The book of Job is a poetic masterpiece that explores the justice of God, the depths of human suffering, and the undeniable frailty of man. Advocates of the depravity doctrine have leaned heavily upon verses found in Job 14 and 15 as evidence for their teaching. The text reads:
Who can bring a clean thing out of an unclean? No one! (Job 14:4)
What is man, that he could be pure? And he who is born of a woman, that he could be righteous? (Job 15:14)
At first glance, one might think there is a firm case to be made – they certainly sound like a defense of inherent moral corruption. Matthew Henry declared of Job 14:4,
How is it possible for a man’s conduct to be sinless, when his heart is by nature unclean? Here is a clear proof that Job understood and believed the doctrine of original sin.1
Of Job 15:14, Albert Barnes asserted,
…he now maintains that no one is righteous; that all that are born of women are guilty … Here it means that man is defiled and polluted, and this declaration is a remarkable illustration of the ancient belief of the depravity of man.2
These are sweeping, dogmatic claims. Does the book of Job actually teach that humans are born totally depraved, inheriting Adam’s transgression from conception? To find the truth, we must read these verses within their proper context, applying sound Bible study principles.
Mortality, Not Morality
To understand Job 14:4, we must begin at verse 1. Job is in the midst of a bitter lament, crying out to God from a place of unimaginable suffering. He has lost his children, his wealth, and his health. He is sitting in ashes, scraping painful boils with a piece of broken pottery. Notice how the chapter begins:
Man who is born of woman is of few days and full of trouble. He comes forth like a flower and fades away; he flees like a shadow and does not continue. And do You open Your eyes on such a one, and bring me to judgment with Yourself? Who can bring a clean thing out of an unclean? No one! Since his days are determined, the number of his months is with You… (Job 14:1-4)
The assumption is made by those looking for inherent sin proof texts that “clean” and “unclean” in this text must refer to moral condition. Job is not making a theological dissertation on the moral corruption of infants. His focus is on human frailty, mortality, and the brevity of life. Job is lamenting the fact that man is “of few days,” that he “fades away,” and that his “days are determined.” And further, in this short span, one is likely to experience great hardship and loss.
The “unclean” does not refer to those who are sinful or spiritually corrupt. Reread the text. There is nothing there which would lead to such a conclusion. Sin or inherited sin is not mentioned or alluded to at all. The “unclean” is paralleled with those who are of “few days,” who fade away, who do not continue, whose months are determined. The brevity and transitory nature of human life which culminates in physical death is portrayed as “unclean.” By way of contrast, the “clean” would be an untainted, imperishable, immortal body. Job describes our physical mortality, not an inherent lack of morality.
The text does lead back to Adam’s sin – we did inherit this “unclean” trait from Adam. But it is mortality, not morality. After his sin, Adam was cast out of the garden of Eden and separated from the tree of life. As a result, physical death entered the world, and thus all his posterity receives a mortal body that will die (Genesis 3:19; 1 Corinthians 15:22; Hebrews 9:27). But inheriting the physical consequences of his sin (mortality – in Job’s word, “unclean”) is entirely different from inheriting moral guilt (depravity). Job 14:4 laments human frailty; it is not a confession of innate spiritual corruption.
Job’s Righteousness – His Testimony & God’s
The book begins by identifying Job as “blameless and upright, and one who feared God and shunned evil” (Job 1:1). Lest anyone think this was merely a human observation; God repeats this evaluation of Job’s spiritual condition to Satan in verse 8, verbatim. In 1554, John Calvin discussed Job at length in a sermon series. In lesson one of the series, he stated,
When it is said that Job was blameless, let us not think that he was a man who had no fault or sin in him … for he was of the race of Adam, and therefore he must needs have been corrupted at his birth, even as all of us are. He was a child of wrath by nature, and full of uncleanness. But he is called blameless because his life was well-guided, and because he walked in the fear of God with a pure conscience, not giving himself over to wickedness.3
Calvin is not alone.
