Bird's-eye view
We now begin the second cycle of speeches between Job and his three friends. The kid gloves, if they were ever really on, are now decidedly off. Eliphaz the Temanite, who had opened the first round with a certain dignity, now returns to the fray with a sharp and biting rebuke. He accuses Job of speaking empty, destructive words, not befitting a wise man. The accusations escalate quickly from foolishness to outright impiety. Eliphaz charges that Job's suffering is not the issue; rather, Job's own sinful heart is teaching his mouth to speak craftily, and in so doing, Job has condemned himself. This is a frontal assault on Job's integrity, based entirely on Eliphaz's flawed theological system.
Outline
- 1. Eliphaz Begins the Second Round (v. 1)
- 2. The Accusation of Worthless Words (vv. 2-3)
- a. Answering with Windy Knowledge (v. 2)
- b. Arguing with Unprofitable Speech (v. 3)
- 3. The Accusation of Impiety (vv. 4-6)
- a. Undermining Reverence for God (v. 4)
- b. A Sinful Heart Teaching a Crafty Mouth (v. 5)
- c. Job as His Own Prosecutor (v. 6)
Context In Job
Job has just concluded his reply to the first round of speeches in chapter 14, ending on a note of deep pathos, questioning the finality of death and longing for a mediator. His friends have listened to his anguish, his protestations of innocence, and his challenges to God's justice, and their patience has worn thin. Eliphaz, as the eldest and the one who initiated the first round, steps up again. But his tone has shifted dramatically. The earlier, more measured approach is gone, replaced by direct accusation. He is no longer suggesting that Job might have sinned; he is now asserting that Job's own words prove his guilt. This marks a significant escalation in the conflict and pushes Job further into his isolation.
Commentary on the Text
Eliphaz Says Job’s Lips Answer Against Him
1 Then Eliphaz the Temanite answered and said,
The second act begins. The structure of the debate continues with Eliphaz leading off, as he did in the first round. The simple word "answered" is a bit misleading in English. This is not a gentle reply but a formal counter argument, a rebuttal. The friends have huddled, they have conferred, and they have concluded that their first approach was too soft. Eliphaz is here to prosecute.
2 “Should a wise man answer with windy knowledge And fill his belly with the east wind?
Eliphaz opens with a rhetorical question designed to sting. He had previously acknowledged Job's wisdom (Job 4:3-4), but now he questions whether Job is acting like a wise man at all. The phrase "windy knowledge" is literally "knowledge of wind." It is insubstantial, empty, and full of air. Eliphaz is saying that Job's eloquent defenses are nothing more than intellectual vapor. To "fill his belly with the east wind" is a powerful metaphor. The east wind, coming from the desert, was hot, dry, and destructive. Eliphaz is accusing Job of gorging himself on words that are not just empty but also harmful and violent. The irony, of course, is that Eliphaz is the one full of hot air.
3 Should he argue with a word that cannot be used, Or with speech which is not profitable?
He continues his critique of Job's speech. The standard Eliphaz applies is a good one: speech should be profitable, useful, and edifying. The problem is not the standard but the application. Because Job's words do not fit into Eliphaz's neat theological box, he dismisses them as useless. He cannot conceive that Job's raw, honest lament before God could be profitable. For Eliphaz, if it doesn't sound like a tidy proverb, it is worthless. This is the error of the legalist in every generation; they mistake their system for God's reality and dismiss any experience that contradicts the system.
4 Indeed, you annul reverent fear And cut off musing before God.
Here the accusation moves from foolishness to wickedness. This is a grievous charge. The "fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom" (Prov. 9:10), and Eliphaz accuses Job of tearing down that very foundation. He claims Job's words are making piety impossible. To "cut off musing" is to stop up the channel of prayer and meditation. Eliphaz hears Job's wrestling and calls it irreverence. He hears Job's desperate cries and calls them a denial of devotion. He cannot distinguish between the wrestling of faith and the rebellion of unbelief. He is tone deaf to the music of lament.
5 For your iniquity teaches your mouth, And you choose the tongue of the crafty.
This is the central thesis of Eliphaz's speech. He provides his diagnosis: the source of Job's problem is not his boils, but his heart. "Your iniquity teaches your mouth." Sin is the schoolmaster, and Job's words are the lesson plan. Eliphaz believes Job's suffering is proof of his sin, and therefore, Job's defense of his own integrity must be a lie. He then accuses Job of choosing "the tongue of the crafty." This is the language of the shrewd, the cunning, the deceptive. It is the language of the serpent in the garden. Eliphaz is essentially saying, "Job, you sound just like the devil, using clever words to cover up your rebellion."
6 Your own mouth condemns you, and not I; And your own lips answer against you.
Eliphaz concludes his opening salvo by washing his hands of the verdict. He positions himself as a neutral observer, a mere court reporter reading back the transcript. "Don't look at me," he says. "Your own words have done you in." This is a classic move of a false comforter. He delivers a brutal judgment and then claims it is not his own. He is, in his own mind, simply the voice of objective truth. But he is not. He is a miserable comforter because his diagnosis is wrong, his accusations are false, and his confidence is entirely misplaced. He is judging a man in the crucible and mistaking the dross being burned off for the man himself.
Application
First, we must take care that we are never an Eliphaz to a suffering brother or sister. It is easy to stand at a distance from someone's pain and apply simplistic theological formulas. Suffering is complex, and faith in the midst of it can be messy. We are called to weep with those who weep, not to lecture them with what we think we know. Before we speak, we must listen. Before we diagnose, we must love.
Second, there is a true principle buried in Eliphaz's error. Our mouths do indeed reveal our hearts. "For out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks" (Matt. 12:34). While Job was innocent of the charges Eliphaz laid against him, we must always examine our own words. Do they build up? Are they filled with grace? Or are they full of the hot east wind of pride, bitterness, or folly?
Finally, we see in Job a foreshadowing of the righteous sufferer, Jesus Christ. He too was surrounded by accusers who twisted His words and condemned Him out of His own mouth. When we are misunderstood, when our motives are questioned and our words are used against us, we can look to Job, and ultimately to Jesus, our great high priest and vindicator. Our final justification does not rest in the verdict of men, but in the finished work of the Son, who was condemned for us, so that in Him there might be no condemnation.