Job 22 commentary

JOB 22 COMME TARY
EDITED BY GLE PEASE
Eliphaz
1 Then Eliphaz the Temanite replied:
GILL, "Then Eliphaz the Temanite answered and said. As Eliphaz was the first
that entered the discussion with Job, being perhaps the oldest man, and might be
reckoned the wisest, so he gives the lead in every course of disputation; and here, instead
of replying to Job's arguments and instances, at which he was very angry, betakes
himself to calumny and reproach, and to draw invidious consequences, instead of
making use of solid reasons for conviction and confutation.
HE RY 1-3, "Eliphaz here insinuates that, because Job complained so much of his
afflictions, he thought God was unjust in afflicting him; but it was a strained innuendo.
Job was far from thinking so. What Eliphaz says here is therefore unjustly applied to
Job, but in itself it is very true and good,
I. That when God does us good it is not because he is indebted to us; if he were, there
might be some colour to say, when he afflicts us, “He does not deal fairly with us.” But
whoever pretends that he has by any meritorious action made God his debtor, let him
prove this debt, and he shall be sure not to lose it, Rom_11:35. Who has given to him,
and it shall be recompensed to him again? But Eliphaz here shows that the
righteousness and perfection of the best man in the world are no real benefit or
advantage to God, and therefore cannot be thought to merit any thing from him. 1.
Man's piety is no profit to God, no gain, Job_22:1, Job_22:2. If we could by any thing
merit from God, it would be by our piety, our being righteous, and making our way
perfect. If that will not merit, surely nothing else will. If a man cannot make God his
debtor by his godliness, and honesty, and obedience to his laws, much less can he by his
wit, and learning, and worldly policy. Now Eliphaz here asks whether any man can
possibly be profitable to God. It is certain that he cannot. By no means. He that is wise
may be profitable to himself. Note, Our wisdom and piety are that by which we
ourselves are, and are likely to be, great gainers. Wisdom is profitable to direct, Ecc_
10:10. Godliness is profitable to all things, 1Ti_4:8. If thou be wise, thou shalt be wise
for thyself, Pro_9:12. The gains of religion are infinitely greater than the losses of it, and
so it will appear when they are balanced. But can a man be thus profitable to God? No,
for such is the perfection of God that he cannot receive any benefit or advantage by men;
what can be added to that which is infinite? And such is the weakness and imperfection
of man that he cannot offer any benefit or advantage to God. Can the light of a candle be
profitable to the sun or the drop of the bucket to the ocean? He that is wise is profitable
to himself, for his own direction and defence, his own credit and comfort; he can with
his wisdom entertain himself and enrich himself; but can he so be profitable to God? No;
God needs not us nor our services. We are undone, for ever undone, without him; but he

is happy, for ever happy, without us. Is it any gain to him, any real addition to his glory
or wealth, if we make our way perfect? Suppose it were absolutely perfect, yet what is
God the better? Much less when it is so far short of being perfect. 2. It is no pleasure to
him. God has indeed expressed himself in his word well pleased with the righteous; his
countenance beholds them and his delight is in them and their prayers; but all that adds
nothing to the infinite satisfaction and complacency which the Eternal Mind has in itself.
God can enjoy himself without us, though we could have but little enjoyment of
ourselves without our friends. This magnifies his condescension, in that, though our
services be no real profit or pleasure to him, yet he invites, encourages, and accepts
them.
JAMISO , "Job_22:1-30. As before, Eliphaz begins.
Eliphaz shows that man’s goodness does not add to, or man’s badness take from, the
happiness of God; therefore it cannot be that God sends prosperity to some and
calamities on others for His own advantage; the cause of the goods and ills sent must lie
in the men themselves (Psa_16:2; Luk_17:10; Act_17:25; 1Ch_29:14). So Job’s
calamities must arise from guilt. Eliphaz, instead of meeting the facts, tries to show that
it could not be so.
K&D 1-5, "The verb ‫ן‬ ַ‫כ‬ ָ‫,ס‬ in the signification to be profitable, is peculiar to the book of
Job (although also ‫ן‬ ֵ‫ּכ‬‫ס‬ and ‫ת‬ֶ‫נ‬ ֶ‫ּכ‬‫ס‬ elsewhere, according to its primary signification, does
not differ from ‫יל‬ ִ‫ּוע‬‫מ‬, ‫ה‬ ָ‫יל‬ ִ‫ּוע‬‫מ‬, by which it is explained by Kimchi); the correct development
of the notion of this verb is to be perceived from the Hiph., which occurs in Job_21:21 in
this speech of Eliphaz (vid., Ges. Thes.): it signifies originally, like ‫,שׁכן‬ Arab. skn, to rest,
dwell, especially to dwell beside one another, then to become accustomed to one another
(comp. ‫ן‬ ֵ‫כ‬ ָ‫,שׁ‬ a neighbour, and Arab. sakanun, a friend, confidant), and to assist one
another, to be serviceable, to be profitable; we can say both ‫י‬ ִ ְ‫נ‬ ַ‫כ‬ ָ‫,ס‬ I have profit, Job_
34:9, and ‫ן‬ ַ‫כ‬ ָ‫,ס‬ it is profitable, Job_15:3; Job_35:3, here twice with a personal subj., and
first followed by ְ‫,ל‬ then with the ‫ל‬ ַ‫ע‬ usual also elsewhere in later prose (e.g., ‫על‬ ‫,טוב‬ 1Ch_
13:2, comp. supra, Job_10:3, to be pleasant) and poetry, which gladly adopts
Aramaisms (as here and Psa_16:6, ‫על‬ ‫,שׁפר‬ well-pleased), instead of ‫,ל‬ whence here ‫ּו‬‫מ‬‫י‬ ֵ‫ל‬ ָ‫,ע‬
as Job_20:23, pathetic for ‫יו‬ ָ‫ל‬ ָ‫.ע‬ The question, which is intended as a negative, is followed
by the negative answer (which establishes its negative meaning) with ‫י‬ ִⅴ; ‫יל‬ ִⅴ ְ‫שׂ‬ ַ‫מ‬ is, like
Psa_14:2, the intelligent, who wills and does what is good, with an insight into the
nature of the extremes in morality, as in Pro_1:3 independent morality which rests not
merely on blind custom is called ‫השׂכל‬ ‫.מוסר‬ ְ‫ל‬ ‫ץ‬ ֶ‫פ‬ ֵ‫ח‬ ‫,היה‬ it is to the interest of any one
(different from 1Sa_15:22, vid., on Job_21:21), and ְ‫ל‬ ‫ע‬ ַ‫צ‬ ֶ‫ב‬ ‫,היה‬ it is to the gain of any one
(prop. the act of cutting, cutting off, i.e., what one tears in pieces), follow as synonyms of
‫.סכן‬ On the Aramaizing doubling of the first radical in the Hiph. ‫ם‬ ֵ ַ‫ת‬ (instead of ‫ם‬ ֵ‫ת‬ ָ‫,)ת‬ vid.,
Ges. §67, rem. 8, comp. 3. It is translated an lucrum (ei) si integras facias vias tuas. The
meaning of the whole strophe is mainly determined according to the rendering of

ָ‫ך‬ ְ‫ת‬ ֽፎ ְ‫ר‬ִ ִ‫מ‬ ֲ‫ה‬ (like ‫,המבינתך‬ Job_39:26, with Dechî, and as an exception with Munach, not
removed to the place of the Metheg; vid., Psalter, ii. 491, Anm. 1). If the suff. is taken
objectively (from fear of thee), e.g., Hirz., we have the following line of thought: God is
neither benefited by human virtue nor injured by human sin, so that when He corrects
the sinner He is turning danger from himself; He neither rewards the godly because He
is benefited by his piety, nor punishes the sinner because by his sinning he threatens
Him with injury. Since, therefore, if God chastises a man, the reason of it is not to be
found in any selfish purpose of God, it must be in the sin of the man, which is on its own
account worthy of punishment. But the logical relation in which Job_22:5 stands to
Job_22:4 does not suit this: perhaps from fear of thee ... ? no, rather because of thy
many and great sins! Hahn is more just to this relation when he explains: “God has no
personal profit to expect from man, so that, somewhat from fear, to prevent him from
being injurious, He should have any occasion to torment him with sufferings unjustly.”
But if the personal profit, which is denied, is one that grows out of the piety of the man,
the personal harm, which is denied as one which God by punishment will keep far from
Himself, is to be thought of as growing out of the sin of the man; and the logical relation
of Job_22:5 to Job_22:4 is not suited to this, for. Job_22:5 assigns the reason of the
chastisement to the sin, and denies, as it runs, not merely any motive whatever in
connection with the sin, but that the reason can lie in the opposite of sin, as it appears
according to Job's assertion that, although guiltless, he is still suffering from the wrath
of God.
Thus, then, the suff. of ‫המיראתך‬ is to be taken subjectively: on account of thy fear of
God, as Eliphaz has used ‫יראתך‬ twice already, Job_4:6; Job_15:4. By this subjective
rendering Job_22:4 and Job_22:5 form a true antithesis: Does God perhaps punish thee
on account of thy fear of God? Does He go (on that account) with thee into judgment?
No (it would be absurd to suppose that); therefore thy wickedness must be great (in
proportion to the greatness of thy suffering), and thy misdeeds infinitely many. If we
now look at what precedes, we shall have to put aside the thought drawn into Job_22:2
and Job_22:3 by Ewald (and also by Hahn): whether God, perhaps with the purpose of
gaining greater advantage from piety, seeks to raise it by unjustly decreed suffering; for
this thought has nothing to indicate it, and is indeed certainly false, but on account of
the force of truth which lies in it (there is a decreeing of suffering for the godly to raise
their piety) is only perplexing.
First of all, we must inquire how it is that Eliphaz begins his speech thus. All the
exhortations to penitence in which the three exhaust themselves, rebound from Job
without affecting him. Even Eliphaz, the oldest among them, full of a lofty, almost
prophetic consciousness, has with the utmost solicitude allured and terrified him, but in
vain. And it is the cause of God which he brings against him, or rather his own well-
being that he seeks, without making an impression upon him. Then he reminds him that
God is in Himself the all-sufficient One; that no advantage accrues to Him from human
uprightness, since His nature, existing before and transcending all created things, can
suffer neither diminution nor increase from the creature; that Job therefore, since he
remains inaccessible to that well-meant call to penitent humiliation, has refused not to
benefit Him, but himself; or, what is the reverse side of this thought (which is not,
however, expressed), that he does no injury to Him, only to himself. And yet in what
except in Job's sin should this decree of suffering have its ground? If it is a self-
contradiction that God should chastise a man because he fears Him, there must be sin
on the side of Job; and indeed, since the nature of the sin is to be measured according to
the nature of the suffering, great and measureless sin. This logical necessity Eliphaz now

