Thomas Aquinas Commentary Job 4

Job's friends, who came to console him, had kept silent until now because of the severity of his pain. After Job finished speaking, they boldly began to speak. First, Eliphaz the Temanite speaks. He had not taken Job’s words in the spirit in which they were spoken. He imputed the hatred of his present life, which Job said he suffered, to despair; his great bitterness to impatience; and his profession of innocence to presumption.

First, he therefore accuses Job of impatience and begins to speak to him as one does to a man prone to the sin of impatience, who immediately reacts angrily to any words spoken to him. So he says, “If one ventures a word with you, you will perhaps be offended.” Here, he accurately describes the typical temperament of an impatient and angry man, who cannot bear to hear someone finish an argument but is immediately provoked to answer when the person has only just begun to speak. He says “perhaps” so that he might not be condemned for rash judgment, although one should always interpret words or deeds in the best possible light, even when they seem presumptuous or suspicious.

But while he accuses Job of impatience, he reveals himself to be given to impatience and foolishness when he says, “but who can keep from speaking?” As Sirach says, As arrows inflicted in the thigh of a dog, so is the word in the heart of a fool . However, one may grant that even the just, out of divine zeal, are sometimes unable to remain silent when speaking what must be said for the honor of God. As Jeremiah says, If I say I will not remember—that is, the words of the Lord—or speak any more in his name, there is a kind of burning fire in my heart shut up in my bones, and I am weary for holding it in and cannot (Jeremiah 20:9).

He next proceeds to demonstrate Job’s impatience clearly by exaggerating it from two points of view: his former teaching and his former life. Regarding his former teaching, Eliphaz argues that it is shameful for a man not to practice what he teaches others. As Saint Matthew says, For they say and do not do (Matthew 23:3). Previously, Job had held many back from impatience and adapted his teaching to different people in different ways.

For example, some are impatient out of ignorance because they do not know how to use adversity for virtue. To these, Eliphaz says Job taught, Behold, you have instructed many. Others practice virtue in adversity at first, but when the adversity lasts a long time, they become discouraged as if tired of doing right. To these, Job taught, and you have strengthened those with weak hands, by persuading them to good works. Still others, in adversity, begin to doubt whether their suffering has come from divine judgment. To these, Job said, Your words have upheld the tottering. Finally, some endure small adversities but fall under great ones, as if crushed by a heavy burden. For these, Job taught, and you have strengthened those with trembling knees—that is, with your counsel, for a man's knees tremble when he carries a great weight. The Lord exhorts us to perfect ourselves in this, saying in Isaiah, Strengthen the weak hands and make firm the trembling knees (Isaiah 35:3).

Eliphaz consequently wants to show that Job did not practice what he taught others, so he continues, But now a trial has come to you, and you have faltered—that is, from the firmness of mind that you seemed to have and which you recommended to others. This refers to the adversity he had suffered in his external circumstances. It touched you, and you are dismayed—that is, you have lost the peace of mind you seemed to have. This refers to the physical affliction he was suffering. So Satan said previously, Put forth your hand and touch his bones and his flesh. He therefore accused Job of not living up to his own teaching by failing to practice patience. This is contrary to Proverbs: A man learns good sense by patience (Proverbs 19:11).

He also exaggerated the impatience Job now showed by contrasting it with his past life. For virtue that fails so quickly in a trial does not seem genuine, because, as it is written in Sirach, Gold and silver are proved in fire; men are proven in the crucible of humility . A person is preserved by many virtues from failing in trials.

1. Some are preserved by the fear of God, as they consider that the evils they suffer come from divine providence. As Job said previously, As the Lord pleases, so has he done (Job 1:21). To counter this virtue, Eliphaz asked, Where is your fear?—with which you seemed to revere God.
2. Some are preserved by constancy of soul, which has two degrees. For some, their strength of soul is so great that they are not overly bothered by adversity. This is due to courage. So Eliphaz says, Where is your courage? This should not be understood here as the fortitude that keeps people from succumbing to fear, but rather the kind that keeps them from being discouraged in sorrow. Others suffer a great burden of sorrow from adversity but are not led astray by it because of their well-ordered reason. This is due to patience. The difference between patience and courage is the same as the difference philosophers draw between continence and chastity. So he continues, Your patience?
3. Some are safeguarded by a love for right action and a horror of doing anything base, so that even if they are inwardly disturbed by adversity, they do not break out in any unworthy word or deed. So he adds, Where is the integrity of your ways? Here, “ways” means the actions by which one arrives at an end, as if by certain roads. “Ways” can also mean carefully considered counsel, through which a person comes to trust that he can escape adversity and therefore tolerates it more easily.

