Job 22 6

Job 22:6 kjv

For thou hast taken a pledge from thy brother for nought, and stripped the naked of their clothing.

Job 22:6 nkjv

For you have taken pledges from your brother for no reason, And stripped the naked of their clothing.

Job 22:6 niv

You demanded security from your relatives for no reason; you stripped people of their clothing, leaving them naked.

Job 22:6 esv

For you have exacted pledges of your brothers for nothing and stripped the naked of their clothing.

Job 22:6 nlt

"For example, you must have lent money to your friend
and demanded clothing as security.
Yes, you stripped him to the bone.

Job 22 verses

Job 22 6 Meaning

Job 22:6 details a harsh accusation made by Eliphaz against Job. Eliphaz claims that Job has cruelly exploited the vulnerable, specifically by taking pledges from his own people without cause, essentially seizing assets unjustly, and by stripping those already destitute of their very clothing, thus denying them basic warmth and dignity. This verse serves as Eliphaz's justification for why Job is suffering, wrongly asserting that Job's calamities are divine punishment for such egregious sins against the poor and needy.

Job 22 6 Context

Job 22:6 is part of Eliphaz the Temanite’s third and final speech to Job. By this point, the debate among Job and his friends has intensified. Eliphaz, convinced that Job's suffering must be the result of severe sin, abandons subtlety and directly accuses Job of specific, grievous moral failures. He assumes a high moral ground, questioning Job's piety and charging him with a series of injustices, primarily the exploitation of the poor and helpless. These accusations, including the one in verse 6, are entirely baseless and reflect Eliphaz’s rigid "retribution theology," which insists that great suffering always equals great sin, and ignores the possibility of innocent suffering or God's higher purposes. Culturally and historically, the taking of pledges and providing for the poor were matters of Mosaic Law (e.g., Ex 22; Dt 24) and foundational to Israelite ethics. Taking pledges from the poor and not returning their vital clothing was specifically prohibited, demonstrating the depth of Eliphaz's accusation of Job's purported disregard for God's Law and human decency.

Job 22 6 Word analysis

• For you have exacted pledges:

  • exacted pledges: From the Hebrew root ḥabal (חָבַל). While ḥabal often means to "destroy" or "deal treacherously," in the context of legal terms, it refers to taking a "pledge" or "security" for a debt. Here, it implies forceful, oppressive collection of collateral. This action itself wasn't necessarily wrong, but the manner and object of the pledge were.

• of your brothers:

  • brothers: From the Hebrew aḥ (אָח), meaning a fellow countryman, a kinsman, or even just another human being. The term emphasizes that the alleged exploitation was against one’s own community or kin, highlighting a betrayal of social and familial bonds. The Law in Deut 23:19 explicitly forbade charging interest on loans to a "brother."

• for nothing / without cause:

  • for nothing: From the Hebrew ḥinnām (חִנָּם), meaning "gratis," "without cost," "for naught," or "without cause." This intensifies the accusation, implying the pledges were taken unjustly, either without any debt being owed, or for an exorbitant and unwarranted purpose, demonstrating a complete lack of ethical or legal basis for the taking of the pledge. It implies gratuitous malice or extreme avarice.

• and stripped:

  • stripped: From the Hebrew pašat (פָּשַׁט), meaning to "strip off," "take off," or "plunder." This verb implies a forceful, aggressive, and dehumanizing act, often associated with taking spoils in war or violently divesting someone of their possessions.

• the naked:

  • the naked: From the Hebrew ʿêrôm (עֵירֹם), referring to those who are "naked" or "destitute." This indicates extreme vulnerability and poverty. These are individuals who possess nothing but the clothes on their back.

• of their clothing:

  • their clothing: From the Hebrew begeḏ (בֶּגֶד), meaning "garment" or "clothing." In ancient Near Eastern societies, a cloak (simlah often used interchangeably with beged for outer garment) was not just clothing but often the poor person’s only blanket at night. Removing it was akin to depriving them of warmth, shelter, and basic survival, a direct violation of Mosaic Law (Ex 22:26-27; Dt 24:12-13).

• Words-group Analysis:

  • "exacted pledges of your brothers for nothing": This phrase portrays Job as a predatory lender or extortionist. It suggests a complete disregard for the Mosaic Law concerning pledges (Dt 24:10-13) and for the concept of compassion towards a "brother" in need (Lev 25:35-37). "For nothing" accentuates the pure malice or unwarranted nature of the action, signifying pure oppression rather than just a legal transaction gone wrong.
  • "stripped the naked of their clothing": This depicts an act of extreme cruelty and inhumanity. To take clothing from someone already "naked" means to remove their absolute last shred of dignity, protection, and warmth. This accusation directly violates specific commandments intended to protect the destitute (Ex 22:26-27; Dt 24:12-13). It paints Job as someone utterly devoid of pity and driven by ruthless gain.

Job 22 6 Bonus section

• The irony of Eliphaz's specific accusations against Job is heightened when we consider Job's own earlier demonstration of righteousness, as depicted in chapters like Job 29-31, where he defends his integrity and recounts how he upheld justice for the poor, the fatherless, and the widow. Eliphaz, by accusing Job of the exact opposite, shows his profound misjudgment of Job’s character.
• This verse underscores the ethical and social demands of the Old Testament covenant. Righteousness was not merely ceremonial but deeply integrated with social justice, particularly regarding the care for the poor, the alien, the widow, and the orphan. Failure to adhere to these standards was viewed as a direct offense against God, the protector of the vulnerable.
• Eliphaz’s assumption that such suffering necessitates these specific grave sins is a classic example of what is termed "prosperity theology" or "retribution theology," where wealth and health are seen as sure signs of God's blessing due to righteousness, and suffering as sure proof of sin. The entire book of Job challenges this simplistic theological framework.

Job 22 6 Commentary

Job 22:6 is a pivotal verse in Eliphaz's argument, demonstrating the logical conclusion of his misguided theology: If Job is suffering so greatly, he must have committed terrible sins to deserve such punishment. The specific accusations leveled – unjust pledging and stripping the poor – strike at the heart of Israelite covenantal ethics. The Mosaic Law rigorously protected the vulnerable, expressly prohibiting the very actions Eliphaz attributes to Job, such as keeping a poor man’s only garment as a pledge overnight. By accusing Job of these specific sins, Eliphaz attempts to paint Job not just as generally sinful, but as a ruthless oppressor of the weak, diametrically opposed to the character God calls for from His people. The profound irony is that these accusations are completely fabricated. Job is not guilty of these actions. This highlights the core tension of the Book of Job: the insufficiency of human-devised theological frameworks (like retribution theology) to fully comprehend God's justice and sovereignty in the face of suffering. Eliphaz's moral pronouncements, while seeming righteous in themselves (as these acts are sinful), are misapplied, reflecting human shortsightedness in interpreting divine providence.