regards as real, without further investigation, by opening out this bundle of sins in the
next strophe, and reproaching Job directly with that which Zophar, Job_20:19-21,
aiming at Job, has said of the ‫.רשׁע‬ In the next strophe he continues, with ‫כי‬ explic.:
BE SO , ". Then Eliphaz answered — Eliphaz, in this chapter, charges Job home
with particular facts of cruelty and oppression, which he supposes him to be guilty
of, though he cannot allege one proof of them; to which he adds the atrocious crime
of atheism, and a denial or disbelief of God’s providence; and this latter he assigns
as the reason of Job’s obstinacy in refusing to submit and acknowledge his guilt. He
compares his wickedness to that of the mighty oppressors of the antediluvian world;
to that of the inhabitants of Sodom and the cities of the plain; not obscurely
intimating that his end would probably be the same as theirs, unless prevented by a
speedy submission and full restitution; to which he therefore earnestly presses him,
and endeavours to allure him by placing full in his view the great advantages he
would probably reap from such a conduct. — Heath.
COFFMA , "THE THIRD SPEECH OF ELIPHAZ:
HIS FALSE CHARGES ACCUSI G JOB OF SPECIFIC SI S
"The only thing new in this speech of Eliphaz was the list of specific sins he charged
him with committing."[1] In this evil speech, "We have the most brutal, the most
harsh, and the most unjust words spoken against Job in the whole book."[2] Satan's
malicious campaign against Job is about to fail, and this accounts for the increased
savagery and injustice of his attacks through his instruments, the alleged friends of
Job. ot for one moment can we agree with Blair that, "What Eliphaz said, in the
main, was good."[3] How can a Christian writer refer to the malicious lies which
Eliphaz uttered against Job's character as `good,' with no evidence or support
whatever, except the prompting of his own evil imagination, - how can any of that be
`good.'?
"It was one of the unhappinesses of Job, as is the case with many an honest man, to
be misunderstood by his friends."[4] "The lamentable fact is that the friends
endorsed Satan's view of Job as a hypocrite. Thinking to defend God, they became
Satan's advocates, insisting that he (Job) whom God designated as his servant,
actually belonged to the devil!"[5]
"The second cycle of these dialogues had practically exhausted all the real
arguments."[6] And in the third cycle that begins here, only Eliphaz tried to clinch
the discussion by his barrage of shameful sins with which he shamelessly charged
Job. Bildad replied with what some have called "a short ode," and Zophar
apparently withdrew from the contest.
Job 22:1-3
THE IRRELEVA T PRELUDE TO ELIPHAZ' SPEECH

"Then answered Eliphaz the Temanite, and said,
Can a man be profitable unto God?
Surely he that is wise is profitable unto himself.
Is it any pleasure to the Almighty that thou art righteous?
Or is it gain to him that thou makest thy ways perfect?"
Rawlinson referred to these lines as "irrelevant";[7] but actually, there was a
terribly wicked thrust in these words. "Eliphaz here thinks that it is for man's sake
alone that God created him,"[8] and that God laid out the rules, which if a man
follows them, he shall be happy and prosperous, and that if he does not follow them,
illness, misfortune and destruction shall be his portion.
That view expressed here by Eliphaz completely ignores God's love of mankind
(John 3:16), the passionate desire of God Himself that man should love his Creator
(Mark 12:30), and the joy in heaven over one sinner that repents (Luke 15:7). It is
impossible to imagine a more evil proposition than the one Eliphaz advocated here.
COKE, "Eliphaz asserts, that Job's justification of himself doth not please God, and
that he is surrounded with snares, because he had been guilty of many iniquities. He
exhorts him to repentance, with promises of mercy.
Before Christ 1645.
Job 22:1. Then Eliphaz the Temanite answered— Eliphaz here, increasing in his
indignation, charges Job home with particular facts of cruelty and oppression; to
which he adds the atrocious crime of atheism, and a denial or disbelief of
Providence; and this latter he assigns as the reason of Job's obstinacy in refusing to
submit and acknowledge his guilt: Job 22:2-14. He compares his wickedness with
that of the mighty oppressors of the antediluvian world; with that of the inhabitants
of Sodom, and the cities of the plain; intimating not obscurely, that his end would
probably be the same as theirs, unless prevented by a speedy submission, and full
restitution, Job 22:15-20 to which he therefore earnestly presses him, and
endeavours to allure him by placing full in his view the great advantages that he
would probably reap from such a conduct: Job 22:21 to the end. Heath.
ELLICOTT, "(1) Then answered Eliphaz.—Eliphaz proceeds to reply in a far more
exaggerated and offensive tone than he has yet adopted, accusing Job of definite and
specific crimes. He begins by asserting that the judgment of God cannot be other
than disinterested, that if, therefore, He rewards or punishes, there cannot be
anything personal in it.

EBC, "DOGMATIC A D MORAL ERROR
Job 22:1-30
ELIPHAZ SPEAKS
THE second colloquy has practically exhausted the subject of debate between Job
and his friends. The three have really nothing more to say in the way of argument or
awful example. It is only Eliphaz who tries to clinch the matter by directly accusing
Job of base and cowardly offences. Bildad recites what may be called a short ode,
and Zophar, if he speaks at all, simply repeats himself as one determined if possible
to have the last word.
And why this third round? While it has definite marks of its own and the closing
speeches of Job are important as exhibiting his state of mind, another motive seems
to be required. And the following may be suggested. A last indignity offered, last
words of hard judgment spoken, Job enters upon a long review of his life, with the
sense of being victorious in argument, yet with sorrow rather than exultation
because his prayers are still unanswered: and during all this time the appearance of
the Almighty is deferred. The impression of protracted delay deepens through the
two hundred and twenty sentences of the third colloquy in which, one may say, all
the resources of poetry are exhausted. A tragic sense of the silence God keeps is felt
to hang over the drama, as it hangs over human life. A man vainly strives to repel
the calumnies that almost break his heart. His accusers advance from innuendo to
insolence. He seeks in the way of earnest thought escape from their false reasoning;
he appeals from men to God, from God in nature and providence to God in supreme
and glorious righteousness behind the veil of sense and time. Unheard apparently by
the Almighty, he goes back upon his life and rehearses the proofs of his purity,
generosity, and faith; but the shadow remains. It is the trial of human patience and
the evidence that neither a man’s judgment of his own life nor the judgment
expressed by other men can be final. God must decide, and for His decision men
must wait. The author has felt in his own history this delay of heavenly judgment,
and he brings it out in his drama. He has also seen that on this side death there can
be no final reading of the judgment of God on a human life. We wait for God; He
comes in a prophetic utterance which all must reverently accept; yet the declaration
is in general terms. When at last the Almighty speaks from the storm the righteous
man and his accusers alike have to acknowledge ignorance and error; there is an
end of self defence and of condemnation by men, but no absolute determination of
the controversy. "The vision is for the appointed time, and it hasteth toward the
end, and shall not lie: though it tarry, wait for it; because it will surely come, it will
not delay. Behold, his soul is puffed up, it is not upright in him: but the just shall
live by his faith." [Habakkuk 2:3-4]
Eliphaz begins with a singular question, which he is moved to state by the whole
tenor of Job’s reasoning and particularly by his hope that God would become his
Redeemer. "Can a man be profitable unto God?" ot quite knowing what he asks,

meaning simply to check the boldness of Job’s hope, he advances to the brink of an
abyss of doubt. You, Job, he seems to say, a mere mortal creature, afflicted enough
surely to know your own insignificance, how can you build yourself up in the notion
that God is interested in your righteousness? You think God believes in you and will
justify you. How ignorant you must be if you really suppose your goodness of any
consequence to the Almighty, if you imagine that by making your ways perfect, that
is, claiming an integrity which man cannot possess, you will render any service to
the Most High. Man is too small a creature to be of any advantage to God. Man’s
respect, faithfulness, and devotion are essentially of no profit to Him.
One must say that Eliphaz opens a question of the greatest interest both in theology
or the knowledge of God, and in religion or the right feelings of man toward God. If
man as the highest energy, the finest blossoming, and most articulate voice of the
creation, is of no consequence to his Creator, if it makes no difference to the
perfection or complacency of God in Himself whether man serves the end of his
being or not, whether man does or fails to do the right he was made to love; if it is
for man’s sake only that the way of life is provided for him and the privilege of
prayer given him, -then our glorifying of God is not a reality but a mere form of
speech. The only conclusion possible would be that even when we serve God
earnestly in love and sacrifice we are in point of fact serving ourselves. If one
wrestles with evil, clings to the truth, renounces all for righteousness’ sake, it is well
for him. If he is hard hearted and base, his life will decay and perish. But, in either
case, the eternal calm, the ineffable completeness of the Divine nature are
unaffected. Yea, though all men and all intelligent beings were overwhelmed in
eternal ruin the Creator’s glory would remain the same, like a full-orbed sun
shining over a desolate universe.
"We are such stuff
As dreams are made of, and our little life
Is rounded by a sleep."
Eliphaz thinks it is for man’s sake alone God has created him, surrounded him with
means of enjoyment and progress, given him truth and religion, and laid on him the
responsibilities that dignify his existence. But what comes then of the contention
that, because Job has sinned, desolation and disease have come to him from the
Almighty? If man’s righteousness is of no account to God, why should his
transgressions be punished? Creating men for their own sake, a beneficent Maker
would not lay upon them duties the neglect of which through ignorance must needs
work their ruin. We know from the opening scenes of the book that the Almighty
took pleasure in His servant. We see Him trying Job’s fidelity for the vindication of
His own creative power and heavenly grace against the scepticism of such as the
Adversary. Is a faithful servant not profitable to one whom he earnestly serves? Is it
all the same to God whether we receive His truth or reject His covenant? Then the
urgency of Christ’s redemptive work is a fiction. Satan is not only correct in regard
to Job but has stated the sole philosophy of human life. We are to fear and serve