After Eliphaz accused Job of impatience, taking his opportunity from what Job had said—Before I eat, I sigh (Job 3:24)—he now intends to accuse him of presumption because he claimed to be innocent.

To show him that he is not innocent, Eliphaz bases his argument on Job’s adversity, saying, Remember, I implore you, who that was innocent has ever perished, or when have the upright been destroyed? Consider here again that Eliphaz and his two friends held the opinion that the misfortunes of this world only happen as a punishment for sin. On the other hand, they believed prosperity comes as a reward for justice. Therefore, according to his opinion, it would not seem fitting for anyone innocent to perish temporally, or for anyone who was upright—that is, just according to virtue—to be destroyed by the loss of temporal glory, which he thought was a reward for justice. He believed this opinion to be so true that even Job could not disagree with it. Yet he thought that Job had, as if he had forgotten the truth that he once knew, because his spirit was troubled. This is why he says, “Remember.”

Therefore, since adversity does not happen to the innocent and the upright, he consequently identifies those who do experience it: No, rather, I have seen that those who do evil and sow pains, reap the same. By the blast of God they perish, and by the breath of his anger they are consumed. When he says, “I have seen,” he implies that he has proven these things by his own experience. By “those who do evil,” he means those who openly do injustice, especially by harming others. By “those who sow pains and reap the same,” he means those who harm others by deceit.

These people sow pains when they prepare false accusations by which they make others suffer. They reap pain when they continue their evildoing until it takes effect, considering it to be excellent fruit. He carries this metaphor further when speaking about punishment. Grain fields usually dry up and are destroyed by a scorching wind. As Malachi says, I will rebuke the devourer (that is, the wind), so that it may not devour the fruit of your land (Malachi 3:11). He refers to this when he says, “they will perish by the blast of God,” as if divine judgment itself, coming forth to punish evil, is similar to the blast of the wind. The very vengeance of God is called the “breath” (that is, the wind) of His anger. He says not only that they perish, but that they are consumed, because they are not only punished in their own persons, but their children and their whole family perish so that nothing seems to remain of them. This seemed to describe Job’s situation, both because he had been afflicted in his body and had lost his children, his family, and his wealth.

However, the fact that children and family should suffer for the sins of the parents seemed to contradict Eliphaz’s opinion, since he intends to defend the view that adversities in this world are punishments for sin. Eliphaz answers this objection, saying, The roar of the lion, the voice of the lioness, and the teeth of the whelp have been broken.

Here we must first consider that man is more noble than other animals because of reason. When he sets reason aside, he follows the passions of beasts, and so he bears their likeness, and the name “beast” befits him because he imitates their passions. For example, one who gives in to the passion of concupiscence is likened to a horse or a mule in the Psalms: Be not like horse and mule, unintelligent (Psalms 31:9). The one who gives in to anger or ferociousness is called a lion or a bear in Proverbs, A roaring lion or a hungry bear is the impious prince over a poor people (Proverbs 28:15), and in Ezekiel, He became a lion and he learned to catch prey and devour men (Ezekiel 19:3).

So now he compares a furious man to a lion, saying, “The roar of the lion,” for roaring is an indication of the lion’s ferociousness. Often, the prodding of a wife adds to the ferociousness of her husband, and so the ferocious act the husband commits is imputed to his wife’s fault. This is clear with Herod’s wife, who prodded him to behead John the Baptist . So he says, “The voice of the lioness.” Sometimes, what a tyrant acquired by cruelty, his sons use wantonly and so rejoice in their father’s plunder. Therefore, they are not immune from fault. So the text continues, “the teeth of the whelps are broken.” As Nahum says, The lion took enough for his whelps (Nahum 2:12). Thus, Eliphaz seems to have responded to the previous objection, because it is not unjust for the wife and children to be punished for the sins of the husband when they were participants with him in the fault. He said all this in trying to portray Job and his family as being guilty of robbery.

