Bible Commentary

Job 16:1-22

The Pulpit Commentary on Job 16:1-22

The Pulpit Commentary · Joseph S. Exell and contributors · Public domain

EXPOSITION

Job answers the second speech of Eliphaz in a discourse which occupies two (short) chapters, and is thus not much more lengthy than the speech of his antagonist. His tone is very despairing. He finds no help at all in the speeches of the "comforters" (verses 2-6), and turns from them to consider once more the dealings of God with him (verses 7-14). Next, he describes his own proceedings under his afflictions, and appeals to earth and. heaven, and God in heaven, to take up his cause and help him (verses 15-22). In . he continues much in the same-strain, but with an intermixture of the topics, which is somewhat confusing. In , he bewails himself; in he makes an appeal to God; in , he reflects upon his "comforters;" in he returns to himself and his prospects; while in the remainder of the chapter () he alternates between reproaches addressed to his friends (, ) and lamentations over his own condition (, ).

Then Job answered and said, I have heard many such things. There was nothing new in the second speech of Eliphaz, if we except its increased bitterness. Job had heard all the commonplaces about the universal sinfulness of man, and the invariable connection between sin and suffering, a thousand times before. It was the traditional belief in which he and all those about him had been brought up. But it brought him no relief. The reiteration of it only made him feel that there was neither comfort nor instruction to be got from his so-called "comforters." Hence his outburst. Miserable comforters are ye all!

Recommended reading

More for Job 16:1-22

Continue with other commentaries and DiscipleDeck content connected to this verse, chapter, or topic.

commentaryMatthew Henry on Job 16:1-5Eliphaz had represented Job's discourses as unprofitable, and nothing to the purpose; Job here gives his the same character. Those who pass censures, must expect to have them retorted; it is easy, it is endless, but wha…Matthew HenrycommentaryThe Reply of Job to Eliphaz. (b. c. 1520.)THE REPLY OF JOB TO ELIPHAZ. (B. C. 1520.) Both Job and his friends took the same way that disputants commonly take, which is to undervalue one another's sense, and wisdom, and management. The longer the saw of contenti…Matthew HenrycommentaryThe Pulpit Commentary on Job 16:1-6Job to Eliphaz: 1. Unacceptable comfort and unassuaged grief. I. UNACCEPTABLE COMFORT. Job characterizes the offered consolation of Eliphaz and his companions as: 1. In its nature common' place. "I have heard many such…Joseph S. Exell and contributorscommentaryThe Pulpit Commentary on Job 16:1-22Deep dejection and irrepressible hope. In this reply Job refuses to make a direct rejoinder to the attack upon him; he is too utterly bowed down in his weakness. But?? I. The first part of his speech consists of A BITTE…Joseph S. Exell and contributorscommentaryThe Pulpit Commentary on Job 16:2Miserable comforters. Job is able to rise above his foolish, narrow-minded friends, and look down upon them with good-humoured, pitying irony. So little do they understand him! So proudly do they trust in their empty wo…Joseph S. Exell and contributorscommentaryThe Pulpit Commentary on Job 16:3Shall vain words have an end? literally, as in the margin, words of wind; i.e. words which pass by a man "as the idle wind which he regards not." Will his friends never bring their futile speaking to a close? Or what em…Joseph S. Exell and contributorscommentaryThe Pulpit Commentary on Job 16:4I also could speak as ye do: if your soul were in my soul's stead, I could heap up words against you. It is only too easy to heap up rhetorical declamation against an unfortunate sufferer, whose physical and mental agon…Joseph S. Exell and contributorscommentaryThe Pulpit Commentary on Job 16:5But I would strengthen you with my mouth. The meaning is somewhat doubtful, and different renderings have been proposed. But the rendering of the Authorized Version is quite defensible, and is accepted by our Revisers.…Joseph S. Exell and contributors