Job 15 commentary

JOB 15 COMME TARY
EDITED BY GLE PEASE
Eliphaz
1 Then Eliphaz the Temanite replied:
GILL, "Then answered Eliphaz the Temanite,.... Or, who was of Teman, as the
Targum, the first of Job's friends and comforters, the oldest of them, who first began the
dispute with him; which was carried on by his two other companions, who had spoken in
their turns; and now in course it fell to him to answer a second time, as he here does,
HE RY, "Eliphaz here falls very foul upon Job, because he contradicted what he and
his colleagues had said, and did not acquiesce in it and applaud it, as they expected.
Proud people are apt thus to take it very much amiss if they may not have leave to dictate
and give law to all about them, and to censure those as ignorant and obstinate, and all
that is naught, who cannot in every thing say as they say. Several great crimes Eliphaz
here charges Job with, only because he would not own himself a hypocrite.
K&D 1-4, "The second course of the controversy is again opened by Eliphaz, the most
respectable, most influential, and perhaps oldest of the friends. Job's detailed and bitter
answers seem to him as empty words and impassioned tirades, which ill become a wise
man, such as he claims to be in assertions like Job_12:3; Job_13:2. ‫ם‬ ָ‫ל‬ ָ‫ח‬ ֶ‫ה‬ with He interr.,
like ‫ה‬ ֶ‫ל‬ ָ‫ע‬ ֶ‫,ה‬ Job_13:25. ַ‫,רוּח‬ wind, is the opposite of what is solid and sure; and ‫ים‬ ִ‫ד‬ ָ‫ק‬ in the
parallel (like Hos_12:2) signifies what is worthless, with the additional notion of
vehement action. If we translate ‫ן‬ ֶ‫ט‬ ֶ by “belly,” the meaning is apt to be misunderstood;
it is not intended as the opposite of ‫ב‬ ֵ‫ל‬ fo et (Ewald), but it means, especially in the book
of Job, not only that which feels, but also thinks and wills, the spiritually receptive and
active inner nature of man (Psychol. S. 266); as also in Arabic, el-battin signifies that
which is within, in the deepest mystical sense. Hirz. and Renan translate the inf. abs.
ַ‫ח‬ ֵ‫ּוכ‬‫ה‬, which follows in Job_15:3, as verb. fin.: se défend-il par des vaines paroles; but
though the inf. abs. is so used in an historical clause (Job_15:35), it is not an
interrogative. Ewald takes it as the subject: “to reprove with words-avails not, and

speeches - whereby one does no good;” but though ‫ר‬ ָ‫ב‬ ָ and ‫ים‬ ִ ִ‫מ‬ might be used without
any further defining, as in λογοµαχεሏν (2Ti_2:14) and λογοµαχία (1Ti_6:4), the form of
Job_15:3 is opposed to such an explanation. The inf. abs. is connected as a gerund
(redarguendo s. disputando) with the verbs in the question, Job_15:2; and the elliptical
relative clause ‫ּן‬ⅴ ְ‫ס‬ִ‫י‬ ‫ּא‬‫ל‬ is best, as referring to things, according to Job_35:3 : sermone
(‫ד‬ ָ‫ב‬ ָ from ‫ר‬ ַ‫ב‬ ָ , as sermo from serere) qui non prodest; ‫ם‬ ָ ‫יל‬ ִ‫ּוע‬‫י‬ ‫ּא‬‫ל‬, on the other hand, to
persons, verbis quibus nil utilitatis affert. Eliphaz does not censure Job for arguing, but
for defending himself by such useless and purposeless utterances of his feeling. But still
more than that: his speeches are not only unsatisfactory and unbecoming, ‫ף‬ፍ, accedit
quod (cumulative like Job_14:3), they are moreover irreligious, since by doubting the
justice of God they deprive religion of its fundamental assumption, and diminish the
reverence due to God. ‫ה‬ፎ ְ‫ר‬ִ‫י‬ in such an objective sense as Psa_19:10 almost corresponds
to the idea of religion. ‫ל‬ ֵ‫י־א‬ֵ‫נ‬ ְ‫פ‬ ִ‫ל‬ ‫ה‬ ָ‫יח‬ ִ‫שׂ‬ is to be understood, according to Psa_102:1; Psa_
142:3 (comp. Psa_64:2; Psa_104:34): before God, and consequently customary
devotional meditation, here of the disposition of mind indispensable to prayer, viz.,
devotion, and especially reverential awe, which Job depreciates (‫ע‬ ַ‫ר‬ָ, detrahere). His
speeches are mostly directed towards God; but they are violent and reproachful,
therefore irreverent in form and substance.
BE SO ,". Then answered Eliphaz — Eliphaz, not a little incensed that Job should
pay no regard to his advice, and should dare to challenge the Almighty to argue the
point with him, charges him home with self-conceit in entertaining too high an
opinion of his own knowledge; with arrogance in undervaluing the arguments
drawn from their experience, whose age was a sufficient voucher for their wisdom;
and with impiety, in thus rudely challenging the Almighty to answer for his conduct
in afflicting him. He presses home the same argument upon him a second time, to
which he adds that of universal tradition; insinuating, that he had yet worse to
expect unless he prevented it by a contrary conduct: and then presents him with a
picture of the final state of a wicked man; in which he so works up the
circumstances as to make it resemble Job and his condition as much as possible;
intimating thereby, that he imagined him to be that very wicked man he had been
describing, and that he had by that means drawn down God’s judgments on
himself: that, therefore, his imaginations of innocence were an illusion; but one,
however, of the worst kind; he had deceived himself. — Heath.
COKE, ". Then answered Eliphaz— Eliphaz, not a little incensed that Job should
pay no regard to his advice, and should dare to challenge the Almighty to argue the
point with him, charges him home with self-conceit, in entertaining too high an
opinion of his own knowledge; with arrogance, in undervaluing the arguments
drawn from their experience, whose age was a sufficient voucher for their wisdom;
and with impiety, in thus rudely challenging the Almighty to answer for his conduct
in afflicting him, Job 15:2-13. He presses home the same argument upon him a
second time; to which he adds that of universal tradition; insinuating, that he had

yet worse to expect, unless he prevented it by a contrary conduct: and then presents
him with an image, setting forth the final state of a wicked man; in which he so
works up the circumstances, as to make it resemble Job and his condition as much
as possible; intimating thereby, that he imagined him to be that very wicked man
whom he had been describing, and that he had by that means drawn down God's
judgments on himself, Job 15:14-30. That therefore his conceptions of innocence
were an illusion, but one, however, of the worst kind: he had deceived himself: Job
15:31-35. Heath.
Once the friends have finished their first round of speeches, they really have very
little more to add. Their subsequent speeches mostly cover old ground. It would be a
tired exercise, for example, just to show how Eliphaz in 15:15 reiterates his point
about the uncleanness even of heavenly creatures from 4:18 or how Eliphaz in 15:10
appeals to tradition as Bildad did in 8:8. Probably the most significant reason that
the dialogue continues is that Job has so much more to say. We get the impression
that he is maturing or developing right before our eyes, while the friends remain
static in their self-satisfied theology. Shakespeare was not the first to discover that
character development in the course of drama is one of the most alluring features of
that literary form. BILL LO G
ELLICOTT, "Eliphaz returns to the argument with the repetition of what he and
his friends have said before. He reproaches Job, professes a high idea of the majesty
and righteousness of God, and reiterates the assertion that the wicked man, by the
sure retribution of the Divine Providence, receives the reward of his iniquity in this
world. In Job 15:16 he uses strong general language, which is probably meant to
reflect on Job, and the inference is suggested that Job himself, because so sorely
chastened, must be wicked.
GUZIK, "a. Should a wise man answer with empty knowledge: Eliphaz was not
impressed by Job’s eloquent dependence on God as expressed in the previous
chapters. He replied with a sharp rebuke of Job, accusing him of empty knowledge,
of unprofitable talk, and of having cast off fear.
i. “As Job becomes more vehement, his friends become more severe. At first Eliphaz
was gentle and courteous (Job 4:2). ow his politeness diminishes, and he bluntly
accuses Job of folly and impiety.” (Andersen)
ii. As the discussion becomes more heated, it also becomes more coarse. “In his
opening lines Eliphaz accused Job of belching out a hot wind of useless words.”
(Smick) “The word translated himself is literally ‘belly’ (AV). The intriguing
possibility arises from the use of the pi’el verb fill as privative. This would reverse
the meaning to ‘empty’, which suits the context. Eliphaz has become coarse. Job’s
speeches are an excretion of belly wind.” (Andersen)

b. Or by speeches with which he can do no good: Eliphaz sought to discourage Job
from his self-defense. “It isn’t doing any good, Job. We aren’t listening to you. You
are not persuading us.”
c. And restrain prayer before God: Eliphaz was wrong in his judgment of Job;
though Eliphaz could not see Job’s secret prayer life, he was a man of piety and
prayer as Job 1:1-22 demonstrates.
i. evertheless, certainly some people do restrain prayer before God. Spurgeon
considered ways that some do this.
Some restrain prayer before God because they do not pray often or regularly.
Some restrain prayer before God because they do not prepare their hearts properly
to pray. They do not consider who they are praying to, the way their prayer should
be made, that they are sinners, what they should ask of God, and thankful for what
He has done in the past.
Some restrain prayer before God because they pray in such a formal, strict manner
that they never really pour out their heart before God.
Some restrain prayer before God because they pray with little faith and much
unbelief.
d. Your own mouth condemns you, and not I: Eliphaz insisted that Job was also
condemning himself more every time he spoke. This is because in the perspective of
Job’s friends, the only words Job should speak are words of humble repentance for
the sin that put him in this place.
STEDMA
Round one is complete; they have all had a chance at Job. Now his friends gird
up their loins, sharpen their spears, and come at him again. In the first six
verses, Eliphaz the Temanite charges Job with presumptuous words:
Eliphaz started out very courteously, but now he has dropped his courtesy, and
he is thrusting deeply. Then he charges Job with pretentious claims, Verses 7-9:
"We have the same sources of knowledge as you, Job. Why do you put us down,
and think yourself so smart?"
Then he returns, as all the friends do, to their narrow and worn-out theology,
Verses 14-16:

