Zophar's First Speech: A Harsh Accusation of Job

JOB 11 COMME TARY
EDITED BY GLE PEASE
Zophar
1 Then Zophar the aamathite replied:
CLARKE, "Zophar the Naamathite - Of this man and his friends, see Job_
2:11. He is the most inveterate of Job’s accusers, and generally speaks
without feeling or pity. In sour godliness he excelled all the rest. This
chapter and the twentieth comprehends all that he said. He was too crooked
to speak much in measured verse.
GILL, "Then answered Zophar the Naamathite,.... The third of Job's
friends, that came to visit him; see Gill on Job_2:11; and who perhaps might
be the youngest, since his turn was to speak last; and he appears to have less
modesty and prudence, and more fire and heat in him; than his other
friends; though he might be the more irritated by observing, that their
arguments were baffled by Job, and had no manner of effect on him, to
cause him to recede from his first sentiments and conduct:
HE RY, " Poor Job's wound's were yet bleeding, his sore still runs and ceases not,
but none of his friends bring him any oil, any balm; Zophar, the third, pours into
them as much vinegar as the two former had done. I. He exhibits a very high charge
against Job, as proud and false in justifying himself, Job 11:1-4. II. He appeals to
God for his conviction, and begs that God would take him to task (Job 11:5) and
that Job might be made sensible,
Those that have a mind to fall out with their brethren, and to fall foul upon them,
find it necessary to put the worst colours they can upon them and their
performances, and, right or wrong, to make them odious. We have read and
considered Job's discourses in the foregoing chapters, and have found them full of

good sense and much to the purpose, that his principles are right, his reasonings
strong, many of his expressions weighty and very considerable, and that what there
is in them of heat and passion a little candour and charity will excuse and overlook;
and yet Zophar here invidiously represents him, 1. As a man that never considered
what he said, but uttered what came uppermost, only to make a noise with the
multitude of words, hoping by that means to carry his cause and run down his
reprovers: Should not the multitude of words be answered? Truly, sometimes it is no
great matter whether it be or no; silence perhaps is the best confutation of
impertinence and puts the greatest contempt upon it. Answer not a fool according to
his folly. But, if it be answered, let reason and grace have the answering of it, not
pride and passion. Should a man full of talk (margin, a man of lips, that is all tongue,
vox et præterea nihil--mere voice) be justified? Should he be justified in his loquacity,
as in effect he is if he be not reproved for it? o, for in the multitude of words there
wanteth not sin. Should he be justified by it? Shall many words pass for valid pleas?
Shall he carry the day with the flourishes of language? o, he shall not be accepted
with God, or any wise men, for his much speaking, Matthew 6:7. 2. As a man that
made no conscience of what he said--a liar, and one that hoped by the impudence of
lies to silence his adversaries (should thy lies make men hold their peace?)--a mocker,
one that bantered all mankind, and knew how to put false colours upon any thing,
and was not ashamed to impose upon every one that talked with him: When thou
mockest shall no man make thee ashamed? Is it not time to speak, to stem such a
violent tide as this? Job was not mad, but spoke the words of truth and soberness,
and yet was thus misrepresented. Eliphaz and Bildad had answered him, and said
what they could to make him ashamed; it was therefore no instance of Zophar's
generosity to set upon a man so violently who was already thus harassed. Here were
three matched against one.
JAMISO , "Job_11:1-20. First speech of Zophar.
K&D, "When Job has concluded his long speech, Zophar, the third and
most impetuous of the friends, begins. His name, if it is to be explained
according to the Arabic Esauitish name elelelel-assfarassfarassfarassfar,
(Note: Vid., Abulfeda's Historia anteislamica ed. Fleischer, p. 168.)
signifies the yellow one (flavedo), and the name of the place whence he
comes, pleasantness (amaenitas). The very beginning of his speech is
impassioned. He calls Job's speech ‫ים‬ ִ‫ר‬ ָ‫ב‬ ְ‫ד‬‫ים‬ ִ‫ר‬ ָ‫ב‬ ְ‫ד‬‫ים‬ ִ‫ר‬ ָ‫ב‬ ְ‫ד‬‫ים‬ ִ‫ר‬ ָ‫ב‬ ְ‫ד‬ ‫ּב‬‫ר‬‫ּב‬‫ר‬‫ּב‬‫ר‬‫ּב‬‫ר‬, a multitude of words (besides
here, Pro_10:19; Ecc_5:2), and asks whether he is to remain unanswered;
‫ה‬ֶ‫נ‬ ָ‫ע‬ ֵ‫י‬‫ה‬ֶ‫נ‬ ָ‫ע‬ ֵ‫י‬‫ה‬ֶ‫נ‬ ָ‫ע‬ ֵ‫י‬‫ה‬ֶ‫נ‬ ָ‫ע‬ ֵ‫י‬ ‫ּא‬‫ל‬‫ּא‬‫ל‬‫ּא‬‫ל‬‫ּא‬‫ל‬, responsum non feret, from ‫ה‬ָ‫נ‬ ֲ‫ֽע‬ַ‫נ‬‫ה‬ָ‫נ‬ ֲ‫ֽע‬ַ‫נ‬‫ה‬ָ‫נ‬ ֲ‫ֽע‬ַ‫נ‬‫ה‬ָ‫נ‬ ֲ‫ֽע‬ַ‫,נ‬ not the sense of being humbled, but:
to be answered (of the suppliant: to be heard = to receive an answer). He
calls Job ‫ם‬ִ‫י‬ ַ‫ת‬ ָ‫פ‬ ְ‫שׂ‬‫ם‬ִ‫י‬ ַ‫ת‬ ָ‫פ‬ ְ‫שׂ‬‫ם‬ִ‫י‬ ַ‫ת‬ ָ‫פ‬ ְ‫שׂ‬‫ם‬ִ‫י‬ ַ‫ת‬ ָ‫פ‬ ְ‫שׂ‬ ‫ישׁ‬ ִ‫א‬‫ישׁ‬ ִ‫א‬‫ישׁ‬ ִ‫א‬‫ישׁ‬ ִ‫,א‬ a prater (distinct from ‫דברים‬‫דברים‬‫דברים‬‫דברים‬ ‫איש‬‫איש‬‫איש‬‫,איש‬ a ready speaker, Exo_
4:10), who is not in the right, whom one must not allow to have the last
word. The questions, Job_11:2, are followed by another which is not
denoted by the sign of a question, but is only known by the accent: Shall not

thy ‫ים‬ ִ ַ‫ים‬ ִ ַ‫ים‬ ִ ַ‫ים‬ ִ ַ , meaningless speeches (from ‫בדד‬‫בדד‬‫בדד‬‫בדד‬ = ‫בטא‬‫בטא‬‫בטא‬‫,בטא‬ βαττολογεሏβαττολογεሏβαττολογεሏβαττολογεሏνννν), put men (‫ים‬ ִ‫ת‬ ְ‫מ‬‫ים‬ ִ‫ת‬ ְ‫מ‬‫ים‬ ִ‫ת‬ ְ‫מ‬‫ים‬ ִ‫ת‬ ְ‫,מ‬
like other archaisms, e.g., ‫ל‬ ֵ‫ב‬ ֵ‫ל‬ ֵ‫ב‬ ֵ‫ל‬ ֵ‫ב‬ ֵ‫ל‬ ֵ‫ב‬ ֵ , always without the article) to silence, so that
thou darest mock without any one making thee ashamed, i.e., leading thee
on ad absurdum? Thou darest mock God (Hirzel); better Rosenmüller: nos
et Deum. The mockery here meant is that which Zophar has heard in Job's
long speech; mockery at his opponents, in the belief that he is right because
they remain silent. The futt. consec., Job_11:3., describe the conduct of Job
which results from this absence of contradiction. Zophar, in v. 4, does not
take up Job's own words, but means, that one had better have nothing more
to do with Job, as he would some day say and think so and so, he would
consider his doctrine blameless, and himself in relation to God pure. ‫ח‬ ַ‫ק‬ ֶ‫ל‬‫ח‬ ַ‫ק‬ ֶ‫ל‬‫ח‬ ַ‫ק‬ ֶ‫ל‬‫ח‬ ַ‫ק‬ ֶ‫ל‬
occurs only here in this book; it is a word peculiar to the book of Proverbs
(also only Deu_32:2; Isa_29:24), and properly signifies the act of
appropriating, then that which is presented for appropriation, i.e., for
learning: the doctrine (similar to ‫שׁמועה‬‫שׁמועה‬‫שׁמועה‬‫,שׁמועה‬ the hearing, ᅊκοήᅊκοήᅊκοήᅊκοή, and then the
discourse); we see from the words “my doctrine is pure,” which Zophar puts
into the mouth of Job, that the controversy becomes more and more a
controversy respecting known principles.
BENSON, ". Then answered Zophar the Naamathite — How hard is it to
preserve calmness in the heat of disputation! Eliphaz began modestly:
Bildad was a little rougher: but Zophar falls upon Job without mercy.
“Those that have a mind to fall out with their brethren, and to fall foul upon
them, find it necessary to put the worst colours they can upon them and
their performances, and, right or wrong, to make them odious.” Zophar,
highly provoked that Job should dare to call in question a maxim so
universally assented to as that urged by his friends, immediately charges
him home with secret wickedness. He tells him that he makes not the least
doubt, were the real state of his heart laid open, that it would be found God
had dealt very gently with him, Job 11:2-7. That he was highly blameworthy
to pretend to fathom the depths of divine providence, a task to which he was
utterly unequal: that, however his wickedness might be concealed from me,
yet it was open and bare to God’s all-seeing eye; could he therefore imagine
that God would not punish the wickedness he saw? Job 11:7-11. It would
surely be far more becoming in him to submit, and give glory to God, by
making an ample confession and full restitution. In that case, indeed, he
might hope for a return of God’s goodness to him; but the way he was in at
present was the common road of the wicked, whose only hope was
annihilation, Job 11:12-20. — Heath and Dodd.
ELLICOTT, "(1) Zophar, the third of Job’s friends, has a clearly defined
character, distinct from that of the others; he is the ordinary and common-
place moral man, who expresses the thoughts and instincts of the many.
Eliphaz was the poet and spiritual man, who sees visions and dreams;
Bildad was the man who rested on authority and appealed to tradition;
Zophar is the man of worldly wisdom and common sense. In some respects

he is the most offensive of the three. He is astonished that Job has not been
silenced by the replies of the other two, and thinks he can do no less than
help to silence him. Thus he at once begins with “a multitude of words,” and
“full of talk,” and “lies,” and “mockery.” Zophar stands on a lower level, and
drags Job down to it. He refracts his protestations of innocence against
himself, and charges him with iniquity in making them. His longing also to
come into judgment with God (Job 9:32) he turns back upon himself, being
confident that it could not fail to convict him were he to do so.
STRAHA , "Zophar's character is as sharply etched as that of Eliphaz
and of Bildad. His mind has no background of mystery, and
his manner no show of punctilious courtesy. His affinities are
neither with awful revelations nor with hoary traditions. 'He is a
plain orthodox dogmatist, who expresses his views with the aid
of witty, popular proverbs, makes his debating points with a
rough and ready vigour, and is troubled by no misgivings as to
the finality of his faith. Merely incensed by Job's protestations
of innocence and cries for light, he regards him as a sophist
who is seeking to justify himself, a scoffer who needs to be
silenced, a sinner who is receiving merited punishment and not
taking it well. He sincerely wishes that God would feel moved
to give Job a practical lesson of wisdom. But he deprecates
as both impious and futile the attempt to penetrate the divine
secrets of wisdom. Job's speculative questionings seem to him
a mad endeavour to scale the Heavens or sound the depths of
SheoL For himself, he holds that wisdom is made known to
man only on its practical side. Its function is the education
and correction of fools. Its task is accomplished when 'an
empty man gets understanding, and a wild ass's colt is tamed.'

