King James Version
Job 6
30 verses with commentary
Job's Reply: My Complaint Is Just
But Job answered and said,
View commentary
Job's response begins with 'But Job answered and said'—the Hebrew 'anah' (answered) indicates formal rebuttal. Job won't accept Eliphaz's accusations silently. This models appropriate response to false teaching: the suffering shouldn't passively accept blame for tragedies they didn't cause. Reformed theology affirms that while submission to God's sovereignty is righteous, submission to false accusations is not required.
Oh that my grief were throughly weighed, and my calamity laid in the balances together! laid: Heb. lifted up
View commentary
Job wishes his grief could be 'thoroughly weighed' and his calamity 'laid in the balances together,' using legal/commercial imagery. This appeal to objective measurement reveals Job's conviction that his suffering is disproportionate to any possible sin. The metaphor anticipates divine justice weighing all things fairly.
For now it would be heavier than the sand of the sea: therefore my words are swallowed up. my words: that is, I want words to express my grief
View commentary
Job acknowledges his words have been rash: 'For now it would be heavier than the sand of the sea: therefore my words are swallowed up.' The Hebrew 'tala'' (swallow up/rash) admits his speech has been unrestrained. But Job defends this—his grief outweighs the sand of the sea, so passionate expression is proportionate to his suffering. This models honest acknowledgment of emotional speech while defending its legitimacy given the circumstances. Lament isn't sin, even when it's intense.
For the arrows of the Almighty are within me, the poison whereof drinketh up my spirit: the terrors of God do set themselves in array against me.
View commentary
Job describes God's 'arrows' within him and the 'poison' drinking up his spirit - vivid imagery of divine assault. The terrors of God 'set themselves in array' (military language) against him. This brutal honesty about experiencing God as enemy rather than friend models authentic lament.
Doth the wild ass bray when he hath grass? or loweth the ox over his fodder? when he: Heb. at grass?
View commentary
Job asks rhetorical questions: 'Doth the wild ass bray when he hath grass? or loweth the ox over his fodder?' Animals only cry out when they lack necessities. Job's point: his complaints aren't groundless grumbling but legitimate response to genuine deprivation. The Hebrew 'na'aq' (bray) and 'ga'ah' (low) are animal cries of distress. Job implies his friends treat him like an animal complaining over nothing when in fact he's been stripped of everything that makes life bearable.
Can that which is unsavoury be eaten without salt? or is there any taste in the white of an egg?
View commentary
Job continues: 'Can that which is unsavoury be eaten without salt? or is there any taste in the white of an egg?' The Hebrew 'tapel' (unsavoury/tasteless) describes food lacking flavor—unbearable to eat. Job's metaphor: his life has become flavorless, unbearable. His friends offer platitudes (tasteless food) when he needs genuine comfort (salt). This critiques shallow religious responses to suffering that offer clichés rather than substantive help. True comfort must engage real pain, not offer generic advice.
The things that my soul refused to touch are as my sorrowful meat.
View commentary
Job declares: 'The things that my soul refused to touch are as my sorrowful meat.' Things he once rejected (perhaps referring to Eliphaz's accusations, or his suffering itself) have become his unavoidable 'food.' The Hebrew 'davah' (sorrowful/sickening) and 'lehem' (bread/meat) suggest being forced to consume what nauseates. Job is forced to daily digest suffering and false accusations—to live with what his soul rejects. This pictures the involuntary nature of suffering.
Oh that I might have my request; and that God would grant me the thing that I long for! the thing: Heb. my expectation
View commentary
Job wishes for death: 'Oh that I might have my request; and that God would grant me the thing that I long for!' The Hebrew 'she'elah' (request) and 'tiqvah' (hope/expectation) reveal Job's deepest desire—that God would grant his wish. The next verse clarifies this wish is for death. Job appeals directly to God rather than to the 'saints' Eliphaz mockingly suggested (5:1). This models appropriate prayer even in despair—bringing honest desires to God while ultimately submitting to His will.