God for what we get; and our notions of doing bravely in the great warfare on
behalf of God’s kingdom are the fancies of men who dream.
"Can a man be profitable unto God?
Surely he that is wise is profitable to himself.
Or is it gain to Him that thou makest thy ways perfect?
Is it for thy fear of Him that He reproveth thee,
That He entereth with thee into judgment?"
Regarding this what are we to say? That it is false, an ignorant attempt to exalt God
at the expense of man, to depreciate righteousness in the human range for the sake
of maintaining the perfection and self-sufficiency of God. But the virtues of man,
love, fidelity, truth, purity, justice, are not his own. The power of them in human life
is a portion of the Divine energy, for they are communicated and sustained by the
Divine Spirit. Were the righteousness, love, and faith instilled into the human mind
to fail of their result, were they, instead of growing and yielding fruit, to decay and
die, it would be waste of Divine power; the moral cosmos would be relapsing into a
chaotic state. If we affirm that the obedience and redemption of man do not profit
the Most High, then this world and the inhabitants of it have been called into
existence by the Creator in grim jest, and He is simply amusing Himself with our
hazardous game.
With the same view of the absolute sovereignty of God in creation and providence
on which Eliphaz founds in this passage, Jonathan Edwards sees the necessity of
escaping the conclusion to which these verses point. He argues that God’s delight in
the emanations of His fulness in the work of creation shows "His delight in the
infinite fulness of good there is in Himself and the supreme respect and regard He
has for Himself." An objector may say, he proceeds, "If it could be supposed that
God needed anything; or that the goodness of His creatures could extend to Him; or
that they could be profitable to Him, it might be fit that God should make Himself
and His own interest His highest and last end in creating the world. But seeing that
God is above all need and all capacity of being added to and advanced, made better
and happier in any respect; to what purpose should God make Himself His end, or
seek to advance Himself in any respect by any of His works?" The answer is-"God
may delight with true and great pleasure in beholding that beauty which is an image
and communication of His own beauty, an expression and manifestation of His own
loveliness. And this is so far from being an instance of His happiness not being in
and from Himself, that it is an evidence that He is happy in Himself, or delights and
has pleasure in His own beauty." or does this argue any dependence of God on the
creature for happiness. "Though He has real pleasure in the creature’s holiness and
happiness; yet this is not properly any pleasure which He receives from the

creature. For these things are what He gives the creature." Here to a certain extent
the reasoning is cogent and meets the difficulty of Eliphaz; and at present it is not
necessary to enter into the other difficulty which has to be faced when the Divine
reprobation of sinful life needs explanation. It is sufficient to say that this is a
question even more perplexing to those who hold with Eliphaz than to those who
take the other view. If man for God’s glory has been allowed a real part in the
service of eternal righteousness, his failure to do the part of which he is capable, to
which he is called, must involve his condemnation. So far as his will enters into the
matter he is rightly held accountable, and must suffer for neglect.
Passing to the next part of Eliphaz’s address we find it equally astray for another
reason. He asks "Is not thy wickedness great?" and proceeds to recount a list of
crimes which appear to have been charged against Job in the base gossip of ill-doing
people.
Is not thy wickedness great,
And no limit to thy iniquities?
For thou hast taken pledges of thy brother for nought
And stripped the naked of their clothing.
Thou hast not given water to the weary.
And thou hast withholden bread from the famished.
The man of might-his is the earth;
And he that is in honour dwelt therein.
Thou hast sent widows away empty,
And the arms of the orphans have been broken.
The worst here affirmed against Job is that he has overborne the righteous claims of
widows and orphans. Bildad and Zophar made a mistake in alleging that he had
been a robber and a freebooter. Yet is it less unfriendly to give ear to the cruel
slanders of those who in Job’s day of prosperity had not obtained from him all they
desired and are now ready with their complaints? o doubt the offences specified
are such as might have been committed by a man in Job’s position and excused as
within his right. To take a pledge for debt was no uncommon thing. When water
was scarce, to withhold it even from the weary was no extraordinary baseness.
Vambery tells us that on the steppes he has seen father and son fighting almost to
the death for the dregs of a skin of water. Eliphaz, however, a good man, counts it
no more than duty to share this necessary of life with any fainting traveller, even if
the wells are dry and the skins are nearly empty. He also makes it a crime to keep

back corn in the year of famine. He says truly that the man of might, doing such
things, acts disgracefully. But there was no proof that Job had been guilty of this
kind of inhumanity, and the gross perversion of justice to which Eliphaz
condescends recoils on himself. It does not always happen so within our knowledge.
Pious slander gathered up and retailed frequently succeeds. And Eliphaz
endeavours to make good his opinion by showing providence to be for it; he keeps
the ear open to any report that will confirm what is already believed; and the
circulating of such a report may destroy the usefulness of a life, the usefulness which
is denied.
Take a broader view of the same controversy. Is there no exaggeration in the
charges thundered sometimes against poor human nature? Is it not often thought a
pious duty to extort confession of sins men never dreamed of committing, so that
they may be driven to a repentance that shakes life to its centre and almost unhinges
the reason? With conviction of error, unbelief, and disobedience the new life must
begin. Yet religion is made unreal by the attempt to force on the conscience and to
extort from the lips an acknowledgment of crimes which were never intended and
are perhaps far apart from the whole drift of the character. The truthfulness of
John the Baptist’s preaching was very marked. He did not deal with imaginary sins.
And when our Lord spoke of the duties and errors of men either in discourse or
parable, He never exaggerated. The sins He condemned were all intelligible to the
reason of those addressed, such as the conscience was bound to own, must recognise
as evil things, dishonouring to the Almighty.
Having declared Job’s imaginary crimes, Eliphaz exclaims, "Therefore snares are
round about thee and sudden fear troubleth thee." With the whole weight of
assumed moral superiority he bears down upon the sufferer. He takes upon him to
interpret providence, and every word is false. Job has clung to God as his Friend.
Eliphaz denies him the right, cuts him off as a rebel from the grace of the King.
Truly, it may be said, religion is never in greater danger than when it is upheld by
hard and ignorant zeal like this.
Then, in the passage beginning at the twelfth verse, the attempt is made to show Job
how he had fallen into the sins he is alleged to have committed.
"Is not God in the height of heaven?
And behold the code of the stars how high they are
And thou saidst-What doth God know?
Can He judge through thick darkness?
Thick clouds are a covering to Him that He seeth not,
And He walketh on the round of heaven."

Job imagined that God whose dwelling place is beyond the clouds and the stars
could not see what he did. To accuse him thus is to pile offence upon injustice, for
the knowledge of God has been his continual desire.
Finally, before Eliphaz ends the accusation, be identifies Job’s frame of mind with
the proud indifference of those whom the deluge swept away. Job had talked of the
prosperity and happiness of men who had not God in all their thoughts. Was he
forgetting that dreadful calamity?
Wilt thou keep the old way
Which wickedmen have trodden?
Who were snatched away before their time,
Whose foundation was poured out as a stream:
Who said to God, Depart from us;
And what can the Almighty do unto us?
Yet He filled their houses with good things:
But the counsel of the wicked is far from me!
One who chose to go on in the way of transgressors would share their fate; and in
the day of his disaster as of theirs the righteous should be glad and the innocent
break into scornful laughter.
So Eliphaz closes, finding it difficult to make out his case, yet bound as he supposes
to do his utmost for religion by showing the law of the vengeance of God. And, this
done, he pleads and promises once more in the finest passage that falls from his
lips:-
Acquaint now thyself with Him and be at peace:
Thereby good shall come Unto thee.
Receive, I pray thee, instruction from His mouth,
And lay up His words in thy heart.
If thou return to Shaddai, thou shalt be built up;
If thou put iniquity far from thy tents:
And lay thy treasure in the dust,

And among the stones of the streams the gold of Ophir;
Then shall Shaddai be thy treasure
And silver in plenty unto thee.
At last there seems to be a strain of spirituality. "Acquaint now thyself with God
and be at peace." Reconciliation by faith and obedience is the theme. Eliphaz is
ignorant of much; yet the greatness and majesty of God, the supreme power which
must be propitiated occupy his thoughts, and he does what he can to lead his friend
out of the storm into a harbour of safety. Though even in this strophe there, mingles
a taint of sinister reflection, it is yet far in advance of anything Job has received in
the way of consolation. Admirable in itself is the picture of the restoration of a
reconciled life from which unrighteousness is put far away. He seems indeed to have
learned something at last from Job. ow he speaks of one who in his desire for the
favour and friendship of the Most High sacrifices earthly treasure, flings away
silver and gold as worthless. o doubt it is ill-gotten wealth to which he refers,
treasure that has a curse upon it. evertheless one is happy to find him separating
so clearly between earthly riches and heavenly treasure, advising the sacrifice of the
lower for what is infinitely higher. There is even yet hope of Eliphaz, that he may
come to have a spiritual vision of the favour and friendship of. the Almighty. In all
he says here by way of promise there is not a word of renewed temporal prosperity.
Returning to Shaddai in obedience Job will pray and have his prayer answered.
Vows he has made in the time of trouble shall be redeemed, for the desired aid shall
come. Beyond this there shall be, in the daily life, a strength, decision, and freedom
previously unknown. "Thou shalt decree a thing, and it shall be established unto
thee." The man who is at length in the right way of life, with God for his ally, shall
form his plans and be able to carry them out.
"When they cast down, thou shalt say, Uplifting!
And the humble person He shall save.
He will deliver the man not innocent:
Yea he shall be delivered through the cleanness of thine hands."
True, in the future experience of Job there may be disappointment and trouble.
Eliphaz cannot but see that the ill will of the rabble may continue long, and perhaps
he is doubtful of the temper of his own friends. But God will help His servant who
returns to humble obedience. And having been himself tried Job will intercede for
those in distress, perhaps on account of their sin, and his intercession will prevail
with God.
Put aside the thought that all this is said to Job, and it is surely a counsel of wisdom.
To the proud and self-righteous it shows the way of renewal. Away with the