If Job will accept its discipline, and put away his sin, he will
yet forget his misery; but let him take warning that the wicked
man has no way of refuge and his hope is death.
STEDMA Job 11:1-6 RSV)
You can almost see Zophar shaking his fist in righteous indignation in Job's face.
He accuses Job of wordiness, of foolishness, of mockery, of self-righteous smugness.
He says that Job's punishment is richly deserved; that he is only getting what is
coming to him, and not even all of that. What a sweetheart this man is!
He goes on, in Verses 7-12, to describe Job's stupid ignorance, in contrast to God's
deep wisdom and inscrutable ways:
(Job 11:7-12 RSV)
That is, it will never happen. "Anybody as stupid as you, Job, will never get any
help." He lays it on, heavy and hard. Then he closes with a vivid description of the
shining possibilities that were ahead, if Job will only repent:
(Job 11:20 RSV)
Once again there is no identifying with Job's hurt. There is no sense of empathy, of
trying to feel with him the awful torment of mind and spirit that presses him,
squeezes him, and drags from him these agonizing cries into the darkness around.
These men just lay it on him. They see only the cold, analytical logic of it. Zophar, of
course, speaks with a great deal of passion and force, but there is no sense of
offering understanding help, simply the laying on of passionate invective. Once
again these men seem to approach this whole problem from a purely theological
point of view.
This is the difference between theology and the experience of a man taught by the
Spirit. Theology can be very clear and right, but it is all in the head. When you are
dealing with the hurting problems of life, you must add a deeper dimension -- that
compassion that Jesus manifested, that sympathy of touch that identified with the
hurt and opened the door of the spirit to receiving what light might be given
through the words.
The first round ends with Job's sarcastic defense, Chapters 12-14. The first part is
Job's answers to his friends; the second is his prayer before God. (We will leave that
prayer for next week.)
CO STABLE, "Zophar took great offense at what Job had said. He responded
viciously with anaggressiveness that outdid both Eliphaz and Bildad. Zophar was a

dogmatist.
"He . . . attempted heavy handed shock treatment to get through to Job."79
"The aamathite is the least engaging of Job's three friends. There is not a
breath of compassion in his speech. . . . His censorious chiding shows how
little he has sensed Job's hurt. Job's bewilderment and his outbursts are
natural; in them we find his humanity, and our own. Zophar detaches the
words from the man, and hears them only as babble and mockery (verse
2). This is quite unfair. Zophar's wisdom is a bloodless retreat into theory.
It is very proper, theologically familiar and unobjectionable. But it is flat
beer compared with Job's seismic sincerity."80
THOMAS LO GAfter this, Zophar, the third comforter, opens his lips for coarse
vituperation rather than sharp rebuke, and regrets that God Himself does
not feel moved to give a practical lesson of wisdom to the conceited
"prattler," who persists in believing in his own innocence in spite of
the unmistakable judgment of his just Creator and the unanimous testimony
of his candid friends. Job's reply to this vigorous advocate of God is
even more powerful and indignant than any of the foregoing. He repeats
and emphasises his indictment against the Deity. o omnipotent being who
was really just and good could approve, or even connive at, much less
practise, the scandalous injustice which characterises the conduct of the
universe and the so-called moral order, and of which his own particular
grievances are a specimen. ot that the curious spectacle that daily
meets our eye, wherein wickedness and hypocrisy are prosperous and
triumphant while truth and integrity are trampled under foot, is
necessarily incompatible with absolute and eternal justice; it is
irreconcileable only with the attributes of a personal deity, an almighty
and just creator, who would necessarily be responsible for these evils as
for all things else, if he existed. If the world be the work of an
omnipotent maker, its essential moral characteristic partakes of the
nature of his attributes; and the main moral feature of our world is
evil, and not good. This is the ever-recurring refrain of Job's
discourses. or does he hesitate when occasion offers to proclaim his
conviction in the plainest of plain language, for he entertains no fear
of what may further befall him.
COKE, "Zophar reproves Job for justifying himself: he declares God's wisdom to
be unsearchable; but that it would be well with Job, if he would repent.
Before Christ 1645.
Job 11:1. Then answered Zophar— Zophar, highly provoked that Job should dare
to call in question a maxim so universally assented to as that urged by his friends,

immediately charges him home with secret wickedness. He tells him, that he makes
not the least doubt, were the real state of his heart laid open, it would be found that
God had dealt very gently with him; Job 11:2-7. That he was highly blame-worthy
for pretending to fathom the depths of divine Providence, a talk to which he was
utterly unequal; that, however his wickedness might be concealed from men, yet it
was open and bare to God's all-seeing eye. Could he, then, imagine that God would
not punish the wickedness that he saw? Job 11:7-11. That it would surely be far
more becoming in him to submit, and give glory to God, by making an ample
confession and full restitution: in that case, indeed, he might hope for a return of
God's goodness to him; but the way he was in at present was the common road of
the wicked, whose only hope was annihilation; Job 11:12-20. Heath.
BI 1-6, "Then answered Zophar the Naamathite.
The attitude of Job’s friends
In this chapter Zophar gives his first speech, and it is sharper toned than
those which went before. The three friends have now all spoken. Your
sympathies perhaps are not wholly on their side. Yet do not let us misjudge
them, or assail them with the invectives which Christian writers hurled
against them for centuries. Do not say, as has been said by the great
Gregory, that these three men are types of God’s worst enemies, or that they
scarcely speak a word of good, except what they have learned from Job. Is it
not rather true that their words, taken by themselves, are far more devout,
far more fit for the lips of pious, we may even say, of Christian men, than
those of Job? Do they not represent that large number of good and God-
fearing men and women, who do not feel moved or disturbed by the
perplexities of life; and who resent as shallow, or as mischievous, the
doubts to which those perplexities give rise in the minds of others, of the
much afflicted, or the perplexed, or of persons reared in another school
than their own, or touched by influences which have never reached
themselves? So Job’s friends try in their own way to “justify the ways of God
to man”—a noble endeavour, and in doing this, they have already said much
which is not only true, but also most valuable. They have pleaded on their
behalf the teaching, if I may so speak, of their Church, the teaching handed
down from antiquity, and the experiences of God’s people. They have a firm
belief, not only in God’s power, but in His unerring righteousness. They
hold also the precious truth that He is a God who will forgive the sinner, and
take back to His favour him who bears rightly the teaching of affliction.
Surely, so far, a very grand and simple creed. We shall watch their language
narrowly, and we shall still find in it much to admire, much with which to
sympathise, much to treasure and use as a storehouse of Christian thought.
We shall see also where and how it is that they misapplied the most
precious of truths, and the most edifying of doctrines; turned wholesome
food to poison; pressed upon their friend half truths, which are sometimes
the worst of untruths. We shall note also no less that want of true sympathy,
of the faculty of entering into the feelings of men unlike themselves, and of
the power of facing new views or new truths, which has so often in the
history of the Church marred the character and impaired the usefulness of
some of God’s truest servants. We shall see them, lastly, in the true spirit of

the controversialist, grow more and more embittered by the persistency in
error, as they hold it, of him who opposes them. The true subject of this
sacred drama is unveiling itself before our eyes. Has he who serves God a
right to claim exemption from pain and suffering? Is such pain a mark of
God’s displeasure, or may it be something exceedingly different? Must God’s
children in their hour of trial have their thoughts turned to the judgment
that fell on Sodom and Gomorrah, or shall they fix them on “the agony and
bloody sweat” of Him whose coming in the flesh we so soon commemorate?
(Dean Bradley.)
Questionable reproving and necessary teaching
I. Questionable reproof. Reproof is often an urgent duty. It is the hardest act
of friendship, for whilst there are but few men who do not at times merit
reprehension, there are fewer still who will graciously receive, or even
patiently endure a reproving word, and “Considering,” as John Foster has
it, “how many difficulties a friend has to surmount before he can bring,
himself to reprove me, I ought to be much obliged to him for his chiding
words.” The reproof which Zophar, in the first four verses, addressed to Job
suggests two remarks.
1. The charges he brings against Job, if true, justly deserve reproof. What
does he charge him with?
(1) Loquacity. “Should not the multitude of words be answered? and
should not a man full of talk be justified?” As the tree with the most
luxuriant leafage is generally least fruitful, so the man “full of talk” is,
as a rule, most empty. It is ever true that in the “multitude of words
there wanteth not sin,” and “every man should be swift to hear and
slow” to speak. He charges him
(2) With falsehood. “Should thy lies make men hold their peace?” For
“lies,” in the margin we have “devices.” Zophar means to say that
much of what Job said was not according to truth, not fact, but the
ungrounded inventions or fancies of his own mind. He charges him
(3) With irreverence. “And when thou mockest, shall no man make
thee ashamed?”
(4) With hypocrisy. “But thou hast said, My doctrine is pure, and I am
clean in mine eyes.”
2. The charges, if true, could not justify the spirit and style of the
reproof. Considering the high character and the trying circumstances of
Job, and the professions of Zophar as his friend, there is a heartlessness
and an insolence in his reproof most reprehensible and revolting. There
is no real religion in rudeness; there is no Divine inspiration in
insolence. Reproof, to be of any worth, should not merely be deserved,
but should be given in a right spirit, a spirit of meekness, tenderness,
and love. “Reprehension is not an act of butchery, but an act of surgery,”
says Seeker. There are those who confound bluntness with honesty,
insolence with straightforwardness. The true reprover is of a different
metal, and his words fall, not like the rushing hailstorm, but like the

gentle dew.
II. Necessary teaching. These words suggest that kind of teaching which is
essential to the well-being of every man.
1. It is intercourse with the mind of God. “Oh that God would speak, and
open His lips against thee.” The great need of the soul is direct
communication with God. All teachers are utterly worthless unless they
bring God in contact with the soul of the student. If this globe is to be
warmed into life the sun must do it.
2. It is instruction in the wisdom of God. “And that He would show thee
the secrets of wisdom, that they are double to that which is!” God’s
wisdom is profound; it has its “secrets.” God’s wisdom is “double,” it is
many folded; fold within fold, without end.
3. It is faith in the forbearing love of God. “Know therefore that God
exacteth of thee less than thine iniquity deserveth.” (Homilist.)
Multitudinous words
I have always a suspicion of sonorous sentences. The full shell sounds little,
but shows by that little what is within. A bladder swells out more with wind
than with oil. (J. Landor.)
EBC, "A FRESH ATTEMPT TO CONVICT
Job 11:1-20
ZOPHAR SPEAKS
THE third and presumably youngest of the three friends of Job now takes
up the argument somewhat in the same strain as the others. With no wish to
be unfair to Zophar we are somewhat prepossessed against him from the
outset; and the writer must mean us to be so, since he makes him attack Job
as an empty babbler:-
"Shall not the multitude of words be answered?
And shall a man of lips be justified?
Shall thy boastings make people silent,

