King James Version
Job 15
35 verses with commentary
Eliphaz's Second Speech: The Wicked Suffer All Their Days
Then answered Eliphaz the Temanite, and said,
View commentary
Then answered Eliphaz the Temanite, and said—This marks the beginning of Eliphaz's second speech (chapters 15-21 contain the second cycle of dialogues). The Hebrew vaya'an (וַיַּעַן) implies a formal response, showing this is structured debate, not casual conversation. Eliphaz from Teman (a region in Edom famed for wisdom, Jeremiah 49:7) now abandons his earlier gentleness (4:2). His tone shifts dramatically from sympathetic counselor to harsh prosecutor.
The narrative structure—'Then answered...and said'—appears repeatedly in Job, creating a courtroom atmosphere where Job stands accused before his 'friends' who function as prosecution witnesses. This formulaic introduction signals escalating conflict: Eliphaz will move from questioning Job's wisdom to attacking his character directly.
The narrative structure—'Then answered...and said'—appears repeatedly in Job, creating a courtroom atmosphere where Job stands accused before his 'friends' who function as prosecution witnesses. This formulaic introduction signals escalating conflict: Eliphaz will move from questioning Job's wisdom to attacking his character directly.
Should a wise man utter vain knowledge, and fill his belly with the east wind? vain: Heb. knowledge of wind
View commentary
Eliphaz's rebuke intensifies: 'Should a wise man utter vain knowledge, and fill his belly with the east wind?' The 'east wind' metaphor suggests destructive, worthless speech. Eliphaz's rhetoric becomes more aggressive as Job refuses to accept simplistic explanations.
Should he reason with unprofitable talk? or with speeches wherewith he can do no good?
View commentary
Should he reason with unprofitable talk? or with speeches wherewith he can do no good?—Eliphaz's rhetorical questions attack Job's words as functionally worthless. The Hebrew lo'-yiska (לֹא־יִסְכֹּן, 'unprofitable') and lo' yo'il (לֹא־יוֹעִיל, 'can do no good') emphasize pragmatic uselessness. This reveals Eliphaz's fundamental criterion: theology must be 'profitable' and practically useful.
The irony is devastating: Eliphaz condemns Job's speeches as pointless, yet the book's epilogue (42:7) declares that Job 'spoke what is right' while the friends spoke wrongly. What Eliphaz calls unprofitable—Job's honest wrestling with suffering—proves to be the only speech God honors. This reversal challenges our tendency to value tidy theological systems over honest faith struggles.
The irony is devastating: Eliphaz condemns Job's speeches as pointless, yet the book's epilogue (42:7) declares that Job 'spoke what is right' while the friends spoke wrongly. What Eliphaz calls unprofitable—Job's honest wrestling with suffering—proves to be the only speech God honors. This reversal challenges our tendency to value tidy theological systems over honest faith struggles.
Yea, thou castest off fear, and restrainest prayer before God. castest: Heb. makest void prayer: or, speech
View commentary
Eliphaz accuses: 'Yea, thou castest off fear, and restrainest prayer before God.' The verb parar (פָּרַר, castest off) means to break, frustrate, or annul. Yir'ah (יִרְאָה, fear) denotes reverent awe of God. Gara (גָּרַע, restrainest) means to diminish or detract from. Siach (שִׂיחַ, prayer) refers to meditation or communion with God. Eliphaz accuses Job of undermining piety by questioning God. This charge is serious but false—Job maintains reverence while protesting. Eliphaz confuses honest lament with rebellion, unable to distinguish between faith that questions and unbelief that rejects.
For thy mouth uttereth thine iniquity, and thou choosest the tongue of the crafty. uttereth: Heb. teacheth
View commentary
For thy mouth uttereth thine iniquity, and thou choosest the tongue of the crafty—Eliphaz escalates from criticizing Job's words to diagnosing their source: 'avonecha (עֲוֹנְךָ, 'your iniquity'). He claims Job's mouth betrays hidden sin, and that Job deliberately chooses leshon arumim (לְשׁוֹן עֲרוּמִים, 'tongue of the crafty/shrewd'). The word arum describes the serpent in Genesis 3:1—Eliphaz effectively calls Job satanic.