treasures, the lust of the eyes, the pride of life, that keep the soul from its salvation.
Let the Divine love be precious to thee and the Divine statutes thy joy. Power to deal
with life, to overcome difficulties, to Serve thy generation shall then be thine.
Standing securely in God’s grace thou shalt help the weary and heavy laden. Yet
Eliphaz cannot give the secret of spiritual peace. He does not really know the
trouble at the heart of human life. We need for our Guide One who has borne the
burden of a sorrow which had nothing to do with the loss of worldly treasure but
with the unrest perpetually gnawing at the heart of humanity, who "bore our sin in
His own body unto the tree" and led captivity captive. What the old world could not
know is made clear to eyes that have seen the cross against the falling night, and a
risen Christ in the fresh Easter morning.
PARKER 1-4, "The Last Speech of Eliphaz
Job 22
There are two interpretations of Scripture. One is the critical and literal, dealing
searchingly and usefully with the grammar of the text, seeking to know exactly what
each speaker and each writer meant at the very time of his utterance and at the very
time of his authorship. That must always be a work of high utility. We cannot,
indeed, proceed legitimately until we have settled the grammar of the text. But we
should not rest there. There is a second interpretation, which we may call the larger.
That interpretation brings up the word to our own time, sets it in direct: reference
to our own thought and action—not by any violent process, but by a legitimate
development. The question which the wise reader will put to himself in perusing the
Bible is to this effect: What would these inspired men say were they living now, were
they addressing me as they addressed their interlocutors and general
contemporaries? This is not forcing meanings into their words; this is not an
unnatural and perverting exaggeration of terms: this is what we have described as a
legitimate development of the thought and purpose of the men. What Eliphaz said to
Job was of the greatest possible consequence to the patriarch, and is of the greatest
possible consequence to all ages. But is it not open to us to discover from what
Eliphaz has said what he would say under modern circumstances and under our
own immediate conditions? Is there not an enlarging faculty, a peculiar power of the
mind which attests the operation of the Holy Ghost, by which we can definitely say
what the Bible writers would have written now? If we have such faculty, if we enjoy
such immediate ministry of God the Holy Spirit, we shall be able to verify it by
inquiring how far what we now say, either in reasoning or exhortation, coincides
with what is written in the book of inspiration. There must be no difference of
quality; there must be no contradiction in moral tone or purpose; conscience must
not be disturbed by this larger translation, this widening and brightening of things
said long ago the root and the branch are really one; we must not graft anything
upon the old trunk, the tree of the Lord"s right-hand planting, but we must watch
its natural, legitimate, and purposed developments; and thus we shall have an ever-
enlarging Bible, a book old as the ink with which it was first written, yet new as this
morning"s dew, as this day"s holy dawn. This is what the Bible Isaiah ,—old and

new; coming up from eternity, yet condescending upon every day of time, and
leaving behind light and blessing. ever be satisfied, therefore, with the mere
interpretation of the scribe. He lives in the letter. He would seem almost to pay
homage to the ink. Up to a given point he may be right; but there is a point
beyond—the large interpretation, the moral meaning, the persistence of thought, by
which thought urges its way through all coming days, events, circumstances;
proclaims the old commandments, and the old beatitudes, with new force, new
sympathy, new considerateness. This is why we go back to the old speakers and old
writers. We are not mere superstitious devotees. It is because the present coincides
with the past, and the past dignifies the present, and because we perceive that
God"s providence is an organic whole, a grand beneficent scheme, that we revert to
the olden time, and come up to the immediate day, feeling how true it is that God"s
thought is one, God"s love is unchanging, God"s mercy endureth for ever. Under
the light of this canon, see how Eliphaz the Temanite sits down beside us today, and
with what gravity he talks, with what pungent questions he pierces us, with what
solemn appeals he challenges our attention. Have no faith in those easy and
superficial critics who tell you to attend to the present time and think nothing of
Eliphaz and Bildad and Zophar, because they lived long ago. They did not—in any
sense which has rendered them obsolete. There is nothing new that is true; there is
nothing true that is new. The Lamb slain for sin was historically crucified on
Calvary: but morally, redeemingly, divinely, he died before the foundation of the
world. We lose our dignity when we live within the present sunrise and sunset, when
we sever the present day from the fountains of history. Eliphaz will come to us, and
like a seer will be quiet, like a prophet of the Lord he will burn, like an apostle who
grasps the genius and the end of the present time he will flame, and appeal, and
exhort, with heavenly eloquence. Let us hear him.
How he rebukes the supposed patronage which men would offer the living God!
"Can a man be profitable unto God?... Is it any pleasure to the Almighty, that thou
art righteous? or is it gain to him, that thou makest thy ways perfect?" ( Job 22:2-3).
The legitimate interpretation of these words, their fair and honest enlargement,
leads us to say: no man can confer patronage upon God, upon the altar, upon the
cross, upon the church, upon the truth. We get all; we can give but little or
nothing—so little, that giving it we do not know we are worthy of any honour. It is a
matter of fact that some men do suppose they add something to God"s greatness by
according to him their patronage! They would not say so in words. Men are
sometimes afraid of their own voices. ot on any account would they say so in so
many sentences or phrases; but is there not working in the human heart—that
marvellous webwork of mystery—some remote subtle thought that by going to
church we confer some favour, not only upon the Church, but upon God himself?
How curious in its working is the human heart! Some men seem to live to confer
respectability upon whatever they touch. The Church is partly to blame for this.
The Church is far too eager to put away the common people and bid them be quiet,
in order that some uncommon man may come in and take his velvet-cushioned seat
in God"s temple. There are some who say that if such and such arguments be true,

or such and such men have taken a right view, they will give up religion altogether.
What a threat! How it makes the sun tremble, and sends a pain to the earth"s very
heart! A man who can give up religion has no religion to give up. What! Is religion
something to be held in the hand, and laid down at will and pleasure? Is it a
garment that is worn, and of which the body can be dispossessed? That is not the
indwelling Spirit of God, the ever-living, ever-glowing soul of goodness. Herein is
true what has often been misunderstood by the expression of "the perseverance of
the saints": they must be saints to persevere; if they do not persevere they are not
saints. A man can no more give up religion than he can give up breathing; that is to
say, when he gives up breathing he commits suicide. Religion is not a set of phrases,
something in book form, a mystery that can be written down and cancelled by the
hand that wrote it; it is the soul"s life, the heart"s sympathy with God, identity with
Christ: "I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in
me." Who can separate the two? They are not two—they are one. When a man
threatens to give up his religion, O Church of the living God, quiet thyself! say, as a
great philosopher said to a too-excited Prayer of Manasseh , "Why so hot, my little
sir?" Really, no intolerable catastrophe will have occurred if such men—observe the
emphasis upon the word such—should perpetrate the impossibility of giving up
what they never possessed! There are others again who threaten the State in the
same way. Truly we live in. very anxious and solemn times. Some men threaten to
abandon the service of the State if such and such a policy is pursued. The State will
still go on! There are those who say, If this be done and said, we shall give up public
life. By all means give it up; the threat does not make us much afraid. A man can no
more give up patriotism than he can give up religion, regard being had to quality
and degree. Patriotism is part of the man; it is mixed, so to say, with his very blood;
he drew it in with his mother"s milk; if he can give it up, he ought never to have
avowed it.
To this solemn issue must we come—that men must recognise that religion is greater
than they are, patriotism is greater than they are, and neither Church nor country
ought to be under such obligation to any man as to be unable to do without him. We
are honoured by the Church; but honour, how little we can give! We are honoured
by living in the country; if we can give any little honour in return, God be praised!
There are also some men who occasionally threaten to give up the ministry. Would
God they would! If a man can ever threaten to leave the ministry, let him go! It is
recorded that in an early Wesleyan Conference Mr. Charles Wesley said that if such
and such things were done he would leave the Conference. His elder and greater
brother said, "Will some brother be kind enough to give him his hat?" That is not
the way to treat great organisations, and sublime policies, and holy altars. What! a
man leave the ministry, except through old age, failure of faculty, exhaustion of
power? He cannot, if ever he gave himself to it at the cross, under the baptism of
blood. We are not called to this ministry by men, nor by men can we be dismissed
from it. If we be true ministers, we are the servants of the Lord Jesus Christ, and
from him only can we obtain our release. That a man may throw himself out of it by
giving Christ the treacherous kiss, by selling his Lord for thirty pieces of silver,—
that a man may thrust himself out of it thus by unfaithfulness and unworthiness, is
the very tragic point of spiritual history: but so long as the man is brokenhearted,

penitent, contrite, loving, his whole soul set in the direction of heaven"s beckoning
hand, he will never think of giving up the ministry; when he dies it will be but to
exchange the helmet for the crown. Let us live in the spirit of humility, true, genuine
spiritual modesty, knowing that all the advantage of religion is upon our side, and
that it is not in our power to add to God"s dignity.
Whilst all this may be readily acknowledged, perhaps our consent may be more
reluctant to the next point. Were Eliphaz amongst us today he would be what is
termed a personal preacher. That preacher is never popular. If a minister would be
"popular"—whatever the meaning of that word may be—he must preach to the
absentees; smite the Agnostics, hip and thigh; pour lava upon the Mormons who are
thousand miles away: but he must not speak to the man in the nearest pew. Eliphaz
comes amongst us like a fire. He is skilful in the cruel art of cross-examination. To
Job he said,—
GUZIK, "This begins a third (and shortened) round of debate between Job and his
three friends Eliphaz, Bildad, and Zophar. Through these three rounds, “A certain
movement can be detected. In the first cycle the friends are content to talk
generalities, without venturing to apply their doctrine directly to Job. In the second
round the main theme is the fate of the wicked and Job’s point of view comes into
open contradiction with that of his friends. . . . ow it comes into the open and the
breach between them is complete. Once this point is reached there can be no further
dialogue, and the discussion grinds to a halt.” (Andersen)
A. Eliphaz attacks Job’s character.
1. (Job 22:1-3) Eliphaz asks: “What good are you to God?”
Then Eliphaz the Temanite answered and said:
“Can a man be profitable to God,
Though he who is wise may be profitable to himself?
Is it any pleasure to the Almighty that you are righteous?
Or is it gain to Him that you make your ways blameless?”
a. Can a man be profitable to God, though he who is wise may be profitable to
himself? Eliphaz heard all of Job’s anguished outpourings to God, and seemed to
think that Job simply thought too highly of himself. He wondered why Job thought
he was so special, so profitable to God and why he thought God owed him so much.
i. “It is the now familiar unbalanced stress on divine transcendence: the concept that
man is nothing in God’s eyes, even his virtue is useless. God does not need man; it is
man who needs God. Since everything has its origin in god, man’s giving it back –