So that thou mayest mock on, none putting thee to shame?"
True it was, Job had used vehement speech. Yet it is a most insulting
suggestion that he meant little but irreligious bluster. The special note of
Zophar comes out in his rebuke of Job for the mockery, that is, sceptical
talk, in which he had indulged. Persons who merely rehearse opinions are
usually the most dogmatic and take most upon them. Nobody reckons
himself more able to detect error in doctrine, nobody denounces
rationalism and infidelity with greater confidence, than the man whose
creed is formal, who never applied his mind directly to the problems of
faith, and has but a moderate amount of mind to apply. Zophar, indeed, is a
man of considerable intelligence; but he betrays himself. To him Job’s
words have been wearisome. He may have tried to understand the matter,
but he has caught only a general impression that, in the face of what
appears to him clearest evidence, Job denies being any way amenable to
justice. He had dared to say to God, "Thou knowest that I am not wicked."
What? God can afflict a man whom He knows to be righteous! It is a
doctrine as profane as it is novel. Eliphaz and Bildad supposed that they had
to deal with a man unwilling to humble himself in the way of acknowledging
sins hitherto concealed. By pressure of one kind or another they hoped to
get Job to realise his secret transgression. But Zophar has noted the whole
tendency of his argument to be heretical. "Thou sayest, My doctrine is
pure." And what is that doctrine? Why, that thou wast clean in the eyes of
God, that God has smitten thee without cause. Dost thou mean, O Job! to
accuse the Most High of acting in that manner? Oh that God would speak
and open His lips against thee! Thou hast expressed a desire to state thy
case to Him. The result would be very different from thy expectation.
Now, beneath any mistaken view held by sincere persons there is almost
always a sort of foundation of truth; and they have at least as much logic as
satisfies themselves. Job’s friends are religious men; they do not
consciously build on lies. One and all they are convinced that God is
invariable in His treatment of men, never afflicting the innocent, always
dealing out judgment in the precise measure of a man’s sin. That belief is
the basis of their creed. They could not worship a God less than absolutely
just. Beginning the religious life with this faith they have clung to it all
along. After thirty or forty years’ experience they are still confident that
their principle explains the prosperity and affliction, the circumstances of
all human beings. But have they never seen anything that did not harmonise
with this view of providence? Have they not seen the good die in youth, and
those whose hearts are dry as summer dust burn to their sockets? Have they
not seen vile schemes prosper, and the schemers enjoy their ill-gotten
power for years? It is strange the old faith has not been shaken at least. But
no! They come to the case of Job as firmly convinced as ever that the Ruler
of the world shows His justice by dispensing joy and suffering in proportion
to men’s good and evil deeds, that whenever trouble falls on any one some
sin must have been committed which deserved precisely this kind and
quantity of suffering.

Trying to get at the source of the belief we must confess ourselves partly at a
loss. One writer suggests that there may have been in the earlier and
simpler conditions of society a closer correspondence between wrong doing
and suffering than is to be seen nowadays. There may be something in this.
But life is not governed differently at different epochs, and the theory is
hardly proved by what we know of the ancient world. No doubt in the
history of the Hebrews, which lies behind the faith attributed to the friends
of Job, a connection may be traced between their wrong doing as a nation
and their suffering as a nation. When they fell away from faith in God their
obedience languished, their vigour failed, the end of their existence being
lost sight of, and so they became the prey of enemies. But this did not apply
to individuals. The good suffered along with the careless and wicked in
seasons of national calamity. And the history of the people of Israel would
support such a view of the Divine government so long only as national
transgression and its punishment were alone taken into account. Now,
however, the distinction between the nation and the individual has clearly
emerged. The sin of a community can no longer explain satisfactorily the
sufferings of a member of the community, faithful among the unbelieving.
But the theory seems to have been made out rather by the following course
of argument. Always in the administration of law and the exercise of
paternal authority, transgression has been visited with pain and
deprivation of privilege. The father whose son has disobeyed him inflicts
pain, and, if he is a judicious father, makes the pain proportionate to the
offence. The ruler, through his judges and officers, punishes transgression
according to some orderly code. Malefactors are deprived of liberty; they
are fined or scourged, or, in the last resort, executed. Now, having in this
way built up a system of law which inflicts punishment with more or less
justice in proportion to the offence imputed, men take for granted that what
they do imperfectly is done perfectly by God. They take for granted that the
calamities and troubles He appoints are ordained according to the same
principle, with precisely the same design, as penalty is inflicted by a father,
a chief, or a king. The reasoning is contradicted in many ways, but they
disregard the difficulties. If this is not the truth, what other explanation is
to be found? The desire for happiness is keen; pain seems the worst of evils:
and they fail to see that endurance can be the means of good. Feeling
themselves bound to maintain the perfect righteousness of God they affirm
the only theory of suffering that seems to agree with it.
Now, Zophar, like the others full of this theory, admits that Job may have
failed to see his transgression. But in that case the sufferer is unable to
distinguish right from wrong. Indeed, his whole contention seems to
Zophar to show ignorance. If God were to speak and reveal the secrets of
His holy wisdom, twice as deep, twice as penetrating as Job supposes, the
sins he has denied would be brought home to him. He would know that God
requires less of him than his iniquity deserves. Zophar hints, what is very
true, that our judgment of our own conduct is imperfect. How can we trace
the real nature of our actions, or know how they look to the sublime wisdom

of the Most High? Job appears to have forgotten all this. He refuses to allow
fault in himself. But God knows better.
Here is a cunning argument to fortify the general position. It could always
be said of a case which presented difficulties that, while the sufferer seemed
innocent, yet the wisdom of God, "twofold in understanding" (Job 11:6) as
compared with that of man, perceived guilt and ordained the punishment.
But the argument proved too much, for Zophar’s own health and comfort
contradicted his dogma. He took for granted that the twofold wisdom of the
Almighty found nothing wrong in him. It was a naive piece of forgetfulness.
Could he assert that his life had no flaw? Hardly. But then, why is he in
honour? How had he been able to come riding on his camel, attended by his
servants, to sit in judgment on Job? Plainly, on an argument like his, no
man could ever be in comfort or pleasure, for human nature is always
defective, always in more or less of sin. Repentance never overtakes the
future. Therefore God who deals with man on a broad basis could never
treat him save as a sinner, to be kept in pain and deprivation. If suffering is
the penalty of sin we ought all, notwithstanding the atonement of Christ, to
be suffering the pain of the hour for the defect of the hour, since "all have
sinned, and fall short of the glory of God." At this rate man’s life-again
despite the atonement-would be continued trial and sentence. From all
which it is evident that the world is governed on another plan than that
which satisfied Job’s friends.
Zophar rises to eloquence in declaring the unsearchableness of Divine
wisdom.
"Canst thou find the depths of Eloah?
Canst thou reach to the end of Shaddai?
Heights of heaven!
What canst thou do?
Deeper than Sheol!
What canst thou know?
The measure thereof is longer than the earth,

Broader is it than the sea."
Here is fine poetry; but with an attempt at theology the speaker goes astray,
for he conceives God as doing what he himself wishes to do, namely, prove
Job a sinner. The Divine greatness is invoked that a narrow scheme of
thought may be justified. If God pass by, if He arrest, if He hold assize, who
can hinder Him? Supreme wisdom and infinite power admit no questioning,
no resistance. God knoweth vain or wicked men at a glance. One look and all
is plain to him. Empty man will be wise in these matters "when a wild ass’s
colt is born a man."
Turning from this, as if in recollection that he has to treat Job with
friendliness, Zophar closes like the other two with a promise. If Job will put
away sin, his life shall be established again, his misery forgotten or
remembered as a torrent of spring when the heat of summer comes.
Thou shalt forget thy misery;
Remember it as waters that have passed by;
And thy life shall rise brighter than noonday;
And if darkness fall, it shall be as the morning.
Thou shalt then have confidence because there is hope;
Yea, look around and take rest in safety,
Also lie down and none shall affray thee,
And many shall make suit unto thee.
But the eyes of the wicked fail;
For them no way of escape.
And their hope is to breathe out the spirit.

Rhetoric and logic are used in promises given freely by all the speakers. But
not one of them has any comfort for his friend while the affliction lasts. The
author does not allow one of them to say, God is thy friend, God is thy
portion now; He still cares for thee. In some of the psalms a higher note is
heard: "There be many that say, Who will shew us any good? LORD, lift
Thou up the light of Thy countenance upon us. Thou hast put gladness in my
heart, more than in the time that their corn and their wine increased." The
friends of Job are full of pious intentions, yet they state a most unspiritual
creed, the foundation of it laid in corn and wine. Peace of conscience and
quiet confidence in God are not what they go by. Hence the sufferer finds no
support in them or their promises. They will not help him to live one day,
nor sustain him in dying. For it is the light of God’s countenance he desires
to see. He is only mocked and exasperated by their arguments; and in the
course of his own eager thought the revelation comes like a star of hope
rising on the midnight of his soul.
Though Zophar fails like the other two, he is not to be called a mere echo. It
is incorrect to say that, while Eliphaz is a kind of prophet and Bildad a sage,
Zophar is a commonplace man without ideas. On the contrary, he is a
thinker, something of a philosopher, although, of course, greatly restricted
by his narrow creed. He is stringent, bitter indeed. But he has the merit of
seeing a certain force in Job’s contention which he does not fairly meet. It is
a fresh suggestion that the answer must lie in the depth of that penetrating
wisdom of the Most High, compared to which man’s wisdom is vain. Then,
his description of the return of blessedness and prosperity, when one
examines it, is found distinctly in advance of Eliphaz’s picture in moral
colouring and gravity of treatment. We must not fail to notice, moreover,
that Zophar speaks of the omniscience of God more than of His
omnipotence; and the closing verse describes the end of the wicked not as
the result of a supernatural stroke or a sudden calamity, but as a process of
natural and spiritual decay.
The closing words of Zophar’s speech point to the finality of death, and bear
the meaning that if Job were to die now of his disease the whole question of
his character would be closed. It is important to note this, because it enters
into Job’s mind and affects his expressions of desire. Never again does he
cry for release as before. If he names death it is as a sorrowful fate he must
meet or a power he will defy. He advances to one point after another of
reasserted energy, to the resolution that, whatever death may do, either in
the underworld or beyond it, he will wait for vindication or assert his right.
PARKER, "The First Speech of Zophar.
III.
Job 11

