Job 10:9(v19)Remember, I beg you, that you have fashioned me as clay. Will you bring me into dust again?
Genesis 2:7(v19)Yahweh God formed man from the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.
Job 25:5-6(v18)Behold, even the moon has no brightness, and the stars are not pure in his sight; How much less man, who is a worm, the son of man, who is…
Job 36:12(v21)But if they don’t listen, they will perish by the sword; they will die without knowledge.
2 Peter 2:4(v18)For if God didn’t spare angels when they sinned, but cast them down to Tartarus, and committed them to pits of darkness to be reserved for…
Show all 49 cross-references
Genesis 3:19(v19)You will eat bread by the sweat of your face until you return to the ground, for you were taken out of it. For you are dust, and you shall…
Jude 1:6(v18)Angels who didn’t keep their first domain, but deserted their own dwelling place, he has kept in everlasting bonds under darkness for the…
Psalms 39:11(vv19, 21)When you rebuke and correct man for iniquity, you consume his wealth like a moth. Surely every man is but a breath.”
Job 8:22(v21)Those who hate you will be clothed with shame. The tent of the wicked will be no more.”
Job 15:15-16(v18)Behold, he puts no trust in his holy ones. Yes, the heavens are not clean in his sight; how much less one who is abominable and corrupt, a…
Job 20:7(v20)yet he will perish forever like his own dung. Those who have seen him will say, ‘Where is he?’
Job 33:6(v19)Behold, I am toward God even as you are. I am also formed out of the clay.
Luke 16:22-23(v21)The beggar died, and he was carried away by the angels to Abraham’s bosom. The rich man also died, and was buried. In Hades, he lifted up…
Genesis 18:27(v19)Abraham answered, “See now, I have taken it on myself to speak to the Lord, although I am dust and ashes.
Job 13:12(v19)Your memorable sayings are proverbs of ashes. Your defenses are defenses of clay.
Job 13:28(v19)though I am decaying like a rotten thing, like a garment that is moth-eaten.
Job 18:21(v21)Surely such are the dwellings of the unrighteous. This is the place of him who doesn’t know God.”
Psalms 39:5(v21)Behold, you have made my days hand widths. My lifetime is as nothing before you. Surely every man stands as a breath.”
Psalms 49:14(v21)They are appointed as a flock for Sheol. Death shall be their shepherd. The upright shall have dominion over them in the morning. Their…
Psalms 49:20(v21)A man who has riches without understanding, is like the animals that perish.
Psalms 146:3-4(v21)Don’t put your trust in princes, in a son of man in whom there is no help. His spirit departs, and he returns to the earth. In that very…
Isaiah 2:22(v21)Stop trusting in man, whose breath is in his nostrils; for of what account is he?
Isaiah 14:16(v21)Those who see you will stare at you. They will ponder you, saying, “Is this the man who made the earth to tremble, who shook kingdoms,
Luke 12:20(v21)“But God said to him, ‘You foolish one, tonight your soul is required of you. The things which you have prepared—whose will they be?’
2 Corinthians 4:7(v19)But we have this treasure in clay vessels, that the exceeding greatness of the power may be of God, and not from ourselves.
2 Corinthians 5:1(v19)For we know that if the earthly house of our tent is dissolved, we have a building from God, a house not made with hands, eternal, in the…
James 1:11(v21)For the sun arises with the scorching wind and withers the grass, and the flower in it falls, and the beauty of its appearance perishes. So…
Job 14:2(vv19–20)He grows up like a flower, and is cut down. He also flees like a shadow, and doesn’t continue.
2 Chronicles 15:6(v20)They were broken in pieces, nation against nation, and city against city; for God troubled them with all adversity.
2 Chronicles 21:20(v20)He was thirty-two years old when he began to reign, and he reigned in Jerusalem eight years. He departed without being missed; and they…
Job 14:14(v20)If a man dies, will he live again? I would wait all the days of my warfare, until my release should come.
Job 14:20(v20)You forever prevail against him, and he departs. You change his face, and send him away.
Job 16:22(v20)For when a few years have come, I will go the way of no return.
Job 18:17(v20)His memory will perish from the earth. He will have no name in the street.
Job 22:16(v19)who were snatched away before their time, whose foundation was poured out as a stream,
Psalms 37:36(v20)But he passed away, and behold, he was not. Yes, I sought him, but he could not be found.
Psalms 39:13(v20)Oh spare me, that I may recover strength, before I go away and exist no more.”
Psalms 90:5-6(v20)You sweep them away as they sleep. In the morning they sprout like new grass. In the morning it sprouts and springs up. By evening, it is…
Psalms 90:5-7(v19)You sweep them away as they sleep. In the morning they sprout like new grass. In the morning it sprouts and springs up. By evening, it is…
Psalms 92:7(v20)though the wicked spring up as the grass, and all the evildoers flourish, they will be destroyed forever.
Psalms 103:15-16(v19)As for man, his days are like grass. As a flower of the field, so he flourishes. For the wind passes over it, and it is gone. Its place…
Psalms 104:4(v18)He makes his messengers winds, and his servants flames of fire.
Proverbs 10:7(v20)The memory of the righteous is blessed, but the name of the wicked will rot.
Ecclesiastes 12:7(v19)and the dust returns to the earth as it was, and the spirit returns to God who gave it.
Isaiah 38:12-13(v20)My dwelling is removed, and is carried away from me like a shepherd’s tent. I have rolled up my life like a weaver. He will cut me off from…
1 Peter 1:24(v19)For, “All flesh is like grass, and all of man’s glory like the flower in the grass. The grass withers, and its flower falls;
Psalms 103:20-21(v18)Praise Yahweh, you angels of his, who are mighty in strength, who fulfill his word, obeying the voice of his word. Praise Yahweh, all you…
Psalms 146:4(v19)His spirit departs, and he returns to the earth. In that very day, his thoughts perish.
Isaiah 6:2-3(v18)Above him stood the seraphim. Each one had six wings. With two he covered his face. With two he covered his feet. With two he flew. One…
49 distinct cross-references across this passage (51 total citations).
Cross-references from openbible.info (CC BY 4.0)
Explain this passage (18 sources)
Historical commentary, presented as a primary source — not an endorsement.
Geneva Bible translators1599 · Public DomainOn vv18–21If God find imperfection in his Angels, when they…
If God find imperfection in his Angels, when they are not maintained by his power, how much more shall he lay folly to man’s charge when he would justify himself against God?
Geneva Bible (1599) marginal notes — public domain.
John Trapp1656 · Public DomainOn vv18–21Job 4:18 Behold, he put no trust in his…
Job 4:18 Behold, he put no trust in his servants; and his angels he charged with folly:
Ver. 18. Lo, he put no trust in his servants, &c.] Those menial, domestic servants of his, the holy angels that wait upon him, and are at his hand to do his will. Servant is a name of office; and they delight rather to be called angels (that is, messengers) and ministering spirits, than principalities, thrones, dominions, &c. Now in these God put no trust, he found no such cause to confide in them, because not perfectly sure and loyal to him, further than upheld and assisted by himself. The Vulgate Latin hath it thus, They that serve him are not stable; that is, the good angels are not stable by their own strength, but by God’s stablishing of thereto stand when others fell. Hence, Psa 68:17, the angels are called Shinan, as God’s seconds, say some; the nobles of that court, the very next unto him; but others say they are so called from their changeable state, now taken away by Christ, under whom they are as a head of government, of influence, of confirmation, but not of redemption, as we. Christ, as God, giveth them their being, and all their excellencies. As mediator, also, he maketh use of their ministry, for the safe guard and comfort of his people.