even in service – does not enhance God in any way.” (Smick)
ii. “Is he not simply arguing the case for the self-sufficiency of God? God needs
nothing; God lacks nothing. Since God is already absolutely perfect, He did not
create man out of any personal deficiency or compulsion, and therefore man cannot
give anything to God. This is standard orthodox doctrine.” (Mason)
b. Is it any pleasure to the Almighty that you are righteous? Eliphaz thought Job
was arrogant, and believed himself to be a special favorite to God because (he
thought that) he was so righteous. He wanted Job to consider that God needed
nothing from him, and Job added nothing to God.
i. In one aspect Eliphaz certainly had correct theology; God does not “need” Job in
the way Job needed God. evertheless Eliphaz’s application of this principle was
wrong in this context, because it was indeed a pleasure to the Almighty that Job was
righteous (as seen in Job 1:1-22; Job 2:1-13). According to those first two chapters,
it was indeed a gain to Him that Job made his ways blameless.
ii. Earlier (as recorded in Job 11:1-20), Zophar objected to Job’s complaint on what
one might today call the grounds of Calvinistic or Reformed theology. Here, Eliphaz
took up an argument upon similar lines. It was as if he said, “Job, God is sovereign
and self-existent. He needs nothing of you and owes you absolutely nothing. God
takes no pleasure in your imperfect righteousness and it is no gain to Him that you
are considered blameless.” Though there is certainly some merit in this theology, it
does not apply to every context and it did not apply to Job in his context.
PULPIT, "Eliphaz returns to the attack, but with observations that are at first
strangely pointless and irrelevant, e.g. on the unprofitableness of man to God
(verses l, 2), and on the slight importance of Job's case (verse 3). After this weak
prelude, however, there is more vigour in his assault. In verses 4-9 he directly
charges Job with a number of specified sins, and in verses 10, 11 declares his
sufferings to be the consequence of them. He then proceeds to accuse him of denying
God's omniscience (verses 12-14), and, alter some not very successful attempts to
retort on him his own words (verses 15-20), finally recurs to his favourite devices
(see Job 5:17-26) of exhorting Job to submission and repentance, and promising him
restoration to God's favour and a return of prosperity (verses 21-30).
Job 22:1, Job 22:2
Then Eliphaz the Temanite answered and said, Can a man be profitable unto God?
Job had said nothing upon this point; but perhaps Eliphaz thinks his complaints
and expostulations to imply a higher value in man, and a greater claim to
consideration at God's hands, than can rightly be challenged. Certainly God does
not depend on man for profit or advantage of any kind. either our wisdom nor our
goodness "extendeth to him." As he that is wise may be profitable unto himself;
rather, truly he that is wise is profitable unto himself; i.e. to himself only, and not to

God. Man's intelligence and researches can add nothing to God's knowledge.
STRAHA , "It is remarkable that while Job, who began the great debate
in passionate excitement, pouring forth the extravagant and even
frenzied language of anguish and despair, ere long recovers his
balance, becoming comparatively calm in manner and temperate
in speech, his friends, on the other hand, who were at first so
cool and judicial, gradually lose their self-control, and, in
vehement anger at Job's impenitent obstinacy, charge him with
crimes which merit all the thunders of divine wrath. In the
third cycle, as before 3 the aged Eliphaz is the opener. Attempt-
ing to be logical, but only succeeding in being fallacious, he
argues that, since God cannot reasonably be supposed to
chastise Job for his piety, He must be doing it for his sins.
Convinced on that score, Eliphaz does not blush to accuse Job
without one jot or tittle of evidence, and simply on the basis of
his theory of all the crimes which usually lie at the door of an
opulent Eastern tyrant selfishness, dishonesty, hard-hearted-
ness, and avarice. Job has imagined, like the free-thinkers so
it is assumed that as God dwells high above the stars, careless
of earth and its petty concerns, men may sin with impunity.
Eliphaz severely asks him if he means to repeat the impieties
which brought flood and fire upon the primeval world. As if
conscious, however, of having gone somewhat too far, the
speaker closes in the loftier and nobler strain in which all the
speeches of the first cycle ended, promising that, if Job will make
his peace with God, he will after all rejoice once more in the
divine favour, and himself become a saviour of others in trouble.
EBC, "DOGMATIC AND MORAL ERROR
ELIPHAZ SPEAKS
THE second colloquy has practically exhausted the subject of debate between Job and
his friends. The three have really nothing more to say in the way of argument or awful
example. It is only Eliphaz who tries to clinch the matter by directly accusing Job of base
and cowardly offences. Bildad recites what may be called a short ode, and Zophar, if he
speaks at all, simply repeats himself as one determined if possible to have the last word.
And why this third round? While it has definite marks of its own and the closing
speeches of Job are important as exhibiting his state of mind, another motive seems to
be required. And the following may be suggested. A last indignity offered, last words of
hard judgment spoken, Job enters upon a long review of his life, with the sense of being
victorious in argument, yet with sorrow rather than exultation because his prayers are
still unanswered: and during all this time the appearance of the Almighty is deferred.
The impression of protracted delay deepens through the two hundred and twenty
sentences of the third colloquy in which, one may say, all the resources of poetry are
exhausted. A tragic sense of the silence God keeps is felt to hang over the drama, as it

hangs over human life. A man vainly strives to repel the calumnies that almost break his
heart. His accusers advance from innuendo to insolence. He seeks in the way of earnest
thought escape from their false reasoning; he appeals from men to God, from God in
nature and providence to God in supreme and glorious righteousness behind the veil of
sense and time. Unheard apparently by the Almighty, he goes back upon his life and
rehearses the proofs of his purity, generosity, and faith; but the shadow remains. It is the
trial of human patience and the evidence that neither a man’s judgment of his own life
nor the judgment expressed by other men can be final. God must decide, and for His
decision men must wait. The author has felt in his own history this delay of heavenly
judgment, and he brings it out in his drama. He has also seen that on this side death
there can be no final reading of the judgment of God on a human life. We wait for God;
He comes in a prophetic utterance which all must reverently accept; yet the declaration
is in general terms. When at last the Almighty speaks from the storm the righteous man
and his accusers alike have to acknowledge ignorance and error; there is an end of self
defence and of condemnation by men, but no absolute determination of the controversy.
"The vision is for the appointed time, and it hasteth toward the end, and shall not lie:
though it tarry, wait for it; because it will surely come, it will not delay. Behold, his soul
is puffed up, it is not upright in him: but the just shall live by his faith." (Hab_2:3-4)
Eliphaz begins with a singular question, which he is moved to state by the whole tenor of
Job’s reasoning and particularly by his hope that God would become his Redeemer. "Can
a man be profitable unto God?" Not quite knowing what he asks, meaning simply to
check the boldness of Job’s hope, he advances to the brink of an abyss of doubt. You,
Job, he seems to say, a mere mortal creature, afflicted enough surely to know your own
insignificance, how can you build yourself up in the notion that God is interested in your
righteousness? You think God believes in you and will justify you. How ignorant you
must be if you really suppose your goodness of any consequence to the Almighty, if you
imagine that by making your ways perfect, that is, claiming an integrity which man
cannot possess, you will render any service to the Most High. Man is too small a creature
to be of any advantage to God. Man’s respect, faithfulness, and devotion are essentially
of no profit to Him.
One must say that Eliphaz opens a question of the greatest interest both in theology or
the knowledge of God, and in religion or the right feelings of man toward God. If man as
the highest energy, the finest blossoming, and most articulate voice of the creation, is of
no consequence to his Creator, if it makes no difference to the perfection or complacency
of God in Himself whether man serves the end of his being or not, whether man does or
fails to do the right he was made to love; if it is for man’s sake only that the way of life is
provided for him and the privilege of prayer given him, -then our glorifying of God is not
a reality but a mere form of speech. The only conclusion possible would be that even
when we serve God earnestly in love and sacrifice we are in point of fact serving
ourselves. If one wrestles with evil, clings to the truth, renounces all for righteousness’
sake, it is well for him. If he is hard hearted and base, his life will decay and perish. But,
in either case, the eternal calm, the ineffable completeness of the Divine nature are
unaffected. Yea, though all men and all intelligent beings were overwhelmed in eternal
ruin the Creator’s glory would remain the same, like a full-orbed sun shining over a
desolate universe.
"We are such stuff
As dreams are made of, and our little life
Is rounded by a sleep."