There is a vital expression in the fourth verse, "For thou hast said, My
doctrine is pure." We have come upon an age which cares little for doctrine.
We are, in fact, somewhat afraid of that antiquated term. We prefer
anecdote to doctrine, and concrete instances to elaborate spiritual
demonstrations. An anecdote will be remembered and rehearsed when the
finest argument ever invented by human genius, and ever supported by
human eloquence, is utterly forgotten. ""T is true: and pity "t is "t is true."
For what is life without doctrine;—that is to say, without teaching, without
sound intellectual conviction, without high moral purpose, without that
solid and dignified reason which is at once the crown and glory of human
life? Why this contempt as regards doctrine, when every action ought to be
an embodied philosophy? Every attitude we take upon every question ought
to express an inward and spiritual conviction. Where the doctrine is wrong
the life cannot be right We are not now speaking of purely metaphysical
doctrine, but of that vital teaching which affects all thought and the
outgoing of all life: and if a man is operating upon wrong philosophies,
wrong principles, mistaken convictions, all the issue of his life is but an
elaborate and mischievous mistake. In this instance, however, Zophar
corrected Job because he understood that Job was making the whole case
only a matter of words. If by "doctrine" you understand nothing but words,
then any contempt you may award to it may be justly bestowed. Zophar
thought that Job was refining too much, balancing words, inventing and
colouring sentences, and making a kind of verbal rainbow round about
himself: therefore he took to a severe chastisement of the patriarch. Zophar
was mistaken; Job was really basing his argument on those sound and
eternal principles which give security to life and hope to all futurity.
GUZIK, "A. Zophar criticizes Job for his complaining.
1. (Job 11:1-6) Zophar tells Job that he actually deserves far worse from God.
Then Zophar the Naamathite answered and said:
“Should not the multitude of words be answered?
And should a man full of talk be vindicated?
Should your empty talk make men hold their peace?
And when you mock, should no one rebuke you?

For you have said,
‘My doctrine is pure,
And I am clean in your eyes.’
But oh, that God would speak,
And open His lips against you,
That He would show you the secrets of wisdom!
For they would double your prudence.
Know therefore that God exacts from you
Less than your iniquity deserves.”
a. Zophar the Naamathite: This friend of Job’s speaks the least of them all
(only here and in Job 20), but perhaps he speaks the most arrogantly and
confrontationally to Job. “Zophar was a severe man. Like Bildad he lacked
compassion and was ruthlessly judgmental.” (Smick)
i. “He is the most inveterate of Job’s accusers, and generally speaks without
feeling or pity. In sour godliness he excelled all the rest. This chapter and
the twentieth comprehends all that he said. He was too crooked to speak
much in measured verse.” (Clarke)
b. Should a man full of talk be vindicated? Zophar had enough of Job’s
protests to innocence. In his mind, all of Job’s eloquent complaining shows
him to be nothing more than a man full of talk, one who should not be
vindicated. Therefore, Zophar will continue with a rebuke of Job (when you
mock, should no one rebuke you?).
i. We sense that Job’s friends are losing patience with him. In a remarkable
display of friendship they sat with him for seven silent days (Job 2:13). They
only spoke in response to Job’s agonizing as recorded in Job chapter 3.
Then they tried to help Job see that it must be some sin on his part that has

prompted this great calamity in his life, but Job refused to see it. The more
they insisted and the more Job stubbornly denied it, the more frustrated
they became.
ii. “Clearly the discussion is heating up. It may be in Zophar’s nature to be
caustic and abrupt, or it may just be that things have reached such an
impasse that all the friends are now prepared to level direct accusations at
Job.” (Mason)
iii. “Job’s bewilderment and his outbursts are natural; in them we find his
humanity, and our own. Zophar detaches the words from the man, and
hears them only as babble and mockery.” (Andersen)
c. For you have said, “My doctrine is pure, and I am clean in your eyes”:
Zophar did not truthfully represent Job’s words here. Job did not claim to
be pure and clean, as if he were sinless and perfect; but in fairness to
Zophar, we must say that Job claimed to be in the right and this was
virtually a claim to be pure and clean in this matter.
i. Job knew there was no special or specific sin on his part behind the loss of
his children, his health, his servants, and his material wealth (Job 7:20).
Even so, Job knew that he was a sinner in a general sense and could not be
considered righteous compared to God.
Therefore my words have been rash (Job 6:3)
Why then do You not pardon my transgression, and take away my iniquity?
(Job 7:21)
How can a man be righteous before God? (Job 9:2)
Though I were righteous, my own mouth would condemn me; though I were
blameless, it would prove me perverse. (Job 19:20)
I know that You will not hold me innocent (Job 9:28)
ii. Therefore, we understand Job’s claims to be blameless (Job 9:21-22) to
refer to the fact that there was indeed no special or particular sin on his
part that prompted his great suffering. Indeed, even God recognized Job as
blameless in this sense (Job 1:1; Job 1:8; Job 2:3).

d. Know therefore that God exacts from you less than your iniquity
deserves: In the thinking of Zophar, not only was Job wrong to claim to be
either pure or clean, he was actually so guilty before God to deserve far
worse than he had suffered.
i. Zophar here sounds like a man who has carefully studied a particular
theological idea (especially in Reformed Theology) known as total
depravity. In this idea, the sinfulness of man – both inherited from Adam
and actually practiced by the individual – is so great that one could say
regarding every suffering of life, “know therefore that God exacts from you
less than your iniquity deserves.”
ii. Bradley captures the idea of Zophar: “ ‘So far from being unjust and
cruel, God has spared thee the full measure of thy deserts.’ He puts forward,
that is, for the first time in its naked force, the full and logical conclusion of
the creed which he and his friends held as an essential tenet of their faith.”
iii. Unfortunately, Zophar is among the miserable comforters (Job 16:2)
who were actually quite wrong in their analysis and advice (Job 42:7).
Whatever the merits of the theological idea of total depravity, it did not
speak to Job’s circumstance at all.
PULPIT, "Zophar, the Naamathite, the third of Job's comforters (Job 2:11),
and probably the youngest of them, now at last takes the word, and delivers
an angry and violent speech. He begins by accusing Job of having spoken at
undue length, and at the same time, boastfully and mockingly (verses 2-4).
He then expresses a wish that God would take Job at his word, and really
answer him, since he is sure that the result would be to show that Job had
been punished much less than he. deserved to be (verses 5, 6). Job's
complaints against the justice of God's dealings he meets by an assertion of
God's unsearchableness and perfect wisdom, which he contrasts with the
folly of man (verse 7-12). Finally, he suggests that a stricken man, being
guilty, should humble himself, put away his iniquity, and turn to God, in
which ease he may expect a restoration to favour. Otherwise, he has only to
look for wretchedness, failure, and despair (verses 18-20).
Job 11:1
Then answered Zophar the Naamathite, and said (see the comment on Job
2:11).

2 "Are all these words to go unanswered?
Is this talker to be vindicated?
BAR ES, "And should a man full of talk be justified - Margin, as in Hebrew
“of lips.” The phrase is evidently a Hebraism, to denote a great talker - a
man of mere lips, or empty sound. Zophar asks whether such a man could
be justified or vindicated. It will be recollected that taciturnity was with the
Orientals a much greater virtue than with us, and that it was regarded as
one of the proofs of wisdom. The wise man with them was he who sat down
at the feet of age, and desired to learn; who carefully collected the maxims
of former times; who diligently observed the course of events; and who
deliberated with care on what others had to say. Thus, Solomon says, “In
the multitude of words there wanteth not sin: but he that refraineth his lips
is wise;” Pro_10:19; so Jam_1:19, “let every man be swift to hear, slow to
speak.” It was supposed that a man who said much would say some foolish
or improper things, and hence, it was regarded as a proof of prudence to be
distinguished for silence. In Oriental countries, and it may be added also, in
all countries that we regard as uncivilized, it is unusual and disrespectful to
be hasty in offering counsel, to be forward to speak, or to be confident and
bold in opinion; see the notes at Job_32:6-7. It was for reasons such as these
that Zophar maintained that a man who was full of talk could not be
justified in it; that there was presumptive proof that he was not a safe man,
or a man who could be vindicated in all that he said.
CLARKE, "Should not the multitude of words be answered? - Some
translate, “To multiply words profiteth nothing.”
And should a man full of talk be justified - ‫שפתים‬ ‫איש‬‫שפתים‬ ‫איש‬‫שפתים‬ ‫איש‬‫שפתים‬ ‫איש‬ ish sephathayimish sephathayimish sephathayimish sephathayim, “a man
of lips,” a proper appellation for a great talker: he is “a man of lips,” i.e., his
lips are the only active parts of his system.
GILL, "Should not the multitude of words be answered?.... Zophar
insinuates, that Job was a mere babbler, a talkative man, that had words,
but no matter; said a great deal, but there was nothing in what he said; that
his words were but wind, yea, in effect that he was a fool, who is commonly
full of words, and is known by the multitude of them; and whereas he might
think to bear down all before him in this way, and to discourage persons

from giving him an answer; this Zophar suggests should not be the case, nor
would he be deterred hereby from giving one, which he now undertook:
some supply it, as Bar Tzemach, "should not a man of a multitude of words"
(s), &c. a verbose man, a dealer in many words, and nothing else, should not
he be "answered?" if he uses nothing but words, and there is no argument in
them, they seem not to deserve an answer, unless it be to show the
emptiness of them, expose a man's folly, and pull down his pride and vanity:
and should a man full of talk be justified? or "a man of lips" (t), an eloquent
man, or one that affects to be so; a man of a fine speech, who artfully
colours things, and makes a show of wisdom and truth, when there are
neither in what he says; is such a man to be justified? he would seem to be in
his own eyes at least, if not in the eyes of others, if not answered; he would
be thought to have carried his point, to have had the better of the argument,
and to have got the victory by dint of words and power of oratory; for this is
not to be understood of justification before God; for as no man is heard and
accepted by him for his "much speaking", as was the opinion of the
Heathens, so neither are any justified on account of their many words, any
more than their many works; since, in a multitude of words there are often
not only much folly and weakness, but vanities and sins, Pro_10:19; there is
indeed a sense in which a man is justified by his words, Mat_12:37; when he
confesses Christ, and professes to be justified by his righteousness, and
believes in that, and pleads it as his justifying righteousness; he is justified
by that righteousness; which is contained in the confession and profession
of his faith; but this is not here meant.
HE RY 2-3, "It is sad to see what intemperate passions even wise and
good men are sometimes betrayed into by the heat of disputation, of which
Zophar here is an instance. Eliphaz began with a very modest preface, Job_
4:2. Bildad was a little more rough upon Job, Job_8:2. But Zophar falls
upon him without mercy, and gives him very bad language: Should a man
full of talk be justified? And should thy lies make men hold their peace? Is
this the way to comfort Job? No, nor to convince him neither. Does this
become one that appears as an advocate for God and his justice? Tantaene
animis coelestibus irae? - In heavenly breasts can such resentment dwell?
Those that engage in controversy will find it very hard to keep their temper.
All the wisdom, caution, and resolution they have will be little enough to
prevent their breaking out into such indecencies as we here find Zophar
guilty of.
I. He represents Job otherwise than what he was, Job_11:2, Job_11:3. He
would have him thought idle and impertinent in his discourse, and one that
loved to hear himself talk; he gives him the lie, and calls him a mocker; and
all this that it might be looked upon as a piece of justice to chastise him.
Those that have a mind to fall out with their brethren, and to fall foul upon
them, find it necessary to put the worst colours they can upon them and
their performances, and, right or wrong, to make them odious. We have
read and considered Job's discourses in the foregoing chapters, and have
found them full of good sense and much to the purpose, that his principles
are right, his reasonings strong, many of his expressions weighty and very
considerable, and that what there is in them of heat and passion a little