Even that it would please God to destroy me; that he would let loose his hand, and cut me off!
View commentary
Job's request: 'Even that it would please God to destroy me; that he would let loose his hand, and cut me off!' The Hebrew 'dakak' (destroy/crush) and 'batsa'' (cut off) are violent terms. Job asks God to finish what He started—to complete his destruction rather than prolonging his agony. The phrase 'let loose his hand' suggests God is restraining His full judgment. Job would prefer swift death to prolonged suffering, yet notably he asks God to do this rather than taking his own life.
Then should I yet have comfort; yea, I would harden myself in sorrow: let him not spare; for I have not concealed the words of the Holy One.
View commentary
Job explains why death would comfort him: 'Then should I yet have consolation; yea, I would harden myself in sorrow: let him not spare; for I have not concealed the words of the Holy One.' Death would bring 'consolation' (Hebrew 'nechamah'—comfort) because Job has not denied God. The phrase 'not concealed the words of the Holy One' indicates Job has maintained orthodox faith despite suffering. His comfort in death would be knowing he died faithful—he hasn't cursed God as Satan predicted (1:11, 2:5).
What is my strength, that I should hope? and what is mine end, that I should prolong my life?
View commentary
Job asks: 'What is my strength, that I should hope? and what is mine end, that I should prolong my life?' The rhetorical questions challenge Eliphaz's advice to hope for restoration. Job's 'strength' (Hebrew 'koach'—power/capacity) is exhausted; his 'end' (Hebrew 'qets'—conclusion/limit) offers nothing to anticipate. Job argues that hope requires some basis—either strength to endure or a desirable outcome ahead. Seeing neither, he questions why he should continue. This is honest wrestling with despair, not sinful denial of God.
Is my strength the strength of stones? or is my flesh of brass? of brass: Heb. brasen?
View commentary
Job continues: 'Is my strength the strength of stones? or is my flesh of brass?' The rhetorical questions emphasize human frailty. Job isn't stone or brass—he's flesh, vulnerable and limited. Eliphaz's exhortations ignore Job's human limitations. This challenges the stoic ideal that the wise should be unmoved by circumstance, instead affirming that embodied humans legitimately feel pain. Reformed anthropology recognizes human frailty while pointing to God's strength perfected in weakness (2 Corinthians 12:9).
Is not my help in me? and is wisdom driven quite from me?
View commentary
Job concludes: 'Is not my help in me? and is wisdom driven quite from me?' The Hebrew allows two readings: either Job has no help within himself and wisdom has fled, or he's questioning Eliphaz's implication that this is so. Most likely Job admits he has no internal resources left—no help and no wisdom. This radical honesty about spiritual bankruptcy positions Job paradoxically for divine help, since God gives grace to the humble who acknowledge need (James 4:6).
To him that is afflicted pity should be shewed from his friend; but he forsaketh the fear of the Almighty. is afflicted: Heb. melteth
View commentary
Job indicts his friends: 'To him that is afflicted pity should be shewed from his friend' - even if he 'forsaketh the fear of the Almighty.' This radical statement prioritizes compassion over theological correction. True friendship offers presence before answers, comfort before correction.
My brethren have dealt deceitfully as a brook, and as the stream of brooks they pass away;
View commentary
Job accuses his friends: 'My brethren have dealt deceitfully as a brook, and as the stream of brooks they pass away.' A wadi (seasonal stream) flows during rain but dries up when needed most. Job's friends seemed supportive initially (2:11-13) but now, when he most needs comfort, they've dried up—offering only accusations. The Hebrew 'bagad' (dealt deceitfully/treacherously) is strong language, suggesting betrayal. This warns against fair-weather friendship that fails in crisis.
