Job 15 3

Job 15:3 kjv

Should he reason with unprofitable talk? or with speeches wherewith he can do no good?

Job 15:3 nkjv

Should he reason with unprofitable talk, Or by speeches with which he can do no good?

Job 15:3 niv

Would they argue with useless words, with speeches that have no value?

Job 15:3 esv

Should he argue in unprofitable talk, or in words with which he can do no good?

Job 15:3 nlt

The wise don't engage in empty chatter.
What good are such words?

Job 15 verses

Job 15 3 Meaning

Eliphaz, responding to Job's lamentations and protests of innocence, rhetorically asks if one should engage in argument with "useless talk" or "words of no profit." He is accusing Job of speaking emptily, without substance or benefit, and essentially wasting time and breath with his complaints, which Eliphaz believes lack any true wisdom or profitable insight, implying Job's speech is harmful or ineffectual rather than helpful or wise.

Job 15 3 Context

Job 15 opens Eliphaz’s second discourse in the cycle of debates with Job. He speaks with more intensity and less initial diplomacy than in his first speech. Job 15:1-3 is a direct rebuke of Job’s preceding words (Job 13-14), especially Job's increasingly bold challenge to God's ways and his desire to present his case before the Almighty. Eliphaz, presenting himself as wise and drawing on traditional wisdom, argues that Job's profound anguish and despair have led him to utter words that are not only disrespectful and unhelpful but also empty and profitless. He views Job's protests of innocence and questioning of God as folly and irreverence, rather than the sincere cries of a man struggling with immense suffering and mystery. This verse encapsulates Eliphaz's judgment on Job's entire argument thus far: it is mere "windy knowledge" (v. 2), without real substance or positive outcome.

Job 15 3 Word analysis

• Should he reason: Hebrew: הֲיִוָּכַח (hayyivvāḵaḥ). This is a rhetorical question, challenging Job's manner of argumentation. יִוָּכַח (yivvāḵaḥ) comes from the root יָכַח (yāḵaḥ), which means "to argue, dispute, plead, rebuke, convince." Eliphaz is not merely asking if Job speaks, but if he debates or justifies himself with such useless talk, implying that such engagement is inherently misguided and disrespectful given his presumed error.
• with useless talk: Hebrew: בְּדִבְרֵי־אֵין הֹוֹעִיל (bədiḇrê-ʾên hōʿîl).
  • בְּדִבְרֵי (bədiḇrê): "with words of." This highlights the nature of the utterances.
  • אֵין (ʾên): "no," "not," "without." This is a strong negative, negating any value.
  • הֹוֹעִיל (hōʿîl): "profit," "use," "benefit." It is the Hiphil participle of יָעַל (yāʿal), meaning "to be useful or profitable." Thus, the phrase means "words without profit" or "unprofitable words." It directly addresses the lack of beneficial outcome or edification from Job's speech, from Eliphaz's perspective.
• or with words of no profit?: Hebrew: וּבְאִמְרֵי לֹא יוֹעִילוּ (ūḇʾimrê lō yōʿîlū).
  • וּבְאִמְרֵי (ūḇʾimrê): "and with sayings/words of." אִמְרֵי is another term for "words" or "speeches," often denoting solemn or significant utterances. Its parallelism with דִּבְרֵי emphasizes the deliberate nature of Job's expressions.
  • לֹא יוֹעִילוּ (lō yōʿîlū): "they will not profit/benefit." לֹא is "not," and יוֹעִילוּ is the Hiphil imperfect plural of יָעַל (yāʿal), again meaning "to be useful" or "to profit." This perfectly parallels the first phrase, reinforcing the core accusation of worthlessness and futility.

Words-group analysis:

• "Should he reason with useless talk...": This entire first clause is a pointed rhetorical question by Eliphaz. It suggests a fundamental impropriety in the very act of reasoning or arguing when the substance of that argument is devoid of profit or benefit. It attacks the wisdom of engaging in such discourse at all, especially by a wise man (referencing Job 15:2), implying Job's supposed wisdom has gone astray.
• "...or with words of no profit?": This second clause serves as an immediate parallel and intensifying restatement of the first. It reinforces the central charge against Job’s speech, doubling down on the idea that Job’s utterances—no matter how passionately spoken—lack any redemptive or beneficial quality, according to Eliphaz’s theological framework. This parallelism emphasizes the utter emptiness and unhelpfulness attributed to Job's laments and protests. The core idea communicated by both phrases is the profound futility and worthlessness of Job's contributions to the dialogue, especially within Eliphaz's judgmental worldview.

Job 15 3 Bonus section

Eliphaz's question, while condemning Job, ironically describes his own counsel throughout the book of Job. His traditional wisdom, based on limited human experience and a flawed understanding of God, proved to be "words of no profit" in addressing Job's deep spiritual and physical agony. God's ultimate verdict in Job 42:7 confirms that Eliphaz and his friends did "not speak of Me what is right," rendering their speeches, including the content of Job 15:3, ultimately unhelpful and misaligned with divine truth. This highlights the inherent danger of relying solely on human reason and conventional wisdom when trying to interpret God's mysterious dealings with humanity, particularly in times of profound suffering. The rhetoric in Job 15:2-3 implies that human knowledge (daʿat - often seen as discernment, understanding) when windy (ruach) inevitably produces unprofitable talk. This suggests a critique of the source and quality of the supposed wisdom or knowledge from which the words issue.

Job 15 3 Commentary

Job 15:3 is Eliphaz’s stinging indictment of Job's words, claiming they are devoid of wisdom, benefit, or spiritual insight. Coming immediately after Eliphaz's general criticism of Job's "windy knowledge" (v. 2), this verse presses the accusation that Job's suffering has not led to humble submission but to arrogant and unprofitable speech. From Eliphaz's perspective, true wisdom leads to reverence and confession, not argument against God's justice or despairing protest. He operates from a strict retributive theology, where suffering inherently proves sin, making any complaint against it futile. This verse exposes Eliphaz's limited understanding of God's ways and his lack of compassion. It implicitly contrasts the wisdom of men, which is quick to judge and find fault, with divine wisdom, which often allows suffering for mysterious, perfecting purposes beyond human comprehension. For the believer, this verse, ironically, teaches the importance of profitable speech—words that build up, bring grace, and are rooted in divine truth, rather than empty human speculation or condemnation.

• Example: A leader harshly critiques a struggling team member's sincere effort as "useless," missing an opportunity to offer guidance.
• Example: Debating theological minor points excessively, leading to division rather than growth in faith.
• Example: Speaking critical words out of unverified assumptions, causing harm rather than offering helpful truth.