Yet it seemed that what he said did not pertain to Job, because his wife did not seem to be punished. To remove this difficulty, he says, The tigress perished with him for lack of prey. For those who steal as a practice think themselves punished if they are not permitted to steal. Consider that women are compared to a lioness because of the ferociousness of their anger and to a tigress because of the readiness and quickness of their anger. As Sirach says, There is no anger like the anger of a woman and All malice is brief compared to the malice of a woman . Because all of Job’s children had completely perished, he adds, and the whelps of the lioness have been scattered.

Because Eliphaz believed that adversities in this life only happen to someone because of sin, he sought to accuse Job and his family of being subject to it. Since the opposite appeared to be true for Job and his family, Eliphaz wanted to show that neither Job nor his family was immune from sin. Because his opinion seemed weak against Job's authority and reputation, he appealed to a higher authority, indicating that what he was about to propose he had learned from a revelation.

He first points to the revelation's obscurity to demonstrate its high origin, for the higher things are above humanity, the less perceptible they are to us. As St. Paul says, He was taken up into Paradise and heard things that cannot be told, which man may not utter (2 Corinthians 12:4). In this way, Eliphaz speaks—either truly or falsely—saying, Now a word was brought to me stealthily (Job 4:12).

Consider that some truth, although hidden from humanity because of its exalted character, is still revealed to some clearly and to others in a hidden way. To avoid the charge of boasting, he says that this truth was revealed to him in a hidden way: my ear received the whisper of it. Here he hints at three ways in which things are hidden in revelations.

1. The first is when intelligible truth is revealed to someone through an imaginary vision. As Numbers says, If there is a prophet among you, I the LORD make myself known to him in a vision; I speak with him in a dream. Not so with my servant Moses... With him I speak mouth to mouth, clearly, and not in riddles (Numbers 12:6–8). Moses, then, heard this hidden word by a clear voice, while others hear it as a whisper.

2. The second hidden manner is in an imaginary vision when words are spoken that sometimes expressly contain the truth, as in the text of Isaiah, Behold, a virgin shall conceive (Isaiah 7:14), or sometimes under certain figures of speech, as in Isaiah, A shoot shall sprout from the stump of Jesse, and a flower... (Isaiah 11:1). Therefore, when Isaiah heard, Behold, the virgin shall conceive, he perceived the whisper itself. But when he heard, A shoot shall sprout from the stump of Jesse, he perceived the strains of the whisper. For figures of speech are like strains derived from the truth itself through a simile.

3. The third hidden way is that someone sometimes has a frequent and long-lasting revelation of God, as Exodus says about Moses, The LORD spoke to Moses face to face, as a man speaks to his friend (Exodus 33:11). At other times, someone has a sudden and passing revelation. Eliphaz shows the sudden character of his revelation when he says, stealthily, for we hear things almost stealthily that come to us quickly and, as it were, in a fleeting moment.

After showing the high source of the vision in this way, he proceeds to the circumstances of the revelation. First, he speaks of the time, saying, In a dread vision of the night, when deep sleep falls on men (Job 4:13), because the quiet of the night is more suitable for receiving revelations. During the day, the mind is distracted by the noise of human activity and the preoccupations of the senses, so that it cannot perceive the whisper of a hidden word.

Second, he speaks of the recipient's disposition, and so he adds, Fear seized me (Job 4:14). For people are usually struck with fear by the unusual, and so when someone has a strange revelation, they experience fear at first. To show the greatness of this fear, he adds, and trembling, for the trembling of the body indicates great fear. To emphasize this trembling, he continues, which made all my bones shake, as if to say: This shows that the trembling was not superficial but violent, the kind that struck even the bones. A similar experience is described in Daniel: So I saw this great vision, and no strength was left in me; my countenance was changed in me, and I grew faint and had no strength left (Daniel 10:8).