This accusation follows a dangerous logic: if you defend yourself against charges of sin, your defense proves your guilt. Job is trapped in a hermeneutical circle where any protest confirms the accusation. This is the psychology of spiritual abuse—making the victim's self-defense evidence of their guilt. The book condemns this reasoning absolutely.
This accusation follows a dangerous logic: if you defend yourself against charges of sin, your defense proves your guilt. Job is trapped in a hermeneutical circle where any protest confirms the accusation. This is the psychology of spiritual abuse—making the victim's self-defense evidence of their guilt. The book condemns this reasoning absolutely.
Thine own mouth condemneth thee, and not I: yea, thine own lips testify against thee.
View commentary
Thine own mouth condemneth thee, and not I: yea, thine own lips testify against thee—Eliphaz claims neutrality: 'I'm not condemning you—you're condemning yourself.' The Hebrew legal terminology yarshi'echa (יַרְשִׁיעֲךָ, 'condemns you') and ya'anu (יַעֲנוּ, 'testify') creates a courtroom scene where Job is both defendant and prosecution witness. Eliphaz positions himself as mere observer of Job's self-incrimination.
This is sophisticated blame-shifting: Eliphaz delivers harsh judgment while claiming he's simply agreeing with Job's own words. It's a rhetorical strategy that allows maximum condemnation with minimum responsibility. Yet God's verdict in 42:7 reverses everything—Eliphaz's 'neutral observation' was in fact false testimony, while Job's passionate protests were truthful speech.
This is sophisticated blame-shifting: Eliphaz delivers harsh judgment while claiming he's simply agreeing with Job's own words. It's a rhetorical strategy that allows maximum condemnation with minimum responsibility. Yet God's verdict in 42:7 reverses everything—Eliphaz's 'neutral observation' was in fact false testimony, while Job's passionate protests were truthful speech.
Art thou the first man that was born? or wast thou made before the hills?
View commentary
Eliphaz sarcastically asks: 'Art thou the first man that was born? or wast thou made before the hills?' The Hebrew הָרִאשׁוֹן אָדָם (harishon adam—the first man) echoes Genesis 2-3. 'Before the hills' (לִפְנֵי־גְבָעוֹת, lifney-geva'ot) suggests primordial existence. Eliphaz mocks Job's presumption to question traditional wisdom. Yet the irony: Job doesn't claim special knowledge; he claims normal observation contradicts the friends' theories. The accusation backfires—Eliphaz assumes his tradition contains all wisdom, the actual presumption. The Reformed principle of sola Scriptura warns against elevating tradition to Scripture's level while acknowledging wisdom in Christian tradition tested by Scripture.
Hast thou heard the secret of God? and dost thou restrain wisdom to thyself?
View commentary
Eliphaz challenges Job: 'Hast thou heard the secret of God? and dost thou restrain wisdom to thyself?' This accuses Job of claiming exclusive divine knowledge. The irony is that Job seeks answers while the friends claim certainty - yet God will later vindicate Job's humility.
What knowest thou, that we know not? what understandest thou, which is not in us?
View commentary
What knowest thou, that we know not? what understandest thou, which is not in us?—Eliphaz's rhetorical questions assert epistemological equality: Job knows nothing the friends don't know. The parallel structure—yada'ta (יָדַעְתָּ, 'you know') and tavin (תָּבִין, 'you understand')—emphasizes comprehensive knowledge. This dismisses Job's lived experience of undeserved suffering as epistemically worthless.
The devastating irony: Job knows something they don't—what it's like to suffer innocently while maintaining integrity. His experiential knowledge challenges their theoretical system. Eliphaz represents the arrogance of systematic theology that believes it has exhausted all relevant knowledge. The book demolishes this claim: Job's experience gives him knowledge the friends' tradition cannot supply.
The devastating irony: Job knows something they don't—what it's like to suffer innocently while maintaining integrity. His experiential knowledge challenges their theoretical system. Eliphaz represents the arrogance of systematic theology that believes it has exhausted all relevant knowledge. The book demolishes this claim: Job's experience gives him knowledge the friends' tradition cannot supply.
With us are both the grayheaded and very aged men, much elder than thy father.