Which are blackish by reason of the ice, and wherein the snow is hid:
View commentary
Job elaborates: 'Which are blackish by reason of the ice, and wherein the snow is hid.' The imagery describes streams dark with ice melt and hidden snow—suggesting abundance. Job's friends appeared to have deep reserves of wisdom and comfort (like snow-fed streams), but this proved illusory. The Hebrew 'qadar' (blackish/dark) may suggest troubled waters, foreshadowing the contaminated counsel that flows from them. Appearances of wisdom don't guarantee actual help.
What time they wax warm, they vanish: when it is hot, they are consumed out of their place. vanish: Heb. are cut off when: Heb. in the heat thereof consumed: Heb. extinguished
View commentary
Job continues: 'What time they wax warm, they vanish: when it is hot, they are consumed out of their place.' Summer heat dries the streams—exactly when travelers need water most. Similarly, the heat of Job's trials has evaporated his friends' support. The Hebrew 'chamam' (wax warm/hot) and 'tsamath' (vanish/are consumed) describe complete disappearance. This models the failure of human comfort when divine comfort is needed—friends can sit with us, but ultimately only God can sustain through fire (Isaiah 43:2).
The paths of their way are turned aside; they go to nothing, and perish.
View commentary
Job describes the consequences: 'The paths of their way are turned aside; they go to nothing, and perish.' Travelers who rely on deceptive wadis are led astray and die. The Hebrew 'arach' (paths/caravans) suggests groups led to destruction by following unreliable guides. Job's friends are such guides—their theological counsel leads to 'nothing' (Hebrew 'tohu'—waste/emptiness, the same word describing pre-creation chaos in Genesis 1:2). False theology produces spiritual death, not life.
The troops of Tema looked, the companies of Sheba waited for them.
View commentary
Job continues: 'The troops of Tema looked, the companies of Sheba waited for them.' Tema and Sheba were important trade routes in Arabia. These experienced caravans 'looked' (Hebrew 'nabat'—gazed intently) and 'waited' (Hebrew 'qavah'—hoped expectantly) for the streams. Even the experienced are deceived by deceptive wadis. Similarly, Job (no fool about theology) expected genuine comfort from his friends but was disappointed. This warns that even mature believers can be misled by plausible but false counsel.
They were confounded because they had hoped; they came thither, and were ashamed.
View commentary
Job concludes: 'They were confounded because they had hoped: they came thither, and were ashamed.' The Hebrew 'bosh' (confounded/ashamed) and 'chapher' (ashamed/disappointed) emphasize the humiliation of misplaced hope. The caravans' confidence in the streams led to deadly disappointment. Job feels similarly about his friends—he hoped in their comfort but received accusations instead. This warns against putting ultimate hope in human counsel rather than God, who never disappoints those who hope in Him (Romans 5:5).
For now ye are nothing; ye see my casting down, and are afraid. ye are: or, ye are like to them: Heb. to it nothing: Heb. not
View commentary
Job applies the metaphor: 'For now ye are nothing; ye see my casting down, and are afraid.' The friends are 'nothing' (Hebrew 'lo'—not/nothing), just like the dried-up stream. They see Job's calamity and fear it could happen to them, so they distance themselves by blaming Job. The Hebrew 'yare'' (afraid) reveals self-protective motive—if Job's suffering results from his sin, then their own prosperity proves their righteousness and safety. This exposes how fear drives false theology.
Did I say, Bring unto me? or, Give a reward for me of your substance?
View commentary
Job asks: 'Did I say, Bring unto me? or, Give a reward for me of your substance?' The rhetorical questions point out that Job never asked for material help—he only wanted comfort. The Hebrew 'yahab' (bring/give) and 'shachad' (reward/bribe) emphasize that Job made no financial demands. His complaint isn't that friends didn't provide money but that they didn't provide comfort. This distinguishes between material and spiritual needs—Job's poverty was circumstantial, but his friends' failure to comfort was relational betrayal.
Or, Deliver me from the enemy's hand? or, Redeem me from the hand of the mighty?
