King James Version
Job 22
30 verses with commentary
Eliphaz's Third Speech: Can a Man Be of Use to God?
Then Eliphaz the Temanite answered and said,
View commentary
Then Eliphaz the Temanite answered and said—This verse introduces Eliphaz's third and final speech (22:1-30). After Job's devastating argument about wicked prosperity (chapter 21), Eliphaz abandons reasoned debate and resorts to false accusations. His progression through three speeches shows deteriorating discourse: first, appeals to revelation and experience (4-5); second, warnings about wicked consequences (15); third, baseless accusations of specific sins (22). When theology contradicts observable reality, some respond by doubling down and inventing facts to fit their system.
Eliphaz represents religious certainty that cannot tolerate mystery. His name (אֱלִיפַז) possibly means 'God is fine gold' or 'God is pure,' while Temanite indicates origin from Teman in Edom, famous for wisdom (Jeremiah 49:7, Obadiah 1:8-9). Yet this wise man's certainty blinds him to truth. God will later rebuke Eliphaz and his friends for not speaking truth about Him as Job did (42:7).
Eliphaz represents religious certainty that cannot tolerate mystery. His name (אֱלִיפַז) possibly means 'God is fine gold' or 'God is pure,' while Temanite indicates origin from Teman in Edom, famous for wisdom (Jeremiah 49:7, Obadiah 1:8-9). Yet this wise man's certainty blinds him to truth. God will later rebuke Eliphaz and his friends for not speaking truth about Him as Job did (42:7).
Can a man be profitable unto God, as he that is wise may be profitable unto himself? as he: or, if he may be profitable, doth his good success depend thereon?
View commentary
Eliphaz poses a rhetorical question striking at human autonomy before God: "Can a man be profitable (sakan, סָכַן) unto God?" The verb implies being advantageous or beneficial. Eliphaz correctly perceives God's self-sufficiency—the Creator needs nothing from creatures (Acts 17:25). However, Eliphaz misapplies this truth, suggesting that because God doesn't need us, our righteousness is irrelevant to Him. Reformed theology affirms God's aseity (self-existence) while maintaining that God freely chooses to delight in obedience and be grieved by sin (Genesis 6:6, Isaiah 62:5). The paradox: God needs nothing, yet desires relationship. This is resolved in the doctrine of grace—God's pleasure in His people flows from His sovereign will, not from what we provide Him. Christ's perfect obedience was profitable not because God lacked righteousness, but because it accomplished the Father's redemptive plan.
Is it any pleasure to the Almighty, that thou art righteous? or is it gain to him, that thou makest thy ways perfect?
View commentary
Eliphaz asks rhetorically: "Is it any pleasure to the Almighty, that thou art righteous? or is it gain to him, that thou makest thy ways perfect?" The noun chephets (חֵפֶץ, "pleasure") means delight or desire. The verb batsa (בֶּצַע, "gain") implies profit or advantage. Eliphaz argues God gains nothing from human righteousness since He lacks nothing. While this truth establishes God's self-sufficiency, Eliphaz misapplies it, suggesting God is therefore indifferent to righteousness. Reformed theology affirms God's aseity (self-existence) while maintaining that God freely chooses to delight in righteousness. Proverbs 11:20 declares "such as are upright in their way are his delight." The resolution: God doesn't need our obedience, but He desires it because it reflects His character and accomplishes His purposes. Christ's incarnation reveals this: God needed nothing from us, yet delighted in redeeming us for His glory and our good.
Will he reprove thee for fear of thee? will he enter with thee into judgment?
View commentary
Will he reprove thee for fear of thee? (הֲמִיִּרְאָתְךָ יוֹכִיחֶךָ, hamiyir'atekha yokhichekha)—Eliphaz's rhetorical question drips with sarcasm. Yir'ah (יִרְאָה) means fear or reverence, while yakach (יָכַח) means reprove, correct, or enter into judgment. Eliphaz mockingly asks if God disciplines Job because of Job's piety—an absurd suggestion in Eliphaz's theology. His intended meaning: 'God certainly isn't punishing you because you're too righteous!'
Will he enter with thee into judgment? (יָבוֹא עִמְּךָ בַּמִּשְׁפָּט, yavo immekha bamishpat)—Mishpat (מִשְׁפָּט) means judgment, justice, or legal case. Eliphaz cannot imagine God prosecuting the righteous, so he concludes Job must be wicked. Ironically, Job has repeatedly demanded exactly this—to present his case in God's court (9:32-35, 13:3, 13:18-22, 23:3-7). Eliphaz's theology has no category for mystery or testing; suffering must equal punishment for sin.