Read full note →
And his angels he charged with folly] That is, he spared not the angels that sinned, as St Peter expounds it, 2Pe 2:4. Their sin is said to be folly, that is, pride and self confidence. How this folly and madness of theirs (depravity, the Vulgate rendereth it) shows itself, whether in affecting a divinity, or in envy stirred up by the decree of exalting man’s nature above angels in and by Christ, and appointing them to be good men’s guardians, which office they scorned; or whether their pride appeared by transgressing some commandments in particular, not expressed, as Adam’s was, it is hard to say. Sure it is, that they abode not in the truth, that they kept not their station, &c.; and that the good angels stand, and are out of danger of ever falling, it is of divine grace. Hence, Exo 25:19, the cherubims stand upon the mercy seat, and are made of the matter thereof.
John Trapp, A Commentary or Exposition upon All the Books of the Old and New Testament (1647–1656) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
Matthew Poole1685 · Public DomainOn vv18–21Behold; this deserves thy serious consideration. These and the…
Behold; this deserves thy serious consideration. These and the following words seem to be the words of Eliphaz, explaining the former vision, and applying it to Job’s case, and enforcing it by further arguments.
In his servants, i.e. in his angels, as appears both by the next words of this verse, where they are called by way of explication and restriction his angels; and by the next verse, where men are opposed to them. They are called his servants by way of eminency, that general name being here appropriated to the chief of the kind, as is very usual in all authors in like cases; and withal, to intimate that sovereign dominion which the great God hath over the glorious angels, and much more over men, by virtue whereof he hath an unquestionable authority to treat them according to his good pleasure. And these God is said to put no trust in, because he could not be confident that they, if left to themselves, and destitute of the succours of his power and grace, would continue to be loyal, and faithful, and serviceable to him, and would not revolt from him, as some of their brethren had done. And for this cause God was pleased, after some time of trial, to give some special and further grace, either by Christ or otherwise, whereby they should be infallibly confirmed in the state of grace and felicity.
Read full note →
His angels he charged with folly, or, with vanity, i.e. he discerned folly and vanity in the angelical natures when he had first made them; which although he saw and pronounced them, no less than the visible creatures, Ge 1, to be very good in themselves, and free from the least degree or tincture of sin; yet, comparing them with himself, and considering them in themselves alone, he saw something of folly and vanity in their very natures, because they were creatures, and therefore subject to manifold changes; and, among others, to fall from God, or into sin, as it appeared by the sad experience of some of them. Seeing therefore the angels, which so far exceed mankind in wisdom, and strength, and purity, and justice, and all other perfections, do fall incomparably short of God in these things, it is most absurd, as well as impious, to think that man is more just or pure than God, as was said, Job 4:17, and as thou, O Job, seemest to surmise. Others, nor (Heb. and not; the negative particle being repeated out of the former branch of the verse, as it is Psa 9:18; Pro 17:26, and elsewhere) in his angels, in whom (both which particles are frequently understood, as hath been proved before) he put light, or splendour, to wit, singular wisdom and purity, beyond what he put in man.
Matthew Poole's English Annotations on the Holy Bible (1683–1685) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.
John Gill1763 · Public DomainOn vv18–20How much less on them that dwell in houses…
How much less on them that dwell in houses of clay,.... Meaning men, but not as dwelling in houses, in a proper sense, made of clay dried by the sun, as were common in the eastern countries; nor in mean cottages, as distinguished from cedar, and ceiled houses, in which great personages dwelt, for this respects men in common; nor as being in the houses of the grave, as the Targum, Jarchi, and others, which are no other than dust, dirt, and clay; for this regards not the dead, but the living; but the bodies of men are meant; in which their souls dwell; which shows the superior excellency of the soul to the body, and its independency of it, being capable of existing without it, as it does in the separate state before the resurrection; so bodies are called tabernacles, and earthen vessels, and earthly houses, Pe2 1:13 Co2 4:7; and bodies of clay, Job 13:12; so the body is by Epictetus (c) called clay elegantly wrought; and another Heathen writer (d) calls it clay steeped in, or macerated and mixed with blood: being of clay denotes the original of bodies, the dust of the earth; and the frailty of them, like brittle clay, and the pollution of them, all the members thereof being defiled with sin, and so called vile bodies, and will remain such till changed by Christ, Phi 3:21; now the argument stands thus, if God put no trust in angels, then much less in poor, frail, mortal, sinful men; he has no dependence on their services, whose weakness, unprofitableness, and unfaithfulness, he well knows; he puts no trust in their purposes, and resolutions, and vows, which often come to nothing; nor does he trust his own people with their salvation and justification, or put these things upon the foot of their works, but trusts them and the salvation and justification of them with his Son, and puts them upon the foot of his own grace and mercy: and if he charges the holy angels with folly, then much more (for so it may be also rendered) will he charge mortal sinful men with it, who are born like the wild ass's colt, and are foolish as well as disobedient, even his chosen ones, especially before conversion; or thus if so stands the case of angels, then much less can man be just before him, and pure in his sight: the weakness, frailty, and pollution of the bodies of men, are further enlarged on in some following clauses:
whose foundation is in the dust; meaning not the lower parts of the body, as the feet, which support and bear it up; rather the soul, which is the basis of it, referring to its corruption and depravity by sin; though it seems chiefly to respect the original of the body, which is the dust of the earth, of which it consists, and to which it will return again, this being but a poor foundation to stand upon, Gen 2:7; for the sense is, whose foundation is dust, mere dust, the particle being redundant, or rather an Arabism:
Read full note →
which are crushed before the moth? that is, which bodies of men, or houses of clay founded in the dust; or, "they crush them"; or "which" or "whom they crush" (e); either God, Father, Son, and Spirit, as some; or the angels, as others; or distresses, calamities, and afflictions, which sense seems best, by which they are crushed "before the moth" or "worm" (f); that is, before they die, and come to be the repast of worms, Job 19:26; or before a moth is destroyed, as soon, or sooner (g), than it is; so a man may be crushed to death, or his life taken from him, as soon as a moth's; either by the immediate hand of God, as Ananias and Sapphira, Act 5:5; or by the sword of man, as Amasa by Joab, Sa2 20:10; or rather, "like a moth" (h), as easily and as quickly as a moth is crushed between a man's fingers, or by his foot: some, as Saadiah Gaon, and others, render it, "before Arcturus" (i), a constellation in the heavens, Job 9:9; and take the phrase to be the same as that, "before the sun"; Psa 72:17; and to denote the perpetuity and duration of their being crushed, which would be as long as the sun or Arcturus continued, that is, for ever; but either of the above senses is best, especially the last of them.
(c) Arrian. Epictet. l. 1. c. 1. (d) Theodor. Gadareus, apud Sueton. Vit. Tiber. c. 57. (e) "conterent eos", Montanus, Mercerus, Michaelis, Schultens; "sub trinitas personarum", Schmidt; "angeli", Mercerus; so Sephorno and R. Simeon Bar Tzemach; "calamitates", Vatablus; so some in Bar Tzemach. (f) "conam verme", Coceius; so the Targum and Bar Tzemach. (g) "Antequam tinea", Junius & Tremellius; "citius quam tinea", Piscator. (h) , Sept. "instar tineae", Noldius, Schmidt; so Aben Ezra and Broughton. (i) "Donec fuerit Arcturus", Pagninus, Vatablus; so some in Aben Ezra, Ben Melech.
John Gill's Exposition of the Whole Bible (1746–1763) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.
John Wesley1765 · Public DomainOn vv18–21Servants - They are called his servants by way…
Servants - They are called his servants by way of eminency, that general name being here appropriated to the chief of the kind, to intimate that sovereign dominion which the great God hath over the angels, and much more over men. With folly - Without all doubt, this refers to those angels who foolishly and wickedly fell from God.