Of course, Eliphaz has Job in mind here, "a man abominable and corrupt, a man
who drinks iniquity like water." I hope you have seen the fault in this line of
argument. It is not that their theology is wrong, it is right. Eliphaz is pointing out
the general nature of the depravity of man, the Fall, and its effects upon human
life. And he says rightly that there is nobody who is clean, nobody who is
righteous before God. But what he fails to do is to point out to Job specifically
what it is that he has done. How can you deal with evil if you do not know what it
is? The great revelation that God is seeking to help Job to understand is the
nature of the corruptness of his heart. But God never charges him with fault until
Job begins to see what is wrong, while these men come ready to charge him
with every ugly thing in the book though they had no proof whatsoever, and Job's
life gives the lie to all their charges. As a matter of fact, they themselves are
guilty of the very things that they set before Job because they too are part of the
human race. Eliphaz is a man born of woman, so he is guilty with Job under this,
but you never hear a word of self-condemnation from him.
This is the terrible fault of these friends, and I hope it teaches us a very needed
lesson. When we go to talk with somebody who is in trouble, or in pain, or
suffering, or even sinful -- obviously so -- we must never take the position of
priggish smugness, or a complacency that pictures us as being right and true,
and the other one as wrong.
Eliphaz goes on in a long passage to argue again from experience. He goes
back over all the past and says, "My thesis is true, everything proves it: God will
not let a man get by with wickedness. The wicked are going to be punished.
Therefore, if you are being punished you must be wicked!" He says in Verse 34:
"The company of the godless is barren,"The company of the godless is barren,"The company of the godless is barren,"The company of the godless is barren,
and fire consumes the tent of bribery.and fire consumes the tent of bribery.and fire consumes the tent of bribery.and fire consumes the tent of bribery.
They conceive mischief and bring forth evilThey conceive mischief and bring forth evilThey conceive mischief and bring forth evilThey conceive mischief and bring forth evil
and their heart prepares deceit." {Joband their heart prepares deceit." {Joband their heart prepares deceit." {Joband their heart prepares deceit." {Job 15151515::::34343434----35353535 RSV}RSV}RSV}RSV}
It is the same old tired thrust at Job: he must be guilty of some terrible sin.
STRAHA
and conciliatory than he was in his first speech, his change of
attitude is easily accounted for, and to his own mind amply

justified. He has been deeply mortified to hear his words of
comfort, which seemed to him the very consolations of God,
rejected with indignation and scorn; he has keenly resented
the arrogant claim to a new wisdom superior to that of the
ancients; and, above all, his ears have been shocked by a
blasphemous attack upon the righteous government of God,
He is therefore compelled to alter his view of his friend, and
his mode of dealing with him. Whereas he first regarded him
as an essentially pious and right-minded man, who was being
chastised, not so much for any specific sins as for his participa-
tion in the universal human frailty and corruption, he now
knows him, on incontrovertible evidence, to be a despiser of
religion, a rebel against God. And, since it is evident that
consolations and promises should not be wasted upon an
obstinate sinner, nothing remains but to threaten him with the
fate of the godless, in the hope that he may yet be affected with
wholesome fear and brought to repentance. Eliphaz accordingly
proceeds to prove that he can descant as effectively upon the
terrors as upon the consolations of religion. After repeating and
accentuating his doctrine of human depravity, he paints a lurid
picture of a typical evil-doer, haunted in the midst of pros-
perity by the terrors of an evil conscience, and finally, with
all his children and possessions, overwhelmed by the wrath of
God.
COFFMA , "ELIPHAZ' SECO D SPEECH: PRETE DI G TO K OW THAT
JOB IS WICKED; ELIPHAZ DESCRIBES THE PU ISHME T JOB CA
EXPECT
It is the conviction of this writer that the speech of this old hypocrite Eliphaz is
merely the ostentatious declamation of an arrogant ignoramus, absolutely worthless
and unworthy of any special attention.
On the basis of his false theological axiom that God metes out, during this present
lifetime, the just reward of every man, blessing the righteous and heaping on the
punishments on the wicked. Eliphaz proceeded, in effect, to preach Job's funeral.
Jehovah himself addressed Eliphaz and the other friends of Job, saying, "Ye have
not spoken of me the thing that is right" (Job 42:7); and this is reason enough for
avoiding any detailed analysis of this cruel and inconsiderate speech.
What he said was unkind, brutal, cruel, inaccurate, conceited, arrogant and without
any redeeming quality whatever. It was merely another bitter experience for Job,
serving no other purpose than that of Satan, namely, trying in vain to force Job
from his integrity.
Job had just enunciated some of the greatest and most significant theological truths

ever revealed from God, namely, the resurrection of the dead, and the forgiveness of
sins; but such truth was lost on Eliphaz. Blinded by what he thought he knew, but
didn't, he made light of Job's speech. Satan must have rejoiced at having so skillful
a servant in his evil attack upon Job.
EBC, "THE TRADITIO OF A PURE RACE
Job 15:1-35
ELIPHAZ SPEAKS
THE first colloquy has made clear severance between the old Theology and the facts
of human life. o positive reconciliation is effected as yet between reality and faith,
no new reading of Divine providence has been offered. The author allows the friends
on the one hand, Job on the other, to seek the end of controversy just as men in their
circumstances would in real life have sought it. Unable to penetrate behind the veil
the one side clings obstinately to the ancestral faith, on the other side the persecuted
sufferer strains after a hope of vindication apart from any return of health and
prosperity, which he dares not expect. One of the conditions of the problem is the
certainty of death. Before death, repentance and restoration, - say the friends. Death
immediate, therefore should God hear me, vindicate me, -says Job. In desperation
he breaks through to the hope that God’s wrath will pass even though his scared
and harrowed life be driven into Sheol. For a moment he sees the light; then it seems
to expire. To the orthodox friends any such thought is a kind of blasphemy. They
believe in the nullity of the state beyond death. There is no wisdom nor hope in the
grave. "The dead know not anything, neither have they any more a reward; for the
memory of them is forgotten"-even by God. "As well their love, as their hatred and
their envy, is now perished; neither have they any more a portion forever in
anything that is done under the sun." [Ecclesiastes 9:5-6] On the mind of Job this
dark shadow falls and hides the star of his hope. To pass away under the
reprobation of men and of God, to suffer the final stroke and be lost forever in the
deep darkness; - anticipating this, how can he do otherwise than make a desperate
fight for his own consciousness of right and for God’s intervention while yet any
breath is left in him? He persists in this. The friends do not approach him one step
in thought; instead of being moved by his pathetic entreaties they draw back into
more bigoted judgment.
In opening the new circle of debate Eliphaz might be expected to yield a little, to
admit something in the claim of the sufferer, granting at least for the sake of
argument that his case is hard. But the writer wishes to show the rigour and
determination of the old creed, or rather of the men who preach it. He will not allow
them one sign of rapprochement. In the same order as before the three advance
their theory, making no attempt to explain the facts of human existence to which
their attention has been called. Between the first and the second round there is,
indeed, a change of position, but in the line of greater hardness. The change is thus
marked. Each of the three, differing toto coelo from Job’s view of his case, had

introduced an encouraging promise. Eliphaz had spoken of six troubles, yea seven,
from which one should be delivered if he accepted the chastening of the Lord.
Bildad affirmed
"Behold, God will not east away the perfect:
He will yet fill thy mouth with laughter
And thy lips with shouting."
Zophar had said that if Job would put away iniquity he should be led into fearless
calm.
"Thou shalt be steadfast and not fear,
For thou shalt forget thy misery
Remember it as waters that are passed by."
That is a note of the first series of arguments; we hear nothing of it in the second.
One after another drives home a stern, uncompromising judgment.
The dramatic art of the author has introduced several touches into the second
speech of Eliphaz which maintain the personality. For example, the formula "I have
seen" is carried on from the former address where it repeatedly occurs, and is now
used quite incidentally, therefore with all the more effect. Again the "crafty" are
spoken of in both addresses with contempt and aversion, neither of the other
interlocutors of Job nor Job himself using the word. The thought of Job 15:15 is also
the same as that ventured upon in Job 4:18, a return to the oracle which gave
Eliphaz his claim to be a prophet. Meanwhile he adopts from Bildad the appeal to
ancient belief in support of his position; but he has an original way of enforcing this
appeal. As a pure Temanite he is animated by the pride of race and claims more for
his progenitors than could be allowed to a Shuchite or aamathite, more, certainly,
than could be allowed to one who dwelt among worshippers of the sun and moon. As
a whole the thought of Eliphaz remains what it was, but more closely brought to a
point. He does not wander now in search of possible explanations. He fancies that
Job has convicted himself and that little remains but to show most definitely the fate
he seems bent on provoking. It will be a kindness to impress this on his mind.
The first part of the address, extending to Job 15:13, is an expostulation with Job,
whom in irony he calls "wise." Should a wise man use empty unprofitable talk,
filling his bosom, as it were, with the east wind, peculiarly blustering and arid? Yet
what Job says is not only unprofitable, it is profane.
"Thou doest away with piety
And hinderest devotion before God.

For thine iniquity instructs thy mouth,
And thou choosest the tongue of the crafty.
Thine own mouth condemneth thee: not I
Thine own lips testify against thee."
Eliphaz is thoroughly sincere. Some of the expressions used by his friend must have
seemed to him to strike at the root of reverence. Which were they? One was the
affirmation that tents of robbers prosper and they that provoke God are secure;
another the daring statement that the deceived and the deceiver are both God’s;
again the confident defence of his own life: "Behold now I have ordered my cause, I
know that I am righteous; who is he that will contend with me?" and once more his
demand why God harassed him, a driven leaf, treating him with oppressive cruelty.
Things like these were very offensive to a mind surcharged with veneration and
occupied with a single idea of Divine government. From the first convinced that
gross fault or arrogant self-will had brought down the malediction of God, Eliphaz
could not but think that Job’s iniquity was "teaching his mouth" (coming out in his
speech, forcing him to profane expressions), and that he was choosing the tongue of
the crafty. It seemed that he was trying to throw dust in their eyes. With the cunning
and shiftiness of a man who hoped to carry off his evil doing, he had talked of
maintaining his ways before God and being vindicated in that region where, as
every one knew, recovery was impossible. The ground of all certainty and belief was
shaken by those vehement words. Eliphaz felt that piety was done away and
devotion hindered, he could scarcely breathe a prayer in this atmosphere foul with
scepticism and blasphemy.
The writer means us to enter into the feelings of this man, to think with him, for the
time, sympathetically. It is no moral fault to be over jealous for the Almighty,
although it is a misconception of man’s place and duty, as Elijah learned in the
wilderness, when, having claimed to be the only believer left, he was told there were
seven thousand that never bowed the knee to Baal. The speaker has this
justification, that he does not assume office as advocate for God. His religion is part
of him, his feeling of shock and disturbance quite natural. Blind to the unfairness of
the situation, he does not consider the incivility of joining with two others to break
down one sick bereaved man, to scare a driven leaf. This is accidental. Controversy
begun, a pious man is bound to carry on, as long as may be necessary, the argument
which is to save a soul.
evertheless, being human, he mingles a tone of sarcasm as he proceeds.
"The first man wast thou born?
Or wast thou made before the hills?

