My appetite refuses to touch them; they are as food that is loathsome to me.
Job 6:7 · ESVView all translations

Job is answering his friend Eliphaz, and he ends a run of images about food with the one dish he cannot bring himself to swallow. What does he mean by calling his affliction loathsome food, and was he right to say it?

Nourishment that turns the stomach

Job has just pointed to a donkey with grass and an ox with fodder. Those images build to the line about what his soul refuses to touch.

Job uses several figures to show that he has just cause for the complaints his friends reproach him for. Even a donkey or an ox will be content if it has its proper food. If it complains, we know it has not been fed. And can Job be expected to take his sufferings as if they were pleasant food — to swallow them down, more sickening than the slime of an egg? It is as though he said, "See what disgusting things are set before me. Can you expect me to eat them without a murmur?" His "sorrowful food" was the things his soul hated.

Samuel Ridout

Another writer follows the same images to what sat on Job's own plate.

Here am I, and not a morsel of food that does not cost me pain, and I have nothing to make it agreeable; no salt with it; it is all poison, as it were — poison that entered and drank up his spirit. The best thing he could get was completely tasteless and unpleasant.

William Kelly

A body that turns from what would keep it alive

There is a literal fact under the image. One writer places this line among the marks of a man brought low under God's rod:

Severe chastening pains come upon him, and his bones seem to wither in a struggle for life. He is brought so low that he hates even the food that would sustain his life.

Samuel Ridout

Fair complaint, or self-defence

Commentators differ over how to judge Job here. One hears a fair protest.

Does he not have a perfect right to complain? He would not complain if all were well with him. But his afflictions are like disgusting food, and should he not murmur and complain? It is all the language of despairing grief.

Arno Clemens Gaebelein

Another writer is harder on Job.

That Eliphaz's argument counted for nothing in Job's case is clear. As soon as he stopped speaking, Job went on with the tale of his own sorrows. He gave no attention at all to those words, and mixed in much self-defence and bitter complaints against God's dealings (Job 6:7).

C. H. Mackintosh

What made the food bitter

The disease was not the worst of it.

Here we have the element in his sufferings that probably exceeds the physical side in intensity. It was the sense that God's wrath was on him, that the dreadful poison of His anger was consuming him, that gave his grief its sharpness. We know this was a mistake, and that his being chastened like this was one more proof of God's love. But he did not know it, and we should not be harsh with a man who felt that the Lord was dealing bitterly with him. He could not have the full light that is ours now, so he could not "count it all joy" that he had fallen into such trouble. Dreadful doubts about God's love and goodness had begun to gnaw at his heart, with a pain beyond his losses and his sores.

Samuel Ridout

One who tasted worse and did not refuse

A greater Sufferer answers Job's picture of poisoned food. He took a cup far more bitter, and drank it.

One only, and He for no sin of His own, has felt the arrows of God piercing His holy soul. "Why have you forsaken Me?" He asks. But not for one moment does He doubt the holiness or goodness of God. "You are holy" is enough for Him, and in meekness He drinks the bitter cup; perfect in His sufferings, as in everything else. God could not for a moment lay on poor Job — though there was no one else like him on earth — the sin of mankind.

Samuel Ridout

Summary

- Taste. The verse ends a run of images about eating. No animal complains over good fodder. Job says his own portion is worse.

- Refusal. His "sorrowful food" was the thing his soul hated. He was brought so low that he loathed the very food that would have kept him alive.

- Cause. What poisoned the meal was not the sores. It was the thought that God's anger was consuming him. He was wrong: the chastening was proof of God's love.

- Verdict. Commentators differ. Some hear a fair protest from a man given nothing but grief to swallow. Others hear self-defence that ignored what Eliphaz said.

- Answer. One Sufferer took a cup Job never tasted, and drank it without once doubting that God is good.

Reviewed by Orion on August 31, 2026