Will he enter with thee into judgment? (יָבוֹא עִמְּךָ בַּמִּשְׁפָּט, yavo immekha bamishpat)—Mishpat (מִשְׁפָּט) means judgment, justice, or legal case. Eliphaz cannot imagine God prosecuting the righteous, so he concludes Job must be wicked. Ironically, Job has repeatedly demanded exactly this—to present his case in God's court (9:32-35, 13:3, 13:18-22, 23:3-7). Eliphaz's theology has no category for mystery or testing; suffering must equal punishment for sin.
Is not thy wickedness great? and thine iniquities infinite?
View commentary
Eliphaz escalates accusations: 'Is not thy wickedness great? and thine iniquities infinite?' Having failed to convince Job through general theology, Eliphaz now invents specific sins. This progression from doctrine to false accusation shows how theological systems can justify cruelty.
For thou hast taken a pledge from thy brother for nought, and stripped the naked of their clothing. the naked: Heb. the clothes of the naked
View commentary
Eliphaz invents sins: 'For thou hast taken a pledge from thy brother for nought, and stripped the naked of their clothing.' These specific accusations have no basis in the narrative. False witness under guise of spiritual concern becomes particularly insidious sin.
Thou hast not given water to the weary to drink, and thou hast withholden bread from the hungry.
View commentary
Thou hast not given water to the weary to drink (לֹא־מַיִם עָיֵף תַּשְׁקֶה, lo-mayim ayef tashqeh)—Eliphaz now invents specific sins to justify his theology. Providing water to the thirsty was fundamental covenant obligation (Isaiah 58:7, Matthew 25:35). The word ayef (עָיֵף) means weary, exhausted, or faint. Denying water violated basic hospitality and compassion laws that even predated Mosaic legislation.
Thou hast withholden bread from the hungry (וְלָרָעֵב תִּמְנַע־לָחֶם, velar'eb timna-lachem)—Ra'ev (רָעֵב) means hungry or famished. Mana (מָנַע) means withhold or keep back. Feeding the hungry appears throughout Scripture as covenant righteousness marker (Deuteronomy 15:7-11, Proverbs 22:9, Isaiah 58:7). Eliphaz's accusations are completely baseless—Job had actually fed the hungry and aided the needy (29:12-17, 31:16-22). When theology trumps facts, false witness results.
Thou hast withholden bread from the hungry (וְלָרָעֵב תִּמְנַע־לָחֶם, velar'eb timna-lachem)—Ra'ev (רָעֵב) means hungry or famished. Mana (מָנַע) means withhold or keep back. Feeding the hungry appears throughout Scripture as covenant righteousness marker (Deuteronomy 15:7-11, Proverbs 22:9, Isaiah 58:7). Eliphaz's accusations are completely baseless—Job had actually fed the hungry and aided the needy (29:12-17, 31:16-22). When theology trumps facts, false witness results.
But as for the mighty man, he had the earth; and the honourable man dwelt in it. mighty: Heb. man of arm honourable: Heb. eminent, or, accepted for countenance
View commentary
But as for the mighty man, he had the earth (וְאִישׁ זְרוֹעַ לוֹ הָאָרֶץ, ve'ish zero'a lo ha'arets)—Ish zero'a (אִישׁ זְרוֹעַ) literally means 'man of arm'—a powerful, influential person. Eliphaz accuses Job of favoring the powerful while oppressing the weak. The mighty 'had the earth'—possessed land, wealth, and influence through Job's partiality.
The honourable man dwelt in it (וּנְשׂוּא פָנִים יֵשֶׁב בָּהּ, unsu phanim yesheb bah)—Nesu phanim (נְשׂוּא פָנִים) means literally 'lifted of face,' referring to someone shown favoritism or honored. Eliphaz charges Job with the sin of respect of persons—partiality forbidden in Scripture (Leviticus 19:15, Deuteronomy 16:19, James 2:1-9). This accusation directly contradicts Job's testimony that he championed the fatherless and broke the jaws of the wicked (29:12-17). Eliphaz's slander reveals how far theological certainty will go when protecting its system.
The honourable man dwelt in it (וּנְשׂוּא פָנִים יֵשֶׁב בָּהּ, unsu phanim yesheb bah)—Nesu phanim (נְשׂוּא פָנִים) means literally 'lifted of face,' referring to someone shown favoritism or honored. Eliphaz charges Job with the sin of respect of persons—partiality forbidden in Scripture (Leviticus 19:15, Deuteronomy 16:19, James 2:1-9). This accusation directly contradicts Job's testimony that he championed the fatherless and broke the jaws of the wicked (29:12-17). Eliphaz's slander reveals how far theological certainty will go when protecting its system.