View commentary
Job's rhetorical questions reveal the depth of his desperation and the futility of his friends' counsel. The Hebrew 'patsal' (פָּצַל) for 'deliver' carries the connotation of rescue or snatching away from danger, while 'padah' (פָּדָה) for 'redeem' implies payment of a ransom price. Job is essentially asking his companions: 'Can you actually do anything to help me?' These questions expose the limits of human aid when facing divine sovereignty. Job recognizes that his affliction comes from a 'mighty' one—an implicit acknowledgment that God Himself is the source of his suffering. This verse demonstrates Job's growing awareness that his crisis is fundamentally theological, not merely circumstantial. No human intervention can address what God has ordained, foreshadowing the New Testament truth that only God can redeem from ultimate bondage (Romans 3:24).
Teach me, and I will hold my tongue: and cause me to understand wherein I have erred.
View commentary
Teach me, and I will hold my tongue: and cause me to understand wherein I have erred. Job responds to his friends' accusations with remarkable openness to correction if they can demonstrate genuine fault. The Hebrew verb yarah (יָרָה, "teach me") means to instruct, direct, or point out—the same root used for Torah (teaching/law). Job requests genuine instruction, not accusation. "I will hold my tongue" (acharish, אַחֲרִישׁ) means to be silent, cease speaking—Job promises to accept correction if shown legitimate error.
"Cause me to understand" (havinu, הָבִינוּ) uses a verb meaning to perceive, discern, or comprehend with insight. Job doesn't reject rebuke categorically but demands specificity: "wherein I have erred" (ma shagiti, מַה־שָּׁגִיתִי) asks what specific sin he has committed. The verb shagah (שָׁגָה) means to go astray, err unintentionally, or make a mistake—suggesting inadvertent sin rather than willful rebellion.
This verse models humble wisdom combined with integrity. Job remains open to instruction while refusing to confess non-existent sins. His friends have offered general accusations—that suffering proves sin—without identifying actual transgressions. Job's response teaches that genuine repentance requires conviction of specific sin, not vague guilt manufactured to explain suffering. The passage demonstrates that maintaining innocence when falsely accused is not pride but truth-telling, a principle vindicated when God declares Job spoke rightly (42:7).
"Cause me to understand" (havinu, הָבִינוּ) uses a verb meaning to perceive, discern, or comprehend with insight. Job doesn't reject rebuke categorically but demands specificity: "wherein I have erred" (ma shagiti, מַה־שָּׁגִיתִי) asks what specific sin he has committed. The verb shagah (שָׁגָה) means to go astray, err unintentionally, or make a mistake—suggesting inadvertent sin rather than willful rebellion.
This verse models humble wisdom combined with integrity. Job remains open to instruction while refusing to confess non-existent sins. His friends have offered general accusations—that suffering proves sin—without identifying actual transgressions. Job's response teaches that genuine repentance requires conviction of specific sin, not vague guilt manufactured to explain suffering. The passage demonstrates that maintaining innocence when falsely accused is not pride but truth-telling, a principle vindicated when God declares Job spoke rightly (42:7).
How forcible are right words! but what doth your arguing reprove?
View commentary
Job acknowledges truth's power: 'How forcible are right words!' but challenges his friends' application: 'what doth your arguing reprove?' The distinction between truth and its proper application remains crucial - correct theology wrongly applied becomes false comfort.
Do ye imagine to reprove words, and the speeches of one that is desperate, which are as wind?
View commentary
Job accuses his friends of misinterpreting his words of despair as mere 'wind' (ruach, רוּחַ)—empty, meaningless utterance. The verb 'imagine' (chashab, חָשַׁב) means to devise or plan, suggesting his friends are deliberately constructing arguments against him rather than offering compassionate understanding. Job identifies himself as 'desperate' (ya'ash, יָאַשׁ), one who has lost hope—a state that requires grace, not condemnation. This verse addresses a critical pastoral failure: treating the sufferer's anguished cries as theological errors to be corrected rather than as legitimate expressions of pain. Job's friends commit the error of prioritizing doctrinal precision over love, assuming that suffering always indicates specific sin. Reformed theology recognizes that while maintaining truth is essential, we must also exercise compassion toward those whose suffering produces temporary despair, as even Christ quoted Psalm 22:1 from the cross.
