth of their meaning. He first reproaches Job’s statement in the beginning of his discourse when he said, “I too have a heart as do you and this heart is not less than yours.” (12:3) In this Eliphaz cites him for two things. First, he says he is guilty of empty boasting because he commends himself and he speaks to this theme saying, “Will the wise man answer as though he were speaking to the wind?” This is because someone seems to speak to the wind when he composes a speech to obtain glory. Second, about anger because he had begun to speak by reproaching them saying, “So you think only you are men.” (12:2) Therefore he says, “and will he fill his stomach with passion?” i.e. his spirit with anger.”
He next reproves him for saying, “I want to dispute with God,” (13:3) and again, “Spare me in only two things and then I will not hide myself from your face and so on.” (13:20) In this reproach he cites him for many things. First, for pride because he contends against someone who is greater than he is. He speaks to this theme saying,” You blame with words one who is not equal to you.” Second, for foolishness because Eliphaz thought such a dispute was harmful, and so he says, “You say what is not profitable for you,” by arguing with God. He shows why it is not advantageous to debate with God because this sort of dispute excludes two most necessary things. The first of these is the fear of God. For he who fears someone does not presume to discuss contentiously with him. Job had also expressed the same thing already saying, “And let your power not terrify me.” (13:21) Therefore Eliphaz says here, “As much as you can, you have rejected fear,” because you tried to exclude the fear of God from yourself. The second is prayer to God. For arguing with someone and entreating him are two different sorts of things. So he then says, “You have born away,” taken away, “prayer from the presence of God.” This goes against what Eliphaz had said, “This is why I entreat the Lord.” (5:8) Job had not disputed with God from pride, but out of confidence in the truth. But Eliphaz rashly judged this to flow from wickedness and so he then says, “For your wickedness has taught your tongue,” as if to say: It is apparent from the effect that you blaspheme and so he then says, “and you imitate the tongue of blasphemers.” In reality, the man who blasphemes denies the justice of God. But one who disputes with God about his justice seems to imitate the language of the blasphemers. To argue about something seems characteristic of one who doubts it; and one who doubts it is close to denying.
So Eliphaz wishes to condemn Job for arguing and he first says that Job had spoken such manifest evil that no other reproof is necessary. His very words themselves show his evil intent. He expresses this saying, “Your mouth will condemn you and not I, and your lips will answer for you,” as if to say: Your words need no other answer but they destroy themselves. Still he shows that the argument he used was unfitting in many ways. First, by comparison of Job to all creatures. For if any creature could argue with God, this would be really fitting only for the first and most excellent of creatures, a condition which does not befit God and so Eliphaz says, “Were you born the first man and formed before all the hills,” so that for this reason you would have the competence to argue with God on behalf of the whole human race and every creature? Second, by comparison with God. For one can dispute with someone about his deeds fittingly when he knows the reason why the one with whom he is arguing acts. He can know this in two ways. In one way, by learning it from him. In another way, by judging the deeds of the other from a higher wisdom. Neither of these ways is fitting to Job in the comparison of man to God. So he says, “Have you been a party to the counsel of God?” to express the first theme of learning from him and “and will his wisdom be beneath you,” to express the second theme. Third, he shows it in comparison to other men. But Job does not in fact seem to be any wiser than others from confidence in the possession of a higher knowledge so that he can presume to dispute with God. So he then says, “What do you know,” from faith or revelation, “that we do not know?” “What do you understand,” by natural knowledge,” that we do not know?” But since Job could boast of knowledge received from others, he then says, “Both old men,” in dignity of knowledge and life, “and the elders,” in time, “are much older among us than your fathers,” than your teachers from whom you received knowledge, or according to the literal sense, your ancestors. He wants to convey a greater knowledge from a greater age, because a man is made wiser by long experience in years. Fourth, on the part of Job himself, he shows his dispute with God has not been fitting. First, because it was harmful to him expanding what he had already said, “You say what is not profitable for you.” (v.3) So, he says, “Is it a great thing for God to console you?” He means here: It is easy for God to lead you back to a state of prosperity, “for he both wounds, and he binds up,” as was already said. (5:18) “But your evil words prohibit this,” by which you provoke the anger of God more against you. Second, he shows that the debate was vain and proud, expanding something he had said already, “Will the wise man answer as though he were speaking to the wind?” (v.2) So he then says, “Why does your heart lift you up,” in pride to make you presume so much on your wisdom. He tries to demonstrate a sign of pride saying, “and as if you were thinking great things, why do you open your eyes wide in astonishment?” For when someone thinks about great, wonderful things, he is entranced and he opens his eyes wide in astonishment. Third, he shows that this dispute was presumptuous and impious, also explaining a previous statement, “You blame with words someone who is not equal to you.” (v.3) Here then he says, “What causes your spirit to swell against God so that you speak words like this from your mouth,” with which you start an argument with God?
Go here to read the rest. The arguments of Eliphaz indicate his belief that Job must be justly punished for his sins, or God is unjust, an unthinkable conclusion for Eliphaz. For Christians all the evil that Christ had to go through in this Vale of Tears, although He was sinless, is the refutation of this viewpoint.
