And Zophar the Naamathite answered and said,
Commentary for this verse has not been generated yet.
Should not the multitude of words be answered? and should a man of much talk be justified?
Zophar is the last of Job's three friends to speak, and he opens with no sympathy — only two sharp questions about Job's talking. Behind them lies a real question aimed at the wrong man: can a flood of words ever prove someone right?
Commentators see a clear difference between the three friends, and Zophar's temper shows in his first line.
Samuel RidoutIt has been thought, with some likelihood, that Zophar was the youngest of the three friends. He speaks last, and his speech has the same general character as the other two, but it is more intense. It lacks the dignity of Eliphaz and the reasoning power of Bildad. He makes up in heat what he lacks in reason, and this leads him into harshness and brutal rudeness, which was hardly the way to soothe the sore spirit of the sufferer.
Where the ESV says "a man full of talk," an older translation reads "a man of lips." One writer sets out Zophar's opening lines like this:
William KellyAnd Zophar, the Naamathite, answered and said, Shall not the multitude of words be answered? And shall a man of lips be justified? Your babbling puts men to silence: and you mock, and no one says, Shame!
That is all Zophar will credit to Job: no grief, no argument — only noise.
Job's speeches had been the cries of a man in agony. To file them under "talk" was to misread them completely.
Samuel RidoutIt is most unfair to describe the struggles of a plainly upright soul as "a multitude (or torrent) of words," and the man himself as "a man of lips." Where is the fairness in calling Job's cries out of the depths "lies," or his sharp thrusts "mockery"? On the other hand, Job had indeed declared himself and his doctrine pure, and if Zophar could have disproved this it would have gone a long way to help matters.
Commentators differ here. Another writer holds that Job never made the claim Zophar pins on him:
William Kelly"Should not the multitude of words" — that is all he would allow on Job's part — "be answered, and should a man full of talk be justified?"… Now Job had never said either. He had never said that his doctrine was pure. What he said was, that he held to God and to His ways. And what he said about his conduct was that he was not a hypocrite. He admitted that he might have sinned in some way he did not know about, and that this could account for the terrible storm of affliction crushing his soul into the dust.
The charge "you talk too much" often comes from someone who has run out of reply.
Leslie M. GrantHe attacks Job at once for his "multitude of words." Those words were too much for him to answer, so he falls back on the trick of calling Job nothing but "full of talk," and "empty talk" at that (v.2). He did not stop to think that Job's words had been aimed at God, not at him. Yet he seems to think that he can give a satisfactory answer on God's behalf!
Zophar's verdict on Job turns out to be a verdict on Zophar.
William KellySo Zophar gives Job credit for nothing beyond a multitude of words and idle talk. The unanswerable case against their theory — that God repays every sin in this present life — was to him only babbling… He had not learnt that we should not judge, or we will be judged, and that our judgments really judge us. A solid and gracious judgment proves that we dwell in God, since we dwell in love and walk according to light. A harsh judgment shows, in the same measure, how far we are ruled by thoughts and feelings that rise no higher than self.
Zophar aimed the question at the wrong man, but the question itself is worth keeping.
H. P. BarkerGod takes note of the believer's faith, and counts it to him for righteousness. But people cannot see faith. Suppose they challenge us: on what ground do we claim to be pardoned and saved, children of God and heirs with Christ? We cannot simply reply, "We have faith." We must justify the place we take by something other than words… Not by lip, but by life; not by words, but by works, can we convince others that we are what we say we are.
- Words — Zophar reduces Job to "a man of lips." He hears only noise, but Job was crying out of the depths.
- Weakness — He calls it empty talk because he cannot answer it. The charge hides the hole where his argument should be.
- Wrong target — Commentators differ over what Job actually claimed; one holds that Job never said his doctrine was pure at all.
- Warning — Harsh judgment turns back on the judge. It shows whether love and light rule us, or self.
- Walk — The question outlives the man who asked it: talk cannot prove us to others. Only a life can.