View commentary
Eliphaz appeals to age and experience: 'With us are both the grayheaded and very aged men, much elder than thy father.' He claims superior wisdom based on generational authority—elders wiser than even Job's father support his theology. This argument from tradition assumes age guarantees truth. Reformed theology respects tradition but recognizes it must be tested by Scripture. Eliphaz's error warns against elevating human authority above divine revelation.
Are the consolations of God small with thee? is there any secret thing with thee?
View commentary
'Are the consolations of God small with thee? is there any secret thing with thee?' Eliphaz asks if God's 'consolations' (תַּנְחֻמוֹת, tanchumot) are 'small' (מִמְּךָ מְעָט, mimkha me'at—too little) for Job. He implies the friends' words convey divine comfort Job arrogantly rejects. The second question suggests Job harbors 'secret' (לָאט, la'at) sins. This is gaslighting—reframing Job's legitimate pain as rejection of comfort and hinting at hidden evil. The friends' speeches haven't been consoling but accusatory. Calling spiritual abuse 'consolation' compounds harm. True comfort acknowledges pain (Romans 12:15, 2 Corinthians 1:3-4), not dismisses it. The Reformed pastoral tradition emphasizes genuine sympathy over pious platitudes.
Why doth thine heart carry thee away? and what do thy eyes wink at,
View commentary
Eliphaz accuses Job's emotions of betraying him: 'Why doth thine heart carry thee away? and what do thy eyes wink at?' The 'heart carrying away' suggests uncontrolled passion clouding judgment. The 'winking eyes' may indicate scorn or arrogance. Eliphaz pathologizes Job's emotional expressions, assuming passionate speech proves guilt. This reflects common error—mistaking strong emotion for spiritual compromise. Scripture validates emotional honesty (Psalms, Lamentations) while warning against sin-driven passion.
That thou turnest thy spirit against God, and lettest such words go out of thy mouth?
View commentary
Eliphaz accuses Job of speaking against God: 'That thou turnest thy spirit against God, and lettest such words go out of thy mouth?' He interprets Job's questions and complaints as opposition to God. The accusation of 'turning spirit against' God suggests apostasy or rebellion. Eliphaz can't conceive that honest questions arise from deep faith seeking understanding. This error—conflating doubt with unbelief—continues to damage pastoral care.
What is man, that he should be clean? and he which is born of a woman, that he should be righteous?
View commentary
Eliphaz asks: 'What is man, that he should be clean? and he which is born of a woman, that he should be righteous?' The question echoes Eliphaz's earlier speech (4:17) and anticipates Bildad (25:4). Tahor (טָהוֹר, clean) means pure or undefiled. Tsadaq (צָדַק, righteous) means just or vindicated. Eliphaz correctly identifies universal sinfulness but wrongly applies it—affirming general human depravity doesn't prove Job's specific guilt. The doctrine of original sin is true but doesn't require confessing imaginary particular sins.
Behold, he putteth no trust in his saints; yea, the heavens are not clean in his sight.
View commentary
Eliphaz proclaims God's holiness: 'Behold, he putteth no trust in his saints; yea, the heavens are not clean in his sight.' This acknowledges absolute divine transcendence but misapplies it to conclude Job must be guilty. True theology wrongly applied becomes false comfort.
How much more abominable and filthy is man, which drinketh iniquity like water?
View commentary
Eliphaz concludes his rhetorical question: 'How much more abominable and filthy is man, which drinketh iniquity like water?' The escalation from 'not clean' (v.15) to 'abominable and filthy' intensifies the accusation. The vivid image of drinking iniquity like water suggests sin is so natural to humans that we consume it as readily as water. While Pauline theology affirms human depravity, Eliphaz weaponizes this truth to assume Job's guilt without evidence.
I will shew thee, hear me; and that which I have seen I will declare;
View commentary
I will shew thee, hear me; and that which I have seen I will declare—Eliphaz shifts to prophetic authority language: achavvecha (אֲחַוֶּךָּ, 'I will show you') and asapperah (אֲסַפְּרָה, 'I will declare'). The phrase chaziti (חָזִיתִי, 'I have seen') often introduces prophetic vision (Isaiah 6:1, Daniel 8:2). Eliphaz claims experiential authority ('that which I have seen') while preparing to quote tradition (v. 18).