Did’st thou hearken in the conclave of God?
And dost thou keep the wisdom to thyself?"
Job had accused his friends of speaking unrighteously for God and respecting His
person. This pricked. Instead of replying in soft words as he claims to have been
doing hitherto ("Are the consolations of God too small for thee and a word that
dealt tenderly with thee?"), Eliphaz takes to the sarcastic proverb. The author
reserves dramatic gravity and passion for Job, as a rule, and marks the others by
varying tones of intellectual hardness, of current raillery. Eliphaz now is permitted
to show more of the self-defender than the defender of faith. The result is a loss of
dignity.
"What knowest thou that we know not?
What understandest thou that is not in us?"
After all it is man’s reason against man’s reason. The answer will only come in the
judgment of the Highest.
"With us is he who is both grey-haired and very old,
Older in days than thy father."
ot Eliphaz himself surely. That would be to claim too great antiquity. Besides, it
seems a little wanting in sense. More probably there is reference to some aged rabbi,
such as every community loved to boast of, the estor of the clan, full of ancient
wisdom. Eliphaz really believes that to be old is to be near the fountain of truth.
There was an origin of faith and pure life. The fathers were nearer that holy source;
and wisdom meant going back as far as possible up the stream. To insist on this was
to place a real barrier in the way of Job’s self defence. He would scarcely deny it as
the theory of religion. What then of his individual protest, his philosophy of the
hour and of his own wishes? The conflict is presented here with much subtlety, a
standing controversy in human thought. Fixed principles there must be; personal
research, experience and passion there are, new with every new age. How settle the
antithesis? The Catholic doctrine has not yet been struck out that will fuse in one
commanding law the immemorial convictions of the race and the widening visions of
the living soul. The agitation of the church today is caused by the presence within
her of Eliphaz and Job-Eliphaz standing for the fathers and their faith, Job passing
through a fever crisis of experience and finding no remedy in the old
interpretations. The church is apt to say, Here is moral disease, sin; we have nothing
for that but rebuke and aversion. Is it wonderful that the tried life, conscious of
integrity, rises in indignant revolt? The taunt of sin, scepticism, rationalism or self-
will is too ready a weapon, a sword worn always by the side or carried in the hand.
Within the House of God men should not go armed, as if brethren in Christ might
be expected to prove traitors.

The question of the eleventh verse-"Are the consolations of God too small for
thee?"-is intended to cover the whole of the arguments already used by the friends
and is arrogant enough as implying a Divine commission exercised by them. "The
word that dealt tenderly with thee," says Eliphaz; but Job has his own idea of the
tenderness and seems to convey it by an expressive gesture or glance which provokes
a retort almost angry from the speaker, -
"Why doth thine heart carry thee away,
And why do thine eyes wink,
That thou turnest thy breathing against God,
And sendest words out of thy mouth?"
We may understand a brief emphatic word of repudiation not unmixed with
contempt and, at the same time, not easy to lay hold of. Eliphaz now feels that he
may properly insist on the wickedness of man-painfully illustrated in Job himself-
and depict the certain fate of him who defies the Almighty and trusts in his own
"vanity." The passage is from first to last repetition, but has new colour of the
quasi-prophetic kind and a certain force and eloquence that give it fresh interest.
Formerly Eliphaz had said, "Shall man be just beside God? Behold He putteth no
trust in His servants, and His angels He chargeth with folly." ow, with a keener
emphasis, and adopting Job’s own confession that man born of woman is impure, he
asserts the doctrine of creaturely imperfection and human corruption.
"Eloah trusteth not in His holy ones,
And the heavens are not pure in His sight;
How much less the abominable and corrupt,
Man, who drinketh iniquity as water?"
First is set forth the refusal of God to put confidence in the holiest creature, -a
touch, as it were, of suspicion in the Divine rule. A statement of the holiness of God
otherwise very impressive is marred by this too anthropomorphic suggestion. Why,
is not the opposite true, that the Creator puts wonderful trust not only in saints but
in sinners? He trusts men with life, with the care of the little children whom He
loves, with the use in no small degree of His creation, the powers and resources of a
world. True, there is a reservation. At no point is the creature allowed to rule. Saint
and sinner, man and angel are alike under law and observation. one of them can
be other than servants, none of them can ever speak the final word or do the last
thing in any cause. Eliphaz therefore is dealing with a large truth, one never to be
forgotten or disallowed. Yet he fails to make right use of it, for his second point, that
of the total corruption of human nature, ought to imply that God does not trust man

at all. The logic is bad and the doctrine will hardly square with the reference to
human wisdom and to wise persons holding the secret of God of whom Eliphaz goes
on to speak. Against him two lines of reasoning are evident, abominable, gone sour
or putrid, to whom evil is a necessary of existence like water-if man be that, his
Creator ought surely to sweep him away and be done with him. But since, on the
other hand, God maintains the life of human beings and honours them with no small
confidence, it would seem that man, sinful as he is, bad as he often is, does not lie
under the contempt of his Maker, is not set beyond a service of hope. In short,
Eliphaz sees only what he chooses to see. His statements are devout and striking, but
too rigid for the manifoldness of life. He makes it felt, even while he speaks, that he
himself in some way stands apart from the race he judges so hardly. So far as the
inspiration of this book goes, it is against the doctrine of total corruption as put into
the mouth of Eliphaz. He intends a final and crushing assault on the position taken
up by Job; but his mind is prejudiced, and the man he condemns is God’s approved
servant, who, in the end, will have to pray for Eliphaz that he may not be dealt with
after his folly. Quotation of the words of Eliphaz in proof of total depravity is a
grave error. The race is sinful; all men sin, inherit sinful tendencies and yield to
them: who does not confess it? But, -all men abominable and corrupt, drinking
iniquity as water, -that is untrue at any rate of the very person Eliphaz engages to
convict.
It is remarkable that there is not a single word of personal confession in any speech
made by the friends. They are concerned merely to state a creed supposed to be
honouring to God, a full justification from their point of view of His dealings with
men. The sovereignty of God must be vindicated by attributing this entire vileness to
man, stripping the creature of every claim on the consideration of his Maker. The
great evangelical, teachers have not so driven home their reasoning. Augustine
began with the evil in his own heart and reasoned to the world, and Jonathan
Edwards in the same way began with himself. "My wickedness," he says, "has long
appeared to me perfectly ineffable and, swallowing up all thought and imagination,
like an infinite deluge or mountains over my head. I know not how to express better
what my sins appear to me to be than by heaping infinite on infinite and multiplying
infinite by infinite." Here is no Eliphaz arguing from misfortune to sinfulness; and
indeed by that line it is impossible ever to arrive at evangelical poverty of spirit.
Passing to his final contention here the speaker introduces it with a special claim to
attention. Again it is what "he has seen" he will declare, what indeed all wise men
have seen from time immemorial.
"I will inform thee: hear me;
And what I have seen I will declare:
Things which wise men have told,
From their fathers, and have not hid,

To whom alone the land was given,
And no stranger passed in their midst."
There is the pride. He has a peculiar inheritance of unsophisticated wisdom. The
pure Temanite race has dwelt always in the same land, and foreigners have not
mixed with it. With it, therefore, is a religion not perverted by alien elements or the
adoption of sceptical ideas from passing strangers. The plea is distinctively Arabic
and may be illustrated by the self-complacent dogmatism of the Wahhabees of
Ri’ad, whom Mr. Palgrave found enjoying their own uncorrupted orthodoxy. In
central ejed society presents an element pervading it from its highest to its lowest
grades. ot only as a Wahhabee but equally as a ejdean the native of ‘Aared and
Yemamah differs, and that widely, from his fellow Arab of Shomer and Kaseem,
nay, of Woshem and Sedeyr. The cause of this difference is much more ancient than
the epoch of the great Wahhabee, and must be sought first and foremost in the
pedigree itself. The descent claimed by the indigenous Arabs of this region is from
the family of Tameen, a name peculiar to these lands ow Benoo-Tameem have
been in all ages distinguished from other Arabs by strongly drawn lines of
character, the object of the exaggerated praise and of the biting satire of native
poets. Good or bad, these characteristics, described some thousand years ago, are
identical with the portrait of their real or pretended descendants. Simplicity is
natural to the men of "Aared and Yemamah, independent of Wahhabee puritanism
and the vigour of its code" ("Central Arabia," pp. 272, 273). To this people ejed is
holy, Damascus through which Christians and other infidels go is a lax disreputable
place. They maintain a strict Mohammedanism from age to age. In their view, as in
that of Eliphaz, the land belongs to the wise people who have the heavenly treasure
and do not entertain strangers as guides of thought. Infallibility is a very old and
very abiding cult.
Eliphaz drags back his hearers to the penal visitation of the wicked, his favourite
dogma. Once more it is affirmed that for one who transgresses the law of God there
is nothing but misery, fear, and pain. Though he has a great following he lives in
terror of the destroyer; he knows that calamity will one day overtake him, and from
it there will be no deliverance. Then he will have to wander in search of bread, his
eyes perhaps put out by his enemy. So trouble and anguish make him afraid even in
his great day. There is here not a suggestion that conscience troubles him. His whole
agitation is from fear of pain and loss. o single touch in the picture gives the idea
that this man has any sense of sin.
How does Eliphaz distinguish or imagine the Almighty distinguishing between men
in general, who are all bad and offensive in their badness, and this particular
"wicked man"? Distinction there must be. What is it? One must assume, for the
reasoner is no fool, that the settled temper and habit of a life are meant. Revolt
against God, proud opposition to His will and law, these are the wickedness. It is no
mere stagnant pool of corruption, but a force running against the Almighty. Very
well: Eliphaz has not only made a true distinction, but apparently stated for once a
true conclusion. Such a man will indeed be likely to suffer for his arrogance in this

