“Remember: who that was innocent ever perished? Or where were the upright cut off?
English Standard Version (ESV)
Eliphaz isn't just asking Job to recall examples of suffering innocents; he's challenging Job to find even one instance. This isn't a philosophical question, but a demand for proof, implying that the absence of such examples proves Job must be guilty of hidden sin.
“Remember: who that was innocent ever perished? Or where were the upright cut off?
English Standard Version (ESV)
Eliphaz is launching his argument, challenging Job's deep distress and impatient cries. He appeals to a common belief held in their time: that God's justice means severe suffering is always a direct consequence of significant sin. Eliphaz implies that because Job is enduring such overwhelming calamities, he must have hidden wickedness, for surely no truly innocent person would be treated this way.
Eliphaz opens with a bold challenge: 'Remember, who ever perished, being innocent?' What settled belief about God's justice is he relying on?
Eliphaz is articulating a widely held belief, almost a rule of thumb, in his day: that suffering is a direct result of sin. He presents it as an undeniable fact, a principle so established that Job should immediately recognize its application to himself.
The Logic:
Eliphaz uses this to imply that since Job is suffering so terribly, he must have committed terrible, hidden sins. This perspective, while sounding logical, struggles to account for the complexities of life and God's ways.
If innocence should lead to prosperity, but suffering is present, how do people explain the gap? Eliphaz hints at a dark corner: 'secret sins.'
Eliphaz, and his friends, operated with a rigid understanding of divine justice. They believed that extreme suffering like Job's could only be explained by extreme wickedness. Since Job claimed innocence, the only logical conclusion for them was that his goodness was a facade, and hidden, grievous sins were the true cause.
Ask a follow-up
The Problem:
Is it never true that wickedness leads to ruin? Eliphaz asserts a principle, but is it the whole story of God's interaction with humanity?
Eliphaz presents a compelling, but ultimately incomplete, picture of God’s justice. While it’s true that sin has consequences and wicked actions often lead to destruction, the assertion that all suffering is a direct result of personal, hidden sin is where the reasoning breaks down.
The Nuance:
Understand the original words
naqi · Hebrew Adjective
Refers to one who is morally pure, ethically blameless, or free from guilt. In biblical law and wisdom literature, it describes a person whose life conforms to the standards of God’s covenantal requirements.
yashar · Hebrew Adjective
Describes one who walks in a straight path, upright in conduct and character. It denotes adherence to the path of righteousness and honesty as defined by God’s moral law.
This passage directly challenges Eliphaz's assumption by referencing the murder of Abel, the first righteous person to be 'cut off' in Scripture, demonstrating that innocence does not preclude suffering.
Luke 13:4Jesus uses a similar rhetorical situation, referencing those on whom a tower fell, to question the automatic link between suffering and sin, directly contradicting the premise Eliphaz is using here.
Psalm 37:25This Psalm offers a counterpoint to Eliphaz's grim assertion, stating 'I have been young, and now am old, yet I have not seen the righteous forsaken or his children begging for bread,' suggesting a general principle of divine provision for the faithful, while leaving room for exceptions.
Romans 8:18This New Testament passage speaks to the present sufferings of believers not being comparable to the future glory, implying that righteous individuals can and do experience significant hardship in this life.
bensonJob 4:7: "Remember, I pray thee, who ever perished, being innocent? or where were the righteous cut off?"
Job 4:7 . Remember, I pray thee — Consult thy own experience, observation, or reading, and produce one example. Who ever perished — That is, was so utterly undone as thou art, so miserably afflicted by such unparalleled and various judgments from God and men, all conspiring against thee; being innocent — Who had not, by his wickedness, provoked so merciful a God to do what is so unusual, an…
pulpitJob 4:7: "Remember, I pray thee, who ever perished, being innocent? or where were the righteous cut off?"
Verse 7. - Remember, I pray thee, who ever perished, being innocent? The heart of the matter is now approached. Job is called upon to "remember" the long-established moral axiom, that only evil-doing brings down upon men calamities, and that therefore, where calamities fall, them must be precedent wickedness. If he does not admit this, he-is challenged to bring forward examples, or even a…
Eliphaz isn't just asking Job to recall examples of suffering innocents; he's challenging Job to find even one instance. This isn't a philosophical question, but a demand for proof, implying that the absence of such examples proves Job must be guilty of hidden sin.
Eliphaz is launching his argument, challenging Job's deep distress and impatient cries. He appeals to a common belief held in their time: that God's justice means severe suffering is always a direct consequence of significant sin. Eliphaz implies that because Job is enduring such overwhelming calamities, he must have hidden wickedness, for surely no truly innocent person would be treated this way.
Eliphaz is launching his argument, challenging Job's deep distress and impatient cries. He appeals to a common belief held in their time: that God's justice means severe suffering is always a direct consequence of significant sin. Eliphaz implies that because Job is enduring such overwhelming calamities, he must have hidden wickedness, for surely no truly innocent person would be treated this way.
"“Remember: who that was innocent ever perished? Or where were the upright cut off?" — Eliphaz isn't just asking Job to recall examples of suffering innocents; he's challenging Job to find even one instance. This isn't a philosophical question, but a demand for proof, implying that t…
Get the original Greek and Hebrew, verse-by-verse context, and related passages inside the app.
Last reviewed October 2026