This rhetorical move bridges personal experience and collective wisdom, making Eliphaz's coming argument seem both empirically verified and traditionally validated. Yet the content will be the standard retribution doctrine that Job's experience contradicts. The confident tone—'hear me'—demands submission to what follows. Authority claims like this deserve scrutiny, especially when they silence victims' testimony.
This rhetorical move bridges personal experience and collective wisdom, making Eliphaz's coming argument seem both empirically verified and traditionally validated. Yet the content will be the standard retribution doctrine that Job's experience contradicts. The confident tone—'hear me'—demands submission to what follows. Authority claims like this deserve scrutiny, especially when they silence victims' testimony.
Which wise men have told from their fathers, and have not hid it:
View commentary
Which wise men have told from their fathers, and have not hid it—Eliphaz grounds his authority in generational transmission: chachamim (חֲכָמִים, 'wise men') received from avotam (אֲבוֹתָם, 'their fathers') and faithfully transmitted it (lo' kichadu, 'have not hidden it'). This appeals to unbroken tradition—what Christians call apostolic succession or tradita.
The problem: ancient, widely-transmitted teaching can still be fundamentally wrong. The book of Job represents a direct assault on traditional retribution theology precisely because it had been faithfully transmitted for generations. Longevity of belief doesn't validate it. Jesus made the same point challenging Pharisaic tradition (Mark 7:8-13). Truth claims must be evaluated on merit, not pedigree.
The problem: ancient, widely-transmitted teaching can still be fundamentally wrong. The book of Job represents a direct assault on traditional retribution theology precisely because it had been faithfully transmitted for generations. Longevity of belief doesn't validate it. Jesus made the same point challenging Pharisaic tradition (Mark 7:8-13). Truth claims must be evaluated on merit, not pedigree.
Unto whom alone the earth was given, and no stranger passed among them.
View commentary
Unto whom alone the earth was given, and no stranger passed among them—Eliphaz claims the wise men's tradition comes from a pure, uncontaminated source: zar (זָר, 'stranger/foreigner') never passed among them. This appeals to ethnic and theological purity—their wisdom wasn't corrupted by outside influence. The phrase nittenah ha'aretz (נִתְּנָה הָאָרֶץ, 'the earth was given') echoes Genesis 1:28 and suggests original, Edenic wisdom.
The supreme irony: Job is set in the land of Uz (likely Edomite territory), Job and his friends are probably non-Israelites, and the book itself represents 'foreign' wisdom literature influencing Hebrew thought. The claim to pure, unmixed tradition is fiction. Moreover, Scripture repeatedly validates 'foreign' wisdom—Melchizedek, Jethro, Ruth, the Magi. Theological xenophobia always produces distorted truth.
The supreme irony: Job is set in the land of Uz (likely Edomite territory), Job and his friends are probably non-Israelites, and the book itself represents 'foreign' wisdom literature influencing Hebrew thought. The claim to pure, unmixed tradition is fiction. Moreover, Scripture repeatedly validates 'foreign' wisdom—Melchizedek, Jethro, Ruth, the Magi. Theological xenophobia always produces distorted truth.
The wicked man travaileth with pain all his days, and the number of years is hidden to the oppressor.
View commentary
'The wicked man travaileth with pain all his days, and the number of years is hidden to the oppressor.' Eliphaz describes the wicked's inner torment: 'travaileth with pain' (מִתְחוֹלֵל, mitcholel—writhes, anguishes) 'all his days' (כָּל־יְמֵי רָשָׁע, kol-yemey rasha). Years are 'hidden' (נִצְפְּנוּ, nitsf'nu—concealed, stored up) for 'the oppressor' (לֶעָרִיץ, le'arits—tyrant, ruthless one). The theology is partially true: sin does create inner torment (Proverbs 13:15, Romans 2:9). However, Eliphaz applies this to Job, implying Job's suffering proves wickedness. The error: assuming all suffering indicates secret sin. Jesus explicitly refutes this (John 9:2-3, Luke 13:1-5). Eliphaz describes a real phenomenon but misdiagnoses Job's situation.