John Wesley, Explanatory Notes Upon the Whole Bible (1754–1765) — public domain. Text via the GEBible commentary corpus.
Adam Clarke1810 · Public DomainOn vv18–21Verse 18. Behold, he put no trust in his…
Verse 18. Behold, he put no trust in his servants] This verse is generally understood to refer to the fall of angels; for there were some of those heavenly beings who kept not their first estate: they did not persevere to the end of their probation, and therefore fell into condemnation, and are reserved in chains of darkness unto the judgment of the great day; Jude 1:6. It is said he put no trust in them-he knew that nothing could be absolutely immutable but himself; and that no intelligent beings could subsist in a state of purity, unless continually dependent on himself, and deriving constant supplies of grace, power, and light, from him who gave them their being.
And his angels he charged with folly] Not chargeth, as many quote the passage. He charged those with folly who kept not their first estate. It does not appear that he is charging the others in the same way, who continue steadfast.
Read full note →
The several translations of this verse, both ancient and modern, are different from each other. Here are the chief: -
In angelis suis reperit pravitatem, "In his angels he found perverseness," VULGATE. The SEPTUAGINT is nearly the same. II met la lumiere dans ses anges, "He puts light into his angels," FRENCH BIBLE. Even those pure intelligences have continual need of being irradiated by the Almighty; [Syriac] wa-bemalakui neshim tempo, "And he hath put amazement in his angels," SYRIAC. The ARABIC is the same. In angelis suis ponet gloriationem, "In his angels he will put exultation," MONTANUS. The Hebrew is תהלה toholah, irradiation, from הלה halah, to irradiate, glister, or shine. In this place we may consider angels (מלאכים malachim) as heavenly or earthly messengers or angels of the Lord; and the glory, influence, and honour of their office as being put in them by the Most High. They are as planets which shine with a borrowed light. They have nothing but what they have received. Coverdale translates the whole verse thus: Beholde he hath founde unfaythfulnesse amonge his owne servaunts and proude disobedience amonge his angels. The sense is among all these interpreters; and if the fallen angels are meant, the passage is plain enough.
Adam Clarke's Commentary on the Bible (1810–1826) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.
Joseph Benson1811 · Public DomainOn vv18, 20, 21Job 4:18. Behold, &c. — For it deserves thy…
Job 4:18. Behold, &c. — For it deserves thy serious consideration. These and the following words seem to be the words of Eliphaz, explaining the former vision, and applying it to Job’s case, and enforcing it by further arguments. He put no trust in his servants — That is, in his angels, as appears both by the next words of this verse, in which, by way of explication and restriction, they are termed his angels; and by the verse following, where men are opposed to them. They are called his servants by way of eminence, the general name being here appropriated to the chief of the kind, to intimate that sovereign dominion which the great God hath, even over the glorious angels, and much more over men: and God is said to put no trust in them, because if they were left to themselves, and the supplies of God’s power and grace were withdrawn from them, they would not even continue to exist, much less to be loyal and faithful. And his angels he charged with folly — That is, with vanity, weakness, infirmity, imperfection, in comparison with himself, their Maker. The word תהלה, toholah, here rendered folly, is one of the απαξ λεγομενα, the words only once occurring, and of consequence the more difficult to be understood. The Chaldee paraphrast renders it iniquity; Ab. Ezra, folly; Schultens derives it from an Arabic word, which denotes lapsing, or from another, which signifies deficiency, or imperfection. Houbigant renders the clause, And in his angels mutability was found. The most probable opinion seems to be, that this refers to the angels who foolishly and wickedly fell from God.
Joseph Benson's Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1811–1818) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
Albert Barnes1834 · Public DomainOn vv18–21Behold, he put no trust in his servants -…
Behold, he put no trust in his servants - These are evidently the words of the oracle that appeared to Eliphaz; see Schultens, in loc. The word servants here refers to angels; and the idea is, that God was so pure that he did not confide even in the exalted holiness of angels - meaning that their holiness was infinitely inferior to his. The design is to state that God had the highest possible holiness, such as to render the holiness of all others, no matter how exalted, as nothing - as all lesser lights are as nothing before the glory of the sun. The Chaldee renders this, “Lo, in his servants, the prophets, he does not confide;” but the more correct reference is undoubtedly to the angels.
And his angels he charged with folly - Margin, Or,” Nor in his angels, in whom he put light.” The different rendering in the text and in the margin, has arisen from the supposed ambiguity of the word employed here - תהלה tohŏlâh. It is a word which occurs nowhere else, and hence, it is difficult to determine its true signification. Walton renders it, gloriatio glorying; Jerome, pravitas, wickedness; the Septuagint, σκολιόν skolion, fault, blemish; Dr. Good. default, or defection; Noyes, frailty. Gesenius says that the word is derived from הלל hâlăl, (No. 4), to be foolish. So also Kimchi explains it. According to this, the idea is that of foolishness - that is, they are far inferior to God in wisdom; or, as the word folly in the Scriptures is often synonymous with sin, it might mean that their purity was so far inferior to his as to appear like impurity and sin. The essential idea is, that even the holiness of angels was not to be compared with God. It is not that they were polluted and unholy, for, in their measure, they are perfect; but it is that their holiness was as nothing compared with the infinite perfection of God. It is to be remembered that a part of the angels had sinned, and they had shown that their integrity was not to be confided in; and whatever might be the holiness of a creature, it was possible to conceive that he might sin. But no such idea could for a moment enter the mind in regard to God. The object of this whole argument is to show, that if confidence could not be reposed in the angels, and if all their holiness was as nothing before God, little confidence could be placed in man; and that it was presumption for him to sit in judgment on the equity of the divine dealings.
Albert Barnes' Notes on the Bible (1834–1885) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.
Haydock's Catholic Bible Commentary1859 · Public DomainOn vv18–21Angels, who fell, as the fathers explain it. (Estius)…
Angels, who fell, as the fathers explain it. (Estius) (Tirinus) --- Hebrew, "behold, he put no trust in his servants, and his angels he charged with folly," chap. xv. 15., and xxv. 5., and 2 Peter ii. 4. (Protestants) (Haydock)
George Leo Haydock (1774–1849), Haydock's Catholic Family Bible and Commentary, 1859 edition — public domain. Excludes Psalms (Douay-Rheims chapter numbering differs from Protestant) and Deuterocanonical books (Catholic canon only).
Robert Jamieson, A. R. Fausset & David Brown1871 · Public DomainOn vv18–21folly--Imperfection is to be attributed to the angels, in…
folly--Imperfection is to be attributed to the angels, in comparison with Him. The holiness of some of them had given way (Pe2 2:4), and at best is but the holiness of a creature. Folly is the want of moral consideration [UMBREIT].
Jamieson, Fausset & Brown — Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible (1871) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.
Daniel D. Whedon1874 · Public DomainOn vv18–2118. His servants — The highest orders of angels…
18. His servants — The highest orders of angels are accounted as servants.
Put no trust — Trusteth not, in the sense of reliance. The same word is used (Isa_28:16) to express trust in the tried Cornerstone. “Since the angels are created they are not by their nature immutable, like God, and consequently not immovable from goodness and virtue.” — Chrysostom.
Read full note →
Charged with folly — תהלה. As this word is used nowhere else in the Bible, it is difficult to determine its meaning. Schultens derives it from a similar word in the Arabic, signifying lapse or failure. The Septuagint translates, he perceived perverseness (σκολιον τι) in his angels. Among the multiplicity of views (see Dr. Good) the best is that of Umbreit: “He attributeth imperfection to his angels.” In asking the question how an imperfect holiness can be attributed to the angels, Hengstenberg observes that “the idea of holiness in the Scripture embraces infinitely more than mere sinlessness; that it includes within itself the independent possession of the highest perfection.… That holiness in this sense does not belong to the angels, whose holiness is only relative, is evident from the possibility of their fall.… If God were like the angels he would not be the Holy One.”
