Job 15 9

Job 15:9 kjv

What knowest thou, that we know not? what understandest thou, which is not in us?

Job 15:9 nkjv

What do you know that we do not know? What do you understand that is not in us?

Job 15:9 niv

What do you know that we do not know? What insights do you have that we do not have?

Job 15:9 esv

What do you know that we do not know? What do you understand that is not clear to us?

Job 15:9 nlt

What do you know that we don't?
What do you understand that we do not?

Job 15 verses

Job 15 9 Meaning

Job 15:9 captures Eliphaz's direct challenge to Job, asserting that Job possesses no unique or superior wisdom compared to his friends. It's a rhetorical question implying that Job's insights are not novel and that Eliphaz and his companions already possess whatever knowledge Job claims to have. This verse highlights Eliphaz's confidence in their traditional wisdom and his condescending view of Job's perceived self-righteousness.

Job 15 9 Context

This verse is part of Eliphaz the Temanite's second speech in the book of Job, found in Job chapter 15. It comes after Job's lament in chapters 13-14, where Job expressed his despair, questioned God's actions, and argued his innocence despite his suffering. Eliphaz responds here with renewed vehemence, accusing Job of undermining reverence, hindering devotion, and challenging conventional wisdom. Eliphaz, representing traditional wisdom, insists that suffering is a direct consequence of sin. He dismisses Job's protests and self-vindication as mere presumptuous talk, implying Job thinks he has special insight not available to others. This verse serves as Eliphaz's direct, condescending retort to Job's earlier assertions of personal understanding and justice. The historical context for Job's friends reflects the ancient Near Eastern belief in divine retribution, where prosperity signified righteousness and suffering indicated sin. Eliphaz's polemic is against Job's lived experience which defies this simplistic theological framework.

Job 15 9 Word analysis

• What (מַה־, mah-): An interrogative particle. In this context, it functions rhetorically, conveying skepticism and challenge, implying "nothing."
• knowest (יָדַעְתָּ, yā-ḏa‘-tā): From the Hebrew root יָדַע (yada), meaning "to know, to perceive, to have experience." It denotes factual knowledge and acquaintance. Eliphaz questions the content of Job's knowledge, suggesting it is insignificant or common.
• thou (–תָּ, -tā): The suffix "tā" indicates the second person masculine singular, directly addressing Job. It adds a pointed and personal accusatory tone.
• that we know not (וַאֲנַ֫חְנוּ לֹא־יְדַעְנוּ, wa-’ă-naḥ-nū lō’-yə-ḏa‘-nū):
  • that (וַאֲנַ֫חְנוּ, wa-’ă-naḥ-nū): Connective "and" (wa-) plus "we" (’ănakhnu). Emphasizes the collective "we," signifying the shared, presumably superior, knowledge of the friends.
  • we (אֲנַ֫חְנוּ, ’ă-naḥ-nū): First person common plural, highlighting the friends' collective perspective and self-perceived shared wisdom.
  • know not (לֹא־יְדַעְנוּ, lō’-yə-ḏa‘-nū): "Not" (lo') before "we know" (yəḏa‘nū) indicates a strong negation. The phrase denies any unique knowledge held by Job.
• what (וּמַה־, ū-mah-): Connective "and" (ū-) plus interrogative "what" (mah). Repeats the rhetorical questioning for the second part of the parallelism.
• understandest (תָבִין, ṯā-ḇīn): From the Hebrew root בִּין (bin), meaning "to discern, to perceive, to understand, to have insight." This term suggests deeper comprehension and interpretation, beyond mere knowledge. Eliphaz challenges Job's intellectual grasp or spiritual insight.
• thou (Suffix –נָה, -nāh): Implied from the verb form.
• which is not in us (אֵין עִמָּנּוּ, ’ên ‘im-mā-nnū):
  • is not (אֵין, ’ên): Denies existence, "there is not."
  • in us (עִמָּנּוּ, ‘im-mā-nnū): "With us." The phrase implies not merely a lack of knowledge, but that this specific insight is utterly absent from their collective understanding or intellectual possession.
• Phrase analysis: "What knowest thou, that we know not?"
  • This is a classic rhetorical question expressing a dismissive challenge. It questions the novelty or uniqueness of Job's claims to understanding. Eliphaz asserts the friends' comprehensive knowledge, implying Job's insights are not special or superior.
• Phrase analysis: "what understandest thou, which is not in us?"
  • This second parallel question deepens the challenge from factual "knowing" (yada) to deeper "understanding" (bin). It implies that Job's insights or interpretations, whatever they might be, are not beyond the intellectual and spiritual grasp already possessed by Eliphaz and his companions. There is nothing unique to Job that is not also shared or known by the friends.

Job 15 9 Bonus section

Eliphaz's words here betray a significant lack of empathy and humility. By questioning Job's unique knowledge, Eliphaz not only dismisses Job's individual experience of suffering but also subtly elevates his own traditional understanding as the ultimate standard. This reveals a fundamental misunderstanding of wisdom itself: true wisdom, as Job 28 and Proverbs indicate, comes from the fear of the Lord and is often found in humility and acknowledging the limits of human knowledge, rather than in boasting of comprehensive understanding. Eliphaz's statement sets the stage for God's eventual appearance, where He directly challenges both Job and his friends, highlighting the vast gap between divine wisdom and all human comprehension (Job 38-41). The dramatic irony for the reader lies in knowing that Eliphaz is indeed wrong and that Job's suffering does hold a truth that goes beyond their simple cause-and-effect theology.

Job 15 9 Commentary

Job 15:9 is Eliphaz's contemptuous declaration that Job holds no special or superior wisdom compared to himself and his friends. It encapsulates the arrogance of conventional wisdom when confronted with suffering that defies simplistic explanations. Eliphaz, confident in the traditional doctrine of retribution, believes that he and his friends possess all necessary knowledge and insight, and thus Job's elaborate self-justification is both redundant and heretical. This verse underscores the deep divide between theoretical, conventional wisdom and the lived experience of inexplicable suffering. Eliphaz presumes to know the full counsel of God based on established traditions, thereby failing to grasp the mystery of Job's trials. The irony is poignant: Eliphaz, in his boast of knowing everything, is revealed by God later in Job 42:7 to have "not spoken of me the thing that is right," while Job, who admitted his lack of full understanding, was justified.

• Practical application: Do not assume you possess all the answers when encountering someone else's complex suffering or challenging theological questions. Approach others' struggles with humility rather than judgmental declarations of what you "know."