A dreadful sound is in his ears: in prosperity the destroyer shall come upon him. A dreadful: Heb. A sound of fears
View commentary
The wicked live in fear: 'A dreadful sound is in his ears: in prosperity the destroyer shall come upon him.' Inner terror haunts the wicked even during external prosperity. The 'dreadful sound' suggests constant dread of judgment. This describes guilty conscience—sin brings psychological torment. While true for the wicked, Eliphaz wrongly assumes Job's distress proves guilt. Anxiety can arise from suffering without indicating wickedness.
He believeth not that he shall return out of darkness, and he is waited for of the sword.
View commentary
The wicked expect doom: 'He believeth not that he shall return out of darkness, and he is waited for of the sword.' Lack of hope characterizes the wicked—they don't expect to escape their dark circumstances. The sword 'waiting for' them suggests inevitable judgment. Eliphaz implies Job's despair indicates wickedness. But righteous sufferers in Scripture often express hopelessness (Psalms, Lamentations) without indicating guilt—despair can arise from suffering, not necessarily sin.
He wandereth abroad for bread, saying, Where is it? he knoweth that the day of darkness is ready at his hand.
View commentary
The wicked wander seeking bread: 'He wandereth abroad for bread, saying, Where is it? he knoweth that the day of darkness is ready at his hand.' Eliphaz describes restless anxiety and deprivation. The wicked suffer hunger and know judgment approaches. This describes real consequences of sin and divine judgment. However, Eliphaz's application to Job fails—Job's suffering doesn't fit this description (he was generous, not grasping), yet Eliphaz forces Job's experience into his theological framework.
Trouble and anguish shall make him afraid; they shall prevail against him, as a king ready to the battle.
View commentary
Fear overwhelms the wicked: 'Trouble and anguish shall make him afraid; they shall prevail against him, as a king ready to the battle.' The imagery of overwhelming military force captures the wicked's experience—trouble and anguish attack like conquering armies. This theologically describes consequences of sin. Yet Eliphaz's error is assuming all who experience such overwhelming suffering must be wicked. Christ, the truly righteous one, experienced such anguish in Gethsemane.
For he stretcheth out his hand against God, and strengtheneth himself against the Almighty.
View commentary
The wicked oppose God: 'For he stretcheth out his hand against God, and strengtheneth himself against the Almighty.' This describes active rebellion—the wicked don't just fail morally but defiantly oppose God. The imagery of stretching out the hand suggests aggressive attack. Strengthening oneself against God indicates prideful self-reliance. Eliphaz implies Job's questioning constitutes such rebellion. But Scripture distinguishes wrestling with God (Jacob, Job) from rebelling against Him.
He runneth upon him, even on his neck, upon the thick bosses of his bucklers:
View commentary
The wicked are arrogantly stubborn: 'He runneth upon him, even on his neck, upon the thick bosses of his bucklers.' This violent imagery depicts the wicked charging at God like a warrior with shield prominently displayed—defiant, aggressive, presumptuous. The 'thick bosses' (shield reinforcements) suggest confidence in one's own defenses. Eliphaz portrays the wicked as foolishly attacking omnipotence. His implication: Job's bold speeches to God constitute such presumption.
Because he covereth his face with his fatness, and maketh collops of fat on his flanks.
View commentary
The wicked indulge in prosperity: 'Because he covereth his face with his fatness, and maketh collops of fat on his flanks.' This describes self-indulgent wealth—the wicked grow fat through greed and excess. 'Collops' (folds) of fat suggest repulsive over-indulgence. In ancient context where most lived subsistence-level, such obesity indicated both wealth and moral failure (lack of self-control, ignoring the poor). Eliphaz implies Job's former prosperity indicated such moral failure.
And he dwelleth in desolate cities, and in houses which no man inhabiteth, which are ready to become heaps.
View commentary
The wicked dwell in desolation: 'And he dwelleth in desolate cities, and in houses which no man inhabiteth, which are ready to become heaps.' Eliphaz predicts the wicked will inhabit ruins—living in places under divine judgment or curse. Ancient cities lay desolate due to conquest or curse (Jeremiah's prophecies about Babylon, Edom). Living there suggested participation in their judgment. This doesn't fit Job—he lost his home to calamity, not divine curse.