Should thy fictions make men hold their peace? and shouldest thou mock, and no one make [thee] ashamed?
Zophar is the last of Job's three friends to speak, and he opens with an accusation instead of comfort. He wants Job's talk stopped and Job put to shame. Was any of that fair to a man crushed by loss?
Zophar speaks last of the three friends. One writer weighs him against the two who spoke before him.
Arno Clemens GaebeleinThe third friend of Job is in every way the weakest. Speaking last he must have been the youngest of the three. He lacks the dignity of Eliphaz and the gentleness of Bildad, and he does not have the depth of either. Job's speech has clearly taxed his patience and irritated him.
Zophar loads the verse with three charges: Job's talk, Job's mocking, and the shame someone owes him. The writer below quotes an older translation, which has "lies" where the ESV has "babble." He takes the words one by one and sets them against what Job actually said.
William Kelly"Should not the multitude of words" — that is all he would allow on Job's part — "be answered, and should a man full of talk be justified? Should your lies" — think how far he went — "should your lies make men keep silent? and when you mock" — that was all he considered it — "shall no man make you ashamed? For you have said, My doctrine is pure, and I am clean in your eyes." Now Job had never said either. He had never said that his doctrine was pure. What he said was that he held to God and to His ways. And what he said about his conduct was that he was not a hypocrite.
Zophar attacks how much Job says. One writer explains why: he cannot answer what Job says.
Leslie M. GrantHe attacks Job at once for his "multitude of words." Those words were too much for him to answer. So he falls back on a trick: he accuses Job of being only "full of talk," and "empty talk" at that. He did not stop to think that Job had aimed his words at God, not at him. Yet he seems to think that he can answer well enough for God! He accused Job of mocking, which was not true. Job was in far too much distress to mock. But Zophar thought he needed rebuking.
Zophar charges Job with grave sin, but he proves nothing. One writer weighs the labels, and shows that a true word about God's wisdom cannot prop up an unjust charge.
Samuel RidoutIt is deeply unfair to call the anguished struggles of a clearly upright soul "a multitude (or torrent) of words," and to call the man himself "a man of lips." What fairness is there in calling Job's cries out of the depths "lies," or his sharp thrusts "mockery"? … But he has no proof. Even so, he charges Job with being such a grievous sinner that even his present sufferings were less than he deserved. And he would link God with this dreadful charge. It is quite true that divine wisdom is double our highest thoughts of it. But he cannot link that wisdom with unfair suspicions or unjust charges.
Zophar's opening question sets the temperature for everything that follows. Reading the chapter as a unit, one writer measures it against the two speeches before it.
F. B. HoleIn Job 11 we have the brief speech of Zophar, the third of Job's friends, and reading it, we notice that his tone is a little more severe even than Bildad's was. Possibly he was irritated by the fact that Job had not accepted the charges and arguments of the other two, but it was overshooting the mark and unfriendly to charge him with a "multitude of words," of being "full of talk," of uttering "lies," and of mocking. Nor had he claimed to be "clean" in the sight of God.
Zophar wants Job shamed. One writer turns the verse around: our judgments say more about us than about the person we judge.
William KellyZophar gives Job credit for nothing beyond a multitude of words and idle talk. The grounds against their theory of strict repayment in this life could not be answered. To him they were only babbling… He had not learned that we should not judge, in case we are judged. Our judgments really judge us. If they are solid and gracious, they prove that we dwell in God, dwelling in love and walking according to light. If they are harsh, they show just how far thoughts and feelings that have no source higher than self govern us.
- Weakest speaks loudest. The last and youngest friend lacks the dignity of one and the gentleness of the other. Irritation, not insight, drives his opening question.
- Volume for substance. Job's words were too much for Zophar to answer, so he attacked their quantity instead — the standard move of a man out of arguments.
- Grief called mockery. Job was in far too much distress to mock. He never claimed that his doctrine was pure or that he was clean. He claimed only that he was no hypocrite.