candour and charity will excuse and overlook; and yet Zophar here
invidiously represents him, 1. As a man that never considered what he said,
but uttered what came uppermost, only to make a noise with the multitude
of words, hoping by that means to carry his cause and run down his
reprovers: Should not the multitude of words be answered? Truly,
sometimes it is no great matter whether it be or no; silence perhaps is the
best confutation of impertinence and puts the greatest contempt upon it.
Answer not a fool according to his folly. But, if it be answered, let reason
and grace have the answering of it, not pride and passion. Should a man full
of talk (margin, a man of lips, that is all tongue, vox et praeterea nihil -
mere voice) be justified? Should he be justified in his loquacity, as in effect
he is if he be not reproved for it? No, for in the multitude of words there
wanteth not sin. Should he be justified by it? Shall many words pass for
valid pleas? Shall he carry the day with the flourishes of language? No, he
shall not be accepted with God, or any wise men, for his much speaking,
Mat_6:7. 2. As a man that made no conscience of what he said - a liar, and
one that hoped by the impudence of lies to silence his adversaries (should
thy lies make men hold their peace?) - a mocker, one that bantered all
mankind, and knew how to put false colours upon any thing, and was not
ashamed to impose upon every one that talked with him: When thou
mockest shall no man make thee ashamed? Is it not time to speak, to stem
such a violent tide as this? Job was not mad, but spoke the words of truth
and soberness, and yet was thus misrepresented. Eliphaz and Bildad had
answered him, and said what they could to make him ashamed; it was
therefore no instance of Zophar's generosity to set upon a man so violently
who was already thus harassed. Here were three matched against one.
JAMISO , "Zophar assails Job for his empty words, and indirectly, the
two friends, for their weak reply. Taciturnity is highly prized among
Orientals (Pro_10:8, Pro_10:19).
BE SO , "Job 11:2. Should not the multitude of words be answered? — Truly,
sometimes it should not. Silence is the best confutation of impertinence, and puts the
greatest contempt upon it. Zophar means, Dost thou think to carry thy cause by thy
long, tedious discourses, consisting of empty words, without weight or reason? And
should a man full of talk be justified? — Shall we, by our silence, seem to approve of
thy errors? Or, shall we think thy cause the better because thou usest more words
than we do?
COKE, "Job 11:2. Should not the multitude of words be answered?— The three
friends of Job, though they all agree in persecuting him, yet differ somewhat in their
character. The speeches of Eliphaz appear artful and insinuating; those of Bildad,
grave and mild; of Zophar, fierce and violent: the two former had observed some
decorum in their reprehensions of Job; the zeal of the last transports him beyond all
bounds: Should not the multitude, &c. to the end of Job 11:6. Strange rashness and
presumption! thus to pronounce upon a point of which he could not possibly be a

judge. But it happened here, as usual, that this speaker, who sets out with the
greatest heat, is the first whose arguments are spent. For, after this vehement
speech, he makes but one reply, and it is over with him. See on chap. 25: and Peters.
Geoff Thomas , YOU TALK TOO MUCH.
"That is the first thing Zophar says. We are urged, if we would be wise grief
counsellors, to listen intently to what people in distress say, not to interrupt or direct
the flow of the conversation. Let them open their hearts while we are patient and
silent. We are reminded that they are suffering from stress. Zophar had never
attended a grief counselling course. He has neither little human compassion nor
common sense. A good listener is not only popular everywhere, but after a while he
knows something too. Yet, "All these words . . . " Zophar mutters darkly (v.2).
"Will no one rebuke you?" Zophar cries (v. 3), and we all know who will. Zophar is
the self appointed rebuker, and the first thing he says concerning Job's speech of
chapters nine and ten, where Job has protested that he is a good man, is in effect,
"Shut up Job. You talk too much."
PULPIT, "Should not the multitude of words be answered? A "multitude of words"
is often reproved in Scripture, and taken as a sign of either folly (Ecclesiastes 5:8) or
sin (Proverbs 10:19). Job had certainly been somewhat unduly verbose, and laid
himself open to the taunt hero launched against him; but neither had brevity been
studied by his other friends in their previous answers (Job 4:1-21; Job 5:1-27; Job
8:1-22.), nor is it greatly studied by Zophar here. And should a man full of talk be
justified? literally, a man of lips' which may mean either "a great talker" or "a man
who makes many professions." There is a widespread prejudice against a great
orator, and a widespread notion that a good cause does net need many words.
3 Will your idle talk reduce men to silence?
Will no one rebuke you when you mock?
BAR ES, "BARNES The Septuagint tenders the whole passage, “he who
speaketh much should also hear in turn; else the fine speaker (εᆕεᆕεᆕεᆕλαλοςλαλοςλαλοςλαλος

eulaloseulaloseulaloseulalos) thinketh himself just. - Blessed be the short-lived offspring of
woman. Be not profuse of words, for there is no one that judges against
thee, and do not say that I am pure in works and blameless before him?”
How this was made out of the Hebrew, or what is its exact sense, I am
unable to say. There can be no doubt, I think, that our present translation is
altogether too harsh, and that Zophar by no means designs to charge Job
with uttering lies. The Hebrew word commonly used for lies, is wholly
different from that which is used here. The word here (‫בד‬‫בד‬‫בד‬‫בד‬ badbadbadbad) denotes
properly “separation;” then a part; and in various combinations as a
preposition, “alone separate.” “besides.” Then the noun means empty talk,
vain boasting; and then it may denote lies or falsehood. The leading idea is
that of separation or of remoteness from anything, as from prudence,
wisdom, propriety, or truth. It is a general term, like our word “bad,” which
I presume has been derived from this Hebrew word (‫בד‬‫בד‬‫בד‬‫בד‬ badbadbadbad), or from the
Arabic “bad.” In the plural (‫בדים‬‫בדים‬‫בדים‬‫בדים‬ badîbadîbadîbadîymymymym) it is rendered “liars” in Isa_44:25;
Jer_50:36; “lies” in Job_11:3; Isa_16:6; Jer_48:30; and “parts” in Job_
41:12. It is also often rendered “staves,” Exo_27:6; Exo_25:14-15, Exo_
25:28, et sap, at. That it may mean “lies” here I admit, but it may also mean
talk that is aside from propriety, and may refer here to a kind of discourse
that was destitute of propriety, empty, vain talk.
And when thou mockest - That-is, “shalt thou be permitted to use the
language of reproach and of complaint, and no one attempt to make thee
sensible of its impropriety?” The complaints and arguments of Job he
represented as in fact mocking God.
Shall no man make thee ashamed? - Shall no one show thee the
impropriety of it, and bring thy mind to a sense of shame for what it has
done? This was what Zophar now proposed to do.
CLARKE, "Should thy lies make men hold their peace? - This is a very
severe reproof, and not justified by the occasion.
And when thou mockest - As thou despisest others, shall no man put thee
to scorn? Zophar could never think that the solemn and awful manner in
which Job spoke could be called bubbling, as some would translate the term
‫לעג‬‫לעג‬‫לעג‬‫לעג‬ laaglaaglaaglaag. He might consider Job’s speech as sarcastic and severe, but he could
not consider it as nonsense.
GILL, "Should thy lies make men hold their peace?.... By which he means,
either lies in common, untruths wilfully told, which are sins of a scandalous
nature, which good men will not dare to commit knowingly; and to give a
man, especially such a man, the lie, is very indecent; and to charge a man
falsely with it is very injurious: or else doctrinal ones, errors in judgment,
falsehoods concerning God and things divine; which not only are not of the
truth, for no lie is of the truth, but are against it; and indeed where the case
is notorious in either sense, men should not be silent, or be as men deaf and
dumb, as the word (u) signifies, as if they did not hear the lies told them, or
were unconcerned about them, or connived at them: David would not suffer
a liar to be near him, nor dwell in his house, Psa_101:7; a common liar

ought to be reproved and rejected; and doctrinal liars and lies should be
opposed and resisted; truth should be contended for, and nothing be done
against it, but everything for it: it is criminal to be silent at either sort of
lies; nor should the bold and blustering manner in which they are told
frighten men from a detection of them, which perhaps is what may be
hinted at here (w); some render the words (x), "should thine iniquity
frighten men?" they are not so strong and nervous as to appear
unanswerable, and deter men from undertaking a reply unto them:
and, when thou mockest, shall no man make thee ashamed? here Job is
represented as a mocker of God, which is inferred from Job_10:3; and at his
friends, and the arguments they used, and the advice they gave, which is
concluded from his words in Job_6:25; and as one hardened, who was not,
and could not be made ashamed of what he had said against either, by
anything that had been offered for his reproof and conviction: to make a
mock of God, or a jest of divine things, or scoff at good men, is very bad;
indeed it is the character of the worst of men; and such should be made
ashamed, if possible, by exposing their sin and folly; and if not here, they
will be covered with shame hereafter, when they shall appear before God,
the Judge of all, who will not be mocked, and shall see the saints at the right
hand of Christ, whom they have jeered and scoffed at: but this was not Job's
true character; he was no mocker of God nor of good men; in this he was
wronged and injured, and had nothing of this sort to be made ashamed of.
BENSON, "Job 11:3. Should thy lies — That is, thy false opinions and
assertions, both concerning thyself and thy own innocence, and concerning
the counsels and ways of God, make men hold their peace? — As if thy
arguments were unanswerable. And when thou mockest — Both God and us,
and our friendly and faithful counsels; shall no man make thee ashamed? —
By discovering thy errors and follies.
JAMISO , "lies — rather, “vain boasting” (Isa_16:6; Jer_48:30). The
“men” is emphatic; men of sense; in antithesis to “vain boasting.”
mockest — upbraidest God by complaints, “shall no man make thee
ashamed?”
PULPIT, "Should thy lies make men hold their peace? or, thy boastings
(see the Revised Version; and comp. Isaiah 16:5; Jeremiah 48:30). Zophar
probably refers to such passages as Job 9:20, Job 9:35; Job 10:7, Job 10:15,
where Job might seem to have justified himself altogether. And when thou
mockest, shall no man make thee ashamed I It is not quite easy to see what
in Job's speeches up to this point could be regarded as "mocking." But
perhaps Zophar would have thus characterized the following passages: Job
6:13, Job 6:14, Job 6:25-27; Job 7:12; Job 9:22-24.