Daniel D. Whedon (gen. ed.), Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1874–1909) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges1878 · Public DomainOn vv18–2118. he put no trust] Better, he putteth.
18. he put no trust] Better, he putteth.
he charged with folly] Rather, he chargeth with error. The “servants” of God are here His heavenly ministers, as the parallel, “angels”, indicates. The word “folly” (tohŏlah) does not occur again in Heb., and its meaning must be in some measure conjectural. Dillmann has drawn attention to an Ethiopic root tahala, to err, and the word may be connected with this stem and mean error.
The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges (gen. ed. J. J. S. Perowne; Cambridge University Press, 1878–1918) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
Ellicott's Commentary for English Readers1878 · Public DomainOn vv18–20(18) Behold, he put no trust in his servants.—The…
(18) Behold, he put no trust in his servants.—The statement is a general one; it does not refer to any one act in the past. We should read putteth and chargeth. Eliphaz repeats himself in Job_15:15.
A Bible Commentary for English Readers, edited by Charles John Ellicott (1878–1897) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
The Pulpit Commentary1880 · Public DomainOn vv18–21Behold, he put no trust in his servants; rather,…
Behold, he put no trust in his servants; rather, he putteth no trust"or he putteth not trust. The" servants" intended are those that minister to him directly in heaven, the members of the angelic host, as appears from the parallelism of the other clause of the verse. Even in them God does not trust implicitly, since he knows that they are frail and fallible, liable to err, etc., only kept from sin by his own sustaining and assisting grace. (Job_15:15, where Eliphaz expresses the same belief in his own person) And his angels he charged with folly; rather, chargeth. The exact meaning of the word translated "folly" is uncertain, since the word does not occur elsewhere. The LXX renders by skolion ti , "crookedness;" Ewald, Dillmann, and others, by "error." The teaching clearly is that the angels are not perfect the highest angelic excellence falls infinitely short of God"s perfectness. Even angels, therefore, would be incompetent judges of God"s doings.
The Pulpit Commentary (1880–1919), ed. H.D.M. Spence-Jones & Joseph S. Exell — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
The Biblical Illustrator1887 · Public DomainOn vv18, 19, 21And His angels He charged with folly.
Job_4:18-21
And His angels He charged with folly.
Read full note →
Folly in angels
His angels He charged with folly. Revelation conveys to us the highly interesting information that there is between the great Spirit and man, an intermediate order of spirits whose habitation is in the high and holy place. But the discoveries which Divine revelation makes to us of the invisible world, surprising and sublime as they are, were not intended to raise our astonishment, or gratify our curiosity. They are uniformly brought forward in the Scriptures for practical purposes of the highest kind. The doctrine of angels is introduced to illustrate the amazing condescension of the Son of God. At other times it is taught for the consolation of the saints, who have assurance that they are encompassed, preserved, and provided for by Gods invisible host. At other times it is adduced to set forth the greatness, wisdom, and holiness of God on the one hand, and the folly, weakness, and nothingness of man on the other. This is the view introduced in the passage before us. Some of the angels, by pride and rebellion, forfeited their place. Was God, after this, to place His confidence in man, even though created in His image? What is asserted of angels is applicable to them still. God only possesses in Himself all excellence. Angels derive their being, and all its excellences, from Him. If the text is the estimate which the Most High forms of angels, how insignificant and contemptible must we be in His sight! What are our bodies, but moulded, moving, breathing, speaking clay! And what can be frailer than a house of clay! Practical lessons--
1. The subject teaches the folly of covetousness and ambition. Covetousness is in itself sinful, and as it usurps the place due to God in the heart, it is idolatry; but when viewed in the light of the text, it is folly and madness, and wilful madness, which exposes its victim to merited derision.
2. It teaches us to avoid pride and security.
3. It teaches us not to trust or glory in man. Why has God declared His trust in His servants, and accused His angels of folly, but to teach us more effectually the sin and danger of all creature confidence and boasting? (Thomas MCrie, D. D.)
The imperfect angel
I want to put the truth of Gods purity in its right relation to His patience and long-suffering and gentleness. Side by side with the texts setting forth Gods unapproachable purity, may be placed such texts as Isa_42:3, Mat_10:42, which set forth the patience and beneficence of His character, and the scrupulous and delicate equities of His administration. In the addresses of Eliphaz, Gods strict and unapproachable purity is depicted in exalted and impressive phraseology. This seer, Eliphaz, sinned through overweening confidence in his own prophetic gift. His error consisted in the misapplication of truths that were obviously inspired, rather than in the premises he laid down as the basis of his appeal to Job. He was right in his abstract principles. We may accept his truth about the inconceivable purity of God.
1. Gods ideals of purity are so transcendent and so terrible, that the purity of the angel nearest to His throne is little better than stain, shadow, darkness in comparison. His angels He chargeth with folly. But is not the whole subject, with the angel in the background, vague, misty, fanciful? It is surely not unscientific to assume the existence of the pure and mighty beings spoken of by seers and prophets of the olden time, nor speculative to ponder well the words which declare that in comparison with God Himself, the angels have about them traces of finite dimness, blemish, imperfection. Are the angels, then, frail and foolish and defective? Are the angels disfigured with limitation, even as we? Put them in comparison with man, fallen man, and they will well justify the title holy. Bring them into comparison with God, and the title will seem incongruous, arrogant, and misplaced. The fall of some of their number shows that, as a class, the angels have not yet passed beyond the stage of defectibility. They have not risen into a wisdom so complete that no illusion can betray it, nor into a strength so unassailable that no temptation can score its record of disfigurement upon their lives. They are free, it is true, from actual transgression, but they are passing through the first crude stages of a development in which, because of inward weakness and limitation, there is perilous room for the wiles of the tempter. They have not reached the transcendent holiness of God, who cannot be tempted with evil. An incarnation, with its perils and possibilities, would be fatal to an angel. God can never forget the frailty, weakness, limitation, that may be latent in the unfallen types of angelic life.
2. The holiness of an angel will appear as little better than a frailty if we think of it in comparison with the uncreated holiness of God. The Divine holiness has in it a transcendent originality, with which that of the creature can never hope to vie. The holiness of the angel is a mere echo. The angels are but copyists, and their workmanship is unutterably inferior to the original conception.
3. In the judgment of the Most High, the holiness of the angel verges upon a frailty, because of its inferior vitality and its less consuming fervour. No angel knows what it is to love with a mighty intenseness that makes the love necessarily vicarious, and the heart break with pure grief over the sin, and grief, and shame of others. No Bethlehems, or Gethsemanes, or Golgothas have ever immortalised angelic devotion and love. Their love, however crystal pure, is a love to which sacrifice is strange. It does not draw them into incarnations and propitiatory offerings, and down into the shadows of vast redeeming shames and agonies. If Jesus Christ is the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world, the Father must have been touched in some sense from everlasting with the same sorrow. Before all worlds there was some dim mystery of self-sacrificing pain in the heart of God.
4. The defect of the angel is a defect of narrowness. In comparison with the Catholic and all-comprehending love of God, his love is insular and restrained. All perfect moral qualities are boundless. The graces of these celestial envoys are dwarfed into frailty and insignificance when brought into contrast with the perfect moral life of God.
5. The holiness of the angel has about it the defect and limitation inseparable from the briefness of its own history. It is a frail thing of yesterday in comparison with the holiness of God. Think of the amazing epochs through which Gods holiness has been unfolding itself. The worth of a moral quality is proportioned to the period through which it has verified and established itself. Angel life is but of recent birth.