- Matthew Henry affirmed, “He was a sinner by nature.” 4
- John Gill stated, “He was not free from original sin.” 5
- Arthur Pink identified Job as “a fallen creature, an offspring of Adam, and therefore he possessed a depraved.” 6
The depravity proponents cannot accept the simple, plain reading of Job 1:1, 8. Their system forces them to insert a disclaimer on Scripture, in essence, correcting the text to fit their teaching. Regarding Calvin and Henry’s “by nature” claim, see article #3 from this series, addressing Ephesians 2:1-3.
In the explanation and defense of Job’s righteousness throughout the book bearing his name, what is missing is any reference to him ever being depraved or undergoing any kind of regenerative process. It simply is not there. There is no miraculous operation of the Holy Spirit to bypass Job’s original state and will. The book consistently attributes Job’s excellent character and righteous attitude and conduct to his own faithful, disciplined choices (Job 2:10; 23:11-12; 29:12-16; 31:1, 13-17, 24, 28-30). In fact, centuries later, God attested through the prophet Ezekiel of the faithful service of “…three men, Noah, Daniel, and Job…” who, if they were present in that wicked generation, “…they would deliver only themselves by their righteousness” (Ezekiel 14:14; cf. 20). The Lord did not speak of their once depraved state being covered by imputed righteousness – He explicitly called it “their righteousness.”
The Voice of a False Teacher
Well, if Job 14:4 doesn’t affirm man’s sinful nature from birth, surely Job 15 does. There we read,
What is man, that he could be pure? And he who is born of woman, that he could be righteous? If God puts no trust in His saints, and the heavens are not pure in His sight, how much less man, who is abominable and filthy, who drinks iniquity like water! (Job 15:14-16)
Offended by Job’s claim to innocence (Job 6:29-30; 9:21; 10:7; 13:15-16, 18, 23) and unable to give any shred of evidence that Job’s present troubles were related to any sin Job committed, Eliphaz, one of the “miserable comforters,” decided to indict the entire human race. Later, Bildad will repeat the exact same argument (Job 25:4). These men were Calvinists before Calvin was! Their statement is powerful; I’ll give them that. No man is pure or righteous! The problem is no evidence is given to support the allegation. Stating something to be so does not make it so. In the absence of any credible proof to support his case, Eliphaz chose to overstate his argument. He declared, “God puts no trust in His saints, and the heavens are not pure in His sight.” Oh, really? Evidence please!! Where does the Lord ever say the heavens are not pure in His sight? He made the heavens (Genesis 1:1). And why does Eliphaz disparage the saints (holy ones, NASB)? According to BDB, he used the Hebrew קָדוֹשׁ (qadosh), literally meaning “sacred, holy, Holy One, saint, set apart.” 7 I wonder if he’d like to rethink his statement? There are plenty of examples in Scripture of God trusting holy ones, both angelic and human.
Eliphaz and his friends held to a deeply flawed theology. They believed all human suffering in this life was a direct, immediate punishment for personal sin. Since Job suffered such great calamities, they concluded he must have committed atrocious iniquity. And yet, they gave no evidence of such. Jesus’ own disciples seemed to hold to the same false idea, asking Jesus of a man who was born blind, “Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?” (John 9:2). Jesus corrected them, revealing that his blindness had nothing to do with anyone’s sin (John 9:3).
Should a universal, foundational doctrine about the nature of mankind be built on the words of Eliphaz? His teaching is recorded in the pages of Scripture – the inspired record – but that doesn’t make what Eliphaz said true. In fact, God explicitly condemned his teaching, saying to him,
My wrath is aroused against you and your two friends, for you have not spoken of Me what is right, as My servant Job has. … offer up for yourselves a burnt offering; and My servant Job shall pray for you. For I will accept him, lest I deal with you according to your folly; because you have not spoken of Me what is right, as My servant Job has. (Job 42:7-8)
His doctrine that man is inherently “abominable and filthy” was an affront to the Creator of man. It still is! If it was foolish and wrath-inducing for Eliphaz to propagate such ideas, it is equally erroneous and dangerous to declare such things today.