- Charges without proof. Calling an upright man's cries out of the depths "lies" is unfair. A true word about God's wisdom cannot prop up an unjust charge.
- The judge judged. Harsh verdicts measure the judge, not the accused. Gracious judgment shows a life lived in God. Harsh judgment shows a heart ruled by self.
For thou sayest, My doctrine is pure, and I am clean in thine eyes.
Job has just poured out his anguish to God, and now the third of his visitors breaks in — not to comfort, but to correct. Zophar puts two claims into Job's mouth. Much of the commentary on this verse turns on one question: did Job ever say them?
One writer reads the verse as a misquotation. Zophar puts into Job's mouth a boast Job never made.
William Kelly"For you say, 'My doctrine is pure, and I am clean in God's eyes.'" Now Job had never said either. He had never said that his doctrine was pure. What he said was, that he held to God and to His ways. And what he said about his conduct was that he was not a hypocrite. He admitted that he might have sinned in some way he did not know about. That, he thought, could explain the terrible storm of suffering that crushed his soul into the dust.
Commentators differ here. One writer holds that Job had in fact claimed this, and faults Zophar for charging him without proof:
Samuel RidoutOn the other hand, Job had indeed declared himself and his doctrine pure. If Zophar could have disproved that, it would have gone a long way to help matters. But he charges Job without any proof. He calls him such a terrible sinner that even his present sufferings were less than he deserved, and he ties God to this dreadful charge.
One writer traces Zophar's certainty to an assumption all three friends shared: that some hidden evil must lie behind Job's disasters.
William KellyHe takes up the harsh thoughts of those who attacked Job, and gives no weight at all to Job's pleading in his misery. Instead he starts to hold that sad thought which all of them voice: that some serious, hidden evil must lie underneath, and that it is the cause of Job's many disasters, worse than any others on record. He is as certain as a bad suspicion can make a man.
Another writer finds an irony here. The man who blames Job for criticising God ends up doing the same thing.
Leslie M. GrantSince Job had said his doctrine was pure and his conduct clean, Zophar was in effect accusing God of failing to speak out against Job! So Zophar does what he thinks God ought to have done! He knew Job had criticised God, but now he was doing the same without realising it!
Being clean in God's eyes is not the same as being clean in your own eyes, or in other people's. One writer finds Job's real fault right there.
William KellyHe was never so bold as to say, "I am clean in God's eyes." No, no, far from it. Sadly, he had rested in being clean in his own eyes, and in the eyes of other people. But he had to learn that being clean in God's eyes was a very different thing.
Another writer explains where that confidence went wrong.
Samuel RidoutJob's thoughts are mixed. He is not quite meeting God as a sinner, but as a man who is aware of "the root of the matter" in his heart. His mistake is to confuse this with his own personal worth, and so spoil the very idea of grace. Who of all mankind could stand before a God who is utterly holy and say, "I am clean"?
Zophar sees a real problem and has no cure for it.
C. StanleyHe sees that Job is wrong to seek to be clean in his own eyes. But it is not in him to show Job how he can be a sinner and yet be justified. He can tell that if Job were not a sinner, then things would be most blessed for him. That is all that Zophar, or mere human light, can do. This is human religion. I must try not to be a sinner, and then I shall be happy, and God will not be against me.
The friends could bring no charge against Job, and Job asked God to speak. One writer follows what came of that.
William KellyThey were not able to say anything — they could bring nothing against him. All of them said the same, and judged him in a most severe and unmerciful way. So he asked that God would speak. Well, God did speak; and when God spoke it was not to the honour of Zophar, nor of Bildad, nor of Eliphaz. But even so, it was because Job prayed for them that the anger of the Lord did not fall on those three men.
- Misquoted. Most commentators hold that Job never claimed pure doctrine or cleanness before God. One writer grants that he did claim it, and faults Zophar for charging him with no proof.
- Self-appointed. Wishing God would speak against Job, Zophar speaks for Him, doing the very thing he condemns in Job.
- Two mirrors. Job could be clean in his own eyes and in other people's, and still have to learn what clean in God's eyes means.