4 You say to God, 'My beliefs are flawless
and I am pure in your sight.'
BARNES "And I am clean in thine eyes - In the eyes of God, or in his sight.
This was a false charge. Job had never maintained that he was perfect
(compare the notes at Job_9:20); he had only maintained that he was not
such a sinner as his friends maintained that he was, a hypocrite, and a man
eminent for guilt. His lack of absolute perfection he was ever ready to admit
and mourn over.
CLARKE, ""my assumptions." What I assume or take as right, and just, and true,
are so; the precepts which I have formed, and the practice which I have founded on
them, are all correct and perfect. Job had not exactly said, My doctrine and way of
life are pure, and I am clean in thine eyes; but he had vindicated himself from their
charges of secret sins and hypocrisy, and appealed to God for his general uprightness
and sincerity: but Zophar here begs the question, in order that he may have
something to say, and room to give vent to his invective.
GILL, "For thou hast said,.... What follows is produced to support the
charge, especially of lying, which seems to be founded on what he had said
in Job_6:10,
my doctrine is pure; free from error, unadulterated, unmixed, not blended
with Heathenish principles and human doctrines; but tending to purity of
heart and life, as every word of God, and doctrine that comes from him, is
pure, yea, very pure, like silver purified seven times; and such was Job's
doctrine which he "received" from God, "took" (y) up and professed, taught
and delivered to others, so far as was agreeable to the will of God, and the
revelation he had then made: and it appears that Job had very clear and
sublime notions of God, of his being and perfections, of his works of nature,
providence, and grace; of Christ his living Redeemer, of redemption and
justification by him, and of the resurrection of the dead; and had purer and
better notions of divine things than his friends had, and spoke better things
of God than they did, God himself being witness, Job_42:7; some interpret
this of the purity of his life and conversation: he is further charged with

saying:
and I am clean in thine eyes: speaking to God, as Jarchi observes; and
indeed so he was, and every believer is, in an evangelic sense; as to the new
man, which is created in righteousness and true holiness, is without sin,
and cannot commit it; and as washed from all sin in the blood of Christ, and
as clothed with his righteousness, in which the saints are faultless before
the throne, and are unblamable and irreprovable in the sight of God: but
Zophar's meaning is, that Job had asserted that he was entirely free from
sin in himself, was wholly without it, and did not commit any; and had
appealed to God, as knowing it to be true; and which he seems to have
grounded on what he had said, Job_10:7; through a mistake of his sense;
which was not that he was free from sin entirely, but from any gross
notorious sin, or from a wicked course of living, and particularly from the
sin of hypocrisy, his friends suggested he was guilty of; otherwise he
confesses himself a sinner, and prays for the pardon of his sins, and
disclaims perfection in himself; see Job_7:20; and indeed there is no
creature in itself clean in the sight of God, either angels or men; every man
is naturally unclean; no good man is without sin, without the being,
indwelling, and commission of it; nor will any truly gracious man say he is;
he knows otherwise, and acknowledges it; he that says he is must be an
ignorant man, or a vain and pharisaical man; yea, must not say the truth:
some have suspected the first part of the words to be Job's, "and I am
clean": and the other Zophar's explaining them; that is, "in thine eyes" (z);
in his own apprehension, as if he had a high and conceited opinion of
himself.
HE RY,"He charges Job with saying that which he had not said (Job 11:4): Thou
hast said, My doctrine is pure. And what if he had said so? It was true that Job was
sound in the faith, and orthodox in his judgment, and spoke better of God than his
friends did. If he had expressed himself unwarily, yet it did not therefore follow but
that his doctrine was true. But he charges him with saying, I am clean in thy eyes.
Job had not said so: he had indeed said, Thou knowest that I am not wicked (Job
10:7); but he had also said, I have sinned, and never pretended to a spotless
perfection. He had indeed maintained that he was not a hypocrite as they charged
him; but to infer thence that he would not own himself a sinner was an unfair
insinuation. We ought to put the best construction on the words and actions of our
brethren that they will bear; but contenders are tempted to put the worst.
JAMISO , "doctrine — purposely used of Job’s speeches, which sounded
like lessons of doctrine (Deu_32:2; Pro_4:2).
thine — addressed to God. Job had maintained his sincerity against his
friends suspicions, not faultlessness.
BENSON, "Job 11:4. Thou hast said, My doctrine — Concerning God and

his providence; is pure — That is, true and certain. The word ‫לקחי‬‫לקחי‬‫לקחי‬‫,לקחי‬ likchi,, likchi,, likchi,, likchi,
according to R. Levi, signifies consuetudo mea, et dispositio mea, my way and manner of life;according to R. Levi, signifies consuetudo mea, et dispositio mea, my way and manner of life;according to R. Levi, signifies consuetudo mea, et dispositio mea, my way and manner of life;according to R. Levi, signifies consuetudo mea, et dispositio mea, my way and manner of life;
the same that St. Paul callsthe same that St. Paul callsthe same that St. Paul callsthe same that St. Paul calls η βιωσις µου ; my way of life. See Chappelow. And I am clean inη βιωσις µου ; my way of life. See Chappelow. And I am clean inη βιωσις µου ; my way of life. See Chappelow. And I am clean inη βιωσις µου ; my way of life. See Chappelow. And I am clean in
thine eyesthine eyesthine eyesthine eyes ———— I am innocent before God: I have not sinned either by my former actions or byI am innocent before God: I have not sinned either by my former actions or byI am innocent before God: I have not sinned either by my former actions or byI am innocent before God: I have not sinned either by my former actions or by
my present expressions. But Zophar aggravates and perverts Job’s words; for he did not denymy present expressions. But Zophar aggravates and perverts Job’s words; for he did not denymy present expressions. But Zophar aggravates and perverts Job’s words; for he did not denymy present expressions. But Zophar aggravates and perverts Job’s words; for he did not deny
that he was a sinner in God’s sight; but only that he was a hypocrite or ungodly man, as theythat he was a sinner in God’s sight; but only that he was a hypocrite or ungodly man, as theythat he was a sinner in God’s sight; but only that he was a hypocrite or ungodly man, as theythat he was a sinner in God’s sight; but only that he was a hypocrite or ungodly man, as they
thought him to be.thought him to be.thought him to be.thought him to be.
COFFMAN, ""Thou sayest, My doctrine is pure" (JobCOFFMAN, ""Thou sayest, My doctrine is pure" (JobCOFFMAN, ""Thou sayest, My doctrine is pure" (JobCOFFMAN, ""Thou sayest, My doctrine is pure" (Job 11111111::::4444). Job had not). Job had not). Job had not). Job had not
promulgated any new doctrine, "But Zophar's point in this seems to be that, in rejectingpromulgated any new doctrine, "But Zophar's point in this seems to be that, in rejectingpromulgated any new doctrine, "But Zophar's point in this seems to be that, in rejectingpromulgated any new doctrine, "But Zophar's point in this seems to be that, in rejecting
the theology of his friends, Job was implicitly claiming to have superiorthe theology of his friends, Job was implicitly claiming to have superiorthe theology of his friends, Job was implicitly claiming to have superiorthe theology of his friends, Job was implicitly claiming to have superior
understanding."[understanding."[understanding."[understanding."[1111]]]]
With a friend like Zophar no man would need an enemy. These brutal words,With a friend like Zophar no man would need an enemy. These brutal words,With a friend like Zophar no man would need an enemy. These brutal words,With a friend like Zophar no man would need an enemy. These brutal words,
addressed without feeling either of compassion or sympathy, to Job, of whom Zopharaddressed without feeling either of compassion or sympathy, to Job, of whom Zopharaddressed without feeling either of compassion or sympathy, to Job, of whom Zopharaddressed without feeling either of compassion or sympathy, to Job, of whom Zophar
claimed to be a friend, are unsurpassed for sheer stupidity and cruelty. If his words hadclaimed to be a friend, are unsurpassed for sheer stupidity and cruelty. If his words hadclaimed to be a friend, are unsurpassed for sheer stupidity and cruelty. If his words hadclaimed to be a friend, are unsurpassed for sheer stupidity and cruelty. If his words had
even been true, which they were not, he should have had the grace to keep his moutheven been true, which they were not, he should have had the grace to keep his moutheven been true, which they were not, he should have had the grace to keep his moutheven been true, which they were not, he should have had the grace to keep his mouth
shut instead of telling Job that his terrible sufferings were not only deserved, but thatshut instead of telling Job that his terrible sufferings were not only deserved, but thatshut instead of telling Job that his terrible sufferings were not only deserved, but thatshut instead of telling Job that his terrible sufferings were not only deserved, but that
Job's wickedness demanded even worse sufferings than he was enduring.Job's wickedness demanded even worse sufferings than he was enduring.Job's wickedness demanded even worse sufferings than he was enduring.Job's wickedness demanded even worse sufferings than he was enduring.
Note progression in the speeches of the three friends. Eliphaz spoke only inNote progression in the speeches of the three friends. Eliphaz spoke only inNote progression in the speeches of the three friends. Eliphaz spoke only inNote progression in the speeches of the three friends. Eliphaz spoke only in
generalities, implying that Job was a sinner but not actually saying so. Bildad wentgeneralities, implying that Job was a sinner but not actually saying so. Bildad wentgeneralities, implying that Job was a sinner but not actually saying so. Bildad wentgeneralities, implying that Job was a sinner but not actually saying so. Bildad went
further and flatly declared that Job's children had been destroyed because of their sins.further and flatly declared that Job's children had been destroyed because of their sins.further and flatly declared that Job's children had been destroyed because of their sins.further and flatly declared that Job's children had been destroyed because of their sins.
To all of this, Job replied emphatically that he was not wicked. Then here Zophar theTo all of this, Job replied emphatically that he was not wicked. Then here Zophar theTo all of this, Job replied emphatically that he was not wicked. Then here Zophar theTo all of this, Job replied emphatically that he was not wicked. Then here Zophar the
third friend, "Made a direct attack against Job."[third friend, "Made a direct attack against Job."[third friend, "Made a direct attack against Job."[third friend, "Made a direct attack against Job."[2222] He called him a long winded talker] He called him a long winded talker] He called him a long winded talker] He called him a long winded talker
that mocked God, accusing him of gross sin and wickedness.that mocked God, accusing him of gross sin and wickedness.that mocked God, accusing him of gross sin and wickedness.that mocked God, accusing him of gross sin and wickedness.
Some scholars have viewed Zophar as "a profound theologian,"[Some scholars have viewed Zophar as "a profound theologian,"[Some scholars have viewed Zophar as "a profound theologian,"[Some scholars have viewed Zophar as "a profound theologian,"[3333] but this writer] but this writer] but this writer] but this writer
finds no evidence whatever of any such excellence in Zophar. He was not wise, butfinds no evidence whatever of any such excellence in Zophar. He was not wise, butfinds no evidence whatever of any such excellence in Zophar. He was not wise, butfinds no evidence whatever of any such excellence in Zophar. He was not wise, but
ignorant. He pretended to know God's wisdom, but he didn't. As a personalignorant. He pretended to know God's wisdom, but he didn't. As a personalignorant. He pretended to know God's wisdom, but he didn't. As a personalignorant. He pretended to know God's wisdom, but he didn't. As a personal
representative of the devil in this encounter he adopted the guise of "the roaring lion,"representative of the devil in this encounter he adopted the guise of "the roaring lion,"representative of the devil in this encounter he adopted the guise of "the roaring lion,"representative of the devil in this encounter he adopted the guise of "the roaring lion,"