life, although it does not hold that he will be haunted by fears of coming doom. But
analysing the details of the wicked life in Job 15:25-28, we find incoherency. The
question is why he suffers and is afraid.
Because he stretched out his hand against God
And bade defiance to the Almighty;
He ran upon Him with a neck
Upon the thick bosses of His bucklers;
Because he covered his face with his fatness
And made collops of fat on his flanks;
And he dwelt in tabooed cities,
In houses which no man ought to inhabit,
Destined to become heaps.
Eliphaz has narrowed down the whole contention, so that he may carry it
triumphantly and bring Job to admit, at least in this case, the law of sin and
retribution. It is fair to suppose that he is not presenting Job’s case, but an
argument, rather, in abstract theology, designed to strengthen his own general
position. The author, however, by side lights on the reasoning shows where it fails.
The account of calamity and judgment, true as it might be in the main of God-
defiant lives running headlong against the laws of heaven and earth, is confused by
the other element of wickedness-"Because he hath covered his face with his fatness,"
etc. The recoil of a refined man of pure race from one of gross sensual appetite is
scarcely a fit parallel to the aversion of God from man stubbornly and insolently
rebellious. Further, the superstitious belief that one was unpardonable who made
his dwelling in cities under the curse of God (literally, cities cut off or tabooed),
while it might be sincerely put forward by Eliphaz, made another flaw in his
reasoning. Any one in constant terror of judgment would have been the last to take
up his abode in such accursed habitations. The argument is strong only in
picturesque assertion.
The latter end of the wicked man and his futile attempts to found a family or clan
are presented at the close of the address. He shall not become rich: that felicity is
reserved for the servants of God. o plentiful produce shall weigh down the
branches of his olives and vines, nor shall he ever rid himself of misfortune. As by a
flame or hot breath from the mouth of God his harvest and himself shall be carried
away. The vanity or mischief he sows shall return to him in vanity or trouble; and
before his time, while life should be still fresh, the full measure of his reward shall
be paid to him. The branch withered and dry, unripe grapes and the infertile

flowers of the olive falling to the ground point to the want of children or their early
death; for "the company of the godless shall be barren." The tents of injustice or
bribery, left desolate, shall be burned. The only fruit of the doomed life shall be
iniquity.
One hesitates to accuse Eliphaz of inaccuracy. Yet the shedding of the petals of the
olive is not in itself a sign of infertility; and although this tree, like others, often
blossoms without producing fruit, yet it is the constant emblem of productiveness.
The vine, again, may have shed its unripe grapes in Teman; but usually they wither.
It may be feared that Eliphaz has fallen into the popular speaker’s trick of
snatching at illustrations from "something supposed to be science." His contention
is partly sound in its foundation, but fails like his analogies; and the controversy,
when he leaves off, is advanced not a single step.
PARKER, "The Second Speech of Eliphaz
Job 15
Let us recall our position. Job had repelled the common theories of life and
government which his three friends had elaborately argued. He said in effect: o,
you have not touched the reality of the case; I have heard all your words, well
selected as words, uttered clearly and sharply, now and again perhaps a little cruel,
but you know nothing of my case: I do not know much about it myself; not one of us
has yet come upon the mystery; all the commonplaces you have spoken, all the
maxims you have set in order before me, I have known as long as I can remember
anything, and in their own places, and at proper times, no fault is to be found with
them,—but oh that God himself would speak to me! I could understand him better
than I understand you; you are trying to reach me, and cannot, and I am plagued
and fretted by your inadequate effort; you are straining yourselves, but really doing
nothing; you have told me of fate, and my conscience rejects it; you have preached
the doctrine of sovereignty, a very noble doctrine, capable of majestic expression,
but that is not it; you have not spared me in remarking upon the sure and certain
law by which punishment follows sin, but I have done no sin; you are addressing the
wrong man; I have served God, loved God, and lived for God and defied the devil: I
decline your theories; you have not touched my wounded heart. Job , as we have
seen, felt there was something more. Mark that word "felt" Who has dealt with it?
How vigorous we have been about the word "know"! How we have turned it, and
coloured it, and twisted, it, and lengthened it: but where is the tongue eloquent
enough and gentle enough to touch the word "felt"—feeling? We know many things
because we "feel" them. And we know many lies in the same way. It would not be
courteous always to tell a man bluntly that we feel how much he has missed the
statement of truth in what he has said, but we feel that the man is false. A wonderful
faculty, if we may so call it, is that of feeling! Christ was all feeling; he said, "Who
touched me?" "Master, the multitude throng thee and press thee, and sayest thou,
Who touched me?"—the question is preposterous; people cannot help touching
thee. They knew not there was touching and touching—the masonic touch, the look

full of meaning, the attitude that was a prayer. When Jesus went into the synagogue
he knew at once there was a man there with a withered hand. How did he know? He
"felt." He knew all harmonies, and proportions, and balances, and consistencies: he
knew when this little earth staggered in its course; every motion seemed to send a
vibration to his very heart. We know something of the mystery of this power. Job
knew it well after he had listened to the vain eloquence of his comforters. He felt
there was something more, and yet could not put it into words. "Words"—what can
they express? They may express a little when the man himself is present to give them
vitality, complexion, accent, by his own personality; but when he has gone, and men
are left to pronounce the words according to their own conception of their meaning,
how often the meaning is gone, and we know not where they have laid it! Job was
thus in a crisis. He represented a great intellectual and moral agony. He was
between two lands: he had left the old land, and had not yet arrived at the new one;
his mind was in a transition state; he said, Almost today the light may shine, and I
may be able to tell you all about it; at any moment now the cloud may break, and
the angel may descend. Yet that happy revelation had not come. When a man is
waiting for the Revelation , assured that it will come; when all circumstances and
appearances are dead against him; when his own wife does not know him; when his
children are dead; when his familiar acquaintances have abandoned him; and he
still feels that the angel is nearer than ever but has not yet manifested himself,—that
is the agonistic point in life. We cannot tell all we know. Eliphaz said, "Is there any
secret thing with thee?" Some secret with thee? There is with every man. How
foolish are they who say, Tell all you know! Who can do that, if the word "know" is
rightly interpreted? Who can empty an intellect? who can turn a heart upside down,
and pour its contents before the gaze of the public? Blessed are those teachers who
always know more than they say: what they do not say has an effect upon what they
do say—sends out upon it a singular ghostly colouring and hint of things
unspeakable and infinite. Eliphaz could tell all he knew. Any man can repeat the
alphabet, and make an end of it: but oh! when it combines itself, when it passes into
marvellous permutations, and into poetry, philosophy, history, science, and then
says: I want to say ten thousand other things, but ye cannot bear them now,—then it
is we find and feel the difference between the literary man and the seer, between
talent and genius, between great knowledge and inexpressible emotion.
It will be interesting to see how Eliphaz approaches Job now that he has delivered
himself in the manner which we have already analyzed and considered. First of all,
Eliphaz says: Here is a great waste of mental energy, a great deal of unprofitable
talk; here are speeches wherewith he can do no good. It is difficult to preach to such
men,—and it is still more difficult to hear them preach! They have such a
conception of profitableness and edification; they are so final, so geometric; they
begin, and they end; they have no apocalypse; they have a ceiling, not a sky,—a
ringed fence, not a horizon: so when they hear Job preach they say, This is a great
waste of intellectual power; all this comes to nothingness and unprofitableness;
these are words only, wherewith no good can be done: here is a man who wants to
force the mystery of heaven: here is a poor creature of days battering with his
fevered hand upon the door of the everlasting,—as if any beating of his could ever
elicit a reply: this is unprofitable, this is worthless; Job , this is vanity. Eliphaz spoke

to the best of his ability. He was an Arab, by relation if not by direct descent, and he
spoke all he knew by the book; but he had no book-producing power in his own
mind and heart: he was a great reader; he was full of information, such as his day
supplied, but he had not that mysterious touch, which every soul that is not dead
can feel, but which no mind can fully explain.
Then Eliphaz accused Job of self-contradiction. That is the great weapon of the
enemy. Hear him:—
"For thy mouth uttereth thine iniquity... thine own mouth condemneth thee, and not
I: yea, thine own lips testify against thee" ( Job 15:5-6).
Some men are great in parallel columns: they put down upon one side what was said
the day before yesterday, and on the other side what was said only yester-morning,
and they say, Look on this picture and on that: here is a man who has blown hot
and cold, sent forth sweet water and bitter; here is a man between whose utterances
there is really no organic or vital consistency. They did not understand Job. His
consistency was in his integrity, in his purpose, in his motive, in his character.
Herein we do not altogether hold with those who say to preachers, Always be sure to
agree with yourselves,—so that the sermon preached twenty years ago shall exactly
match in length and in colour the sermon you preach today. o: a man must take
the day as he finds it; be the self of the passing day as to utterance, attitude,
expression: but he must. be yesterday, today, and for ever the same in holy desire, in
upward looking, in waiting upon God. That is consistency enough for any mortal
man. Job acknowledged that he was talking roughly and with some measure of
incoherence, because he was talking in the dark, he was groping at midnight, and he
was almost trying to speak himself into the right kind of music,—as a man who says,
By-and-by I shall warm to my subject; by talking about it I shall presently talk the
thing itself, by hovering above it I shall get a better aspect of it, and then at the end I
shall proclaim the solid and tranquil truth.
PULPIT, "The second colloquy between Job and his friends is, like the first (ch. 3-
14.), one in which all of them take part, and the same order of speakers is
maintained. Job answers each speaker in turn; Eliphaz at some length (Job 16:1-22;
Job 17:1-16.), the other two more briefly. The present chapter contains the second
speech of Eliphaz. Compared with the first, it is harsh and violent in tone, assuming
Job's guilt, and reproaching him fiercely and rudely. It naturally divides into three
portions:
Job 15:1, Job 15:2
Then answered Eliphaz the Temanite, and said, Should a wise man utter vain
knowledge! literally, knowledge of wind—knowledge, i.e.' which is vain, idle,
inflated, without solidity or substance. Job, as setting up to be "a wise man," should
not have indulged in such empty and foolish speaking. It is observable that Eliphaz
does not point out what part of Job's discourses he considers objectionable, but