Yea, ye overwhelm the fatherless, and ye dig a pit for your friend. ye overwhelm: Heb. ye cause to fall upon
View commentary
Job's accusation intensifies with two vivid metaphors of betrayal. 'Overwhelm' (naphal, נָפַל) literally means to cause to fall or cast lots over, suggesting his friends would exploit even orphans for personal gain. 'Dig a pit' (karah, כָּרָה) evokes the hunter's trap, a premeditated act of destruction against one who should be protected. The progression from 'fatherless' to 'friend' is devastating—Job claims his companions would harm both the defenseless stranger and their intimate ally. This hyperbolic language expresses Job's perception that his friends' theological assault feels worse than physical violence. By prioritizing their doctrinal framework over Job's actual condition, they commit a form of spiritual violence. This verse foreshadows Jesus's teaching that religious leaders can burden people rather than help them (Matthew 23:4), and James's warning that faith without works—including compassion—is dead (James 2:15-17).
Now therefore be content, look upon me; for it is evident unto you if I lie. evident: Heb. before your face
View commentary
After his sharp rebuke, Job appeals for honest examination. 'Be content' (ya'al, יָאַל) means to be willing or to resolve, calling for a deliberate choice to truly look at him. 'Look upon me' (panah, פָּנָה) means to turn the face toward, demanding direct personal attention rather than abstract theological debate. The phrase 'it is evident unto you' (literally 'before your face') emphasizes that Job's integrity should be obvious upon honest inspection. The conditional 'if I lie' (kazab, כָּזַב) challenges them to find actual deception in his claims of innocence. This verse models a crucial aspect of suffering righteously—Job maintains his integrity while still engaging his accusers. He doesn't retreat into self-pity but instead invites scrutiny, confident that truth will vindicate him. This confidence in one's own uprightness before God, while maintaining humility, reflects the biblical balance between godly self-awareness and pride.
Return, I pray you, let it not be iniquity; yea, return again, my righteousness is in it. in it: that is, in this matter
View commentary
Job pleads 'Return' (shub, שׁוּב) twice—a call for repentance or change of direction, ironically reversing the expected relationship where the sinner should repent. Job demands his friends reconsider their position, warning 'let it not be iniquity' (avelah, עַוְלָה)—unrighteousness or injustice. This is bold: Job suggests that continuing their false accusations would itself be sin. The declaration 'my righteousness is in it' (tsedaqah, צְדָקָה) asserts that Job's claim of innocence is itself a matter of righteousness—he has a moral obligation to maintain the truth about his relationship with God. This paradox challenges simplistic retribution theology: sometimes maintaining one's claim of innocence is more righteous than false confession. Reformed theology recognizes that while we are sinners who deserve judgment, there is also a legitimate righteousness that comes through faith and sanctification, which we must not deny to appear humble.
Is there iniquity in my tongue? cannot my taste discern perverse things? my taste: Heb. my palate
View commentary
Job concludes his defense with two rhetorical questions emphasizing his moral discernment. 'Iniquity in my tongue' (avelah, עַוְלָה) asks whether he has spoken unjustly or falsely. 'Cannot my taste discern perverse things' (chavvah, הַוָּה) uses the metaphor of palate or taste—the ability to distinguish wholesome from corrupt, truth from falsehood. The Hebrew 'taste' (chek, חֵךְ) refers to the organ that detects flavor, suggesting Job has a developed moral sense that immediately recognizes evil, just as the tongue detects bitter from sweet. This verse asserts Job's sanctified conscience and moral clarity. Reformed theology affirms that while our conscience can be seared or corrupted by sin (1 Timothy 4:2), the regenerate believer develops increasing discernment through the Spirit and Scripture (Hebrews 5:14). Job's confidence in his moral discernment isn't arrogance but the fruit of his faithful walk with God, established in verse 1:1.