- Dead end. Human religion can see the fault but cannot show how God justifies a sinner. It only says try harder.
- Answered. God did speak in the end, and it brought no honour to Zophar; Job's prayer was what spared his three friends.
But oh that +God would speak, and open his lips against thee;
Zophar is the third of Job's friends to speak. He opens with a wish: that God would break His silence and answer Job. It sounds devout. But older translations render the second half "open his lips against you," and that one word changes everything.
Zophar has no doubt what God would say if He spoke. One writer shows him filling a silence he thinks God should have filled Himself:
Leslie M. GrantHe accused Job of mocking, which was not true. Job was in far too much distress to mock. But Zophar thought Job needed a rebuke (v.3). Job had said his teaching was pure and his conduct clean. So Zophar was really accusing God of failing to speak out against Job! (v.4). Then Zophar does what he thinks God ought to have done! He knew Job had criticised God, but now he was doing the same without realising it!
The wish shows what Zophar believed about God. If God's only word to a broken man is a rebuke, the fault lies with the man who imagines it:
C. H. MackintoshThese words are full of legalism. They prove that Zophar had no right sense of God's character. He did not know God. No one who truly knows God could speak of Him as opening His lips against a poor suffering sinner. No one could speak of Him as demanding anything from a needy, helpless creature. God is not against us, but for us, blessed for ever be His Name! He is not a stern collector of debts, but a generous giver… Zophar and everyone who thinks like him know God only as a stern collector — as One who, if He opens His lips, can only speak against the sinner.
Each of the three friends reached his verdict by a different route:
George DavisonEliphaz used his eyes; Bildad used his ears; and Zophar used his brains. Not one of them found the solution to this problem by human wisdom, no matter how they came by that wisdom.
Zophar wanted God to open His lips and show Job "the secrets of wisdom" (v.6). But such secrets never come from a sharp mind:
George DavisonBehind the world we can see, God is working out something that natural eyes cannot see and the natural mind cannot understand. Everyone can observe nature all around us. But only those whom God teaches can receive the spiritual things that lie underneath the created world: "the secrets of wisdom … double to that which is."
The wish was granted, but not on Zophar's terms. Job had asked for the same thing, and neither man guessed what God would do:
William KellyJob insisted that he was sound in faith and in life, and this irritated Zophar greatly. So he only wanted God to speak, as Job had dared to ask. Like the rest of them, he never expected the intervention God was about to grant — not only for them, but for our sakes. Zophar had not a doubt what the sentence would be. He had not learnt that we should not judge, lest we be judged, and that our judgments really judge ourselves.
When God answered, He spoke of Himself, not of Job's supposed crimes:
William J. HockingIn the end God Himself spoke to the suffering man. He did not use the soft, tender tones we hear in the New Testament; the time for that had not yet come. Jehovah spoke to Job out of the whirlwind, not once but twice, and with a thunderous voice, telling of His power, His majesty, His providence.
Zophar could say what a man without sin might expect. He could not answer how a sinner is justified — counted right before God:
Charles StanleyHe cannot show Job how a man can be a sinner and yet be justified. He can say that if Job were not a sinner, all would be well with him. That is all that Zophar, or mere human light, can do. This is human religion. I must try not to be a sinner, and then I shall be happy, and God will not be against me.
- The wish — Zophar asks God to speak, but only as a prosecutor. He treats God's silence as a mistake he must correct himself.
- The God behind the wish — a God who, if He opened His lips, could only speak against a sufferer. Commentators answer that this is not the God of Scripture, who is for us and gives freely.
- The method — eyes, ears and brains gave Eliphaz, Bildad and Zophar three confident answers and no solution. God alone gives the secrets of wisdom; no mind reasons them out.
- The answer — God did speak, out of the whirlwind. He said nothing Zophar predicted. The man who was sure of the verdict never imagined what God would do.
- The lesson — our judgments of others end up judging us. Zophar could describe God's greatness; he could not tell a sinner how to be justified.