condemns the whole of them under this broad and general description, which even
he could not have regarded as applicable to more than a portion of what Job had
said. And fill his belly with the east wind? The east wind was regarded as the worst
of winds. In Palestine it blew from the great Syrian and orth Arabian desert, and
was of the nature of a sirocco. (On its deleterious effects, see Genesis 41:6, Genesis
41:23; Jeremiah 18:17; Ezekiel 17:10; Ezekiel 19:12; Ezekiel 27:26; Hosea 13:15,
etc.)
2 "Would a wise man answer with empty notions
or fill his belly with the hot east wind?
BAR ES, "Should a wise man - Referring to Job, and to his claims to be esteemed
wise; see Job_12:3; Job_13:2, Job_13:6. The argument of Eliphaz here is, that the
sentiments which Job had advanced were a sufficient refutation of his pretensions to
wisdom. A wise man would not be guilty of “mere talk,” or of using language that
conveyed no ideas.
Utter - literally, answer. It refers to the replies which Job had made to the arguments
of his friends.
Vain knowledge - Margin, “Knowledge of wind.” So the Hebrew; see Job_6:26;
Job_7:7. The “wind” is used to denote what is unsubstantial, vain, changing. Here it is
used as an emblem of remarks which were vain, empty, and irrelevant.
And fill his belly - Fill his mind with unsubstantial arguments or sentiments - as
little fitted for utility as the east wind is for food. The image is, “he fills himself with
mere wind, and then blows it out under pretence of delivering the maxims of wisdom.”
With the east wind - The east wind was not only tempestuous and vehement, but
sultry, and destructive to vegetation. It passed over vast deserts, and was characterized
by great dryness and heat. It is used here to denote a manner of discourse that had in it
nothing profitable.
CLARKE, "Should a wise man utter vain knowledge - Or rather, Should a wise
man utter the science of wind? A science without solidity or certainty.
And fill his belly with the east wind? - ‫בטן‬ beten, which we translate belly, is used
to signify any part of the cavity of the body, whether the region of the thorax or
abdomen; here it evidently refers to the lungs, and may include the cheeks and fauces.
The east wind, ‫קדים‬ kadim, is a very stormy wind in the Levant, or the eastern part of the
Mediterranean Sea, supposed to be the same with that called by the Greeks ευροκλυδων,

euroclydon, the east storm, mentioned Act_27:14. Eliphaz, by these words, seems to
intimate that Job’s speech was a perfect storm or tempest of words.
GILL, "Should a wise man utter vain knowledge,.... As Job had been thought to
be, or as he himself thought he was, which he might say sarcastically; or as he really was,
not worldly wise, nor merely wise in things natural, but in things divine; being one that
had the fear of God, which is the beginning of wisdom, and wisdom itself; believed in
Christ, and walked wisely and circumspectly before men; now it is not becoming such a
man to utter vain knowledge, or such knowledge as is like the wind, or, as the Targum,
windy knowledge; empty, not solid, nor satisfying, but swells and puffs up, and is
knowledge falsely so called; but it does not appear that Job did utter such vain and
fruitless things as deserved to be compared to the wind:
and fill his belly with the east wind; which is noisy and blusterous, rapid and
forcible, bearing all before it, and very infectious in hot countries; and such notions Job,
according to Eliphaz, satisfied himself with, and endeavoured to insinuate them into
others; which were nothing but great swelling words of vanity, and tended to subvert the
faith of men, and overthrow all religion, and were very unwholesome, infectious, and
ruinous to the minds of men, as suggested.
HE RY 2-3, "I. He charges him with folly and absurdity (Job_15:2, Job_15:3), that,
whereas he had been reputed a wise man, he had now quite forfeited his reputation; any
one would say that his wisdom had departed from him, he talked so extravagantly and so
little to the purpose. Bildad began thus (Job_8:2), and Zophar, Job_11:2, Job_11:3. It is
common for angry disputants thus to represent one another's reasonings as impertinent
and ridiculous more than there is cause, forgetting the doom of him that calls his brother
Raca, and Thou fool. It is true, 1. That there is in the world a great deal of vain
knowledge, science falsely so called, that is useless, and therefore worthless. 2. That this
is the knowledge that puffs up, with which men swell in a fond conceit of their own
accomplishments. 3. That, whatever vain knowledge a man may have in his head, if he
would be thought a wise man he must not utter it, but let it die with himself as it
deserves. 4. Unprofitable talk is evil talk. We must give an account in the great day not
only for wicked words, but for idle words. Speeches therefore which do no good, which
do no service either to God or our neighbour, or no justice to ourselves, which are no
way to the use of edifying, were better unspoken. Those words which are as wind, light
and empty, especially which are as the east wind, hurtful and pernicious, it will be
pernicious to fill either ourselves or others with, for they will pass very ill in the account.
5. Vain knowledge or unprofitable talk ought to be reproved and checked, especially in a
wise man, whom it worst becomes and who does most hurt by the bad example of it.
JAMISO , "a wise man — which Job claims to be.
vain knowledge — Hebrew, “windy knowledge”; literally, “of wind” (Job_8:2). In
Ecc_1:14, Hebrew, “to catch wind,” expresses to strive for what is vain.
east wind — stronger than the previous “wind,” for in that region the east wind is the
most destructive of winds (Isa_27:8). Thus here, - empty violence.
belly — the inward parts, the breast (Pro_18:8).

BE SO , "Job 15:2. Should a wise man — Such as thou pretendest to be, utter
vain knowledge — Hebrews ‫רוח‬ ‫,דעת‬ dagnath, ruach, knowledge of wind; that is,
empty words, without any sense or solidity in them; and fill his belly — Satisfy his
mind and conscience; with the east wind — With notions and speeches, which are
not only unsubstantial and unprofitable, but also hasty, impetuous, and pernicious;
and full as hurtful to the peace of his own mind, and the quiet and comfort of
others, as the boisterous, scorching east wind is to fruits and herbs of every kind.
The Hebrew is literally, And should the east wind fill his belly — his vain and
useless knowledge puff him up with pride and self-conceit?
BIBLE BELIEVER'S COMM
Eliphaz is exasperated. He was the first man to talk to Job
(Chap. 4) and, at that time, he figured that he had at least tried to
help Job out. But now, after hearing Job answer Zophar and Bildad,
Eliphaz has lost his "cool," without going through what Job went
through, and he "climb's Job's frame" like Tertullian (150-220) did
when he took the pagans apart, or like Martin Luther (1483-1546) when
he used to read the riot act to the Popes.
"...vain knowledge...east wind...unprofitable
talk...speeches...no good...casteth off fear...restrainest prayer
before God...iniquity...crafty" (vv 2-5). Eliphaz has done just about
everything short of consigning Job to Hell. The "hot air" of verse 2
is the famous "Sirroco" of the near East, which brings drought (Jonah
4:8) and locusts (Exod. 10:13). In verse 4, Eliphaz accuses Job of
forsaking his "fear of God" (Job 1:1 and comments), and also he
accuses Job of forsaking prayer meeting night, and spending his time
on his knees tuning the TV instead of petitioning the throne of grace.
"Thine own mouth condemneth thee, and not I" (v 6). Well, granted Job
had put his foot in his mouth, at least he knew he was going to do it,
for he had prophesied beforehand (Job 9:20!).
Eliphaz is rubbing it in pretty bad, for Job has been talking
about a Perry Mason situation for a good while (see 14:17; 13:26;
13:18); so, now, Eliphaz says (in substance): You're guilty of
perjury, Job. You've taken the stand and sworn to tell the truth, the
whole truth, and nothing but the truth, and instead you are your own
worst witness. Your testimony is against yourself; you're the best
witness the prosecution has!" {See Jer. 18:17, Ezra 17:10, and 19:12.}
STRAHA
Job having expressly claimed that he was no less wise
than his friends (i2 3 i3 2 ), and virtually implied that he was
wiser, Eliphaz, expanding a phrase of Bildad's (8 2 ), loftily asks
if it is a wise man's part to defend himself with vain knowledge,
lit c with knowledge of wind,' with words as empty and bitter as

they are noisy and violent, and to fill his belly with the east
wind. Ewald takes this second phrase to refer to 'speeches
which come from the belly, the seat of unruly passion, not from
the heart ' ; but it is more probable that Eliphaz, without making
any physical or psychical distinction, thinks only of giving expres-
sion to his unmitigated scorn by characterising Job as a windbag
or blusterer (a word connected with ' blow,' ' blast/ Ger. blasen).
Sir Thomas More has the alliterative phrase 'bloweth and
blustereth out blasphemy'; and Carlyle constantly applies
Eliphaz's words to all kinds of pretentious and empty oratory.
Cf. Virgil's ventosa lingua ' (Aen. xi. 390).
3 Or with speeches wherewith he can do no good. e Eliphaz
condemns Job because his talk can do no good. Always has
this been urged against those who, with no thought of conse-
quences, cannot but utter what is in them ; and it is held to be
especially pertinent against the man who> like Job, challenges
the constitution under which he lives, and has " no remedy to
propose." ' 1
4 Yea, thou doest away with fear. This is probably a
charge of both subjective irreverence and objective irreligion,
the word 'fear' being used in late Hebrew as practically
equivalent to e religion.' And restradnest devotion. Probably
the meaning is not that Job's words and example tend to impair
the devotion of others (Ewald), but that he himself fails to main-
tain that reverent stillness before God which is essential to true
religion; he 'diminishes' it (as Jh3 literally means) by violent
and unseemly utterances. In thus accusing Job of irrever-
ence, Eliphaz is only superficially right, and it is the purpose of
the drama to exhibit a seeker after truth who never really ceases
to be profoundly religious, however far he may drift from his
old theological moorings, and however unconventional may be
the language which his hard experiences sometimes wring from
his lips.
5 For thine iniquity teacheth thy mouth. Reasoning from
effect to cause, and concluding that all words are * taught,' or
prompted, by the good or bad spirit which dominates the inner
life, Eliphaz asserts that Job's blasphemous utterances are inspired
by the wickedness of his heart, that his evil genius or preceptor
is the character he has made for himself. And thou choosest
the tongue of the crafty. The speaker regards Job's assump-
tion of innocence, his assault upon divine justice, and^his re-
pudiation of accepted dogmas as clever ruses to evade detection.
Eliphaz makes no allowance, either for honest doubt, or for the
possibility of self-deception, or for the bewilderment of a mind

staggered by calamity and racked by bodily pain. Duhm
plausibly suggests that the poet employs the word craffcy as a
technical term. 'Was there, 5 he asks 1 *a movement, perhaps
a writing, which contrasted, in the manner of Eliphaz, divine
wisdom with the cunning of the serpent (neon with ncny),
reverence (n&n 11 ) with sceptical criticism ? '
3 Would he argue with useless words,
with speeches that have no value?
BAR ES, "Should he reason with unprofitable talk? - It does not become a
man professing to be wise to make use of words that are nothing to the purpose. The
sense is, that what Job said amounted to just nothing.
CLARKE, "Should he reason with unprofitable talk? - Should a man talk
disrespectfully of his Maker, or speak to him without reverence? and should he suppose
that he has proved any thing, when he has uttered words of little meaning, and used
sound instead of sense?
GILL, "Should he reason with unprofitable talk?.... That is, the wise man, such a
man as Job; does it become him to talk such idle stuff? that which is false, and foolish,
and frothy, that does not minister grace to the hearer, and is not for the use of edifying;
as whatever is untrue, unwise, vain, and empty, must be useless and answer no good
end; nothing is profitable but what tends to increase solid wisdom and spiritual
knowledge, and to exercise grace, and influence an holy life; wherefore what are
profitable to the souls of men are the doctrines of the word of God, and the experiences
of the grace of God, communicated by his people one to another; and nothing but these,
or what agrees with them, should come out of the mouth of a wise and good man; nor
can such an one expect to convince men of their errors, or reprove them for their sins
with success, who deals in words of no profit:
or with speeches wherewith he can do no good? but may do a great deal of hurt
both to himself and others; but the same thing is here signified in different words,
BE SO , "Job 15:3. Should he reason with unprofitable talk? — Of what
consequence are all his arguments? Do they carry any weight with them? Do they
convince and satisfy those with whom he contends? o: they are no better than