Thou hast sent widows away empty, and the arms of the fatherless have been broken.
View commentary
Thou hast sent widows away empty (אַלְמָנוֹת שִׁלַּחְתָּ רֵיקָם)—Eliphaz makes his most serious false accusation yet, charging Job with violating the Torah's clear commands to protect widows (Exodus 22:22-24, Deuteronomy 24:17). The Hebrew reyqam (empty) means sending away without provision or justice.
The arms of the fatherless have been broken (וּזְרֹעוֹת יְתֹמִים יְדֻכָּא)—Zeroa'ot (arms) represents strength and ability to work. Eliphaz accuses Job of crushing orphans' capacity to survive—the exact opposite of Job's actual character (Job 29:12-13, 31:16-22). This illustrates how the retribution theology framework drove Job's friends to invent sins to match his suffering, becoming false witnesses against the righteous.
The arms of the fatherless have been broken (וּזְרֹעוֹת יְתֹמִים יְדֻכָּא)—Zeroa'ot (arms) represents strength and ability to work. Eliphaz accuses Job of crushing orphans' capacity to survive—the exact opposite of Job's actual character (Job 29:12-13, 31:16-22). This illustrates how the retribution theology framework drove Job's friends to invent sins to match his suffering, becoming false witnesses against the righteous.
Therefore snares are round about thee, and sudden fear troubleth thee;
View commentary
Therefore snares are round about thee (עַל־כֵּן סְבִיבוֹתֶיךָ פַחִים)—Eliphaz argues Job's suffering (pachim, traps/snares) proves the accusations. The Hebrew savivoteycha (round about you) pictures complete encirclement with no escape—exactly Job's experience (3:23, 19:8).
Sudden fear troubleth thee (וִיבַהֶלְךָ פַּחַד פִּתְאֹם)—Pitom (suddenly) describes the unexpected nature of Job's calamities. Eliphaz correctly describes Job's condition but wrongly attributes it to Job's sin rather than the cosmic test of Job 1-2. The friends' theology cannot account for righteous suffering, so it must deny the possibility.
Sudden fear troubleth thee (וִיבַהֶלְךָ פַּחַד פִּתְאֹם)—Pitom (suddenly) describes the unexpected nature of Job's calamities. Eliphaz correctly describes Job's condition but wrongly attributes it to Job's sin rather than the cosmic test of Job 1-2. The friends' theology cannot account for righteous suffering, so it must deny the possibility.
Or darkness, that thou canst not see; and abundance of waters cover thee.
View commentary
Or darkness, that thou canst not see (אוֹ־חֹשֶׁךְ לֹא־תִרְאֶה)—Choshech (darkness) in Hebrew wisdom literature represents confusion, disorientation, and divine absence. Job has repeatedly described this darkness (3:4-9, 10:21-22, 23:17), but Eliphaz treats it as deserved judgment rather than mysterious trial.
Abundance of waters cover thee (וְשִׁפְעַת־מַיִם תְּכַסֶּךָּ)—Shiph'at-mayim (flood of waters) evokes chaos and destruction, possibly alluding to the Flood judgment. The drowning imagery pictures overwhelming, inescapable calamity. Eliphaz sees divine retribution; Job experiences divine hiddenness (13:24). The same suffering receives radically different interpretations depending on one's theological assumptions.
Abundance of waters cover thee (וְשִׁפְעַת־מַיִם תְּכַסֶּךָּ)—Shiph'at-mayim (flood of waters) evokes chaos and destruction, possibly alluding to the Flood judgment. The drowning imagery pictures overwhelming, inescapable calamity. Eliphaz sees divine retribution; Job experiences divine hiddenness (13:24). The same suffering receives radically different interpretations depending on one's theological assumptions.
Is not God in the height of heaven? and behold the height of the stars, how high they are! height of the stars: Heb. head of the stars
View commentary
Eliphaz challenges Job: "Is not God in the height of heaven? and behold the height of the stars, how high they are!" The noun gavah (גָּבַהּ, "height") emphasizes God's exaltation. The rhetorical question expects affirmation: yes, God is transcendent. Eliphaz will argue (verse 13-14) that Job wrongly thinks God's transcendence means He doesn't observe earthly affairs. This sets up a false dilemma: either God is distant (deism) or intimately involved (theism). Reformed theology affirms both divine transcendence and immanence—God's transcendence doesn't imply distance but rather His sovereignty over all. Isaiah 57:15 captures this paradox: God dwells "in the high and holy place, with him also that is of a contrite and humble spirit." The incarnation supremely demonstrates this: the eternal Son took flesh, uniting transcendence and immanence in one Person. Eliphaz correctly affirms transcendence but wrongly implies Job denies divine observation.