Consequently, he shows the cause of this fear when he says, When a spirit glided past my face, the hairs on my flesh stood up (Job 4:15). For it is reasonable that one with lesser power is awestruck in the presence of one with greater power. It is obvious that the power of a spirit is greater than the power of the flesh, so it is not surprising that the hair of the flesh stands up in the presence of a spirit, as happens when one is overcome by sudden fear. This is especially true when the spirit's presence is felt through some strange physical phenomenon, for strange things usually lead to wonder and fear. This fits the time he mentioned, which contributed to the dread he suffered, for he said above, In the dread vision of the night. Since one cannot discern things by sight in the darkness, any small commotion usually causes disturbance in someone who thinks it is something greater. This is what Wisdom says: The sighing of the wind, or the tuneful song of birds in the spreading branches... all held them paralyzed with fear .

Third, he describes the one revealing, when the text says, It stood still, but I could not discern its face—an image before my eyes (Job 4:16). Here he indicates three things that show it was certainly a vision. Note that sometimes, because of an excessive disturbance of vapors or mists, either dreams do not appear at all (because there are no phantasms), or they appear in a confused and disturbed way, as is often the case with those who have a fever. Since dreams of this kind have little or no spiritual content, they are completely meaningless. When, however, the vapors and mists have settled, quiet and ordered dreams appear. As these are more spiritual, they emerge from the intellectual part of the soul with some strength. Dreams of this sort are usually more true. Therefore, he says, It stood still, which shows the vision's stability.

Furthermore, even when dreams are quiet, they are generally full of thoughts remaining from previous experiences. As a result, one frequently sees in a dream those with whom one has regular contact. Because such dreams are caused by our own character and not by a higher nature, they have no great meaning. He shows this was not the case when he says, but I could not discern its face. In this, he shows that this vision did not originate from something he had already experienced, but from a more hidden cause.

Third, consider that visions of this kind, which arise from a higher cause, sometimes appear to someone who is asleep and at other times to someone who is awake. They seem truer and more certain when they appear to those who are awake than to those who are asleep, because reason is freer in someone who is awake. Also, in sleep, one does not easily discern the difference between spiritual revelations and frivolous or ordinary dreams. To show that this revelation was made not to someone asleep but to someone awake, he says, An image was before my eyes. He means here that he saw this with the open eyes of someone awake. He also meant to express this before when he said, When deep sleep falls on men (Job 4:13), where he clarifies that he himself had not been seized by sleep.

Then he tells of the manner of the declaration made to him, saying, and I heard a voice like a gentle breeze (Job 4:16). Note here that apparitions of this kind sometimes come from a good spirit and sometimes from an evil spirit. In both cases, a person experiences fear at the beginning because of the vision's unusual character. But when the apparition comes from a good spirit, the fear ends in consolation, as is clear when the angel comforts Daniel (Daniel 10:18) and when Gabriel comforts Zechariah and Mary (Luke 1). An evil spirit, however, leaves a person disturbed. The fact that he says, I heard a voice like a gentle breeze, demonstrates a consolation that put his former fear to rest. By this statement, the vision is proven to be from a good spirit and not from a wicked one, by whom lying visions are often shown. 1 Kings expresses the same thing: I will go out, and I will be a lying spirit in the mouth of all his prophets (1 Kings 22:22).

1 Kings also speaks this way of the apparition made to Elijah: and after the fire a still, small voice (1 Kings 19:12). However, we should note that sometimes one hears great disturbances and horrible voices even in visions from a good spirit, as is clear in Ezekiel when it is said, I looked, and behold, a stormy wind came out of the north (Ezekiel 1:4), and after many verses is added, I heard the sound of their wings like the sound of mighty waters (Ezekiel 1:24). Revelation says, And I heard behind me a loud voice like a trumpet (Revelation 1:10). This describes the threats or other grave dangers contained in these kinds of revelations. But the message here was meant to be one of consolation, and so he introduces the speaker's voice as being like a gentle breeze.