one of the masks of the evil one; and it is not hard to believe that his attack upon Job'sone of the masks of the evil one; and it is not hard to believe that his attack upon Job'sone of the masks of the evil one; and it is not hard to believe that his attack upon Job'sone of the masks of the evil one; and it is not hard to believe that his attack upon Job's
integrity represented the worst that Satan could bring against God's "perfect man," Job.integrity represented the worst that Satan could bring against God's "perfect man," Job.integrity represented the worst that Satan could bring against God's "perfect man," Job.integrity represented the worst that Satan could bring against God's "perfect man," Job.
COKE, "JobCOKE, "JobCOKE, "JobCOKE, "Job 11111111::::4444. Thou hast said, my doctrine is pure. Thou hast said, my doctrine is pure. Thou hast said, my doctrine is pure. Thou hast said, my doctrine is pure———— The Hebrew signifies my way ofThe Hebrew signifies my way ofThe Hebrew signifies my way ofThe Hebrew signifies my way of
life, my morals, or conduct. Mr. Chappelow rightly observes, that this phrase is the same as islife, my morals, or conduct. Mr. Chappelow rightly observes, that this phrase is the same as islife, my morals, or conduct. Mr. Chappelow rightly observes, that this phrase is the same as islife, my morals, or conduct. Mr. Chappelow rightly observes, that this phrase is the same as is
made use of by St. Paul, Actsmade use of by St. Paul, Actsmade use of by St. Paul, Actsmade use of by St. Paul, Acts 26262626::::4444.... Η'βιωσις µου, my way of life.Η'βιωσις µου, my way of life.Η'βιωσις µου, my way of life.Η'βιωσις µου, my way of life.
ELLICOTT, "(ELLICOTT, "(ELLICOTT, "(ELLICOTT, "(4444) Clean in thine eyes is variously referred to God, to mortal men) Clean in thine eyes is variously referred to God, to mortal men) Clean in thine eyes is variously referred to God, to mortal men) Clean in thine eyes is variously referred to God, to mortal men
(Job(Job(Job(Job 11111111::::3333), and to Job himself (Job), and to Job himself (Job), and to Job himself (Job), and to Job himself (Job 32323232::::1111). The first seems most to be preferred, for at). The first seems most to be preferred, for at). The first seems most to be preferred, for at). The first seems most to be preferred, for at
all events Job had hypothetically spoken of himself as righteous before God (Joball events Job had hypothetically spoken of himself as righteous before God (Joball events Job had hypothetically spoken of himself as righteous before God (Joball events Job had hypothetically spoken of himself as righteous before God (Job
10101010::::15151515). (Comp. Job). (Comp. Job). (Comp. Job). (Comp. Job 9999::::30303030. &c.) Zophar, therefore, who professes superior wisdom,. &c.) Zophar, therefore, who professes superior wisdom,. &c.) Zophar, therefore, who professes superior wisdom,. &c.) Zophar, therefore, who professes superior wisdom,
desires that God would show Job how far short he falls of it: that He would show himdesires that God would show Job how far short he falls of it: that He would show himdesires that God would show Job how far short he falls of it: that He would show himdesires that God would show Job how far short he falls of it: that He would show him
the hidden things, the secrets of wisdom; for sound wisdom is manifold: it has manythe hidden things, the secrets of wisdom; for sound wisdom is manifold: it has manythe hidden things, the secrets of wisdom; for sound wisdom is manifold: it has manythe hidden things, the secrets of wisdom; for sound wisdom is manifold: it has many
aspects, and lies as it were fold over fold in unexpected complexities, defying theaspects, and lies as it were fold over fold in unexpected complexities, defying theaspects, and lies as it were fold over fold in unexpected complexities, defying theaspects, and lies as it were fold over fold in unexpected complexities, defying the
shallow and unscrutinising gaze; and were He to do this, Job would find out to hisshallow and unscrutinising gaze; and were He to do this, Job would find out to hisshallow and unscrutinising gaze; and were He to do this, Job would find out to hisshallow and unscrutinising gaze; and were He to do this, Job would find out to his
dismay that God still credited him part of the penalty due to him.dismay that God still credited him part of the penalty due to him.dismay that God still credited him part of the penalty due to him.dismay that God still credited him part of the penalty due to him.
PULPIT, "For thou hast said, My doctrine is pure. Job had certainly not said this inPULPIT, "For thou hast said, My doctrine is pure. Job had certainly not said this inPULPIT, "For thou hast said, My doctrine is pure. Job had certainly not said this inPULPIT, "For thou hast said, My doctrine is pure. Job had certainly not said this in
so many words. In fact, he had not spoken of his "doctrine" (so many words. In fact, he had not spoken of his "doctrine" (so many words. In fact, he had not spoken of his "doctrine" (so many words. In fact, he had not spoken of his "doctrine" ( ‫לקח‬‫לקח‬‫לקח‬‫לקח‬ ), nor had he called), nor had he called), nor had he called), nor had he called
either his doctrine or his conduct absolutely pure (either his doctrine or his conduct absolutely pure (either his doctrine or his conduct absolutely pure (either his doctrine or his conduct absolutely pure ( ‫זך‬‫זך‬‫זך‬‫זך‬ ). But, no doubt, he had). But, no doubt, he had). But, no doubt, he had). But, no doubt, he had
maintained, in a certain sense, his innocency; not, indeed, his entire freedom from sinmaintained, in a certain sense, his innocency; not, indeed, his entire freedom from sinmaintained, in a certain sense, his innocency; not, indeed, his entire freedom from sinmaintained, in a certain sense, his innocency; not, indeed, his entire freedom from sin
or guilt, but his honest endeavour to serve God and lead a good life. This was the realor guilt, but his honest endeavour to serve God and lead a good life. This was the realor guilt, but his honest endeavour to serve God and lead a good life. This was the realor guilt, but his honest endeavour to serve God and lead a good life. This was the real
point disputed between him and his "comforters;" they argued, from his sufferings, thatpoint disputed between him and his "comforters;" they argued, from his sufferings, thatpoint disputed between him and his "comforters;" they argued, from his sufferings, thatpoint disputed between him and his "comforters;" they argued, from his sufferings, that
he must be a "chief sinner;" he maintained, from the testimony of his conscience, thathe must be a "chief sinner;" he maintained, from the testimony of his conscience, thathe must be a "chief sinner;" he maintained, from the testimony of his conscience, thathe must be a "chief sinner;" he maintained, from the testimony of his conscience, that
he was free from all heinous sins. And I am clean in thine eyes (see above, Jobhe was free from all heinous sins. And I am clean in thine eyes (see above, Jobhe was free from all heinous sins. And I am clean in thine eyes (see above, Jobhe was free from all heinous sins. And I am clean in thine eyes (see above, Job 9999::::30303030;;;;
JobJobJobJob 10101010::::7777).).).).

5 Oh, how I wish that God would speak,
that he would open his lips against you
BAR ES, "But oh that God would speak - Hebrew, “and truly, who will
give that God should speak.” It is the expression of an earnest wish that God
would address him, and bring him to a proper sense of his ill desert. The
meaning is, that if God should speak to him he would by no means find
himself so holy as he now claimed to be.
CLARKE, "But O that God would speak - How little feeling, humanity, and
charity is there in this prayer!
GILL, "But O that God would speak,.... To Job, and stop his mouth, so full of
words; convict him of his lies, reprove him for his mocks and scoffs, and
make him ashamed of them; refute his false doctrine and oppose it, and
show him his folly and vanity in imagining it to be pure, and in conceit
thinking himself to be free from sin, and even in the sight of God himself:
Zophar seems by this wish to suggest, that what his friends had as yet spoke
had had no effect upon Job, and signified nothing; and that he despaired of
bringing him to any true sense of himself and his case, but that God only
could do it; and therefore he entreats he would take him in hand, and speak
unto him; as he had by his providences in afflicting him, so by his spirit in
teaching and instructing him; and he adds:
and open his lips against thee; or rather, "with thee", or "to thee" (a);
converse with thee; speak out his mind freely; disclose the secrets of his
wisdom, as in Job_11:6, and that for thy good; fully convince thee of thy
sins, mistakes, and follies: for, notwithstanding all the heat and warmth of
Zophar's spirit, yet, being a good man, as it cannot be thought he should
wilfully and knowingly slander Job, and put a false gloss on his words, so
neither could he desire any hurt or injury to be done him, or that God would
deal with him as an enemy; only convince and reprove him for his sin, and
justify himself and his own conduct, which he imagined Job had arraigned.
HE RY,"He appeals to God, and wishes him to appear against Job. So very
confident is he that Job is in the wrong that nothing will serve him but that God

