Albert Barnes Commentary Job 5

Call now - The expressions used here, as Noyes has well observed, seem to be derived from the law, where the word “call” denotes the language of the complainant, and answer that of the defendant. According to this, the meaning of the words “call now” is, in jus voca: that is, call the Deity to account, or bring an action against him: or more properly, enter into an argument or litigation, as before a tribunal; see the notes at (Isaiah 41:1), where similar language occurs.

If there be any that will answer thee - If there is anyone who will respond to you in such a trial. Noyes renders this, “See if He will answer you;” that is, “See if the Deity will condescend to enter into a judicial controversy with you, and give an account of his dealings toward you.” Dr. Good renders it, “Which of these can come forward to you; that is, “Which of these weakly, ephemeral, perishing insects - which of these nothings can render you any assistance?”

The meaning is probably, “Go to trial, if you can find any respondent; if there is any one willing to engage in such a debate; and let the matter be fairly adjudicated and determined. Let an argument be entered into before a competent tribunal, and the considerations pro and con be urged on the point now under consideration.” The desire of Eliphaz was, that there should be a fair investigation, where all that could be said on one side or the other of the question would be urged, and where there would be a decision of the important point in dispute.

He evidently felt that Job would be foiled in the argument before whomever it should be conducted, and whoever might take up the opposite side; and hence, he says that he could get no one of “the saints” to assist him in the argument. In the expression, “if there be any that will answer thee,” he may mean to intimate that he would find no one who would be willing even to go into an investigation of the subject. The case was so plain, the views of Job were so obviously wrong, the arguments for the opinion of Eliphaz were so obvious, that he doubted whether anyone could be found who would be willing to make it the occasion of a set and formal trial, as if there could be any doubt about it.

And to which of the saints wilt thou turn? - Margin, as in Hebrew “look.” That is, to which of them will you look to be an advocate for such sentiments, or which of them would be willing to go into an argument on so plain a subject? Grotius supposes that Eliphaz, having boasted that he had produced a divine revelation in his favor (Job 4:0), now calls upon Job to produce, if he can, something of the same kind in his defense, or to see if there were any of the heavenly spirits who would give a similar revelation in his favor. The word here rendered “saints” (קדשׁים qôdeshı̂ym) means properly those who are sanctified or holy; and it may be either applied to holy men, or to angels. It is generally supposed that it here refers to angels.

So Schultens, Rosenmuller, Noyes, Good, and others, understand it. The word is often used in this sense in the Scriptures. So the Septuagint understands it here - ἤ εἴτινα ἀγγέλων ἁγίων ὄψῃ ē eitina angelōn hagiōn opsē.

Such is probably its meaning; and the sense of the passage is, “Call now upon anyone, and you will find none willing to be the advocate of such sentiments as you have urged. No holy beings—human beings or angels—would defend them.” By this, probably, Eliphaz designed to show Job that he differed from all holy beings, and that his views were not those of a truly pious man. If he could find no one, either among holy angels or pious men, to be the advocate of his opinions, it followed that he must be in error.

For wrath killeth the foolish man — That is, the wrath of God. The word "foolish" here is used as synonymous with "wicked," because wickedness is supreme folly. The general proposition here is that the wicked are cut off and are overtaken with heavy calamities in this life. In proof of this, Eliphaz appeals in the following verses to his own observation. The implied inference is that Job, having had all his possessions taken away and having been overwhelmed with unspeakably great personal calamities, was to be regarded as having been a great sinner.

Some suppose, however, that the word “wrath” here relates to the indignation or the repining of the individual himself, and that the reference is to the fact that such wrath or repining preys upon the spirit and draws down divine vengeance. This is the view of Schultens and of Noyes. But it seems more probable that Eliphaz means to state the proposition that the wrath of God burns against the wicked, and that the following verses are an illustration of this sentiment, derived from his own observation.

And envy — Margin, “indignation.” Jerome, invidia, envy. Septuagint, ζῆλος (zēlos). Castellio, severitas ac vehementia. The Hebrew word קנאה (qı̂n'âh) means jealousy, envy, ardor, or zeal. It may be applied to any strong affection of the mind—any fervent, glowing, and burning emotion. Gesenius supposes it means here envy, as excited by the prosperity of others. To me, it seems that the connection requires us to understand it as wrath or indignation, as in Deuteronomy 29:20 and Psalm 79:5. As applied to God, it often means his jealousy or his anger when the affections of people are placed on other objects than himself; Numbers 25:11; Zephaniah 1:18; and others.

Slayeth the silly one — Good and Noyes render this, “the weak man.” Jerome, parvulum, the little one. The Septuagint, πεπλανημένον (peplanēmenon) — the erring. Walton, ardelionem, the busy-body. The Hebrew word פתה (poteh) is from פתה (pâthâh) — to open, to expand; and hence, the participle is applied to one who opens his lips, or whose mouth is open (that is, a garrulous person, Proverbs 20:19); and also to one who is open-hearted, frank, ingenuous, unsuspicious; and hence, one who is easily influenced by others, or whose heart may be easily enticed.

Thus, it comes to mean one who is simple and foolish. In this sense it is used here, to denote one who is so simple and foolish as to be drawn aside by weak arguments and unfounded opinions. I have no doubt that Eliphaz meant, by insinuation, to apply this to Job, as being a weak-minded man for having allowed the views he entertained to make such an impression on his mind, and for having expressed himself as he had done. The proposition is general, but it would be easy to understand how he intended it to be applied.