Finally, he expresses the words that he asserts were revealed to him when he says, Can mortal man be righteous before God? (Job 4:17). He introduces these words to confirm his opinion, which he already touched on (Job 4:7), that adversities do not happen to someone in this life except because of sin. He introduces three reasons to prove that no one who suffers adversity can excuse himself by asserting that he is free from sin. The first of these is taken from a comparison of man to God and leads to an impossible conclusion. For if a man is punished by God without being at fault, it follows that the man would be more just than God. The work of justice is to give each one his due. So, if God were to inflict punishment on an innocent person (to whom punishment is not due), while the man suffering this punishment did not himself inflict punishment on another without fault (which would necessarily be true if he were innocent), it would follow that the man punished by God is more just than God. To justify man in comparison to God is equivalent to justifying him with respect to God under the aspect of justice. Since this might not seem like an unfitting conclusion to someone, he carries the argument to another, more obviously unfitting conclusion, saying, Can a man be pure before his maker? (Job 4:17). Each thing has purity in that it conserves the nature it receives from its cause. Therefore, the purity of each effect depends on its cause, and it cannot surpass its cause in purity. Thus, a man cannot be purer than his Creator, who is God.

His second argument comes from a comparison to the angels. It is an argument from the greater to the lesser, when he says, Even in his servants he puts no trust, and his angels he charges with error (Job 4:18). This opinion is clear according to the Catholic faith, which holds as certain that all angels were created good. Some of them fell from the state of righteousness through their own fault, while others attained a greater glory. The fact that angels fell from the state of righteousness seems astonishing for two reasons: one pertaining to their contemplative power, the other to their active power.

From the perspective of contemplative power, it seems there should have been steadfastness in the angels. It is clear that the cause of mutability is potency, while the cause of immutability is act. For it is from the nature of potency that something can either be or not be. But just as what is more completed by act has a firmer hold on unity, that which is act in itself is completely unchangeable. Note that as matter is to form, and as potency is to act, so the will is to the good. That which is good in itself—namely, God—is completely unchangeable. However, the wills of other natures, which are not good in themselves, are related to Him as potency is to act. Thus, the more they cleave to Him, the more they are confirmed in the good. Therefore, since the angels seem to cling more closely to God and in greater proximity than other creatures, in that they contemplate Him more exactly, they would seem to be more steadfast than other creatures. Yet they were not steadfast. Thus, much less can lower creatures like humans—insofar as they cling to God by reverencing and serving Him—be judged to be steadfast.

From the perspective of active power, however, it seems that in the angels there can be little or no depravity. Just as a ruler that more closely approaches the true measure of straightness has less crookedness, so it is with the angels. God, in whom prime righteousness exists, directs all things by His providence, ordering lower creatures through higher ones. Hence, as they are sent by God to direct others, there seems to be little or no perversity possible in these higher creatures, who are called angels. Therefore, if perversity can be found in them, one must believe that depravity can be found in any person, however great they may appear to be. However, one should be careful not to fall into the error of Origen, who asserted that even now, all created spirits are not steadfast and can be seduced into depravity. For some have gained by grace the favor of clinging to God unchangeably by seeing Him in His essence. In this way, even some people, although lower in nature than the angels, are granted by grace an immunity from the depravity of mortal sin, even in this life.

Eliphaz takes his third argument from the human condition, which he joins to the conclusion of the preceding argument. Thus, one argument is formed from two, and he implies this when he says, How much more those who dwell in houses of clay (Job 4:19). The human condition is such that the body is formed from earthly matter. He indicates this by saying, How much more those who dwell in houses of clay? The human body is said to be of clay because it is formed more fully from earth and water—the heavier elements—as its motion makes evident. So Genesis says, God formed man from the slime of the earth (Genesis 2:7). This body of clay is called the house of the soul because the human soul is situated in the body as a person is in a house or a sailor on a ship—as the mover of the body. Because of this, some have said that the soul is only accidentally united to the body, as a person is to clothes or a sailor to a ship. But he disproves this opinion when he adds, whose foundation is in the dust. By this, we are given to understand that the human soul is united to the body as form is to matter. For matter is said to be the foundation of form, because it is the first part in the generation of a thing, just as the foundation is the first part in the building of a house. Now, he uses this manner of speaking—attributing what belongs to the soul to the person—not because the soul is the person (as some held, who said that a person is nothing but a soul clothed with a body), but because the soul is the more principal part of the person. Each thing is usually named after what is most principal in it. These two things he says about human weakness seem to be placed in opposition to what he has already said about the excellence of the angels. For the phrase, those who dwell in houses of clay, seems to oppose what he said of the angels: his servants (Job 4:18), who cling to Him and live spiritually in Him. However, when he says, whose foundation is in the dust, this seems to oppose the phrase his angels (Job 4:18), for angels are incorporeal by nature, according to the Psalm, who makes his angels spirits (Psalms 104:4).

