Shared ground
Eliphaz’s point is to cut down what he hears as Job’s claimed “special insight.” He does this with a rapid set of questions: Job is not uniquely ancient (v.7), not a participant in God’s private deliberations (v.8), and not wiser than the rest of them (v.9). He then adds a social argument: respected elders stand “with us” (v.10). Finally, he reframes Job’s speech as driven by inner heat and aimed “against God” (vv.12–13).
Explicit in the text is Eliphaz’s assumption that God has a “secret counsel” (v.8) and that ordinary human debate does not grant access to it. Also explicit is the idea that “consolations of God” can come through gentle words offered to a sufferer (v.11).
Where interpretation differs (only where needed)
Some readers take “the first man” (v.7) as pure sarcasm, meaning, “You’re acting like you’re older and wiser than everyone.” Others think the wording may deliberately brush against Adam-language (the Hebrew term for “man” can be used as a name), suggesting Eliphaz is accusing Job of acting like original, foundational humanity.
A second difference concerns “the consolations of God” (v.11). One reading takes this as comfort God provides through the friends’ counsel (so rejecting them equals rejecting God’s comfort). Another reading takes it more broadly: any true comfort that comes from God, whether through people or otherwise, is being treated by Job as “too small.”
Why the disagreement exists
The passage uses rhetorical questions and compressed images rather than direct explanation. That leaves room for whether “first man” is only hyperbole or also an allusion, and whether “consolations of God” points narrowly to the friends’ words or more generally to divine comfort.
What this passage clearly contributes
It shows how a wisdom-arguer can appeal to (1) age and tradition as authority (v.10), (2) the limits of human access to God’s inner purposes (v.8), and (3) moral/psychological evaluation of an opponent’s tone (“heart,” “eyes,” “spirit,” vv.12–13) to discredit their claims. It also introduces a key tension in Job: the friends repeatedly treat intense lament as speech “against God,” while Job treats it as honest protest from within a relationship to God (contrast the broader dialogue flow noted in Job 12:2).