And that he would shew thee the secrets of wisdom, how that they are the double of what is realised; and know that +God passeth by [much] of thine iniquity!
Zophar is the last of Job's three friends to speak. He wishes God Himself would break the silence and expose Job — and he is sure what the verdict would be. His words hold a real truth: God's wisdom runs far deeper than anything we can see. But he wraps that truth around a charge the book itself has already contradicted.
Zophar does not weigh Job's case. He pronounces on it.
F. B. HoleIn Job 11 we have the brief speech of Zophar, the third of Job's friends. Reading it, we note that his tone is a little more severe even than Bildad's was. Perhaps he was irritated because Job had not accepted the charges and arguments of the other two. But it went too far, and it was unfriendly, to charge him with a "multitude of words," with being "full of talk," with uttering "lies," and with mocking. Zophar does not yet show us where he stands. Yet he declared, as though from an oracle, that Job deserved harsher punishment from God's hands than he was getting. But Job's suffering was greater than any other on record. And the discussion centred on how God disciplines people in this life, not on eternity. So this again strikes us as harsh and dogmatic in the extreme.
Zophar wishes God would show Job the "secrets of wisdom." An older rendering calls them "double to that which is" — twice as much as we can see.
George DavisonBehind this material creation, God is working out something that natural eyes cannot see and natural intellect cannot understand. Anyone can observe the natural world all around us. But only those whom God teaches can receive the spiritual things that lie under the material creation: "the secrets of wisdom … double to that which is." God is not only seeking to interest us in the material creation, where anyone with ordinary intelligence can be taught. He has also given us light as to why He brought this creation into being. He is teaching us today about what lies behind it all: the working out of His eternal plan for His own glory and the glory of Christ. That plan includes the blessing and final glory of each one of us. I believe these things to be "the double."
Zophar pictures a God who opens His lips only to accuse, and who collects every debt.
C. H. MackintoshThese words have a strong flavour of legality. They prove very clearly that Zophar had no right sense of the divine character. He did not know God. No one who truly knows God could speak of Him as opening His lips against a poor afflicted sinner. No one could speak of Him as demanding anything from a needy, helpless creature. God is not against us, but for us, blessed for ever be His Name! He is not a legal exactor, but a generous giver.
Zophar has no facts. He infers Job's guilt from Job's pain, then makes God the author of the sentence.
Samuel RidoutHe has no proof. Yet he charges Job with being such a grievous sinner that even his present sufferings were less than he deserved, and he would tie God to this dreadful charge. It is perfectly true that divine wisdom is double our highest thoughts of it. But he cannot join that wisdom to unfair suspicions or unjust charges.
The reader already knows heaven's verdict. It is the opposite of Zophar's.
George DavisonGod was not exacting anything from Job; that is not God's character at all. All the comforters agreed with Zophar that God was dealing with Job because of his sins, but we know very well that God has already said of this man that he was righteous (1:8; 2:3).
Zophar was certain of the sentence before God ever spoke.
William KellyHe had not learnt that we should not judge, lest we be judged, and that our judgments really judge ourselves. If they are solid and gracious, they prove that we dwell in God, dwelling in love and walking according to light. If they are harsh, they show in the same measure that thoughts and feelings with no source higher than self are ruling us. Job would find, he was sure, that the secrets of wisdom are double when you look into them, and that God was not exacting from him what his iniquity deserved: he held the gravest fears about his friend.
- Speaker. Zophar is the third and harshest friend. He declares, as if from an oracle, that Job's suffering is lighter than he deserves.
- Truth. The "secrets of wisdom" really are double what we see. God's eternal plan lies behind the visible creation, and only those He teaches receive it.
- Error. Zophar assumed he already held those secrets. He turned them into evidence against a man he could not prove guilty.
- God. He is not a legal exactor demanding payment from the helpless, but a generous giver — a God for us, not against us.
- Warning. Our judgments of others judge us; harsh verdicts expose a source no higher than self.