And thou sayest, How doth God know? can he judge through the dark cloud? How: or, What
View commentary
And thou sayest, How doth God know? (וְאָמַרְתָּ מַה־יָּדַע אֵל)—Eliphaz now accuses Job of practical atheism, claiming Job believes God is ignorant of human affairs. The verb yada (to know) implies intimate awareness and covenant relationship. Eliphaz falsely attributes to Job the wicked man's philosophy from Psalm 73:11, 94:7.
Can he judge through the dark cloud? (הַבְעַד עֲרָפֶל יִשְׁפּוֹט)—Araphel (dark cloud/thick darkness) is the same word used for God's presence at Sinai (Exodus 20:21, Deuteronomy 4:11). Eliphaz twists this: Job supposedly thinks God's transcendence means distance and indifference. In reality, Job desperately wants God to judge his case (13:3, 23:3-7)—the opposite of what Eliphaz claims.
Can he judge through the dark cloud? (הַבְעַד עֲרָפֶל יִשְׁפּוֹט)—Araphel (dark cloud/thick darkness) is the same word used for God's presence at Sinai (Exodus 20:21, Deuteronomy 4:11). Eliphaz twists this: Job supposedly thinks God's transcendence means distance and indifference. In reality, Job desperately wants God to judge his case (13:3, 23:3-7)—the opposite of what Eliphaz claims.
Thick clouds are a covering to him, that he seeth not; and he walketh in the circuit of heaven.
View commentary
Thick clouds are a covering to him (עָבִים סֵתֶר־לוֹ)—Eliphaz continues the false accusation, claiming Job believes avim (clouds) hide human activity from God's sight. Ironically, clouds represent God's glorious presence in Scripture (Exodus 13:21, 1 Kings 8:10-11), not His limitation.
He walketh in the circuit of heaven (חוּג שָׁמַיִם יִתְהַלָּךְ)—Chug shamayim (circle/vault of heaven) describes God's transcendent sphere. Eliphaz caricatures transcendence as absence: God merely paces the heavenly dome, unconcerned with earth. This contradicts Job's actual theology—he knows God sees everything (Job 7:17-20, 10:4-7) and desperately wants divine engagement. Eliphaz's straw-man attack reveals he hasn't listened to Job at all.
He walketh in the circuit of heaven (חוּג שָׁמַיִם יִתְהַלָּךְ)—Chug shamayim (circle/vault of heaven) describes God's transcendent sphere. Eliphaz caricatures transcendence as absence: God merely paces the heavenly dome, unconcerned with earth. This contradicts Job's actual theology—he knows God sees everything (Job 7:17-20, 10:4-7) and desperately wants divine engagement. Eliphaz's straw-man attack reveals he hasn't listened to Job at all.
Hast thou marked the old way which wicked men have trodden?
View commentary
Hast thou marked the old way which wicked men have trodden? (הַאֹרַח עוֹלָם תִּשְׁמֹר אֲשֶׁר דָּרְכוּ מְתֵי־אָוֶן)—Orach olam (ancient path) typically refers to godly tradition (Jeremiah 6:16), but here Eliphaz uses it ironically for the metey-aven (men of iniquity). Shamar (to keep/guard/observe) asks if Job is following their example.
Eliphaz invokes the Flood generation as proof that wickedness brings swift judgment. The question implies Job has chosen the path of the pre-diluvian rebels. This represents the climax of Eliphaz's false accusation: not only has Job sinned, he's aligned with history's most notorious sinners. The rhetoric escalates because the retribution theology demands proportional wickedness to explain Job's suffering.
Eliphaz invokes the Flood generation as proof that wickedness brings swift judgment. The question implies Job has chosen the path of the pre-diluvian rebels. This represents the climax of Eliphaz's false accusation: not only has Job sinned, he's aligned with history's most notorious sinners. The rhetoric escalates because the retribution theology demands proportional wickedness to explain Job's suffering.
Which were cut down out of time, whose foundation was overflown with a flood: whose: Heb. a flood was poured upon their foundation
View commentary
Which were cut down out of time (אֲשֶׁר־קֻמְּטוּ וְלֹא־עֵת)—Qummetu (cut down/seized) describes premature death; lo-et (not their time) emphasizes untimely destruction. Eliphaz clearly references the Flood generation (Genesis 6-7), whose lives were cut short by divine judgment.