6. The holiness of the angel has about it the defect of immaturity. The insight and holiness of the angel are but starting points for some higher and more magnificent evolution of character, the first cell out of which shall issue the wonder and transfiguration of their after destiny . . . Consider the unparalleled patience and gentleness of God. His angels He chargeth with folly. Yes; but He keeps them at His feet, and with exhaustless grate carries on their education, epoch after epoch. Is there no contradiction in these views? No. Only He who is infinitely holy can afford to be absolutely gracious and gentle. His very greatness enables Him to stoop. The incomparable holy dare stoop to blemish, and frailty, and weakness, and help it out of its dark and humiliating conditions. There is no contradiction here.. Then again, the infinitely holy can discern the hidden promise and possibility of holiness in the weak and erring. It would be an awful thing if we were left to suppose that God was microscopic in His scrutiny for judgment and condemnation only, and not also for blessing and approval. He discerns hope and fine possibility all the more keenly through the very affluence of His own purity. The perfection of righteousness is realised in the perfection of love. (Thomas G. Selby.)
On Easter Day
In the resurrection we shall be as the angels. And that we might not flatter ourselves in a dream of a better state than the angels have, in this text we have an intimation what their state and condition is--His angels He charged with folly.
I. Of whom were these words spoken? Angels. But it does not appear whether good or bad angels; those that fell or those that stood. Calvin thinks the good angels, considered in themselves, may be defective. The angels were Created in a possibility of everlasting blessedness, but not in actual possession of it. This admits of no doubt, because some of them actually did fall.
II. What words were spoken?
1. What is positively said.
2. What is consequently inferred. (John Donne.)
The Biblical Illustrator, edited by Joseph S. Exell (c. 1880s–1900s) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
C. I. Scofield1917 · Public DomainOn v18trust (See Scofield "Psa 2:12").
trust (See Scofield "Psa 2:12").
fear (See Scofield "Psa 19:9").
The Scofield Reference Bible (1917 edition), notes by C. I. Scofield — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
unfoldingWord translationNotes2017 · CC BY-SA 4.0On vv18, 20those who live in houses of clay, whose foundation…
those who live in houses of clay, whose foundation is in the dust
This is a figurative way of describing human beings, who were created out of the dust of the earth and whose bodies are like houses, which are made of clay and have dirt foundations. (See: Metaphor)
Read full note →
who are crushed sooner than a moth
Possible meanings for this metaphor are 1) "who God destroys as easily as he crushes a moth" or 2) "whose lives are as short as the life of a moth." (See: Metaphor and Active or Passive)
Tyndale Open Study Notes2022 · CC BY-SA 4.0On vv18, 214:18-21 The concept that God does not trust his…
4:18-21 The concept that God does not trust his own angels and that he charged his messengers with foolishness is otherwise unknown (but see Gen 6:1-4).
GEBible — Godless Engineer's Bible App
Geneva Bible translators 1599 · Public Domain On vv18–21 If God find imperfection in his Angels, when they…
If God find imperfection in his Angels, when they are not maintained by his power, how much more shall he lay folly to man’s charge when he would justify himself against God?
Geneva Bible (1599) marginal notes — public domain.
John Trapp 1656 · Public Domain On vv18–21 Job 4:18 Behold, he put no trust in his…
Job 4:18 Behold, he put no trust in his servants; and his angels he charged with folly:
Ver. 18. Lo, he put no trust in his servants, &c.] Those menial, domestic servants of his, the holy angels that wait upon him, and are at his hand to do his will. Servant is a name of office; and they delight rather to be called angels (that is, messengers) and ministering spirits, than principalities, thrones, dominions, &c. Now in these God put no trust, he found no such cause to confide in them, because not perfectly sure and loyal to him, further than upheld and assisted by himself. The Vulgate Latin hath it thus, They that serve him are not stable; that is, the good angels are not stable by their own strength, but by God’s stablishing of thereto stand when others fell. Hence, Psa 68:17, the angels are called Shinan, as God’s seconds, say some; the nobles of that court, the very next unto him; but others say they are so called from their changeable state, now taken away by Christ, under whom they are as a head of government, of influence, of confirmation, but not of redemption, as we. Christ, as God, giveth them their being, and all their excellencies. As mediator, also, he maketh use of their ministry, for the safe guard and comfort of his people.
Read full note →
And his angels he charged with folly] That is, he spared not the angels that sinned, as St Peter expounds it, 2Pe 2:4. Their sin is said to be folly, that is, pride and self confidence. How this folly and madness of theirs (depravity, the Vulgate rendereth it) shows itself, whether in affecting a divinity, or in envy stirred up by the decree of exalting man’s nature above angels in and by Christ, and appointing them to be good men’s guardians, which office they scorned; or whether their pride appeared by transgressing some commandments in particular, not expressed, as Adam’s was, it is hard to say. Sure it is, that they abode not in the truth, that they kept not their station, &c.; and that the good angels stand, and are out of danger of ever falling, it is of divine grace. Hence, Exo 25:19, the cherubims stand upon the mercy seat, and are made of the matter thereof.
John Trapp, A Commentary or Exposition upon All the Books of the Old and New Testament (1647–1656) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
Matthew Poole 1685 · Public Domain On vv18–21 Behold; this deserves thy serious consideration. These and the…
Behold; this deserves thy serious consideration. These and the following words seem to be the words of Eliphaz, explaining the former vision, and applying it to Job’s case, and enforcing it by further arguments.
In his servants, i.e. in his angels, as appears both by the next words of this verse, where they are called by way of explication and restriction his angels; and by the next verse, where men are opposed to them. They are called his servants by way of eminency, that general name being here appropriated to the chief of the kind, as is very usual in all authors in like cases; and withal, to intimate that sovereign dominion which the great God hath over the glorious angels, and much more over men, by virtue whereof he hath an unquestionable authority to treat them according to his good pleasure. And these God is said to put no trust in, because he could not be confident that they, if left to themselves, and destitute of the succours of his power and grace, would continue to be loyal, and faithful, and serviceable to him, and would not revolt from him, as some of their brethren had done. And for this cause God was pleased, after some time of trial, to give some special and further grace, either by Christ or otherwise, whereby they should be infallibly confirmed in the state of grace and felicity.
Read full note →
His angels he charged with folly, or, with vanity, i.e. he discerned folly and vanity in the angelical natures when he had first made them; which although he saw and pronounced them, no less than the visible creatures, Ge 1, to be very good in themselves, and free from the least degree or tincture of sin; yet, comparing them with himself, and considering them in themselves alone, he saw something of folly and vanity in their very natures, because they were creatures, and therefore subject to manifold changes; and, among others, to fall from God, or into sin, as it appeared by the sad experience of some of them. Seeing therefore the angels, which so far exceed mankind in wisdom, and strength, and purity, and justice, and all other perfections, do fall incomparably short of God in these things, it is most absurd, as well as impious, to think that man is more just or pure than God, as was said, Job 4:17, and as thou, O Job, seemest to surmise. Others, nor (Heb. and not; the negative particle being repeated out of the former branch of the verse, as it is Psa 9:18; Pro 17:26, and elsewhere) in his angels, in whom (both which particles are frequently understood, as hath been proved before) he put light, or splendour, to wit, singular wisdom and purity, beyond what he put in man.
Matthew Poole's English Annotations on the Holy Bible (1683–1685) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.