unprofitable talk. With speeches wherewith he can do no good? — Either to himself
or others, but will do much hurt.
4 But you even undermine piety
and hinder devotion to God.
BAR ES, "Yea, thou castest off fear - Margin, Makest void. Fear here means the
fear or reverence of God; and the idea is, that Job had not maintained a proper
veneration or respect for his Maker in his argument. He had defended principles and
made assertions which implied great disrespect for the Deity. If those doctrines were
true; if he was right in his views about God, then he was not a being who could be
reverenced. No confidence could be placed in his government; no worship of such a
being could be maintained. Eliphaz does not refer here so much to what was personal
with Job, as to his principles. He does not mean so much to affirm that he himself had
lost all reverence for God, as that his arguments led to that. Job had maintained that
God did not in this life reward and punish people strictly according to their deserts. If
this was so, Eliphaz says, then it would be impossible to honor him, and religion and
worship would be at an end.
The Hebrew word rendered “castest off” - more accurately rendered in the margin
“makest void” (‫תפר‬ tāpēr) - implies this. “And restrainest prayer before God.” Margin,
“speech.” The Hebrew word ‫שׂיחה‬ śıychâh means properly “meditation” - and particularly
meditation about divine things: Psa_119:97. Then it means “devotion” - as to meditate
on divine things is a part of devotion. It may be applied to any part of devotion, and
seems to be not improperly rendered “prayer.” It is that devotion which finds utterance
in the language of prayer. The word rendered “restrainest” - ‫תגרע‬ tıgâra‛ - means to shave
off - like the beard; then to cut off, to take away, detract, withhold; and the idea here is,
that the views which Job maintained were such as “to sap the very foundations of
religion.” If God treated the righteous and the wicked alike, the one would have nothing
to hope and the other nothing to fear.
There could be no ground of encouragement, to pray to him. How could the righteous
pray to him, unless there was evidence that he was the friend of virtue? How could they
hope for his special blessing, if he were disposed to treat the good and the bad alike?
Why was it not just as well to live in sin as to be holy? And how could such a being be the
object of confidence or prayer? Eliphaz mistook the meaning of Job, and pressed his
positions further than he intended; and Job was not entirely able to vindicate his
position, or to show how the consequences stated by Eliphaz could be avoided. “They
both wanted the complete and full view of the future state of retribution revealed in the
gospel, and that would have removed the whole difficulty.” But I see not how the

considerations here urged by this ancient sage of the tendency of Job’s doctrine can be
avoided, if it be applied to the views of those who hold that all people will be saved at
death. If that be the truth, then who can fail to see that the tendency must be to make
people cast off the fear of God and to undermine all devotion and prayer? Why should
people pray, if all are to be treated alike at death? How can people worship and honor a
Being who will treat the good and the bad alike? How can we have confidence in a being
who makes no distinction in regard to character? And what inducement can there be to
be pious, when all people shall be made as happy as they can be forever whether they are
pious or not? We are not to wonder, therefore, that the system tends every where to sap
the foundations of virtue and religion; that it makes no man better; and that where it
prevails, it banishes religion and prayer from the world.
CLARKE, "Thou castest off fear - Thou hast no reverence for God.
And restrainest prayer - Instead of humbling thyself, and making supplication to
thy Judge, thou spendest thy time in arraigning his providence and justifying thyself.
When a man has any doubts whether he has grieved God’s Spirit, and his mind feels
troubled, it is much better for him to go immediately to God, and ask forgiveness, than
spend any time in finding excuses for his conduct, or laboring to divest it of its seeming
obliquity. Restraining or suppressing prayer, in order to find excuses or palliations for
infirmities, indiscretions, or improprieties of any kind, which appear to trench on the
sacred limits of morality and godliness, may be to a man the worst of evils: humiliation
and prayer for mercy and pardon can never be out of their place to any soul of man who,
surrounded with evils, is ever liable to offend.
GILL, "Yea, thou castest off fear,.... Not of man; a slavish fear of man is to be cast
off, because that brings a snare, deters men from their duty, and leads into sin; though
there is a fear and reverence of men which ought to be given to them, "fear to whom
fear", Rom_13:7; but here the fear of God is meant, which is to be understood of the
grace of fear, of which Job was possessed; that could not be cast off, for this is not what
is in a man naturally, or is by the light of nature, and arises from natural conviction,
which may be cast off, as was by Pharaoh; but this is a blessing of the covenant of grace,
sure and firm, and is one of the gifts of grace that are without repentance; it is a part of
internal grace, which can never be lost; it is improved and increased by fresh discoveries
of the grace and goodness of God, and is an antidote and preservative against apostasy:
perhaps the whole worship of God may be meant, external worship, or outward religion
in the form of it, which is sometimes signified by the fear of God: Ecc_12:14; and it is
cast off when it is neglected and not attended to, or when men become profane, after
they have made a profession of religion; but as neither of these can be thought to be the
case of Job, rather the meaning of Eliphaz may be, that Job did not show that reverence
to God he should, as his words may seem, in Job_13:20; or that by his way of talk and
reasoning, and by the notions he had imbibed and gave out, and the assertions he laid
down, all religion would be made void among men; for if, as he had said, God "destroys
the perfect and the wicked, and the tabernacles of robbers prosper, and the just men
are laughed to scorn", Job_9:22; who would fear God? it might be inferred from hence,
that it is a vain thing to serve him, and there can be no profit got by keeping his
ordinances, and walking before him; this is the way to put an end to all religion, as if
Eliphaz should say, and discourage all regard unto it:

and restrainest prayer before God; prayer is to be made to God and to him only, it
is a part of religious worship, directed to by the light of nature, and ought to be
performed by every man; it is a special privilege of the saints, who have a covenant God
on a throne of grace to go to, and can pray in a spiritual manner for spiritual things; and
especially is to be observed in times of trouble, in which Job now was, and never to be
disused; now this charge either respects Job himself, that he left off praying, which can
hardly be supposed; or that he drew out prayer to a great length, as some understand the
words (w), like the tautologies of the Heathen; or he diminished prayer, as others (x),
lessened the times of prayer, and the petitions in it: or rather it may respect others; not
that it can be thought he should lay his injunctions on those over whom he had any
authority, forbidding his servants, or those about him, to pray; but that by his manner of
reasoning he discouraged prayer, as Eliphaz thought, as an useless thing; for if God
laughs at the trials and afflictions of the innocent, and suffers wicked men to prosper,
who would pray to him, or serve him? see Job_9:23.
HE RY, "II. He charges him with impiety and irreligion (Job_15:4): “Thou castest
off fear,” that is, “the fear of God, and that regard to him which thou shouldst have; and
then thou restrainest prayer.” See what religion is summed up in, fearing God and
praying to him, the former the most needful principle, the latter the most needful
practice. Where no fear of God is no good is to be expected; and those who live without
prayer certainly live without God in the world. Those who restrain prayer do thereby
give evidence that they cast off fear. Surely those have no reverence of God's majesty, no
dread of his wrath, and are in no care about their souls and eternity, who make no
applications to God for his grace. Those who are prayerless are fearless and graceless.
When the fear of God is cast off all sin is let in and a door opened to all manner of
profaneness. It is especially bad with those who have had some fear of God, but have
now cast it off - have been frequent in prayer, but now restrain it. How have they fallen!
How is their first love lost! It denotes a kind of force put upon themselves. The fear of
God would cleave to them, but they throw it off; prayer would be uttered, but they
restrain it; and, in both, they baffle their convictions. Those who either omit prayer or
straiten and abridge themselves in it, quenching the spirit of adoption and denying
themselves the liberty they might take in the duty, restrain prayer. This is bad enough,
but it is worse to restrain others from prayer, to prohibit and discourage prayer, as
Darius, Dan_6:7. Now,
1. Eliphaz charges this upon Job, either, (1.) As that which was his own practice. He
thought that Job talked of God with such liberty as if he had been his equal, and that he
charged him so vehemently with hard usage of him, and challenged him so often to a fair
trial, that he had quite thrown off all religious regard to him. This charge was utterly
false, and yet wanted not some colour. We ought not only to take care that we keep up
prayer and the fear of God, but that we never drop any unwary expressions which may
give occasion to those who seek occasion to question our sincerity and constancy in
religion. Or, (2.) As that which others would infer from the doctrine he maintained. “If
this be true” (thinks Eliphaz) “which Job says, that a man may be thus sorely afflicted
and yet be a good man, then farewell all religion, farewell prayer and the fear of God. If
all things come alike to all, and the best men may have the worst treatment in this world,
every one will be ready to say, It is vain to serve God; and what profit is it to keep his
ordinances? Mal_3:14. Verily I have cleansed my hands in vain, Psa_73:13, Psa_73:14.
Who will be honest if the tabernacles of robbers prosper? Job_12:6. If there be no
forgiveness with God (Job_7:21), who will fear him? Psa_130:4. If he laugh at the trial
of the innocent (Job_9:23), if he be so difficult of access (Job_9:32), who will pray to