Whose foundation was overflown with a flood (יְסוּדָם נָהָר יוּצָק)—Yessodam (their foundation) represents life's stability; nahar yutsaq (river poured out) vividly pictures the waters overwhelming earth's foundations. Eliphaz uses the Flood as history's supreme example of retribution theology: total wickedness brought total destruction. The implication for Job is clear but false—your suffering proves you're like them. This ignores Genesis 6:9's crucial detail: 'Noah found grace,' proving the righteous sometimes suffer alongside the wicked without being guilty.
Whose foundation was overflown with a flood (יְסוּדָם נָהָר יוּצָק)—Yessodam (their foundation) represents life's stability; nahar yutsaq (river poured out) vividly pictures the waters overwhelming earth's foundations. Eliphaz uses the Flood as history's supreme example of retribution theology: total wickedness brought total destruction. The implication for Job is clear but false—your suffering proves you're like them. This ignores Genesis 6:9's crucial detail: 'Noah found grace,' proving the righteous sometimes suffer alongside the wicked without being guilty.
Which said unto God, Depart from us: and what can the Almighty do for them? for: or, to
View commentary
Which said unto God, Depart from us (הָאֹמְרִים לָאֵל סוּר מִמֶּנּוּ)—Sur mimmennu (depart from us) represents willful rejection of God's authority. Eliphaz quotes the wicked man's defiant cry (compare Job 21:14, where Job quoted this same phrase—but as the wicked's words, not his own!).
What can the Almighty do for them? (וּמַה־יִּפְעַל שַׁדַּי לָמוֹ)—This rhetorical question expresses practical atheism: God is irrelevant to our prosperity. Shaddai (Almighty) emphasizes God's power, making the dismissal more blasphemous. Crucially, Eliphaz has taken Job's quotation of the wicked out of context. Job cited this in chapter 21 to challenge retribution theology (the wicked prosper!), explicitly distancing himself from their philosophy (21:16). Eliphaz either hasn't listened or deliberately misrepresents Job's words.
What can the Almighty do for them? (וּמַה־יִּפְעַל שַׁדַּי לָמוֹ)—This rhetorical question expresses practical atheism: God is irrelevant to our prosperity. Shaddai (Almighty) emphasizes God's power, making the dismissal more blasphemous. Crucially, Eliphaz has taken Job's quotation of the wicked out of context. Job cited this in chapter 21 to challenge retribution theology (the wicked prosper!), explicitly distancing himself from their philosophy (21:16). Eliphaz either hasn't listened or deliberately misrepresents Job's words.
Yet he filled their houses with good things: but the counsel of the wicked is far from me.
View commentary
Yet he filled their houses with good things (וְהוּא מִלֵּא בָתֵּיהֶם טוֹב)—Mille (filled) indicates abundance; tov (good things) means material prosperity. Eliphaz acknowledges God's generosity even to the wicked—a fact that contradicts strict retribution theology but which he doesn't explore.
But the counsel of the wicked is far from me (וַעֲצַת רְשָׁעִים רָחֲקָה מִמֶּנִּי)—This is Job's own statement from 21:16! Eliphaz quotes Job's explicit distancing from the wicked's philosophy and somehow uses it to accuse Job of holding that philosophy. The logical incoherence reveals Eliphaz's desperation. He must convict Job to preserve his theological system, even if it requires ignoring Job's plain words. This is the tragedy of the comforters: their theology has blinded them to both Job's actual character and his actual arguments.
But the counsel of the wicked is far from me (וַעֲצַת רְשָׁעִים רָחֲקָה מִמֶּנִּי)—This is Job's own statement from 21:16! Eliphaz quotes Job's explicit distancing from the wicked's philosophy and somehow uses it to accuse Job of holding that philosophy. The logical incoherence reveals Eliphaz's desperation. He must convict Job to preserve his theological system, even if it requires ignoring Job's plain words. This is the tragedy of the comforters: their theology has blinded them to both Job's actual character and his actual arguments.
The righteous see it, and are glad: and the innocent laugh them to scorn.
View commentary
The righteous see it, and are glad (יִרְאוּ צַדִּיקִים וְיִשְׂמָחוּ)—Tsaddiqim (righteous ones) rejoice (yismakhu) at divine justice against the wicked. Eliphaz pictures the righteous celebrating when God judges sinners—a theme from imprecatory psalms (58:10, 107:42).
The innocent laugh them to scorn (וְנָקִי יִלְעַג־לָמוֹ)—Naqi (innocent/clean) and yil'ag (mock/deride) complete the picture of vindication. The innocent's laughter celebrates God's justice being manifest. The cruel irony: Eliphaz thinks he and Job's other friends are the righteous witnesses celebrating Job's deserved punishment. In reality, God will vindicate Job and condemn the friends (42:7-9). They are the false witnesses whose counsel will be rejected. The passage predicts its own reversal.