John Gill 1763 · Public Domain On vv18–20 How much less on them that dwell in houses…
How much less on them that dwell in houses of clay,.... Meaning men, but not as dwelling in houses, in a proper sense, made of clay dried by the sun, as were common in the eastern countries; nor in mean cottages, as distinguished from cedar, and ceiled houses, in which great personages dwelt, for this respects men in common; nor as being in the houses of the grave, as the Targum, Jarchi, and others, which are no other than dust, dirt, and clay; for this regards not the dead, but the living; but the bodies of men are meant; in which their souls dwell; which shows the superior excellency of the soul to the body, and its independency of it, being capable of existing without it, as it does in the separate state before the resurrection; so bodies are called tabernacles, and earthen vessels, and earthly houses, Pe2 1:13 Co2 4:7; and bodies of clay, Job 13:12; so the body is by Epictetus (c) called clay elegantly wrought; and another Heathen writer (d) calls it clay steeped in, or macerated and mixed with blood: being of clay denotes the original of bodies, the dust of the earth; and the frailty of them, like brittle clay, and the pollution of them, all the members thereof being defiled with sin, and so called vile bodies, and will remain such till changed by Christ, Phi 3:21; now the argument stands thus, if God put no trust in angels, then much less in poor, frail, mortal, sinful men; he has no dependence on their services, whose weakness, unprofitableness, and unfaithfulness, he well knows; he puts no trust in their purposes, and resolutions, and vows, which often come to nothing; nor does he trust his own people with their salvation and justification, or put these things upon the foot of their works, but trusts them and the salvation and justification of them with his Son, and puts them upon the foot of his own grace and mercy: and if he charges the holy angels with folly, then much more (for so it may be also rendered) will he charge mortal sinful men with it, who are born like the wild ass's colt, and are foolish as well as disobedient, even his chosen ones, especially before conversion; or thus if so stands the case of angels, then much less can man be just before him, and pure in his sight: the weakness, frailty, and pollution of the bodies of men, are further enlarged on in some following clauses:
whose foundation is in the dust; meaning not the lower parts of the body, as the feet, which support and bear it up; rather the soul, which is the basis of it, referring to its corruption and depravity by sin; though it seems chiefly to respect the original of the body, which is the dust of the earth, of which it consists, and to which it will return again, this being but a poor foundation to stand upon, Gen 2:7; for the sense is, whose foundation is dust, mere dust, the particle being redundant, or rather an Arabism:
Read full note →
which are crushed before the moth? that is, which bodies of men, or houses of clay founded in the dust; or, "they crush them"; or "which" or "whom they crush" (e); either God, Father, Son, and Spirit, as some; or the angels, as others; or distresses, calamities, and afflictions, which sense seems best, by which they are crushed "before the moth" or "worm" (f); that is, before they die, and come to be the repast of worms, Job 19:26; or before a moth is destroyed, as soon, or sooner (g), than it is; so a man may be crushed to death, or his life taken from him, as soon as a moth's; either by the immediate hand of God, as Ananias and Sapphira, Act 5:5; or by the sword of man, as Amasa by Joab, Sa2 20:10; or rather, "like a moth" (h), as easily and as quickly as a moth is crushed between a man's fingers, or by his foot: some, as Saadiah Gaon, and others, render it, "before Arcturus" (i), a constellation in the heavens, Job 9:9; and take the phrase to be the same as that, "before the sun"; Psa 72:17; and to denote the perpetuity and duration of their being crushed, which would be as long as the sun or Arcturus continued, that is, for ever; but either of the above senses is best, especially the last of them.
(c) Arrian. Epictet. l. 1. c. 1. (d) Theodor. Gadareus, apud Sueton. Vit. Tiber. c. 57. (e) "conterent eos", Montanus, Mercerus, Michaelis, Schultens; "sub trinitas personarum", Schmidt; "angeli", Mercerus; so Sephorno and R. Simeon Bar Tzemach; "calamitates", Vatablus; so some in Bar Tzemach. (f) "conam verme", Coceius; so the Targum and Bar Tzemach. (g) "Antequam tinea", Junius & Tremellius; "citius quam tinea", Piscator. (h) , Sept. "instar tineae", Noldius, Schmidt; so Aben Ezra and Broughton. (i) "Donec fuerit Arcturus", Pagninus, Vatablus; so some in Aben Ezra, Ben Melech.
John Gill's Exposition of the Whole Bible (1746–1763) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.
John Wesley 1765 · Public Domain On vv18–21 Servants - They are called his servants by way…
Servants - They are called his servants by way of eminency, that general name being here appropriated to the chief of the kind, to intimate that sovereign dominion which the great God hath over the angels, and much more over men. With folly - Without all doubt, this refers to those angels who foolishly and wickedly fell from God.
John Wesley, Explanatory Notes Upon the Whole Bible (1754–1765) — public domain. Text via the GEBible commentary corpus.
Adam Clarke 1810 · Public Domain On vv18–21 Verse 18. Behold, he put no trust in his…
Verse 18. Behold, he put no trust in his servants] This verse is generally understood to refer to the fall of angels; for there were some of those heavenly beings who kept not their first estate: they did not persevere to the end of their probation, and therefore fell into condemnation, and are reserved in chains of darkness unto the judgment of the great day; Jude 1:6. It is said he put no trust in them-he knew that nothing could be absolutely immutable but himself; and that no intelligent beings could subsist in a state of purity, unless continually dependent on himself, and deriving constant supplies of grace, power, and light, from him who gave them their being.
And his angels he charged with folly] Not chargeth, as many quote the passage. He charged those with folly who kept not their first estate. It does not appear that he is charging the others in the same way, who continue steadfast.
Read full note →
The several translations of this verse, both ancient and modern, are different from each other. Here are the chief: -
In angelis suis reperit pravitatem, "In his angels he found perverseness," VULGATE. The SEPTUAGINT is nearly the same. II met la lumiere dans ses anges, "He puts light into his angels," FRENCH BIBLE. Even those pure intelligences have continual need of being irradiated by the Almighty; [Syriac] wa-bemalakui neshim tempo, "And he hath put amazement in his angels," SYRIAC. The ARABIC is the same. In angelis suis ponet gloriationem, "In his angels he will put exultation," MONTANUS. The Hebrew is תהלה toholah, irradiation, from הלה halah, to irradiate, glister, or shine. In this place we may consider angels (מלאכים malachim) as heavenly or earthly messengers or angels of the Lord; and the glory, influence, and honour of their office as being put in them by the Most High. They are as planets which shine with a borrowed light. They have nothing but what they have received. Coverdale translates the whole verse thus: Beholde he hath founde unfaythfulnesse amonge his owne servaunts and proude disobedience amonge his angels. The sense is among all these interpreters; and if the fallen angels are meant, the passage is plain enough.
Adam Clarke's Commentary on the Bible (1810–1826) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.
Joseph Benson 1811 · Public Domain On vv18, 20, 21 Job 4:18. Behold, &c. — For it deserves thy…
Job 4:18. Behold, &c. — For it deserves thy serious consideration. These and the following words seem to be the words of Eliphaz, explaining the former vision, and applying it to Job’s case, and enforcing it by further arguments. He put no trust in his servants — That is, in his angels, as appears both by the next words of this verse, in which, by way of explication and restriction, they are termed his angels; and by the verse following, where men are opposed to them. They are called his servants by way of eminence, the general name being here appropriated to the chief of the kind, to intimate that sovereign dominion which the great God hath, even over the glorious angels, and much more over men: and God is said to put no trust in them, because if they were left to themselves, and the supplies of God’s power and grace were withdrawn from them, they would not even continue to exist, much less to be loyal and faithful. And his angels he charged with folly — That is, with vanity, weakness, infirmity, imperfection, in comparison with himself, their Maker. The word תהלה, toholah, here rendered folly, is one of the απαξ λεγομενα, the words only once occurring, and of consequence the more difficult to be understood. The Chaldee paraphrast renders it iniquity; Ab. Ezra, folly; Schultens derives it from an Arabic word, which denotes lapsing, or from another, which signifies deficiency, or imperfection. Houbigant renders the clause, And in his angels mutability was found. The most probable opinion seems to be, that this refers to the angels who foolishly and wickedly fell from God.
