King James Version
Job 4
21 verses with commentary
Eliphaz's First Speech: The Innocent Do Not Suffer
Then Eliphaz the Temanite answered and said,
View commentary
Eliphaz begins as the eldest and most sympathetic of Job's friends, yet his theology of retribution will prove inadequate. The dialogues reveal how even well-meaning comfort can wound when it prioritizes theological systems over compassionate presence. True comfort acknowledges mystery rather than offering premature answers.
If we assay to commune with thee, wilt thou be grieved? but who can withhold himself from speaking? to: Heb. a word withhold: Heb. refrain from words?
View commentary
Eliphaz begins tentatively: 'If we assay to commune with thee, wilt thou be grieved?' The Hebrew 'nasa' (assay/venture) and 'la'ah' (be weary/grieved) suggest he fears Job might find speech burdensome. Yet this apparent courtesy masks the coming accusation. Eliphaz's politeness cannot conceal that he will ultimately blame Job for his suffering, demonstrating how even well-intentioned counsel can wound when it lacks divine wisdom (Proverbs 18:2).
Behold, thou hast instructed many, and thou hast strengthened the weak hands.
View commentary
Eliphaz acknowledges Job's past ministry: 'Behold, thou hast instructed many, and thou hast strengthened the weak hands.' The Hebrew 'yasar' (instructed/disciplined) and 'chazaq' (strengthened) indicate Job's former role as spiritual counselor. This makes the irony more painful—Job who strengthened others now cannot strengthen himself. Eliphaz will use this to imply hypocrisy, yet Scripture shows that those who minister to others may themselves need ministry (2 Corinthians 1:3-4).
Thy words have upholden him that was falling, and thou hast strengthened the feeble knees.
View commentary
Eliphaz continues praising Job's past: 'Thy words have upholden him that was falling, and thou hast strengthened the feeble knees.' The imagery of upholding the falling and strengthening weak knees appears elsewhere in Scripture (Isaiah 35:3, Hebrews 12:12) as marks of gospel ministry. Yet Eliphaz will soon argue that Job's current collapse proves his former ministry was hypocritical—a cruel inversion showing how Satan's accusations can find voice even through religious friends.
But now it is come upon thee, and thou faintest; it toucheth thee, and thou art troubled.
View commentary
Eliphaz springs his trap: 'But now it is come upon thee, and thou faintest; it toucheth thee, and thou art troubled.' The Hebrew 'la'ah' (faint) and 'bahal' (troubled/dismayed) accuse Job of failing his own test. Eliphaz's logic is demonic: if Job were truly righteous, he would endure suffering without distress. This denies the legitimacy of lament and human emotion, contradicting Scripture's affirmation that even Jesus wept and was troubled (John 11:33-35).
Is not this thy fear, thy confidence, thy hope, and the uprightness of thy ways?
View commentary
Eliphaz asks, 'Is not this thy fear, thy confidence, thy hope, and the uprightness of thy ways?' This could be read two ways: either asking if Job's former piety is now his confidence, or accusing Job's piety of being shallow. The Hebrew allows both readings. Eliphaz seems to suggest Job's faith was merely external righteousness rather than genuine trust, anticipating Satan's accusation. This shows how suffering provides opportunity for false teachers to doubt others' salvation.
Remember, I pray thee, who ever perished, being innocent? or where were the righteous cut off?
View commentary
Eliphaz articulates the retribution theology that will dominate the friends' speeches: 'who ever perished, being innocent? or where were the righteous cut off?' His rhetorical questions assume the innocent never suffer and the righteous never perish. The Hebrew uses zakhar (זָכַר, remember/recall) implying Eliphaz appeals to universal experience and wisdom tradition. This theology contains partial truth—sin does bring consequences—but fails as comprehensive explanation. Eliphaz cannot conceive of innocent suffering, making Job's situation incomprehensible except as evidence of hidden sin.
Even as I have seen, they that plow iniquity, and sow wickedness, reap the same.
View commentary
Eliphaz's doctrine of retribution - 'they that plow iniquity, and sow wickedness, reap the same' - represents conventional wisdom that sin always produces visible consequences. While containing truth (Galatians 6:7), this theology cannot explain innocent suffering. The friends' failure is not false doctrine but misapplication.
By the blast of God they perish, and by the breath of his nostrils are they consumed. by the breath: that is, by his anger
View commentary
Eliphaz declares, 'By the blast of God they perish, and by the breath of his nostrils are they consumed.' The Hebrew 'neshamah' (breath/blast) suggests God's powerful judgment. Eliphaz assumes all suffering is divine judgment for sin, making Job's suffering proof of hidden wickedness. This is the central error of all three friends—conflating consequence with causation. While sin does bring judgment, not all suffering results from personal sin (John 9:3).
The roaring of the lion, and the voice of the fierce lion, and the teeth of the young lions, are broken.
View commentary
Eliphaz uses animal imagery: 'The roaring of the lion, and the voice of the fierce lion, and the teeth of the young lions, are broken.' Lions represent powerful wicked people who oppress others. The Hebrew 'nathats' (broken) suggests God violently destroys the powerful wicked. Eliphaz implies Job must be such a one, since he's suffering God's destruction. This shows how even accurate theology (God does judge the wicked) can be misapplied to falsely accuse the innocent.
The old lion perisheth for lack of prey, and the stout lion's whelps are scattered abroad.
View commentary
Eliphaz continues the lion metaphor: 'The old lion perisheth for lack of prey, and the stout lion's whelps are scattered abroad.' The imagery suggests that even if the powerful wicked seem secure, they ultimately perish. Their children (whelps) are scattered, losing their inheritance. Eliphaz subtly implies Job's loss of children proves he was a 'lion'—a powerful oppressor now justly judged. This is cruel theology that adds spiritual accusation to material suffering.