The innocent laugh them to scorn (וְנָקִי יִלְעַג־לָמוֹ)—Naqi (innocent/clean) and yil'ag (mock/deride) complete the picture of vindication. The innocent's laughter celebrates God's justice being manifest. The cruel irony: Eliphaz thinks he and Job's other friends are the righteous witnesses celebrating Job's deserved punishment. In reality, God will vindicate Job and condemn the friends (42:7-9). They are the false witnesses whose counsel will be rejected. The passage predicts its own reversal.
Whereas our substance is not cut down, but the remnant of them the fire consumeth. substance: or, estate the remnant: or, their excellency
View commentary
Whereas our substance is not cut down (אִם־לֹא נִכְחַד קִימָנוּ)—Qimanu (our rising/substance/existence) contrasts with the wicked's destruction; nichad (cut down/destroyed) echoes verse 16's language. Eliphaz contrasts 'our' (the righteous) security with 'their' (the wicked) judgment.
But the remnant of them the fire consumeth (וְיִתְרָם אָכְלָה אֵשׁ)—Yitram (their remnant/abundance) and achlah esh (fire consumed) invoke Sodom and Gomorrah imagery (Genesis 19:24-28). Fire represents complete, final divine judgment. Eliphaz's entire speech reaches its climax: the wicked get destroyed; we the righteous prosper. The Book of Job's narrative arc proves Eliphaz catastrophically wrong. His substance will be at risk if he doesn't repent and offer sacrifice (42:8). Job's 'remnant' will be doubled by God's blessing (42:10-17). The reversal is total.
But the remnant of them the fire consumeth (וְיִתְרָם אָכְלָה אֵשׁ)—Yitram (their remnant/abundance) and achlah esh (fire consumed) invoke Sodom and Gomorrah imagery (Genesis 19:24-28). Fire represents complete, final divine judgment. Eliphaz's entire speech reaches its climax: the wicked get destroyed; we the righteous prosper. The Book of Job's narrative arc proves Eliphaz catastrophically wrong. His substance will be at risk if he doesn't repent and offer sacrifice (42:8). Job's 'remnant' will be doubled by God's blessing (42:10-17). The reversal is total.
Acquaint now thyself with him, and be at peace: thereby good shall come unto thee. him: that is, God
View commentary
Eliphaz urges: 'Acquaint now thyself with him, and be at peace: thereby good shall come unto thee.' The verb sakan (סָכַן, acquaint) means to be familiar with, to befriend. Shalom (שָׁלוֹם, peace) denotes wholeness, completeness, harmony with God. Tovah (טוֹבָה, good) refers to prosperity and blessing. Eliphaz's counsel contains truth—relationship with God brings peace and blessing. However, he assumes Job lacks this relationship, making true advice misapplied. The verse demonstrates that even biblical counsel becomes false witness when wrongly applied.
Receive, I pray thee, the law from his mouth, and lay up his words in thine heart.
View commentary
Receive, I pray thee, the law from his mouth—Eliphaz urges Job to accept torah (תּוֹרָה), meaning instruction or teaching, directly from God's mouth. The verb laqach (לָקַח, receive/take) implies active appropriation, not passive hearing. Lay up his words in thine heart uses sim (שִׂים, to place/set) with levav (לֵבָב, heart)—the seat of intellect and will in Hebrew anthropology. This echoes Deuteronomy 6:6 and Psalm 119:11 ('Thy word have I hid in mine heart').
Ironically, Eliphaz assumes Job has rejected divine instruction, yet God later vindicates Job and rebukes Eliphaz (42:7). The counsel itself is sound—internalizing God's word is essential (Colossians 3:16)—but Eliphaz wrongly diagnoses Job's condition. True repentance requires genuine sin, not manufactured guilt. This illustrates how even biblically sound advice can wound when misapplied to someone already walking in integrity.
Ironically, Eliphaz assumes Job has rejected divine instruction, yet God later vindicates Job and rebukes Eliphaz (42:7). The counsel itself is sound—internalizing God's word is essential (Colossians 3:16)—but Eliphaz wrongly diagnoses Job's condition. True repentance requires genuine sin, not manufactured guilt. This illustrates how even biblically sound advice can wound when misapplied to someone already walking in integrity.
If thou return to the Almighty, thou shalt be built up, thou shalt put away iniquity far from thy tabernacles.