Joseph Benson's Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1811–1818) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
Albert Barnes 1834 · Public Domain On vv18–21 Behold, he put no trust in his servants -…
Behold, he put no trust in his servants - These are evidently the words of the oracle that appeared to Eliphaz; see Schultens, in loc. The word servants here refers to angels; and the idea is, that God was so pure that he did not confide even in the exalted holiness of angels - meaning that their holiness was infinitely inferior to his. The design is to state that God had the highest possible holiness, such as to render the holiness of all others, no matter how exalted, as nothing - as all lesser lights are as nothing before the glory of the sun. The Chaldee renders this, “Lo, in his servants, the prophets, he does not confide;” but the more correct reference is undoubtedly to the angels.
And his angels he charged with folly - Margin, Or,” Nor in his angels, in whom he put light.” The different rendering in the text and in the margin, has arisen from the supposed ambiguity of the word employed here - תהלה tohŏlâh. It is a word which occurs nowhere else, and hence, it is difficult to determine its true signification. Walton renders it, gloriatio glorying; Jerome, pravitas, wickedness; the Septuagint, σκολιόν skolion, fault, blemish; Dr. Good. default, or defection; Noyes, frailty. Gesenius says that the word is derived from הלל hâlăl, (No. 4), to be foolish. So also Kimchi explains it. According to this, the idea is that of foolishness - that is, they are far inferior to God in wisdom; or, as the word folly in the Scriptures is often synonymous with sin, it might mean that their purity was so far inferior to his as to appear like impurity and sin. The essential idea is, that even the holiness of angels was not to be compared with God. It is not that they were polluted and unholy, for, in their measure, they are perfect; but it is that their holiness was as nothing compared with the infinite perfection of God. It is to be remembered that a part of the angels had sinned, and they had shown that their integrity was not to be confided in; and whatever might be the holiness of a creature, it was possible to conceive that he might sin. But no such idea could for a moment enter the mind in regard to God. The object of this whole argument is to show, that if confidence could not be reposed in the angels, and if all their holiness was as nothing before God, little confidence could be placed in man; and that it was presumption for him to sit in judgment on the equity of the divine dealings.
Albert Barnes' Notes on the Bible (1834–1885) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.
Haydock's Catholic Bible Commentary 1859 · Public Domain On vv18–21 Angels, who fell, as the fathers explain it. (Estius)…
Angels, who fell, as the fathers explain it. (Estius) (Tirinus) --- Hebrew, "behold, he put no trust in his servants, and his angels he charged with folly," chap. xv. 15., and xxv. 5., and 2 Peter ii. 4. (Protestants) (Haydock)
George Leo Haydock (1774–1849), Haydock's Catholic Family Bible and Commentary, 1859 edition — public domain. Excludes Psalms (Douay-Rheims chapter numbering differs from Protestant) and Deuterocanonical books (Catholic canon only).
Robert Jamieson, A. R. Fausset & David Brown 1871 · Public Domain On vv18–21 folly--Imperfection is to be attributed to the angels, in…
folly--Imperfection is to be attributed to the angels, in comparison with Him. The holiness of some of them had given way (Pe2 2:4), and at best is but the holiness of a creature. Folly is the want of moral consideration [UMBREIT].
Jamieson, Fausset & Brown — Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible (1871) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.
Daniel D. Whedon 1874 · Public Domain On vv18–21 18. His servants — The highest orders of angels…
18. His servants — The highest orders of angels are accounted as servants.
Put no trust — Trusteth not, in the sense of reliance. The same word is used (Isa_28:16) to express trust in the tried Cornerstone. “Since the angels are created they are not by their nature immutable, like God, and consequently not immovable from goodness and virtue.” — Chrysostom.
Read full note →
Charged with folly — תהלה. As this word is used nowhere else in the Bible, it is difficult to determine its meaning. Schultens derives it from a similar word in the Arabic, signifying lapse or failure. The Septuagint translates, he perceived perverseness (σκολιον τι) in his angels. Among the multiplicity of views (see Dr. Good) the best is that of Umbreit: “He attributeth imperfection to his angels.” In asking the question how an imperfect holiness can be attributed to the angels, Hengstenberg observes that “the idea of holiness in the Scripture embraces infinitely more than mere sinlessness; that it includes within itself the independent possession of the highest perfection.… That holiness in this sense does not belong to the angels, whose holiness is only relative, is evident from the possibility of their fall.… If God were like the angels he would not be the Holy One.”
Daniel D. Whedon (gen. ed.), Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1874–1909) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges 1878 · Public Domain On vv18–21 18. he put no trust] Better, he putteth.
18. he put no trust] Better, he putteth.
he charged with folly] Rather, he chargeth with error. The “servants” of God are here His heavenly ministers, as the parallel, “angels”, indicates. The word “folly” (tohŏlah) does not occur again in Heb., and its meaning must be in some measure conjectural. Dillmann has drawn attention to an Ethiopic root tahala, to err, and the word may be connected with this stem and mean error.
The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges (gen. ed. J. J. S. Perowne; Cambridge University Press, 1878–1918) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
Ellicott's Commentary for English Readers 1878 · Public Domain On vv18–20 (18) Behold, he put no trust in his servants.—The…
(18) Behold, he put no trust in his servants.—The statement is a general one; it does not refer to any one act in the past. We should read putteth and chargeth. Eliphaz repeats himself in Job_15:15.
A Bible Commentary for English Readers, edited by Charles John Ellicott (1878–1897) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
The Pulpit Commentary 1880 · Public Domain On vv18–21 Behold, he put no trust in his servants; rather,…
Behold, he put no trust in his servants; rather, he putteth no trust"or he putteth not trust. The" servants" intended are those that minister to him directly in heaven, the members of the angelic host, as appears from the parallelism of the other clause of the verse. Even in them God does not trust implicitly, since he knows that they are frail and fallible, liable to err, etc., only kept from sin by his own sustaining and assisting grace. (Job_15:15, where Eliphaz expresses the same belief in his own person) And his angels he charged with folly; rather, chargeth. The exact meaning of the word translated "folly" is uncertain, since the word does not occur elsewhere. The LXX renders by skolion ti , "crookedness;" Ewald, Dillmann, and others, by "error." The teaching clearly is that the angels are not perfect the highest angelic excellence falls infinitely short of God"s perfectness. Even angels, therefore, would be incompetent judges of God"s doings.
The Pulpit Commentary (1880–1919), ed. H.D.M. Spence-Jones & Joseph S. Exell — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
The Biblical Illustrator 1887 · Public Domain On vv18, 19, 21 And His angels He charged with folly.
Job_4:18-21
And His angels He charged with folly.
Read full note →
Folly in angels
His angels He charged with folly. Revelation conveys to us the highly interesting information that there is between the great Spirit and man, an intermediate order of spirits whose habitation is in the high and holy place. But the discoveries which Divine revelation makes to us of the invisible world, surprising and sublime as they are, were not intended to raise our astonishment, or gratify our curiosity. They are uniformly brought forward in the Scriptures for practical purposes of the highest kind. The doctrine of angels is introduced to illustrate the amazing condescension of the Son of God. At other times it is taught for the consolation of the saints, who have assurance that they are encompassed, preserved, and provided for by Gods invisible host. At other times it is adduced to set forth the greatness, wisdom, and holiness of God on the one hand, and the folly, weakness, and nothingness of man on the other. This is the view introduced in the passage before us. Some of the angels, by pride and rebellion, forfeited their place. Was God, after this, to place His confidence in man, even though created in His image? What is asserted of angels is applicable to them still. God only possesses in Himself all excellence. Angels derive their being, and all its excellences, from Him. If the text is the estimate which the Most High forms of angels, how insignificant and contemptible must we be in His sight! What are our bodies, but moulded, moving, breathing, speaking clay! And what can be frailer than a house of clay! Practical lessons--
1. The subject teaches the folly of covetousness and ambition. Covetousness is in itself sinful, and as it usurps the place due to God in the heart, it is idolatry; but when viewed in the light of the text, it is folly and madness, and wilful madness, which exposes its victim to merited derision.