Eliphaz thinks it is for man’s sake alone God has created him, surrounded him with
means of enjoyment and progress, given him truth and religion, and laid on him the
responsibilities that dignify his existence. But what comes then of the contention that,
because Job has sinned, desolation and disease have come to him from the Almighty? If
man’s righteousness is of no account to God, why should his transgressions be
punished? Creating men for their own sake, a beneficent Maker would not lay upon them
duties the neglect of which through ignorance must needs work their ruin. We know
from the opening scenes of the book that the Almighty took pleasure in His servant. We
see Him trying Job’s fidelity for the vindication of His own creative power and heavenly
grace against the scepticism of such as the Adversary. Is a faithful servant not profitable
to one whom he earnestly serves? Is it all the same to God whether we receive His truth
or reject His covenant? Then the urgency of Christ’s redemptive work is a fiction. Satan
is not only correct in regard to Job but has stated the sole philosophy of human life. We
are to fear and serve God for what we get; and our notions of doing bravely in the great
warfare on behalf of God’s kingdom are the fancies of men who dream.
"Can a man be profitable unto God?
Surely he that is wise is profitable to himself.
Or is it gain to Him that thou makest thy ways perfect?
Is it for thy fear of Him that He reproveth thee,
That He entereth with thee into judgment?"
Regarding this what are we to say? That it is false, an ignorant attempt to exalt God at
the expense of man, to depreciate righteousness in the human range for the sake of
maintaining the perfection and self-sufficiency of God. But the virtues of man, love,
fidelity, truth, purity, justice, are not his own. The power of them in human life is a
portion of the Divine energy, for they are communicated and sustained by the Divine
Spirit. Were the righteousness, love, and faith instilled into the human mind to fail of
their result, were they, instead of growing and yielding fruit, to decay and die, it would
be waste of Divine power; the moral cosmos would be relapsing into a chaotic state. If
we affirm that the obedience and redemption of man do not profit the Most High, then
this world and the inhabitants of it have been called into existence by the Creator in grim
jest, and He is simply amusing Himself with our hazardous game.
With the same view of the absolute sovereignty of God in creation and providence on
which Eliphaz founds in this passage, Jonathan Edwards sees the necessity of escaping
the conclusion to which these verses point. He argues that God’s delight in the
emanations of His fulness in the work of creation shows "His delight in the infinite
fulness of good there is in Himself and the supreme respect and regard He has for
Himself." An objector may say, he proceeds, "If it could be supposed that God needed
anything; or that the goodness of His creatures could extend to Him; or that they could
be profitable to Him, it might be fit that God should make Himself and His own interest
His highest and last end in creating the world. But seeing that God is above all need and
all capacity of being added to and advanced, made better and happier in any respect; to
what purpose should God make Himself His end, or seek to advance Himself in any
respect by any of His works?" The answer is-"God may delight with true and great
pleasure in beholding that beauty which is an image and communication of His own
beauty, an expression and manifestation of His own loveliness. And this is so far from
being an instance of His happiness not being in and from Himself, that it is an evidence

that He is happy in Himself, or delights and has pleasure in His own beauty." Nor does
this argue any dependence of God on the creature for happiness. "Though He has real
pleasure in the creature’s holiness and happiness; yet this is not properly any pleasure
which He receives from the creature. For these things are what He gives the creature."
Here to a certain extent the reasoning is cogent and meets the difficulty of Eliphaz; and
at present it is not necessary to enter into the other difficulty which has to be faced when
the Divine reprobation of sinful life needs explanation. It is sufficient to say that this is a
question even more perplexing to those who hold with Eliphaz than to those who take
the other view. If man for God’s glory has been allowed a real part in the service of
eternal righteousness, his failure to do the part of which he is capable, to which he is
called, must involve his condemnation. So far as his will enters into the matter he is
rightly held accountable, and must suffer for neglect.
Passing to the next part of Eliphaz’s address we find it equally astray for another reason.
He asks "Is not thy wickedness great?" and proceeds to recount a list of crimes which
appear to have been charged against Job in the base gossip of ill-doing people.
Is not thy wickedness great,
And no limit to thy iniquities?
For thou hast taken pledges of thy brother for nought
And stripped the naked of their clothing.
Thou hast not given water to the weary.
And thou hast withholden bread from the famished.
The man of might-his is the earth;
And he that is in honour dwelt therein.
Thou hast sent widows away empty,
And the arms of the orphans have been broken.
The worst here affirmed against Job is that he has overborne the righteous claims of
widows and orphans. Bildad and Zophar made a mistake in alleging that he had been a
robber and a freebooter. Yet is it less unfriendly to give ear to the cruel slanders of those
who in Job’s day of prosperity had not obtained from him all they desired and are now
ready with their complaints? No doubt the offences specified are such as might have
been committed by a man in Job’s position and excused as within his right. To take a
pledge for debt was no uncommon thing. When water was scarce, to withhold it even
from the weary was no extraordinary baseness. Vambery tells us that on the steppes he
has seen father and son fighting almost to the death for the dregs of a skin of water.
Eliphaz, however, a good man, counts it no more than duty to share this necessary of life
with any fainting traveller, even if the wells are dry and the skins are nearly empty. He
also makes it a crime to keep back corn in the year of famine. He says truly that the man
of might, doing such things, acts disgracefully. But there was no proof that Job had been
guilty of this kind of inhumanity, and the gross perversion of justice to which Eliphaz
condescends recoils on himself. It does not always happen so within our knowledge.
Pious slander gathered up and retailed frequently succeeds. And Eliphaz endeavours to
make good his opinion by showing providence to be for it; he keeps the ear open to any
report that will confirm what is already believed; and the circulating of such a report
may destroy the usefulness of a life, the usefulness which is denied.
Take a broader view of the same controversy. Is there no exaggeration in the charges

thundered sometimes against poor human nature? Is it not often thought a pious duty to
extort confession of sins men never dreamed of committing, so that they may be driven
to a repentance that shakes life to its centre and almost unhinges the reason? With
conviction of error, unbelief, and disobedience the new life must begin. Yet religion is
made unreal by the attempt to force on the conscience and to extort from the lips an
acknowledgment of crimes which were never intended and are perhaps far apart from
the whole drift of the character. The truthfulness of John the Baptist’s preaching was
very marked. He did not deal with imaginary sins. And when our Lord spoke of the
duties and errors of men either in discourse or parable, He never exaggerated. The sins
He condemned were all intelligible to the reason of those addressed, such as the
conscience was bound to own, must recognise as evil things, dishonouring to the
Almighty.
Having declared Job’s imaginary crimes, Eliphaz exclaims, "Therefore snares are round
about thee and sudden fear troubleth thee." With the whole weight of assumed moral
superiority he bears down upon the sufferer. He takes upon him to interpret providence,
and every word is false. Job has clung to God as his Friend. Eliphaz denies him the right,
cuts him off as a rebel from the grace of the King. Truly, it may be said, religion is never
in greater danger than when it is upheld by hard and ignorant zeal like this.
Then, in the passage beginning at the twelfth verse, the attempt is made to show Job
how he had fallen into the sins he is alleged to have committed.
"Is not God in the height of heaven?
And behold the code of the stars how high they are
And thou saidst-What doth God know?
Can He judge through thick darkness?
Thick clouds are a covering to Him that He seeth not,
And He walketh on the round of heaven."
Job imagined that God whose dwelling place is beyond the clouds and the stars could
not see what he did. To accuse him thus is to pile offence upon injustice, for the
knowledge of God has been his continual desire.
Finally, before Eliphaz ends the accusation, be identifies Job’s frame of mind with the
proud indifference of those whom the deluge swept away. Job had talked of the
prosperity and happiness of men who had not God in all their thoughts. Was he
forgetting that dreadful calamity?
Wilt thou keep the old way
Which wickedmen have trodden?
Who were snatched away before their time,
Whose foundation was poured out as a stream:
Who said to God, Depart from us;
And what can the Almighty do unto us?
Yet He filled their houses with good things:
But the counsel of the wicked is far from me!
One who chose to go on in the way of transgressors would share their fate; and in the day

of his disaster as of theirs the righteous should be glad and the innocent break into
scornful laughter.
So Eliphaz closes, finding it difficult to make out his case, yet bound as he supposes to
do his utmost for religion by showing the law of the vengeance of God. And, this done,
he pleads and promises once more in the finest passage that falls from his lips:-
Acquaint now thyself with Him and be at peace:
Thereby good shall come Unto thee.
Receive, I pray thee, instruction from His mouth,
And lay up His words in thy heart.
If thou return to Shaddai, thou shalt be built up;
If thou put iniquity far from thy tents:
And lay thy treasure in the dust,
And among the stones of the streams the gold of Ophir;
Then shall Shaddai be thy treasure
And silver in plenty unto thee.
At last there seems to be a strain of spirituality. "Acquaint now thyself with God and be
at peace." Reconciliation by faith and obedience is the theme. Eliphaz is ignorant of
much; yet the greatness and majesty of God, the supreme power which must be
propitiated occupy his thoughts, and he does what he can to lead his friend out of the
storm into a harbour of safety. Though even in this strophe there, mingles a taint of
sinister reflection, it is yet far in advance of anything Job has received in the way of
consolation. Admirable in itself is the picture of the restoration of a reconciled life from
which unrighteousness is put far away. He seems indeed to have learned something at
last from Job. Now he speaks of one who in his desire for the favour and friendship of
the Most High sacrifices earthly treasure, flings away silver and gold as worthless. No
doubt it is ill-gotten wealth to which he refers, treasure that has a curse upon it.
Nevertheless one is happy to find him separating so clearly between earthly riches and
heavenly treasure, advising the sacrifice of the lower for what is infinitely higher. There
is even yet hope of Eliphaz, that he may come to have a spiritual vision of the favour and
friendship of. the Almighty. In all he says here by way of promise there is not a word of
renewed temporal prosperity. Returning to Shaddai in obedience Job will pray and have
his prayer answered. Vows he has made in the time of trouble shall be redeemed, for the
desired aid shall come. Beyond this there shall be, in the daily life, a strength, decision,
and freedom previously unknown. "Thou shalt decree a thing, and it shall be established
unto thee." The man who is at length in the right way of life, with God for his ally, shall
form his plans and be able to carry them out.
"When they cast down, thou shalt say, Uplifting!
And the humble person He shall save.
He will deliver the man not innocent:
Yea he shall be delivered through the cleanness of thine hands."
True, in the future experience of Job there may be disappointment and trouble. Eliphaz
cannot but see that the ill will of the rabble may continue long, and perhaps he is
doubtful of the temper of his own friends. But God will help His servant who returns to