View commentary
Eliphaz counsels Job: "If thou return to the Almighty, thou shalt be built up." The Hebrew banah (בָּנָה, "built up") evokes construction and restoration—a rebuilding of Job's fortunes. The conditional "if" assumes Job has departed from God, requiring repentance. Eliphaz's theology contains truth: genuine repentance does lead to restoration. Yet he errs in assuming Job's suffering proves Job's sin. Reformed theology distinguishes between (1) suffering as judgment for specific sins (David and Bathsheba), (2) suffering as fatherly discipline (Hebrews 12:6), and (3) suffering as mysterious providence for God's purposes (Job, Joseph). Eliphaz's counsel would be appropriate for category (1) but fails to recognize Job's situation as category (3). This highlights the danger of universal application of particular biblical principles without wisdom to discern contexts.
Then shalt thou lay up gold as dust, and the gold of Ophir as the stones of the brooks. as dust: or, on the dust
View commentary
Then shalt thou lay up gold as dust—Eliphaz promises that repentance will bring prosperity where gold becomes as common as aphar (עָפָר, dust/dirt). The gold of Ophir as the stones of the brooks references Ophir, famed for the finest gold (1 Kings 9:28, 10:11), suggesting it will become as abundant as river pebbles. The Hebrew betsir (בְּצוּר, rock/ore) may indicate gold ore found in streambeds.
Eliphaz preaches a retribution theology: righteousness guarantees material prosperity, suffering proves sin. This 'prosperity gospel' framework collapses under Job's case—his suffering stemmed not from sin but from divine testing (1:8). While Scripture affirms that wisdom often leads to blessing (Proverbs), it also reveals a suffering Servant who enriches others through poverty (Isaiah 53, 2 Corinthians 8:9). Jesus warned against storing up earthly treasures (Matthew 6:19-21), redefining prosperity in kingdom terms.
Eliphaz preaches a retribution theology: righteousness guarantees material prosperity, suffering proves sin. This 'prosperity gospel' framework collapses under Job's case—his suffering stemmed not from sin but from divine testing (1:8). While Scripture affirms that wisdom often leads to blessing (Proverbs), it also reveals a suffering Servant who enriches others through poverty (Isaiah 53, 2 Corinthians 8:9). Jesus warned against storing up earthly treasures (Matthew 6:19-21), redefining prosperity in kingdom terms.
Yea, the Almighty shall be thy defence, and thou shalt have plenty of silver. defence: or, gold plenty: Heb. silver of strength
View commentary
The Almighty shall be thy defence—The Hebrew betser (בֶּצֶר) means fortified place, stronghold, or precious ore. Eliphaz plays on words: instead of hoarding gold ore (betsir, v. 24), Job should find his security in Shaddai (שַׁדַּי, the Almighty) as his betser. Thou shalt have plenty of silver uses to'aphot kesef (תּוֹעֲפוֹת כָּסֶף), literally 'heights/abundances of silver,' suggesting overflowing wealth.
The theology is partially sound: God should be our ultimate security (Psalm 18:2, Proverbs 18:10). However, Eliphaz implies this is conditional on repentance from imaginary sins. True faith trusts God as refuge even when He permits the loss of all earthly securities—the very lesson Job embodies (1:21). Paul learned this paradox: godliness with contentment is great gain, and true riches come through knowing Christ (1 Timothy 6:6, Philippians 3:8).
The theology is partially sound: God should be our ultimate security (Psalm 18:2, Proverbs 18:10). However, Eliphaz implies this is conditional on repentance from imaginary sins. True faith trusts God as refuge even when He permits the loss of all earthly securities—the very lesson Job embodies (1:21). Paul learned this paradox: godliness with contentment is great gain, and true riches come through knowing Christ (1 Timothy 6:6, Philippians 3:8).
For then shalt thou have thy delight in the Almighty, and shalt lift up thy face unto God.
View commentary
For then shalt thou have thy delight in the Almighty—The verb anag (עָנַג) means to take exquisite pleasure or find delight, appearing in Psalm 37:4 ('Delight thyself also in the LORD'). Eliphaz promises that repentance will restore Job's joy in God. Shalt lift up thy face unto God contrasts with shame that makes one cover the face (2 Samuel 19:4). The phrase nasa panim (נָשָׂא פָנִים) indicates bold, confident approach without guilt or fear.
Ironically, Job already delights in God despite suffering—he refuses to curse God (1:21-22, 2:10) and longs for God's presence (23:3). The theology is inverted: Eliphaz thinks repentance leads to delight, but Job demonstrates that delight in God persists through undeserved suffering. The New Testament affirms finding joy in God amid trials (James 1:2-4, 1 Peter 1:6-8), and Christ enables guilty sinners to approach God's throne boldly (Hebrews 4:16).