2. It teaches us to avoid pride and security.
3. It teaches us not to trust or glory in man. Why has God declared His trust in His servants, and accused His angels of folly, but to teach us more effectually the sin and danger of all creature confidence and boasting? (Thomas MCrie, D. D.)
The imperfect angel
I want to put the truth of Gods purity in its right relation to His patience and long-suffering and gentleness. Side by side with the texts setting forth Gods unapproachable purity, may be placed such texts as Isa_42:3, Mat_10:42, which set forth the patience and beneficence of His character, and the scrupulous and delicate equities of His administration. In the addresses of Eliphaz, Gods strict and unapproachable purity is depicted in exalted and impressive phraseology. This seer, Eliphaz, sinned through overweening confidence in his own prophetic gift. His error consisted in the misapplication of truths that were obviously inspired, rather than in the premises he laid down as the basis of his appeal to Job. He was right in his abstract principles. We may accept his truth about the inconceivable purity of God.
1. Gods ideals of purity are so transcendent and so terrible, that the purity of the angel nearest to His throne is little better than stain, shadow, darkness in comparison. His angels He chargeth with folly. But is not the whole subject, with the angel in the background, vague, misty, fanciful? It is surely not unscientific to assume the existence of the pure and mighty beings spoken of by seers and prophets of the olden time, nor speculative to ponder well the words which declare that in comparison with God Himself, the angels have about them traces of finite dimness, blemish, imperfection. Are the angels, then, frail and foolish and defective? Are the angels disfigured with limitation, even as we? Put them in comparison with man, fallen man, and they will well justify the title holy. Bring them into comparison with God, and the title will seem incongruous, arrogant, and misplaced. The fall of some of their number shows that, as a class, the angels have not yet passed beyond the stage of defectibility. They have not risen into a wisdom so complete that no illusion can betray it, nor into a strength so unassailable that no temptation can score its record of disfigurement upon their lives. They are free, it is true, from actual transgression, but they are passing through the first crude stages of a development in which, because of inward weakness and limitation, there is perilous room for the wiles of the tempter. They have not reached the transcendent holiness of God, who cannot be tempted with evil. An incarnation, with its perils and possibilities, would be fatal to an angel. God can never forget the frailty, weakness, limitation, that may be latent in the unfallen types of angelic life.
2. The holiness of an angel will appear as little better than a frailty if we think of it in comparison with the uncreated holiness of God. The Divine holiness has in it a transcendent originality, with which that of the creature can never hope to vie. The holiness of the angel is a mere echo. The angels are but copyists, and their workmanship is unutterably inferior to the original conception.
3. In the judgment of the Most High, the holiness of the angel verges upon a frailty, because of its inferior vitality and its less consuming fervour. No angel knows what it is to love with a mighty intenseness that makes the love necessarily vicarious, and the heart break with pure grief over the sin, and grief, and shame of others. No Bethlehems, or Gethsemanes, or Golgothas have ever immortalised angelic devotion and love. Their love, however crystal pure, is a love to which sacrifice is strange. It does not draw them into incarnations and propitiatory offerings, and down into the shadows of vast redeeming shames and agonies. If Jesus Christ is the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world, the Father must have been touched in some sense from everlasting with the same sorrow. Before all worlds there was some dim mystery of self-sacrificing pain in the heart of God.
4. The defect of the angel is a defect of narrowness. In comparison with the Catholic and all-comprehending love of God, his love is insular and restrained. All perfect moral qualities are boundless. The graces of these celestial envoys are dwarfed into frailty and insignificance when brought into contrast with the perfect moral life of God.
5. The holiness of the angel has about it the defect and limitation inseparable from the briefness of its own history. It is a frail thing of yesterday in comparison with the holiness of God. Think of the amazing epochs through which Gods holiness has been unfolding itself. The worth of a moral quality is proportioned to the period through which it has verified and established itself. Angel life is but of recent birth.
6. The holiness of the angel has about it the defect of immaturity. The insight and holiness of the angel are but starting points for some higher and more magnificent evolution of character, the first cell out of which shall issue the wonder and transfiguration of their after destiny . . . Consider the unparalleled patience and gentleness of God. His angels He chargeth with folly. Yes; but He keeps them at His feet, and with exhaustless grate carries on their education, epoch after epoch. Is there no contradiction in these views? No. Only He who is infinitely holy can afford to be absolutely gracious and gentle. His very greatness enables Him to stoop. The incomparable holy dare stoop to blemish, and frailty, and weakness, and help it out of its dark and humiliating conditions. There is no contradiction here.. Then again, the infinitely holy can discern the hidden promise and possibility of holiness in the weak and erring. It would be an awful thing if we were left to suppose that God was microscopic in His scrutiny for judgment and condemnation only, and not also for blessing and approval. He discerns hope and fine possibility all the more keenly through the very affluence of His own purity. The perfection of righteousness is realised in the perfection of love. (Thomas G. Selby.)
On Easter Day
In the resurrection we shall be as the angels. And that we might not flatter ourselves in a dream of a better state than the angels have, in this text we have an intimation what their state and condition is--His angels He charged with folly.
I. Of whom were these words spoken? Angels. But it does not appear whether good or bad angels; those that fell or those that stood. Calvin thinks the good angels, considered in themselves, may be defective. The angels were Created in a possibility of everlasting blessedness, but not in actual possession of it. This admits of no doubt, because some of them actually did fall.
II. What words were spoken?
1. What is positively said.
2. What is consequently inferred. (John Donne.)
The Biblical Illustrator, edited by Joseph S. Exell (c. 1880s–1900s) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
C. I. Scofield 1917 · Public Domain On v18 trust (See Scofield "Psa 2:12").
trust (See Scofield "Psa 2:12").
fear (See Scofield "Psa 19:9").
The Scofield Reference Bible (1917 edition), notes by C. I. Scofield — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
unfoldingWord translationNotes 2017 · CC BY-SA 4.0 On vv18, 20 those who live in houses of clay, whose foundation…
those who live in houses of clay, whose foundation is in the dust
This is a figurative way of describing human beings, who were created out of the dust of the earth and whose bodies are like houses, which are made of clay and have dirt foundations. (See: Metaphor)
Read full note →
who are crushed sooner than a moth
Possible meanings for this metaphor are 1) "who God destroys as easily as he crushes a moth" or 2) "whose lives are as short as the life of a moth." (See: Metaphor and Active or Passive)
translationWords
God
trust
servant
accuse
angel
found
unfoldingWord translationNotes — © Distant Shores Media and the Door43 World Missions Community, licensed CC BY-SA 4.0. Source: git.door43.org/Door43/en_tn.
Tyndale Open Study Notes 2022 · CC BY-SA 4.0 On vv18, 21 4:18-21 The concept that God does not trust his…
4:18-21 The concept that God does not trust his own angels and that he charged his messengers with foolishness is otherwise unknown (but see Gen 6:1-4).
Tyndale Open Study Notes — © Tyndale Open Resources, licensed CC BY-SA 4.0. Text via the HelloAO Bible API.