He shall not be rich, neither shall his substance continue, neither shall he prolong the perfection thereof upon the earth.
View commentary
The wicked's wealth won't last: 'He shall not be rich, neither shall his substance continue, neither shall he prolong the perfection thereof upon the earth.' Eliphaz promises wealth gained wickedly cannot endure. The threefold negative—not rich, not continue, not prolong—emphasizes complete loss. While Proverbs affirms that ill-gotten gain doesn't profit (Proverbs 10:2), Eliphaz wrongly assumes all loss indicates prior wickedness. Job's losses don't prove he gained wealth wickedly.
He shall not depart out of darkness; the flame shall dry up his branches, and by the breath of his mouth shall he go away.
View commentary
The wicked's branch won't flourish: 'He shall not depart out of darkness; the flame shall dry up his branches, and by the breath of his mouth shall he go away.' Agricultural imagery depicts judgment—the wicked remain in darkness, their branches wither, and God's breath removes them. This powerful imagery of plant withering under heat anticipates Jesus' teaching about branches that don't abide (John 15). Yet Eliphaz misapplies it, assuming Job's suffering indicates he's a withering branch.
Let not him that is deceived trust in vanity: for vanity shall be his recompence.
View commentary
'Let not him that is deceived trust in vanity: for vanity shall be his recompence.' Eliphaz warns: don't let the 'deceived' (נִתְעָה, nit'ah) trust in 'vanity' (שָׁוְא, shav—emptiness, worthlessness), for vanity will be his 'recompence' (תְּמוּרָתוֹ, temurato—exchange, wages). The principle is sound: trusting worthless things yields worthless results (Isaiah 30:7, Jeremiah 2:5). The application to Job is false: Job doesn't trust vanity but cries to God. Eliphaz subtly equates Job's honest questions with trusting emptiness. This conflates faith with unquestioning acceptance. True faith can question and lament (Psalms, Habakkuk). The Reformed tradition distinguishes living faith (which includes honest struggle) from dead presumption.
It shall be accomplished before his time, and his branch shall not be green. accomplished: or, cut off
View commentary
Judgment arrives suddenly: 'He shall not see his branch, neither shall his offspring spring up as grass.' The wicked won't see descendants flourish—cutting off posterity represented ultimate curse in ancient Israel. Loss of lineage meant loss of future, inheritance, and memory. Eliphaz implies Job's loss of children proves divine judgment. This cruel logic ignores that the righteous also sometimes lose children, and that Job's losses came through Satan's attack, not divine displeasure.
He shall shake off his unripe grape as the vine, and shall cast off his flower as the olive.
View commentary
The wicked's labor is futile: 'For the congregation of hypocrites shall be desolate, and fire shall consume the tabernacles of bribery.' Eliphaz promises judgment on hypocrites and the corrupt. Their assemblies will be destroyed, their dwellings consumed. While Scripture affirms God judges hypocrisy and corruption, Eliphaz wrongly assumes Job fits these categories. The accusation of hypocrisy is particularly cruel—Job's integrity is his whole defense.
For the congregation of hypocrites shall be desolate, and fire shall consume the tabernacles of bribery.
View commentary
The wicked's hope perishes: 'Whose hope shall be cut off, and whose trust shall be a spider's web.' The spider's web imagery is brilliant—it appears substantial but can't bear weight. The wicked's confidence seems secure but proves fragile when tested. This truth about false securities becomes cruel accusation when wrongly applied to Job, whose trust remains in God despite everything. His trust isn't a spider's web—it endures the ultimate test.
They conceive mischief, and bring forth vanity, and their belly prepareth deceit. vanity: or, iniquity
View commentary
The wicked cling to worthless things: 'He shall lean upon his house, but it shall not stand: he shall hold it fast, but it shall not endure.' Continuing the fragility metaphor, the wicked lean on structures that collapse. The repetition—'not stand,' 'not endure'—emphasizes complete failure. While this describes false securities, Eliphaz misapplies it to Job. Job's 'house' (family, wealth) collapsed not because they were false securities but because God permitted testing to demonstrate that Job's faith transcended his blessings.