He uses the human condition as a premise and so concludes to our miserable destiny, saying, who are eaten as by a moth. This can be understood in a literal, prima facie sense to refer to the physical death that a person suffers by necessity from having an earthly foundation. In this way, it can mean two kinds of death. First is natural death, represented by the expression, who are eaten as by a moth. For just as a moth, which is born from clothing, corrupts it, so the natural death of the body arises from internal causes. This can also refer to violent death, for he says next, Between morning and evening they are destroyed (Job 4:20), just as trees are cut down by an external cause. He says specifically, between morning and evening, because while natural death can often be foreseen by certain natural symptoms, violent death is completely uncertain, as if it were subject to different causes. For this reason, a person cannot know if they will live from morning until evening.

Yet note that this is not the literal meaning, because above he addressed the defect of sin when he said, and his angels he charges with error. Therefore, since the conclusion must follow from the premises, this passage must also refer to sin. Sin consumes the life of justice in a person in two ways. One way is from internal corruption, which he refers to by saying, who are eaten by a moth. Just as clothing is eaten by the moth born from it, so a person's justice is destroyed by things that arise within, such as the tinder of evil desires (the fomes peccati), bad thoughts, and other similar things. Another way it is corrupted is by external temptation, which is indicated when he says, Between morning and evening, they will be cut down. Consider here that internal temptation does not suddenly overthrow someone but gradually overcomes them when, through negligence, they do not take care to restrain the first movements of sin. As Sirach says, He who neglects little things will gradually fall . In the same way, clothing that is not shaken out is eaten by a moth. External temptation, however, generally overcomes a person suddenly, like David, who rushed into adultery at the sight of a woman, and also the many who denied the faith under torture.

In whatever way a person falls into sin, they will obtain mercy if they recognize their sin and repent. But because no one can understand all their sins, according to the text, Who can understand his sins? (Psalms 19:12), it follows that most people do not apply the remedy that would free them, because they do not know their sins. He expresses this in the next verse, saying that because no one understands it, they will perish forever (Job 4:20), for most people are never freed from sin. But because some do apply remedies against sins they do not understand—like David, who said, From hidden faults cleanse me, O Lord (Psalms 19:12)—he adds a complex phrase about them. The text says, "Those, however, who will remain are carried away from them; they will die, but not in wisdom" (Job 4:21). This can be interpreted in several ways. First, when he says, They will die, but not in wisdom, he may not be completing the thought that immediately preceded it, but rather what he said before: They will perish forever. The sense would then be that they will die without wisdom. Alternatively, "those who remain" may refer to the children who remain after their parents die; yet because of their parents' sins, which they imitate, they are also carried away to death without wisdom.

Eliphaz wants to establish from all these arguments that since the human condition is so frail, a person easily falls into sin without even knowing that they or their children are heading for perdition. Therefore, although Job did not recognize that he was a sinner, one must believe that he and his sons suffered because of some sin.

So, after Eliphaz has explained his revelation, and since Job might not believe it, he adds, Call now; is there anyone who will answer you? (Job 5:1). This is as if to say: "If you do not believe this was revealed to me, you can invoke God yourself, and perhaps He will answer this doubt for you." If you do not think you can obtain this from God through your own merits, then turn to one of the holy ones (Job 5:1), so that by his mediation you will be able to know the truth from God about this matter. Note that he says, to one of the holy ones, because one should not investigate hidden things through unclean spirits in just any way or by using any technique. One may only do this through God or the holy ones of God, according to Isaiah: And when they say to you, ‘Consult the mediums and the wizards who chirp and mutter,’ should not a people consult their God? Should they consult the dead on behalf of the living? (Isaiah 8:19).