him?” Note, It is a piece of injustice which even wise and good men are too often guilty
of, in the heat of disputation, to charge upon their adversaries those consequences of
their opinions which are not fairly drawn from them and which really they abhor. This is
not doing as we would be done by.
JAMISON, "fear — reverence for God (Job_4:6; Psa_2:11).
prayer — meditation, in Psa_104:34; so devotion. If thy views were right, reasons
Eliphaz, that God disregards the afflictions of the righteous and makes the wicked to
prosper, all devotion would be at an end.
PULPIT, "Yea, thou castest off fear. To Eliphaz, Job's words—his bold
expostulations (Job 13:3, Job 13:15, Job 13:22, etc.), his declarations that he knows
he will be justified (Job 13:8), and that God will be his Salvation (Job 13:16)—seem
to imply that he has cast off altogether the fear of God, and is entirely devoid of
reverence. Some of his expressions certainly seem over-bold; but, on the other hand,
his sense of God's purity, perfectness, and transcendent power is continually
manifest, and should have saved him from the rude reproach here launched against
him (comp. Job 9:1-13; Job 12:24 25; Job 13:11, Job 13:21, etc.). And restrainest
prayer before God; rather, and hinderest devout meditation before God. Eliphaz
means that Job expresses himself in a way so of. fensive to devout souls, that he
disturbs their minds and prevents them from indulging in those pious meditations
on the Divine goodness which would otherwise occupy them (comp. Psalms 119:97).
Thus, according to Eliphaz, Job is not only irreligious himself, but the cause of
irreligion in others.
BE SO , "Job 15:4. Yea, thou castest off fear — Hebrew, Thou makest void fear;
the fear of God, piety, and religion, by thy unworthy speeches of God, and by those
false and pernicious principles, that God makes no difference between good and bad
in the course of his providence, but equally prospers or afflicts both: thou dost that
which tends to the subversion of the fear and worship of God. And restrainest
prayer — Thou dost, by thy words and principles, as far as in thee lies, banish
prayer out of the world, by making it useless and unprofitable to men. Houbigant’s
translation of the verse is, Truly, thou loosest the bonds of religion; thou preventest
the groans or prayers which are sent up to God. Thy speeches, says Bishop Patrick,
“destroy all religion, and discourage men from pouring out their complaint in
prayer to God.”
ELLICOTT, "(4) Yea, thou castest off fear.—The tendency also of Job has been to
encourage a kind of fatalism (e.g., Job 12:16-25), and therefore to check the offering
of prayer to God, besides setting an example which, if followed, as from Job’s
position it was likely to be, would lead to murmuring and blasphemy.
BIBLE BELIEVER'S COMM

Now, we do not know who the first man was to alter verse 4 to
mean that Job was "hurting other people's devotions" and preventing
them from praying to God, but this ridiculous HPD flops through the
texts of the RV, ASV, RSV, and other corrupt revisions like a crippled
duck. The first writer to have trouble with the text was the writer of
the obscene Septuagint, which reads: "accomplished such words" for
"restrainest prayer." From here on (150-1900 A.D.), the destructive
critics of the Bible hang around the stinking exposition like buzzards
on a carcass.
Meredith Kline (an evangelical Conservative) says that Job is
undermining "religion," instead of restraining prayer. J. F. and Brown
(Fundamentalists) believe that Job is destroying somebody's devotion
to God by what he is saying. The defunct ASV (1901), recommended by
Premillennialists, has written "hinderest devotion" for "restrainer,"
and The Pulpit Commentary (Rawlinson) says that Job prevented other
people from having pious meditations on the "divine goodness" of God
(Ibid., p. 216). LIKE WHO?
I said "LIKE WHO?"
Who has heard Job say anything wrong from the time he was born
until his three friends showed up? Whose devotions was Job
"hindering?" His friends weren't conducting "devotions"; they were
mauling him. His wife wasn't conducting "devotions," and she hadn't
heard Job utter any "vain words." No one else had come to see Job
since he was smitten. Where then did these ridiculous expositors,
revisors, commentators, theologians, and scholars get this crippled
duck from? You figure it out.
This time Adam Clarke has it figured out and figured out
right. Job's buddies are accusing Job of getting bitter and angry with
God, and when this happens, a man's prayer life (or "devotions")
stops. They accuse Job of trying to talk his way through his troubles
instead of praying his way through, and if DeWette, Budde,
Schlottmann, Dillman, Peake, Meyer, and Gesenius altered the text to
avoid that inference, it only proves, for the umpteenth time, that a
"hit dog always hollers."
BI, "Thou restrainest prayer before God.
The hindrances to spiritual prayer
All the motives by which the heart of man can be influenced, combine to urge upon him
the great duty of prayer. Whence, then, arises the guilty indifference to spiritual prayer,
so prevalent among us? Why will men, whose only hope depends upon the undeserved
compassion of their Heavenly Father, close up, as it were, by their own apathy and
unbelief, the exhaustless fountain from whence it longs to flow, and restrain prayer
before God? Examine some of the more common hindrances to comfort and success in

the exercise of prayer; and inquire why so little growth in grace is derived from this
essential element of the Christian life. Prayer is restrained before God—
I. When he is approached in a proud, unhumbled state of heart. Such was the sin of Job
when the Temanite reproved him. Can an unrestrained communion be held with God by
one whose spirit has not yet been subdued by the knowledge of his sin, the conviction of
his danger, the shame of his ingratitude? If prayer be anything, it is the utterance of one
self-condemned, to the Being by whom he was made, the Judge by whose verdict he
must abide, the Redeemer through whose mercy he may be saved. If prayer have any
special requisites, contrition must be its very essence. Without a proper sense of the evil
predominating within us, there can be no holy freedom in prayer; no aspiration of the
soul towards heaven; no unrestrained utterance of the Psalmist’s cry, “Make me a clean
heart, O God!” An unhumbled mind and an unrestrained prayer are palpable
contradictions.
II. When the suppliant is enslaved by the love and indulgence of any sin. Augustine
relates of himself, that although he dared not omit the duty of prayer, but, with his lips
constantly implored deliverance from the power and love of his besetting sins, they had
so strongly entwined themselves around his heart, that every petition was accompanied
with some silent aspiration of the soul, for a little longer delay amidst the unhallowed
sources of his past gratifications. Judge, then, whether Augustine in this state did not
restrain prayer before God. Forbidden acts, or the indulgence of unblest desires,
overrule and hinder the transgressor’s prayer. Let me warn you also against a devotion
to the pursuits, pleasures, and attractions of the world. The spirit thus entangled and
ensnared, may indeed undertake the employment; but instead of being occupied by the
majesty of Jehovah, the love of Immanuel, and the momentous aspect of eternal things,
it will be fluttering abroad among the passing and perishing vanities in which it seeks its
mean and grovelling good. Can he whose attention is mainly confined to the acquisition
of temporal good, expand his heart in prayer for mercies unseen and spiritual? God
comes to us in His Gospel, exhibiting on the one hand His greatness and His goodness,
and on the other, exposing the emptiness of time and sense.
III. When we pray without fervency. What is the object of supplication? Is it not that we
may share the privileges of the family of heaven; serving God with delight and love
among His people below; and becoming meet to serve Him day and night in His temple
above, among the spirits of the just made perfect? Are these, then, mercies which should
be sought in the mere language of prayer, unanimated by its spirit and its fervency? The
prayer which God will hear and bless, demands some touch of the spirit manifested by
the believing Syrophenician woman. If this fervour of prayer be wanting, the deficiency
originates in an evil heart of unbelief which departs from the living God.
IV. When we neglect to pray frequently. Our wants are continually recurring; but only
the fulness of infinite mercy can supply them. We are, in fact, as absolutely dependent
upon the daily mercies of our God, as were the Israelites upon the manna which fell
every morning around their tents. Constant prayer, therefore, must be necessary. There
is continual need of prayer for growth in grace.
V. When we regard prayer rather as a burdensome duty than a delightful privilege. A
wondrous provision has been made to qualify guilty and polluted creatures for
approaching the God of all purity and holiness. “We who some time were far off are
made nigh by the blood of Christ.” “Through Him we have access by one Spirit unto the
Father.” The Christian draws nigh with the united offering of prayer and thanksgiving.
Do we then not restrain prayer, when, instead of addressing ourselves to it with glad
hearts and holy boldness, we are led unwillingly to the duty, and urged only by the

gloomy demands of a spirit of bondage? Until converse with God in prayer be the life
and pleasure of the soul, the balm that best allays its pains, the consolation that best
speaks peace and silence to its sorrows, the cordial that revives its fainting affection,
there can be no unreservedness of heart in this great duty. We should open our whole
hearts to the eye of His mercy; tell Him of every wish; relate every sorrow; entreat Him
to sympathise in every suffering, and feel assured that He will minister to every want.
VI. When it is confined to requests for mercies of lesser concern and moment. We have
immortal spirits, no less than perishable bodies. We are probationers for heaven. We
have sinful souls which must be pardoned; we have carnal minds, which must be
renewed. The spirit is more valuable than the body; eternity more momentous than
time. Is not prayer then restrained, when, instead of employing it to seek the things
which belong to our peace, we desire this world’s good with absorbing earnestness; and
the better part, which cannot be taken away, feebly, if at all? Every mercy, we may be
sure, waits upon the prayers of an open heart. (R. P. Buddicom, M. A.)
Restraining prayer
This is part of the charge brought by Eliphaz against Job. I address myself to the true
people of God, who understand the sacred art of prayer, and are prevalent therein; but
who, to their own sorrow and shame, must confess that they have restrained prayer. We
often restrain prayer in the fewness of the occasions that we set apart for supplication.
We constantly restrain prayer by not having our hearts in a proper state when we come
to its exercise. We rush into prayer too often. We should, before prayer, meditate upon
Him to whom it is to be addressed; upon the way through which my prayer is offered.
Ought I not, before prayer, to be duly conscious of my many sins? If we add meditation
upon what our needs are, how much better should we pray! How well if, before prayer,
we would meditate upon the past with regard to all the mercies we have had during the
day. What courage that would give us to ask for more! It is not to be denied, by a man
who is conscious of his own error, that in the duty of prayer itself we are too often
straitened in our own bowels, and do restrain prayer. This is true of prayer as
invocation; as confession; as petition; and as thanksgiving. And lastly, it is very clear
that, in many of our daily actions, we do that which necessitates restrained prayer. (C. H.
Spurgeon.)
On formality and remissness in prayer
This is one of the many censures that Job’s friends passed upon him. He could not be
convicted of the fact, without being convicted of sin. Prayer is most positively enjoined,
as a primary duty of religion; a duty strictly in itself, as the proper manner of
acknowledging the supremacy of God and our dependence. Prayer cannot be
discountenanced on any principle which would not repress and condemn all earnest
religious desires. Would it not be absurd to indulge these desires, if it be absurd to
express them? And worse than absurd, for What are they less than impulses to control
the Divine determinations and conduct? For these desires will absolutely ascend toward
Him. Again, it is the grand object to augment these desires. Then here too is evidence in
favour of prayer. For it must operate to make them more strong, more vivid, more
solemn, more prolonged, and more definite as to their objects. Forming them into
expressions to God will concentrate the soul in them, and upon these objects. As to the
objection that we cannot alter the Divine determinations; it may well be supposed that it