“Born of (a) Woman”
Someone might argue that it was some other aspect of Eliphaz’ teaching which offended God, not his statement in Job 15:14. And with such reasoning, one might conclude that total depravity is indeed true and Scriptural. There is another monumental problem that leads to.
Eliphaz did not reason about Adam’s headship and hereditary depravity based upon that. He specifically used the phrase, “he who is born of a woman” (Job 15:14). In fact, if someone still wants to stubbornly cling to the idea the “clean thing out of an unclean” in Job 14:4 is about a corrupt nature, in verse 1, Job arranged his statement this way, “Man who is born of woman…” If these texts prove an inherited sin nature we have a problem. Why? Galatians 4:4 says of Jesus, “…when the fullness of the time had come, God sent forth His Son, born of a woman…” If Job 14:4 and 15:14 teach those who are “born of a woman” are sinners – – – friend, you don’t want to go there, do you?
Some have tried to escape this problem by inventing a secondary doctrine, arguing the sin nature is transmitted through the male seed (the human father), thus exempting Jesus because He was conceived of the Holy Spirit (Matthew 1:20; Luke 1:35). Neither Job nor Eliphaz appealed to paternal descent from Adam. Their arguments rest on being “born of a woman.” You can’t have it both ways. One cannot defend using Job 14:4 and 15:14 to prove hereditary depravity and then immediately subvert the text by attempting to nullify the very phrase used therein. If these texts are about a sin nature, they implicate Jesus. He was born of a woman, but He was not born a sinner. Neither were we.
Conclusion
Instead of relying on a grieving man’s lament over his physical mortality or the false accusations of his rebuked friend, we should seek clarity from God’s word about those who are born into this world. When Jesus wanted to illustrate the character required to enter the kingdom of heaven, He declared,
Assuredly, I say to you, unless you are converted and become as little children, you will by no means enter the kingdom of heaven. (Matthew 18:3)
If children are born totally depraved, guilty of Adam’s sin, why would Jesus command us to become like them to be saved? In pointing to children, He focused on those who were pure, who were yet untouched by the destructive power of sin. Solomon acknowledged this in his search for meaning in life. He observed,
Truly, this only I have found: that God made man upright, but they have sought out many schemes. (Ecclesiastes 7:29)
God created us upright. We are not broken and guilty. Sin is not an inborn trait but a choice we make, a course we seek out which is contrary to God’s will and design for us. We become sinners the exact same way Adam and Eve became sinners – by choosing to yield to temptation and thus transgressing the law of God (1 John 3:4; James 1:14-15).
Job 14:4 and Job 15:14 provide no support for the doctrine of depravity. To force these texts to teach original sin is an abuse of the context in one and an endorsement of a false teacher condemned by God in the other. And even more, it is a direct assault on the sinless nature of Jesus Christ who Himself was “born of a woman.” God holds us responsible for our sins, not the sins of our ancestors. We are called to repent of the “schemes” we have sought out, and to obey the gospel of Jesus Christ.
Works Referenced
- Henry, Matthew. Matthew Henry’s Commentary on the Whole Bible: Concise Edition, 1997. ↩︎
- Barnes, Albert. Notes, Critical, Illustrative, and Practical, on the Book of Job. Vol 1, 1845. ↩︎
- Calvin, John. Sermons on Job (Sermon 1, on Job 1:1-5), originally preached 1554; translated by Arthur Golding, 1574. ↩︎
- Henry, Matthew. An Exposition of the Old and New Testaments, Volume 3 (Job to SOS), 1811. ↩︎
- Gill, John. An Exposition of the Old Testament, Volume 3 (Job to SOS), 1810. ↩︎
- Pink, Arthur W.. Gleanings from Job, originally published in Studies in the Scriptures (Re-published by Sovereign Grace Publishers, 2001). ↩︎
- Brown, Francis, S.R. Driver, and Charles A. Briggs. A Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament, 1907. ↩︎
Links: YouVersion | GROW magazine
Return to the article archive