humble obedience. And having been himself tried Job will intercede for those in distress,
perhaps on account of their sin, and his intercession will prevail with God.
Put aside the thought that all this is said to Job, and it is surely a counsel of wisdom. To
the proud and self-righteous it shows the way of renewal. Away with the treasures, the
lust of the eyes, the pride of life, that keep the soul from its salvation. Let the Divine love
be precious to thee and the Divine statutes thy joy. Power to deal with life, to overcome
difficulties, to Serve thy generation shall then be thine. Standing securely in God’s grace
thou shalt help the weary and heavy laden. Yet Eliphaz cannot give the secret of spiritual
peace. He does not really know the trouble at the heart of human life. We need for our
Guide One who has borne the burden of a sorrow which had nothing to do with the loss
of worldly treasure but with the unrest perpetually gnawing at the heart of humanity,
who "bore our sin in His own body unto the tree" and led captivity captive. What the old
world could not know is made clear to eyes that have seen the cross against the falling
night, and a risen Christ in the fresh Easter morning.
BI 1-4, "Can a man be profitable unto God?
The third speech of Eliphaz
Two general truths.
I. That the great God is perfectly independent of man’s character, whether right or
wrong. “Can a man be profitable unto God, as he that is wise may be profitable unto
himself? Is it any pleasure to the Almighty, that thou art righteous? or is it gain to Him,
that thou makest thy ways perfect?”
1. He is so independent of it that He is not affected by it. No hellish crimes can lessen
His felicity; no heavenly virtue can heighten His blessedness. He is infinitely more
independent of all the virtues in heaven than the orb of day is independent of a
candle’s feeble rays, more independent of all the crimes of hell than noontide
brightness is of a mere whiff of smoke. He is not worshipped with men’s hands as
though He needed anything. This fact should impress us—
(1) With the duty of humility. He is independent of the most righteous services of
the highest intelligence in the universe. None are necessary to the carrying out of
His purposes.
(2) With the benevolence of His legislation. Why does He lay down laws for the
regulation of human conduct? Simply and entirely for our own happiness.
2. He is so independent of it that He will not condescend to explain His treatment of
it. “Will He reprove thee for fear of thee? Will He enter with thee into judgment?”
One great cause of Job’s murmuring was that God had sent punishment upon him
without any explanation. For this Eliphaz here reproves him, and virtually says, “Is it
not in the highest degree absurd to expect that the Maker should be willing to
explain His doings to the creatures He has made?”
II. Man’s character is of the utmost importance to himself. “He that is wise may be
profitable unto himself.” Eliphaz means to say that the wise and pious man is profitable
to himself. To the man himself, character is everything. The wealth of Croesus, the
strength of Samson, the wisdom of Solomon, and the dominion of Caesar are nothing to
a man in comparison to his character. His character is the fruit of his existence, the

organ of his power, the law of his destiny. It is the only property he carries with him
beyond the grave. (Homilist.)
The independence of God
The question, “Can a man be profitable unto God?” requires, in order to its thorough
discussion, that it be resolved into two,—Can anything which a man does be injurious to
God? Can anything which a man does be advantageous to God? When human actions are
considered in reference to the Almighty, their consequences it appears can in no degree
extend themselves to one infinitely removed from all that is created. Not, indeed, that we
must so represent the independence of God, as that it involves indifference to men, or
totally disregards their actions. Scriptures declare that God is dishonoured by our
sinfulness, and glorified by our obedience. But we glorify Him without actually rendering
Him any service, and we dishonour Him without doing Him any actual injury.
I. Thy impossibility that men should be profitable unto God. Think of the greatness of
God, how inaccessible He is, how immeasurably removed from all created being.
Thinking of this, you can scarcely indulge the idea, that the services of any creature,
however exalted and endowed, can be necessary to God. If you examine with the least
attention, you must see that, supposing God injured by our sin, or advantaged by our
righteousness, is the equivalent to supposing our instrumentality necessary in order to
the accomplishment of His purposes.
II. The inferences which follow from this truth. Note the perfect disinterestedness of
God in sending His own Son to die for the rebellious. It cannot be that God redeemed us
because He required our services. The only account which can be given of the amazing
interposition is, that God loves us; and even this evades, rather than obviates, the
difficulty. Remember that, though you can do nothing for God, He is ready in Christ to
do everything for you. (Henry Melvill, B. D.)
The doctrine of merit
It is a matter of no small moment for a man to be rightly informed upon what terms and
conditions he is to transact with God, and God with him, in the great business of his
salvation. St. Paul tells us that eternal life is the “gift of God.” Salvation proceeds wholly
upon free gift, though damnation upon strict desert. Such is the extreme folly, or rather
sottishness, of man’s corrupt nature, that this does by no means satisfy him. When he
comes to deal with God about spirituals, he appears and acts, not as a supplicant, but as
a merchant; not as one who comes to be relieved, but to traffic. This great self-delusion,
so prevalent upon most minds, is the thing here encountered in the text; which is a
declaration of the impossibility of man’s being profitable to God, or of his meriting of
God, according to the true, proper, and strict sense of merit. Merit is a right to receive
some good upon the score of some good done, together with an equivalence or parity of
worth between the good to be received and the good done.
I. It is implied that men are naturally very prone to entertain as opinion or persuasion,
that they are able to merit of God, or be profitable to Him. The truth of this will appear
from two considerations.
1. It is natural for men to place too high a value both upon themselves and their own
performances. That this is so is evident from universal experience. Every man will be

sure to set his own price upon what be is, and what he does, whether the world will
come up to it or no; as it seldom does.
2. The natural aptness of men to form and measure their apprehensions of the
supreme Lord of all things, by what they apprehend and observe of the princes and
potentates of this world, with reference to such as are under their dominion. This is
certainly a very prevailing fallacy, and steals too easily upon men’s minds, as being
founded in the unhappy predominance of sense over reason, No marvel then, if they
blunder in their notions about God, a Being so vastly above the apprehensions of
sense. From misapplied premises, the low, gross, undistinguishing reason of the
generality of mankind, presently infers that the creature may, on some accounts, be
as beneficial to his Creator as a subject may be to his prince. Men are naturally very
prone to persuade themselves that they are able to merit of God, or be profitable to
Him.
II. Such a persuasion is utterly false and absurd, for it is impossible for men to merit of
God. Show the several ingredients of merit, and the conditions necessary to render an
action meritorious.
1. That an action be not due; that is to say, it must not be such as a man stands
obliged to the doing of, but such as he is free either to do or not to do, without being
chargeable with any sinful omission in case he does not. But all that any man alive is
capable of doing, is but an indispensable homage to God, and not a free oblation; and
that also such an homage as makes his obligation to what he does much earlier than
his doing of it, will appear both from the law of nature, and that of God’s positive
command.
2. It should really add to and better the state of the person of whom it is to merit.
The reason of which is because all merit consists properly in a right to receive some
benefit, or the account of some benefit first done.
(1) God offers Himself to our consideration as a Being infinitely perfect, infinitely
happy, and self-sufficient, depending upon no supply or revenue from abroad.
(2) On the other hand, is man a being fit and able to make this addition? Man
only subsists by the joint alms of heaven and earth, and stands at the mercy of
everything in nature, which is able either to help or hurt him. Is this now the
person to oblige his Maker?
3. That there be an equal proportion of value between the action and the reward.
This is evident from the foundation already laid by us; to wit, that the nature of merit
consists properly in exchange; and that, we know, must proceed according to a parity
of worth on both sides, commutation being most properly between things equivalent.
Can we, who live by sense, and act by sense, do anything worthy of those joys which
not only exceed our senses, but also transcend our intellectuals?
4. He who does a work whereby he would merit of another, does it solely by his own
strength, and not by the strength or power of him from whom he is to merit.
III. This persuasion is the source and foundation of two of the greatest corruptions of
religion that have infested the Christian Church. These are pelagianism and popery.
Pelagianism is resolvable into this one point, that a man contributes something of his
own, which he had not from God, towards his own salvation.
IV. Remove an objection naturally apt to issue from the foregoing particulars. Can there
be a greater discouragement than this doctrine to men in their Christian course?

Answer—
1. It ought not to be any discouragement to a beggar to continue asking an alms, and
in doing all that he can to obtain it, though he knows he can do nothing to claim it.
2. I deny that our disavowing this doctrine of merit, cuts us off from all plea to a
recompense for our Christian obedience from the hands of God. It cuts us off from
all plea on the score of strict justice. But God’s justice is not the only thing that can
oblige Him in His transactings with men. His veracity and His promise also oblige
Him. (Robert South, D. D.)
Does religion enrich God
These withering questions were addressed to a humiliated man, with the object of
crushing him more completely. Eliphaz was, of course, right in defending the justice of
the Divine government. But was the argument he used—that man’s religion is a matter of
indifference to God—a sound one?
I. Upon the surface, the questions admit of no answer but a negative. “Can a man be
profitable unto God, as he that is wise may be profitable unto himself?” We cannot
conceive of the Deity as other than perfect, self-contained and self-sufficient. His power
is omnipotent, and His years eternal. What can man do to enhance such adorable
perfections? Will the light of a candle add to the glory of the sunshine at midday? Will a
single drop of water perceptibly increase the volume of the ocean? Our Christian
activities do not enrich God, as the work of shop assistants enriches their employers.
Nor do our religious offerings add to His wealth. All is already His, and of His own do we
give Him. The gain is on our side; not God’s. We profit by our holiness of character, our
Christian zeal, and our religious offerings. Nothing can be more sublimely ludicrous
than the patronage which some men accord religion. They give to religious objects in the
spirit of monarchs dispensing alms to the needy. They graciously allow their names to be
printed as patrons of religious institutions.
II. Yet, looking at his words again, we feel that they must not be allowed to pass without
qualification or amendment. They are true to a certain extent, and in that limited degree
may be usefully employed. Eliphaz in his laudable attempt to exalt God above the deities
of the heathen, who according to the conceptions of their worshippers were enriched or
impoverished by their piety or the lack of it, elevated Him to a pinnacle of remoteness
and indifference which He does not occupy. In his extremely proper endeavour to
magnify God he belittled man, which is both unnecessary and wrong. Is it the case that
religion is merely an insurance? Is godliness nothing more than prudence? Do our
saintliest serve God only for what they can get? Well, religion is less attractive than it
seemed if the struggles that won our admiration and the sacrifices that moved us to tears
were only prompted by self-interest. It is an insufficient explanation. Again, is it true, as
Eliphaz insinuates, that human righteousness gives no pleasure to God? It is a crushing
suggestion. The Eternal is high above you and cares nothing for your little concerns,
even for your small virtues and petty victories over sin! It is a crushing suggestion. And
surely it is a fallacious one. We may take the good He has given us or we may leave it, He
does not care! His eternal calm is unruffled, His ineffable completeness unbroken, by the
fortunes of mortal men! “Can a man be profitable unto God? No, he that is wise is
profitable unto himself. Is it any pleasure to the Almighty that thou art righteous? or is it
gain to Him that thou makest thy ways perfect?” Oh, it is a repellent picture. We are
prepared to hear that there is a fallacy in it.