Now a thing was secretly brought to me, and mine ear received a little thereof. secretly: Heb. by stealth
View commentary
Eliphaz claims a supernatural revelation ('a thing was secretly brought to me') to validate his theology. The mysterious nighttime vision adds authority to his argument but reveals pride - assuming his experience represents ultimate truth. God's later rebuke (42:7) shows that spiritual experiences must align with divine revelation.
In thoughts from the visions of the night, when deep sleep falleth on men,
View commentary
Eliphaz claims special revelation: 'In thoughts from the visions of the night, when deep sleep falleth on men.' The Hebrew 'tardemah' (deep sleep) is the same word used for Adam's sleep (Genesis 2:21) and Abraham's deep sleep during the covenant (Genesis 15:12), suggesting divine revelation. Eliphaz claims his theology comes from God Himself, making it more difficult for Job to refute. This reveals how false teachers often claim special authority for their erroneous doctrines.
Fear came upon me, and trembling, which made all my bones to shake. came: Heb. met all: Heb. the multitude of
View commentary
Eliphaz describes his vision: 'Fear came upon me, and trembling, which made all my bones to shake.' The Hebrew 'pachad' (fear) and 'ra'adah' (trembling) suggest terror, while 'pagar' (meet/encounter) indicates unexpected confrontation. Eliphaz's physical response—bones shaking—supposedly validates his revelation's divine origin. Yet Scripture shows that dramatic experiences don't guarantee true revelation (Matthew 7:22-23). God's word must be tested against God's revealed character.
Then a spirit passed before my face; the hair of my flesh stood up:
View commentary
Eliphaz continues: 'Then a spirit passed before my face; the hair of my flesh stood up.' The Hebrew 'ruach' (spirit) could be divine or demonic. The physical response—hair standing up—indicates terror rather than peace. Notably, God's revelations to prophets often begin with 'fear not' (Daniel 10:12, Luke 1:13), while demonic encounters produce unqualified terror. Eliphaz's vision lacks the divine comfort and clarity that marks genuine revelation from God.
It stood still, but I could not discern the form thereof: an image was before mine eyes, there was silence, and I heard a voice, saying, there: or, I heard a still voice
View commentary
Eliphaz reports, 'It stood still, but I could not discern the form thereof: an image was before mine eyes, there was silence, and I heard a voice.' The inability to discern the form suggests either overwhelming glory or deliberate obscurity. The 'silence' (Hebrew 'demamah') before the voice parallels Elijah's experience (1 Kings 19:12), but where God's voice brought comfort to Elijah, this voice will deliver accusation. Form without content clarity marks false revelation.
Shall mortal man be more just than God? shall a man be more pure than his maker?
View commentary
Eliphaz's question 'Shall mortal man be more just than God? shall a man be more pure than his maker?' uses comparative language challenging Job's implied accusations against divine justice. The Hebrew enosh (אֱנוֹשׁ) emphasizes human frailty and mortality, while gever (גֶּבֶר) denotes a strong man. The rhetorical structure assumes the answer 'No'—creatures cannot exceed their Creator in justice or purity. This argument is theologically sound but misapplied: Job hasn't claimed to be more just than God, only that he hasn't committed sins worthy of his suffering.
Behold, he put no trust in his servants; and his angels he charged with folly: and his: or, nor in his angels, in whom he put light
View commentary
The vision's message: 'Behold, he put no trust in his servants; and his angels he charged with folly.' This statement is partially true—angels are creatures and can rebel (2 Peter 2:4)—but Eliphaz misapplies it. He'll argue that if God cannot trust angels, He certainly cannot trust humans, making all human suffering deserved judgment. This logic denies grace and implies salvation is impossible. True Reformed theology affirms God's elect are preserved precisely because God's trust rests on Christ's righteousness, not our own.
How much less in them that dwell in houses of clay, whose foundation is in the dust, which are crushed before the moth?
View commentary
Eliphaz continues: 'How much less in them that dwell in houses of clay, whose foundation is in the dust, which are crushed before the moth?' The 'houses of clay' refers to human bodies (2 Corinthians 5:1). Eliphaz argues from lesser to greater: if angels can fall, how much more humans! The moth comparison suggests humans are crushed as easily as moths. This is true anthropology—humans are frail—but false soteriology—it denies that God's power preserves His elect.
They are destroyed from morning to evening: they perish for ever without any regarding it. destroyed: Heb. beaten in pieces
View commentary
Eliphaz declares, 'They are destroyed from morning to evening: they perish for ever without any regarding it.' The Hebrew 'kathath' (destroyed/beaten down) and 'abad' (perish) emphasize complete destruction. 'Without any regarding it' suggests people die unnoticed and unmourned. Eliphaz implies Job is experiencing this—suffering divine destruction that proves his hidden wickedness. This denies God's attentiveness to His people (Matthew 10:29-31) and misunderstands the purpose of suffering.
Doth not their excellency which is in them go away? they die, even without wisdom.
View commentary
Eliphaz concludes: 'Doth not their excellency which is in them go away? they die, even without wisdom.' Human 'excellency' (Hebrew 'yether'—abundance/cord) is temporary. The phrase 'die without wisdom' suggests people perish without understanding why—implying Job's suffering proves his spiritual ignorance. Yet this contradicts God's own assessment (Job 1:8). Eliphaz's vision delivers a message of hopeless human depravity without grace—technically true about fallen humanity but false about God's redemptive work.