Job 22:6

b. Since it must be that Job has committed sin, it naturally occurs to Eliphaz to charge upon him those sins which the best of the rich men of his day were guilty of committing. His own logical conclusions he coins into proofs positive of Job’s guilt, Job 22:6-11.

6. In his portraiture of the wicked, Zophar had insinuated (Job 20:19) what Eliphaz, to our surprise, now boldly charges against Job. The sins he attributes to Job are those generally ascribed to wicked men of wealth hard-heartedness, covetousness, and extortion. Eliphaz infers from the punishment the character of crimes Job must have committed. Personal abuse, the last resort of a failing cause, is the first public sign the friends display of their approaching discomfiture. (See Job’s noble reply, Job 29:11-16.) The mantle of charity that we may throw over Eliphaz is, that he had long brooded over his suspicions until they assumed shape and at last substance.

Pledge… naught There was a twofold aggravation of his guilt; that he should require a pledge from a brother, and that without cause. Job “is represented as extorting pledges without having lent.” Michaelis.

The naked of their clothing Literally, And strippedst off the clothes of the naked. Seneca tells us that one poorly clad and in rags was said to be naked. (James 2:15.) Michaelis says, (“Laws of Moses,” 2:303,) “From the analogy of his (Moses’s) law of pledge, it is probable that the necessary pieces of clothing were not permitted to be seized and stripped from off the person of the debtor, as might be done by merciless creditors among the neighbouring nations, for he even commands the creditor (Exodus 22:26-27) who had taken in pledge his poor neighbour’s upper garment (which was a large square piece of cloth that was wrapped about the body by day, and served as a coverlet by night) to restore it again before sunset.” Origen remarks that he is a robber who does not clothe the naked. See Freeman’s “Hand-Book,” 261.