Ironically, Job already delights in God despite suffering—he refuses to curse God (1:21-22, 2:10) and longs for God's presence (23:3). The theology is inverted: Eliphaz thinks repentance leads to delight, but Job demonstrates that delight in God persists through undeserved suffering. The New Testament affirms finding joy in God amid trials (James 1:2-4, 1 Peter 1:6-8), and Christ enables guilty sinners to approach God's throne boldly (Hebrews 4:16).
Thou shalt make thy prayer unto him, and he shall hear thee, and thou shalt pay thy vows.
View commentary
Thou shalt make thy prayer unto him, and he shall hear thee—The verb shama (שָׁמַע) means to hear with intent to respond, not merely auditory reception. Eliphaz promises restored fellowship where prayer receives answer. Thou shalt pay thy vows uses shalam (שָׁלַם), meaning to complete, fulfill, or make peace—the root of shalom. Vows (neder, נֶדֶר) were conditional promises made to God, expected to be fulfilled when prayers were answered (Psalm 50:14, 116:14).
The bitter irony: Job's prayers seem unanswered throughout the dialogue, yet God ultimately vindicates him and commands the friends to have Job intercede for them (42:8). Job becomes the one whose prayers God hears, while Eliphaz needs Job's mediation. This foreshadows Christ, the suffering righteous one who intercedes for transgressors (Isaiah 53:12, Hebrews 7:25). Sometimes God's silence during suffering precedes vindication and greater ministry.
The bitter irony: Job's prayers seem unanswered throughout the dialogue, yet God ultimately vindicates him and commands the friends to have Job intercede for them (42:8). Job becomes the one whose prayers God hears, while Eliphaz needs Job's mediation. This foreshadows Christ, the suffering righteous one who intercedes for transgressors (Isaiah 53:12, Hebrews 7:25). Sometimes God's silence during suffering precedes vindication and greater ministry.
Thou shalt also decree a thing, and it shall be established unto thee: and the light shall shine upon thy ways.
View commentary
Thou shalt also decree a thing, and it shall be established unto thee—The verb gazar (גָזַר) means to cut, decide, or decree with authority. Eliphaz promises that Job's words will carry creative power once restored to favor. It shall be established uses qum (קוּם), meaning to stand, arise, or be confirmed. The light shall shine upon thy ways employs or (אוֹר, light) symbolizing divine favor, guidance, and blessing (Psalm 97:11, Proverbs 4:18).
This promise borders on the presumptuous—only God decrees and it stands (Psalm 33:9, Isaiah 55:11). While believers' prayers have authority in Christ (John 15:7, 1 John 5:14-15), Eliphaz implies a mechanical relationship: repent, then manipulate God through declarations. Job's experience refutes this: his integrity, not his decrees, matters. True authority comes through submission to God's will (Matthew 6:10, James 4:15), and light shines on our path through God's word, not our words (Psalm 119:105).
This promise borders on the presumptuous—only God decrees and it stands (Psalm 33:9, Isaiah 55:11). While believers' prayers have authority in Christ (John 15:7, 1 John 5:14-15), Eliphaz implies a mechanical relationship: repent, then manipulate God through declarations. Job's experience refutes this: his integrity, not his decrees, matters. True authority comes through submission to God's will (Matthew 6:10, James 4:15), and light shines on our path through God's word, not our words (Psalm 119:105).
When men are cast down, then thou shalt say, There is lifting up; and he shall save the humble person. the humble: Heb. him that hath low eyes
View commentary
Eliphaz promises: 'When men are cast down, then thou shalt say, There is lifting up; and he shall save the humble person.' The verb shaphel (שָׁפֵל, cast down) means to be brought low or humbled. Gavah (גָּוָה, lifting up) suggests exaltation or pride—a difficult phrase variously translated. Shach eynayim (שַׁח עֵינַיִם, humble person) literally means 'lowly of eyes.' Eliphaz promises that if Job repents, God will restore and save him. The promise is true in appropriate contexts (James 4:10, 1 Peter 5:6) but wrongly assumes Job needs such repentance.
He shall deliver the island of the innocent: and it is delivered by the pureness of thine hands. He shall: or, The innocent shall deliver the island
View commentary
Eliphaz concludes: 'He shall deliver the island of the innocent: and it is delivered by the pureness of thine hands.' This final conditional assumes repentance will restore Job. The irony is that Job needs no repentance - he is already innocent. False diagnosis leads to false cure.