must immediately appear to silence and condemn him. We are commonly ready with
too much assurance to interest God in our quarrels, and to conclude that, if he
would but speak, he would take our part and speak for us, as Zophar here: O that
God would speak! for he would certainly open his lips against thee; whereas, when
God did speak, he opened his lips for Job against his three friends. We ought indeed
to leave all controversies to be determined by the judgment of God, which we are
sure is according to truth; but those are not always in the right who are most
forward to appeal to that judgment and prejudge it against their antagonists.
Zophar despairs to convince Job himself, and therefore desires God would convince
him of two things which it is good for every one of us duly to consider, and under all
our afflictions cheerfully to confess:--
K&D, "Job_11:5
With ‫ואולם‬‫ואולם‬‫ואולם‬‫,ואולם‬ verum enim vero, Zophar introduces his wish that God himself
would instruct Job; this would most thoroughly refute his utterances. ‫יתן‬‫יתן‬‫יתן‬‫יתן‬ ‫מי‬‫מי‬‫מי‬‫מי‬
is followed by the infin., then by futt., vid., Ges. §136, 1; ‫ם‬ִ‫י‬ ַ‫ל‬ ְ‫פ‬ ִⅴ‫ם‬ִ‫י‬ ַ‫ל‬ ְ‫פ‬ ִⅴ‫ם‬ִ‫י‬ ַ‫ל‬ ְ‫פ‬ ִⅴ‫ם‬ִ‫י‬ ַ‫ל‬ ְ‫פ‬ ִⅴ (only here and
Isa_40:2) denotes not only that which is twice as great, but generally that
which far surpasses something else. The subject of the clause beginning
with ‫י‬ ִⅴ‫י‬ ִⅴ‫י‬ ִⅴ‫י‬ ִⅴ is ‫יא‬ ִ‫ה‬‫יא‬ ִ‫ה‬‫יא‬ ִ‫ה‬‫יא‬ ִ‫ה‬ understood, i.e., divine wisdom: that she is the double with
respect to ( ְ‫ל‬ְ‫ל‬ְ‫ל‬ְ‫(ל‬ ot( ot( ot( ot, as e.g., 1Ki_10:23) reality (‫ּושׁיה‬‫ת‬‫ּושׁיה‬‫ת‬‫ּושׁיה‬‫ת‬‫ּושׁיה‬‫ת‬, as Job_5:12; Job_6:13,
essentia, substantia), i.e., in comparison with Job's specious wisdom and
philosophism. Instead of saying: then thou wouldst perceive, Zophar,
realizing in his mind that which he has just wished, says imperiously ‫ע‬ ַ‫ד‬ְ‫ו‬‫ע‬ ַ‫ד‬ְ‫ו‬‫ע‬ ַ‫ד‬ְ‫ו‬‫ע‬ ַ‫ד‬ְ‫ו‬ (an
imper. consec., or, as Ewald, §345, b, calls it, imper. futuri, similar to Gen_
20:7; 2Sa_21:3): thou must then perceive that God has dealt far more
leniently with thee than thou hast deserved. The causative ‫ה‬ ָ ִ‫ה‬‫ה‬ ָ ִ‫ה‬‫ה‬ ָ ִ‫ה‬‫ה‬ ָ ִ‫ה‬ (in Old
Testament only this passage, and Job_39:17) denotes here oblivioni dare,
and the ‫מן‬‫מן‬‫מן‬‫מן‬ of ָ‫ך‬ֶ‫וֹנ‬ ֲ‫ע‬ ֵ‫מ‬ָ‫ך‬ֶ‫וֹנ‬ ֲ‫ע‬ ֵ‫מ‬ָ‫ך‬ֶ‫וֹנ‬ ֲ‫ע‬ ֵ‫מ‬ָ‫ך‬ֶ‫וֹנ‬ ֲ‫ע‬ ֵ‫מ‬ is partitive.
BENSON, "Job 11:5. O that God would speak — Plead with thee according
to thy desire: he would soon put thee to silence. We are commonly ready,
with great assurance, to interest God in our quarrels. But they are not
always in the right who are most forward to appeal to his judgment, and
prejudge it against their antagonists.
COFFMAN, "The things Zophar said in this passage were just as applicable
to himself as they were to Job; but men with a plank in their own eye love to
gouge for the mote in their brother's eye. In the last analysis, God Himself
finally opened his lips, as Zophar suggested in Job 11:5, flatly declaring that
Zophar and Job's other friends had not spoken "that which was right" about
God (Job 42:7). How wrong he was!

Some of the generalities Zophar here uttered about God were of course
true; but his thinly veiled suggestions that Job was ignorant (Job 11:8), that
he could not hinder God (Job 11:10), that Job was one of the "false men"
(Job 11:11), that God could see Job's sin (Job 11:11), that Job was a vain man
void of understanding (Job 11:12), and that he was as ignorant as a wild ass's
colt (Job 11:12) - all of this speech by Zophar must have been a very bitter
thing for Job to hear.
Zophar had pretended to know that Job was a sinner, but without any
evidence whatever. "So in these verses (Job 11:7-12), Zophar supported his
charges by appealing to God's infinity"![4]
The greatest insult of all from Zophar is in Job 11:12, which in the RSV is
rendered thus: A stupid man will get understanding when a wild ass's colt is
born a man. "This is a statement of the utter impossibility of a stupid man's
attaining wisdom."[5]
COKE, "Job 11:5. Open his lips against thee— The purpose of this wish is,
that Job might be openly convicted of that wickedness of which they all
concluded he must have been guilty, to draw down the wrath of God upon
him to such an extraordinary degree.
PULPIT, "But oh that God would speak, and open his lips against thee!
"Oh that God would do," i.e. "what thou hast challenged him to do"—show
thee wherein he contends with thee! (comp. Job 10:2). Then how would thy
reasonings be confuted, and thy boastings be brought low!
6 and disclose to you the secrets of wisdom,
for true wisdom has two sides.
Know this: God has even forgotten some of
your sin.
BAR ES, "The hidden things that pertain to wisdom. The reference here
is to the wisdom of God himself. The sense is this, “you now think yourself
pure and holy. You have confidence in your own wisdom and integrity. But

this apprehension is based on a short-sighted view of God, and on ignorance
of him. If he would speak and show you his wisdom; if he would express his
sense of what purity is, you would at once see how far you have come from
perfection, and would be overwhelmed with a sense of your comparative
vileness and sin.”
That they are double to that which is - Noyes renders this,” his wisdom
which is unsearchable.” Dr. Good, strangely enough, “for they are
intricacies to iniquity.” The expression, as it stands in our common version,
is not very intelligible; and indeed it is difficult, to attach any idea to it. Of
the words used in the Hebrew, the sense is not difficult. The word ‫כפלים‬‫כפלים‬‫כפלים‬‫כפלים‬
kîplayîkîplayîkîplayîkîplayîmmmm, “double,” is from ‫כפל‬‫כפל‬‫כפל‬‫כפל‬ kâkâkâkâphalphalphalphal “to fold,”” to double;” and means a
doubling Job_41:5; and then two folds, or double folds, and the sense here
is, that the wisdom of God is “double-fold;” that is, complicated,
inexplicable, or manifold. It is not spread out and plain, but is infolded, so
that it requires to be unrolled to be understood. The word rendered “that
which is” (‫תשׁיה‬‫תשׁיה‬‫תשׁיה‬‫תשׁיה‬ tûshîyâtûshîyâtûshîyâtûshîyâhhhh), means properly a setting upright, uprightness -
from ‫ישׁע‬‫ישׁע‬‫ישׁע‬‫ישׁע‬ yâyâyâyâsha‛sha‛sha‛sha‛. Hence, it means help, deliverance, Job_6:13; purpose,
undertaking, see the notes at Job_5:12; and then counsel, wisdom,
understanding, Job_12:16; Isa_28:29. It means here, I suppose,
“understanding;” and the idea is, that the wisdom of God is “double of
understanding;” that is, it is so infolded, so complex, that it greatly
surpasses our comprehension. What we see is a small part of it; and the
“secrets” of his wisdom - the parts of his wisdom which are not unfolded,
are far above our grasp. His wisdom is like a vast roll or volume, only the
first and a very small part of which is unrolled so that we can read it. But
who can look into that that remains unopened, and penetrate between the
involutions, so as to perceive and read it all? It is but little that is now
unrolled of the mighty volume - the remainder will be unfolded as years and
ages shall pass on, and the entire unfolding of the book will be reserved for
eternity.
Know, therefore, that God exacteth of thee less than thine iniquity
deserveth - The word here rendered “exacteth” (‫ישׁה‬‫ישׁה‬‫ישׁה‬‫ישׁה‬ yashehyashehyashehyasheh) more properly
means “to forget” - from ‫נשׁה‬‫נשׁה‬‫נשׁה‬‫נשׁה‬ nâshânâshânâshânâshâhhhh. It also means to loan on usury, or to
borrow; but the sense here is rather that of forgetting. It is not used in the
sense of exacting. The true meaning is, “know, therefore, that for thee God
hath caused to be forgotten a part of thy iniquity.” That is, he has treated
you as if he had caused a part of your sins to be out of mind, or as if they
were not remembered. Instead of treating you, as you complain, with
severity, he has by no means inflicted on you the calamities which you
deserve. The ground of this unfeeling assertion is the abstract proposition
that God is infinitely wiser than human beings; that he has a deeper insight
into human guilt than people can have; and that if he should disclose to us
all that he sees of the heart, we should be amazed at the revelations of our
own sins. This sentiment is undoubtedly true, and accords almost cxactly
with what Job had himself said Job_9:19-22, but there is something very
harsh and severe in the manner in which Zophar applies it.

CLARKE, "Verse 6. The secrets of wisdom
All the depths of his own counsels; the heights, lengths, and breadths, of holiness.
That they are double to that which is, tushiyah, which we translate that which is, is a
word frequent in Job and in the Book of Proverbs, and is one of the evidences
brought in favour of Solomon as the author of this book. It signifies substance or
essence, and is translated by a great variety of terms; enterprise, completeness,
substance, the whole constitution, wisdom, law, sound wisdom, solid complete
happiness, solidity of reason and truth, the complete total sum, Hebrew and English
Concord., under. In this place the versions are various. Coverdale, following the
Vulgate, translates: That he might shewe the (out of his secrite wissdome) how
manyfolde his lawe is. The Septuagint, οτιδιπλουςεσταιτωνκατασε, that it is double to
what it is with thee. Mr. Good translates, "For they are intricacies to I IQUITY."
This is a meaning never before given to tushiyah, and a meaning which even his own
learned note will not make generally prevalent. Perhaps Zophar is here, in mind,
comparing the wisdom which has been revealed with the wisdom not revealed. The
perfection and excellence of the Divine nature and the purity of his law, are, in
substance and essence, double or manifold to the revelation already made.
Less than thine iniquity deserveth.
Mr. Good translates, And the knowledge hath withdrawn from thee because of thy
sins; and represents Zophar as praying that God would reveal to him the secrets of
wisdom, and the knowledge which he had withdrawn from him because of his
transgressions. That Zophar intends to insinuate that God afflicted Job because of
his iniquities, is evident; and that he thought that God had inflicted less
chastisement upon him than his sins deserved, is not less so; and that, therefore,
Job's complaining of harsh treatment was not at all well founded.
GILL, "And that he would show thee the secrets of wisdom,.... Either of
sound doctrine, in opposition to his own doctrine he had such a vain
opinion of; and then he would see, as he thought, that it was not so pure as
he imagined it to be: the Gospel, and the doctrines of it, are the wisdom of
God, the produce of it, and in which it is displayed; as in the doctrines of
election to grace and glory, of redemption by Christ, of justification by his
righteousness, and pardon by his blood; by which all the divine perfections
are glorified, the justice and holiness of God, as well as his grace and mercy:
and there are "secrets" or mysteries in this wisdom of God, 1Co_2:6; of
mysterious doctrines, which, though revealed, yet the "modus", or manner
of them, is not to be searched out and understood; such is the trinity of
Persons in the Godhead, the union of the two natures in Christ, the saint's
union to God and communion with him, the resurrection of the dead, &c.
and these and such like them are only shown by the Lord; men cannot come
at them of themselves, by their own natural reason and understanding; it is
God that reveals them, in his word, and by his spirit, and gives his people an
increasing knowledge of them, 1Co_2:9; or it may be rather the secrets of
the wisdom of Divine Providence, in the government of the world, and the
ordering of all things in it according to the counsel of God, may be here

Zophar's First Speech: A Harsh Accusation of Job

Zophar's First Speech: A Harsh Accusation of Job

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (19)

Similar to Zophar's First Speech: A Harsh Accusation of Job

Similar to Zophar's First Speech: A Harsh Accusation of Job (20)

More from GLENN PEASE

More from GLENN PEASE (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Zophar's First Speech: A Harsh Accusation of Job