III. Its effect is to demoralise and debauch man. And it really does not magnify God.
While professing to exalt Him, it lowers Him. Is God too great to notice man? That is not
real greatness which can only condescend to notice great affairs. The answer to it lies in
the book which records it. We see the Almighty contemplating with satisfaction the
uprightness of a man. We see Him defending that uprightness against the malicious
insinuations of His own enemy and man’s, Satan. A better reply still is furnished by the
teaching of Jesus. He revealed God. He was God. And in beautiful similitudes He spoke
of the Divine concern for the soul of man and the Divine joy in its salvation. God, if we
may reverently say so, has given His case away by the revelation of His fatherhood. We
cannot argue upon the ground of majesty, but on this level we are at home. We know
how a father hungers for the love of his child. So we can please God: we can wound Him.
For love craves a return, and love lies bleeding from indifference. Jesus, yearning over
Jerusalem, is the answer in the affirmative to the questions of Eliphaz. But the supreme
answer lies not in the teaching of Jesus, convincing though that is, but in Jesus Himself.
That answer is final. Is the moral condition of man of no concern to God? Then come
with me to Bethlehem, to a stable behind the village inn. Is the soul of man uncared for
by God? Then come with me to Calvary. Do you see that Man dying, amid throes of
unutterable agony, on a cross of wood? (B. J. Gibbon.)
2 “Can a man be of benefit to God?
Can even a wise person benefit him?
BAR ES, "Can a man be profitable unto God? - Can a man confer any favor on
God, so as to lay him under obligation? Eliphaz supposes that Job sets up a “claim” to
the favor of God, because he was of service to him, or because God had something to fear
if he was cut off. He maintains, therefore, that a man can confer no favor on God, so as
to lay him under obligation. God is independent and supreme. He has nothing to gain if
man is righteous - he has nothing to apprehend if he is punished. He is not dependent at
all on man.
As he that is wise - Margin, or, “if he may be profitable, doth his goodness depend
thereon.” The meaning of the passage is, a wise man may promote his own advantage,
but he cannot be of advantage to God. All the result of his wisdom must terminate on
himself, and not on God; compare Psa_16:2. Of the correctness of this sentiment there
can be no doubt. It accords with reason, and with all that is said in the Scriptures. God is
too great to be benefited by man. He is infinite in all his perfections; he is the original
fountain of blessedness; he is supremely wise; he has all resources in himself, and he
cannot be dependent on his creatures. He cannot, therefore, be deterred from punishing

them by any dread which he has of losing their favor - he cannot be induced to bless
them because they have laid him under obligation. Eliphaz meant this as a reply to what
Job had said. He had maintained, that God did “not” treat people according to their
character in this life, but that, in fact, the wicked were often prospered, and suffered to
live long. Eliphaz at once “infers,” that if this were so, it must be because they could
render themselves “serviceable” to God, or because he must have something to dread by
punishing them. In the general sentiment, he was right; in the “inference” he was wrong
- since Job had not affirmed that they are spared from any such cause, and since many
other “reasons” may be assigned.
CLARKE, "Can a man be profitable unto God - God does not afflict thee
because thou hast deprived him of any excellency. A man may be profitable to a man, but
no man can profit his Maker. He has no interest in thy conduct; he does not punish thee
because thou hast offended and deprived him of some good. Thy iniquities are against
justice, and justice requires thy punishment.
GILL, "Can a man be profitable unto God?.... Eliphaz imagined that Job thought
so, by his insisting so much on his integrity, and complaining of his afflictions; and that
God was beholden to him for his holiness and righteousness, and that instead of
afflicting him, should have heaped honours and happiness upon him; whereas there is
not anything a man can do, or does, by which God can be profiled; which is a very great
truth, though misapplied to Job through a wrong construction of his words and
meaning. No man, even the best of men, and by the best things they can do, can be
profitable to God; as for bad men, they are altogether unprofitable to themselves and to
others, and still less profitable to God; and as for good men, their "goodness extendeth
not" to the Lord, Psa_16:2; it comes from him, it is his own previously; it is of no avail
and advantage to him, who is perfect and all sufficient; when they have done all that they
are commanded, they are bid to say, and very truly, "we are unprofitable servants", Luk_
17:10; they do indeed glorify God, and are the means of others glorifying him by their
good works; but then they add no glory to him, which he had not before; they only
declare the glory of God by the light of their grace and works, as the heavens and
luminaries in them do by their light and lustre; they worship God as they ought to do;
but then he is not worshipped by them "as though he needed anything" of them, Act_
17:25; it is they, and not he, that get by worship; it is good for them, and they find their
account in it, to draw near to him, and wait upon him, and worship him; what are all
their prayers and praises to him? the benefit redounds to themselves: some men are very
serviceable to promote the interest of religion, either by their purses, or by their gifts
and talents, fitting for public usefulness; but then, what do they give to God but what is
his own? "of thine own have we given thee", says David, 1Ch_29:14; or what do they do
for him? it is for the good of themselves, and others, Rom_11:35. Some are useful in the
conversion of men to God, either by the public ministry of the word, or in private life by
discourse and conversation; but then the profit of all this is to men, and not unto God;
there is nothing that a man can do, by which he can make God his debtor, or lay him
under an obligation to him, which he would, if he could be profitable to him; but
whatever he does, it is but his duty, and what God has a prior right unto; and therefore
men can merit nothing at the hand of God, no, not the least mercy; it is by the grace of
God a good man is what he is, and does what he does; the Targum paraphrases it, "can a
man teach God?" and so Mr. Broughton; see Job_21:22;

as he that is wise may be profitable unto himself? or "though", or "indeed, truly
he that is wise", &c. (h). A man that is worldly wise is profitable to himself and his
family, by gathering wealth and riches; and a man that is wise, and has a large
understanding of natural things, may be profitable to himself by enriching his mind with
knowledge, increasing the pleasure of it, and getting credit and fame among men by it,
and may be profitable to others by communicating his knowledge to them, see Pro_9:12;
and one that is spiritually wise, or has the true grace of God, and wisdom in the hidden
part, which is no other than real godliness, gets great gain; for godliness is that to him,
and is profitable for all things, having the promise of the present and future life; and he
that has an interest in Christ, the Wisdom of God, is a happy man indeed, since he has
that, the merchandise of which is better than silver, and the gain thereof than fine gold;
one that is wise unto salvation, and is a wise professor of religion, and walks wisely and
circumspectly, has great advantages; he builds his salvation on the rock Christ, and is
safe and sure; he is concerned to have the oil of grace, with the lamp of a profession, and
so is always ready to meet the bridegroom; and being careful of his conversation, keeps
his garments that his shame is not seen; and so a wise minister of the word, "one that
instructs" (i), or gives instructions to others, as the word here signifies; or one that
causes to understand, or is the means of causing men to understand, such a man is
profitable to himself and to others, see Dan_12:3.
JAMISO , "as he that is wise — rather, yea the pious man profiteth himself. So
“understanding” or “wise” - pious (Dan_12:3, Dan_12:10; Psa_14:2) [Michaelis].
BE SO , "Job 22:2. Can a man be profitable unto God — That is, add any thing to
his perfection or felicity? namely, by his righteousness, as the next verse shows. Why
then dost thou insist so much upon thy own righteousness, as if thou didst oblige
God by it; or, as if he could not, without injustice, afflict thee, who supposest thyself
to be a righteous person? As, or because, he that is wise — He that is a truly
righteous and good man; may be profitable to himself — Does much good to
himself; promotes his own peace, and honour, and happiness, by his goodness.
Because a wise man receives great benefit by his virtue, shall we think that God is a
gainer by it too?
STRAHA ,"2, 3 Can a man be profitable unto God? ... Is it any
pleasure to the Almighty, that thou art righteous ? In these
two luminous verses, Eliphaz affords us an insight into his first
principles. He wishes to give a final and convincing proof that
the cause of Job's sufferings the root of the matter is in the
sufferer himself. It cannot, he argues, be in God; for, since
God reaps no advantage and derives no pleasure from the con-
duct of men, He is under no temptation either to condemn
the innocent or to justify the guilty. Unaffected by personal
considerations, passionless and unconcerned, He metes out
rewards and punishments, not arbitrarily, but with strict im-
partiality and almost automatic precision. The cause of suffer-

ing is therefore not in Him, so that it must be in man : which was
to be proved. The reasoning, however, does not hold water.
It not only assumes that all the possibilities of explanation have
been exhausted by a syllogism, but it unwarrantably premises
that all suffering is retributive that pain can have no meaning,
for God or man, but penalty. Eliphaz and his school have no
divination of the mysterious depths of sorrow. They are
wilfully blind to the massacre of the innocents, the blood of
martyrs, the travail of creation, the sufferings of God. And
when Eliphaz teaches that a man cannot be profitable unto Gtod,
that it is no pleasure to the Almighty if Job is righteous, no gain
to Him if Job makes his ways perfect, he shows how crude and
formal is his conception of righteousness. He wisely, indeed,
brings man's conduct into a certain relation to God ; but since, in
his view of the world, God and man remain strictly external to,
and separate from, each other, since they have no deep, heart-
felt interest in each other, and hence no yearning for friendship,
since each of them acts as an isolated individual, God requiring,
and man paying, the dues of obedience, there can be no
thought of basing morality upon love. The God whom Eliphaz
worships is a cold, distant, passionless Being, the apotheosis of
absolute power and rigid justice, neither giving nor seeking love
the God of the Moslem and the Deist, certainly not of the
Prophets and the Psalmists. o profit, pleasure, or gain ? c As
the bridegroom rejoiceth over the bride, so shall thy God rejoice
over thee ' (Is 62 5 ). c I will have love and not sacrifice ' (Hos 6 6 )
there, in a word, is God's profit, pleasure, gain. Eliphaz
himself, in a somewhat more gracious mood, becomes at the end
of this very speech the preacher of a higher faith.
3 What pleasure would it give the Almighty if you
were righteous?
What would he gain if your ways were
blameless?
BAR ES, "Is it any pleasure to the Almighty that thou art righteous? - This
is the same sentiment which was advanced in the previous verse. The meaning is, that it

Job 22 commentary

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Similar to Job 22 commentary

Similar to Job 22 commentary (20)

More from GLENN PEASE

More from GLENN PEASE (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Job 22 commentary