is according to the Divine determinations that good things shall not be given to those
that will not petition for them; that there shall be this expression of dependence and
acknowledgment of the Divine supremacy. Now for the manner in which men avail
themselves of this most sublime circumstance in their condition. We might naturally
have expected an universal prevalence of a devotional spirit. Alas! there are millions of
the civilised portion of mankind that practise no worship, no prayer at all, in any
manner; they are entirely “without God in the world,” To say of such an one, “Thou
restrainest prayer,” is pronouncing on him an awful charge, is predicting an awful doom.
We wish, however, to make a few admonitory observations on the great defectiveness of
prayer in those who do feel its importance, and are not wholly strangers to its genuine
exercise. How much of this exercise, in its genuine quality, has there been in the course
of our life habitually? Is there a very frequent, or even a prevailing reluctance to it, so
that the chief feeling regarding it is but a haunting sense of duty and of guilt in the
neglect? This were a serious cause for alarm, lest all be wrong within. Is it in the course
of our days left to uncertainties whether the exercise shall be attended to or not? Is there
a habit of letting come first to be attended to any inferior thing that may offer itself?
When this great duty is set aside for an indefinite time, the disposition lessens at every
step, and perhaps the conscience too. Or, in the interval appropriate to this exercise, a
man may defer it till very near what he knows must be the end of the allowed time.
Again, an inconvenient situation for devotional exercise will often be one of the real evils
of life. Sometimes the exercise is made very brief from real, unqualified want of interest.
Or prayer is delayed from a sense of recent guilt. The charge in the text falls upon the
state of feeling which forgets to recognise the value of prayer as an instrument in the
transactions of life. And it falls, too, on the indulgence of cares, anxieties, and griefs,
with little recourse to this great expedient. (John Foster.)
Restraining prayer
I. The employment, the importance of which is assumed. The employment of prayer.
The end and object of all prayer is God. God, who is the only true object of prayer, has
rendered, it a matter of positive and universal duty. The obligation cannot but be
reasonably and properly inferred from those relations which are revealed as essentially
existing between man and God.
II. The nature of the habit, the indulgence of which is charged. Instead of submitting to
and absolutely obeying the injunctions which God has imposed upon thee, thou art
guilty of holding back and preventing the exercise of supplication. Some of the modes in
which men are guilty of restraining prayer before God.
1. He restrains prayer who altogether omits it.
2. Who engages but seldom in it.
3. Who excludes from his supplications the matters which are properly the objects of
prayer.
4. Who does not cherish the spirit of importunity in prayer.
III. The evils, the infliction of which is threatened.
1. Restraining prayer prevents the communication of spiritual blessings.
2. It exposes positively to the judicial wrath of God. (James Parsons.)

Restraining prayer
This text helps us to put our finger on the cause of a great deal that is amiss in all of us.
Here is what is wrong, “Thou restrainest prayer before God.” If you are restraining
prayer, that is, neglecting prayer, pushing it into a corner, and making it give way to
everything else,—offering it formally and heartlessly, and with no real earnestness and
purpose, praying as if you were sure your prayer would go all for nothing,—then it is no
wonder if you are downhearted and anxious; and if grace is languishing and dying in
you, and you growing, in spite of all your religious profession, just as worldly as the most
worldly of the men and Women round you. There can be no doubt at all that the neglect
of prayer is a sadly common sin. It is likewise a most extraordinary folly. There are
people who restrain prayer, who do not pray at all, because they believe that prayer will
do them no good, that prayer is of no use. But we believe in prayer. We believe in the
duty of it; we believe in the efficacy of it. It is not for any expressed erroneous opinion
that professing Christians restrain prayer. It is through carelessness; lack of interest in
it; vague dislike to close communion with God; lack of vital faith, the faith of the heart as
well as head. That is what is wrong; want of sense of the reality of prayer; dislike to go
and be face to face alone with God. It is just when we feel least inclined to pray, that we
need to pray the most earnestly. Be sure of this, that at the root of all our failures, our
errors, our follies, our hasty words, our wrong deeds, our weak faith, our cold devotion,
our decreasing grace, there is the neglect of prayer. If our prayers were real; if they were
hearty, humble, and frequent, then how the evil that is in us would sink down abashed;
then how everything holy and happy in us would grow and flourish! (A. K. H. Boyd, D.
D.)
Restraining prayer before God
When the fear of God is cast off, the first and fundamental principle of personal religion
is removed; and when prayer before God is restrained, it is an evidence that this first and
fundamental principle is either wanting altogether, or for a time suspended in its
exercise. To “cast off fear” is to live “without God in the world”; and to restrain prayer
before God is a sure indication that this godless, graceless life, is already begun in the
soul, and will speedily manifest itself in the character and conduct.
I. What is prayer before God?
1. It has God for its object. To each of the persons of the Godhead prayer may and
should be made. To pray unto any of the host of heaven, or any mere creature
whatever, is both a senseless and a sinful exercise. Because none of them can hear or
answer our prayers. They know not the heart. They cannot be everywhere present.
They cannot answer. To pray to any creature is sinful, because giving to the creature
the glory which belongs exclusively to the Creator. To hear, accept, and answer
prayer, is the peculiar prerogative of the only “living and true God.” By this He is
distinguished from the “gods many and lords many” of the heathen.
2. It has Christ for its only medium. “In whom we have boldness, and access with
confidence, by the faith of Him.” He is our friend at the court of heaven.
3. It has the Bible for its rule and reason. For its rule to direct us. It is the reason for
enforcing prayer.
4. It has the heart for its seat. It does not consist in eloquence, in fluency of speech,

in animal excitement, in bodily attitudes, or in outward forms. Words may be
necessary to prayer, even in secret, for we think in words; but words are not of the
nature and essence of prayer. There may be prayer without utterance or expression;
but there can be no prayer without the outgoing of the heart, and the offering up of
the desires unto God.
II. What is it to restrain prayer before God? This fault does not apply to the prayerless.
They who never pray to God at all, cannot be charged with restraining prayer before
Him.
1. Prayer may be restrained as to times. Most people pray to God sometimes. It is a
great privilege that we may pray to God at all times. The pressure of business and the
want of time, form the usual excuse for infrequency in prayer. But is it not a duty to
redeem time for this very purpose?
2. As to persons. For whom ought we to pray? Some are as selfish in their prayers as
they are bigoted in their creed, and niggardly in their purse. Paul says, “I exhort,
therefore, that, first of all, supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks,
be made for all men.”
3. As to formal prayer. The attitude of prayer is assumed, the language of prayer is
employed, and the forms of prayer are observed; but the spirit of prayer, which gives
it life and energy and efficacy, is wanting. Now look at prayer in its power. Three
attributes are requisite to make prayer of much avail with God; faith, importunity,
and perseverance.
III. What are the consequences of restraining prayer before God? These are just like the
spirit and habit from which they flow,—evil, only evil, and that continually, to
individuals, to families, and to communities, civil and sacred. The evils may be
comprised and expressed in two particulars,—the prevention of Divinely promised
blessings, and exposure to Divine judgments. Let these considerations be—
(1) A warning to the prayerless, and
(2) A monitor to the prayerful. (George Robson.)
“You don’t pray”
This instructive anecdote relating to President Finney is characteristic:—A brother who
had fallen into darkness and discouragement, was staying at the same house with Dr.
Finney over night. He was lamenting his condition, and Dr. F., after listening to his
narrative, turned to him with his peculiar earnest look, and with a voice that sent a thrill
through his soul, said,” You don’t pray! that is what’s the matter with you. Pray—pray
four times as much as ever you did in your life, and you will come out.” He immediately
went down to the parlour, and taking the Bible he made a serious business of it, stirring
up his soul to seek God as did Daniel, and thus he spent the night. It was not in vain. As
the morning dawned he felt the light of the Sun of Righteousness shine upon his soul.
His captivity was broken; and ever since he has felt that the greatest difficulty in the way
of men being emancipated from their bondage is that they “don’t pray.” The bonds
cannot be broken by finite strength. We must take our case to Him who is mighty to
save. Our eyes are blinded to Christ the Deliverer. He came to preach deliverance to the
captive, to break the power of habit; and herein is the rising of a great hope for us.
(Christian Age.)

Prayer the barometer of the spiritual state
Among the wonders which science has achieved, it has succeeded in bringing things
which are invisible, and impalpable to our sense, within the reach of our most accurate
observations. Thus the barometer makes us acquainted with the actual state of the
atmosphere. It takes cognisance of the slightest variation, and every change is pointed
out by its elevation or depression, so that we are accurately acquainted with the actual
state of the air, and at any given time. In like manner the Christian has within him an
index by which he may take cognisance and by which he may measure the elevation and
degrees of his spirituality—it is the spirit of inward devotion. However difficult it may
seem to be to pronounce on the invisibilities of our spirituality, yet there is a barometer
to determine the elevation or depression of the spiritual principle. It marks the changes
of the soul in its aspect towards God. As the spirit of prayer mounts up, there is true
spiritual elevation, and as it is restrained, and falls low, there is a depression of the
spiritual principle within us. As is the spirit of devotion and communion such is the
man. (H. G. Salter.)
Restrained prayer of no effect
In vain do we charge the gun, if we intend not to let it off. Meditation filleth the heart
with heavenly matter, but prayer gives the discharge, and pours it forth upon God,
whereby He is overcome to give the Christian his desired relief and succour. The promise
is the bill or bond, wherein God makes Himself a debtor to the creature. Now, though it
is some comfort to a poor man that hath no money at present to buy bread with, when
he reads his bills and bonds, to see that he hath a great sum owing him; yet this will not
supply his present wants and buy him bread. No, it is putting his bond in suit must do
this. By meditating on the promise thou comest to see there is support in, and
deliverance out of, affliction engaged for; but none will come till thou commencest thy
suit, and by prayer of faith callest in the debt. God expects to hear from you before you
can expect to hear from Him. If thou “restrainest prayer,” it is no wonder the mercy
promised is retained. Meditation is like the lawyer’s studying the case in order to his
pleading it at the bar. When, therefore, thou hast viewed the promise, and affected thy
heart with the riches of it, then fly thee to the throne of grace and spread it before the
Lord. (W. Gurnall.)
5 Your sin prompts your mouth;
you adopt the tongue of the crafty.

Job 15 commentary

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Similar to Job 15 commentary

Similar to Job 15 commentary (20)

More from GLENN PEASE

More from GLENN PEASE (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (17)

Job 15 commentary