I have seen the foolish - The wicked. To confirm the sentiment that he had just advanced, Eliphaz appeals to his own observation, and says that though the wicked for a time seem prosperous, yet he had observed that they were soon overtaken by calamity and cut down. He evidently means that prosperity was not evidence of divine favor; but that when it had continued for a short time, and was then withdrawn, it was proof that the man who had prospered was at heart a wicked man. It was easy to understand that he meant this should be applied to Job, who, though he had been favored with temporary prosperity, was now revealed to be a wicked man at heart. The sentiment Eliphaz advanced here, as the result of his observation, strikingly accords with the observation of David, as expressed in Psalm 23:1-6:

“I have seen the wicked in great power,
And spreading himself like a green bay-tree;
Yet he passed away, and, lo, he was not:
Yea, I sought him, but he could not be found.” (Psalms 37:35–36)

Taking root - This figure, signifying prosperous and rapid growth, is often used in the Scriptures. Thus, in Psalm 1:3:

“And he shall be like a tree planted by the rivers of water,
That bringeth forth his fruit in his season.”

So Isaiah 27:6:

“Those that come out of Jacob shall he cause to take root;
Israel shall blossom and bud,
And shall fill the face of the world with fruit.”

So Psalm 80:9-10:

“Thou preparedst room before it,
And didst cause it to take deep root,
And it filled the land.
The hills were covered with the shadow of it,
And the boughs thereof were like the goodly cedars.”

But suddenly - This means either that calamity came upon him suddenly—as it had upon Job, that is, without any apparent preparation—or that calamity came before much time passed, that is, this prosperity did not continue. Probably there is an implied reference here to the case of Job, meaning that Eliphaz had known just such instances before; and since Job's case accorded with what he had previously seen, he hastened to the conclusion that Job must have been a wicked man.

I cursed his habitation - I had occasion to regard it as accursed; that is, I witnessed the downfall of his fortunes, and pronounced his habitation accursed. I saw that God regarded it as such, and that He had suddenly punished him. This accords with the observation of David, referred to above.

His children are far from safety - That is, this soon becomes apparent when they are cut off or subjected to calamity. Eliphaz's objective is to state the result of his own observation and to show how calamity overtook the wicked, even though they prospered for a time. He begins with what a man would feel most—the calamity that comes upon his children—and says that God would punish him in them.

Every word of this would go to Job's heart, for he could not help but feel it was aimed at him. The intention was to prove that the calamities that had come upon his children were proof of his own wickedness and of divine displeasure.

It is remarkable that Job listens to this with the utmost patience. There is no interruption of the speaker, no breaking in upon his friend's argument, and no mark of uneasiness. The politeness of that ancient culture required that a speaker be heard attentively through whatever he might say.

(See the Introduction, Section 7.) Therefore, as cutting and severe as this line of remark must have been, the sufferer sat meekly, heard it all, and waited for the appropriate time when an answer might be returned.

And they are crushed in the gate - In ancient times, the gate of a city was the main gathering place, where public business was usually transacted and courts of justice were held (Deuteronomy 21:19; Deuteronomy 25:6–7; Ruth 4:1 and following; Psalms 127:5; Proverbs 22:22). The Greeks also held their courts in some public place of business.

Thus, the forum, ἀγορά (agora)—was also a place for fairs. (See Jahn’s Archaeology, section 247.) Some suppose the meaning here is that they were oppressed and trodden down by the crowd in the gate.

But the more probable meaning is that they found no one to advocate their cause; that they were subject to oppression and injustice in judicial decisions; and that when their parent was dead, no one would stand up to vindicate them out of respect for his memory. The idea is that though there might be temporary prosperity, it would not be long before heavy calamities would come upon the children of the wicked.

Whose harvest the hungry eateth up - That is, they are not permitted to enjoy the benefits of their own labor. The harvest field is subject to the depredations of others, who manage to take possession of it, and to consume it.

And taketh it even out of the thorns - Or, he seizes it to the very thorns. That is, the famished robber seizes the whole of the harvest. He takes it all away, even to the thistles, and chaff, and cockle, and whatever impure substances there may be growing with the grain. He does not wait to separate the grain from the other substances, but consumes it all. He spares nothing.

And the robber swalloweth up their substance - Noyes renders this, as Gesenius proposes to do, “and a snare gapes after his substance;” Dr. Good, “and rigidly swoops up their substance.” Rosenmuller much better:

Cujusquo facultates oxhauriebant sitibundi, copying exactly the version of Castellio. The Vulgate in a similar manner, Et bibent sitientes divitias ejus - And the thirsty drink up his wealth. The Septuagint, ἐκσιφωνισθείη αὐτῶν ἡ ἰσχύς eksifōnisthein autōn hē ischus - “should their power be absorbed.”

The true sense, as I conceive, is, “the thirsty gasp, or pant, after their wealth;” that is, they consume it.

The word rendered in our common version “the robber” צמים tsammı̂ym is, according to the ancient versions, the same as צמאים tsâmê'ı̂ym — the thirsty, and this sense the parallelism certainly requires. So obvious is this, that it is better to suppose a slight error in the Hebrew text, than to give it the meaning of a snare,” as Noyes does, and as Gesenius (Lexicon) proposes.

The word rendered “swalloweth up” (שׁאף shâ'aph) means, properly, to breathe hard, to pant, to blow; and then to yawn after, to desire, to absorb; and the sense here is, that the thirsty consume their property.

The whole figure is taken from robbers and freebooters; and I have no doubt that Eliphaz meant implicitly to allude to the case of Job, and to say that he had known just such cases, where, though there was great temporary prosperity, yet before long the children of the man who was prospered, and who professed to be pious, but was not, were crushed, and his property taken away by robbers. It was this similarity of the case of Job to the facts which he had observed, that staggered him so much in regard to his character.