Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.comKeil and Delitzsch Commentary - Job 15:1 - 15:1
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
1 Then began Eliphaz the Temanite, and said:
2 Doth a wise man utter vain knowledge,
And fill his breast with the east wind?
3 Contending with words, that profit not,
And speeches, by which no good is done?
4 Moreover, thou makest void the fear of God,
And thou restrainest devotion before God;
5 For thy mouth exposeth thy misdeeds,
And thou choosest the language of the crafty.
6 Thine own mouth condemneth thee and not I,
And thine own lips testify against thee.
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. הֶחָלָם with He interr., like הֶעָלֶה, Job 13:25. רוּחַ, wind, is the opposite of what is solid and sure; and קָדִים in the parallel (like Hos 12:2) signifies what is worthless, with the additional notion of vehement action. If we translate בֶּטֶן by “belly,” the meaning is apt to be misunderstood; it is not intended as the opposite of לֵב 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. הֹוכֵחַ, 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 דָּבָר and מִלִּים might be used without any further defining, as in λογομαχεῖν (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 יִסְכֹּן לֹא is best, as referring to things, according to Job 35:3 : sermone (דָּבָד from דָּבַר, as sermo from serere) qui non prodest; בָּם יֹועִיל לֹא, 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, אַף, 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. יִרְאָה in such an objective sense as Psa 19:10 almost corresponds to the idea of religion. שִׂיחָה לִפְנֵי־אֵל 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 (גָּרַע, detrahere). His speeches are mostly directed towards God; but they are violent and reproachful, therefore irreverent in form and substance.
Job 15:5
כִּי is not affirmative: forsooth (Hirz.), but, confirmatory and explicative. This opinion respecting him, which is so sharply and definitely expressed by אַתָּה, thrusts itself irresistibly forward, for it is not necessary to know his life more exactly, his own mouth, whence such words escape, reveals his sad state: docet (אִלֵּף only in the book of Job, from אָלַף, discere, a word which only occurs once in the Hebrew, Pro 22:25) culpam tuam os tuum, not as Schlottm. explains, with Raschi: docet culpa tua os tuum, which, to avoid being misunderstood, must have been חטאתך תאלף, and is a though unsuited to the connection. אִלֵּף is certainly not directly equivalent to הגּיד, Isa 3:9; it signifies to teach, to explain, and this verb is just the one in the mouth of the censorious friend. What follows must not be translated: while thou choosest (Hirz.); ותבחר is not a circumstantial clause, but adds a second confirmatory clause to the first: he chooses the language of the crafty, since he pretends to be able to prove his innocence before God; and convinced that he is in the right, assumes the offensive (as Job 13:4.) against those who exhort him to humble himself. Thus by his evil words he becomes his own judge (ירשׁיעך) and accuser (יענו בך after the fem. שׂפתיך, like Pro 5:2; Pro 26:23). The knot of the controversy becomes constantly more entangled since Job strengthens the friends more and more in their false view by his speeches, which certainly are sinful in some parts (as Job 9:22).