{"id":162,"date":"2017-11-03T13:58:40","date_gmt":"2017-11-03T12:58:40","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/buch.jehovah-shammah.de\/?p=162"},"modified":"2017-11-03T16:22:02","modified_gmt":"2017-11-03T15:22:02","slug":"the-book-of-job-2","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/buch.jehovah-shammah.de\/index.php\/2017\/11\/03\/the-book-of-job-2\/","title":{"rendered":"The Book of Job"},"content":{"rendered":"

job 1<\/a><\/p>\n

1<\/a>. The land of Uz<\/em>. (See Preliminary Dissertations, No. III<\/a>.)<\/p>\n

His name was Job<\/em>, \u05d0\u05b4\u05d9\u05b9\u05bc\u05d5\u05d1<\/span> (iyov<\/span>); probably treated with enmity<\/em>; from \u05d0\u05b8\u05d9\u05b7\u05d1<\/span> (ayav<\/span>), to hate, to treat as an enemy<\/em>, &c. Others understa<\/span>nd it as meaning repenting<\/em>, from the Arabic \u0627\u0627\u0628\u064e<\/span> to turn back<\/em>, whence \u0623\u064e\u0648\u0627\u064e\u0651\u0628\u064c<\/span> may mean one who returns to God<\/em>. The former explanation seems preferable.<\/p>\n

Perfect<\/em>. \u05ea\u05b8\u05bc\u05dd<\/span> (tam<\/span>) implies completeness both a<\/span>s to quantity and to quality,\u2014complete as a whole, and each part sound. This kind of perfection is, perhaps, best explained in the character given of Zechariah and Elizabeth \u201cwalking in all<\/em> the comman<\/span>dments and ordinances of the Lord blameless<\/em>.\u201d<\/p>\n

Upright<\/em>. \u05d9\u05b8\u05e9\u05b8\u05c1\u05e8<\/span> (yashar<\/span>), straightforward<\/em> in conduct.<\/p>\n

Departing from evil<\/em>,\u2014a necessary consequence of fearing God<\/em>. The Heathen could describe and approve <\/span>of, though they could not imitate, such a character as this. So Horace,\u2014<\/p>\n

\u201cInteger vit\u00e6, scelerisque purus<\/em>;\u201d<\/p>\n

and\u2014<\/p>\n

\u201cNil conscire nefas, null\u00e2 pallescere culp\u00e2<\/em>.\u201d<\/p>\n

3<\/a>. His stock<\/em>. This word exactly answers t<\/span>o the Hebrew \u05de\u05b4\u05e7\u05b0\u05e0\u05b5\u05d4\u05d5\u05bc<\/span> (miknehou<\/span>). Live stock<\/em> is particularly intended here. (See the Illustrations<\/a>.)<\/p>\n

Sheep<\/em>, or a flock<\/em>. This included both sheep and goats.<\/p>\n

A farm-service<\/em>. \u05e2\u05b2\u05d1\u05bb\u05d3\u05b8\u05bc\u05d4<\/span> (gnevuddah<\/span>). This <\/span>word, which occurs only here and in Gen. 26:14<\/a>, means either land under cultivation<\/em>, or the hands by which it is cultivated<\/em>, or both; and so, perhaps, the word farm<\/em>, or farm-service<\/em>, would express it <\/span>as well as any other words could do. I see no reason for the supposition entertained by some, that Job led a nomadic life; on the contrary, he appears to have had a fixed residence in the neighbourhood of a city. He mus<\/span>t have had a considerable extent of land under cultivation, from the circumstance of his having had five hundred yoke of oxen. It is also evident, from the other passage in which the word <\/span>\u05e2\u05b2\u05d1\u05bb\u05d3\u05b8\u05bc\u05d4<\/span> (gnevuddah<\/span>) occurs (Gen. 26:12\u201314<\/a>), that Isaac was an agriculturist<\/em> as well as a breeder of cattle.<\/p>\n

4<\/a>. A picture of family good feeling and harmony, no doubt a source of satisfaction t<\/span>o Job, though not unmixed with anxiety lest the pleasures here described should have some tendency to impiety.<\/p>\n

Went and made feasts<\/em>. \u05d4\u05b8\u05dc\u05b7\u05da\u05b0<\/span> (halak<\/span>) is like our own word to go<\/em>; it means here, they went<\/em><\/span> on making feasts, i.e<\/em>., they were in the habit of doing so at stated periods.<\/p>\n

Feasts<\/em>, or lit., a feast<\/em>. (See the Illustrations<\/a>.)<\/p>\n

It would appear that Job\u2019s sons had, at this time, their own houses; a<\/span>nd were settled, though probably not immediately near, yet, at no great distance from their father and from each other. The daughters apparently were not settled, and probably were living under the paternal roof.<\/span><\/p>\n

His birth-day<\/em>; lit., his day<\/em>; but probably birth-day is intended, as in chap. 3:1<\/a>, and Hosea 7:5<\/a>. That feasts were an ancient mode of celebrating birthdays is evident from Gen. 40:20<\/a>. By <\/span>an unaccountable oversight, discovered too late for correction, the word birth-day<\/em> and the previous word house<\/em> are rendered in the Translation in the plural number; the passage should stand, each in<\/em> [<\/span>his<\/em>] house on his<\/em> [birth<\/em>]-day<\/em>. (See the Illustrations<\/a>.)<\/p>\n

5<\/a>. Had gone round; i.e<\/em>., once in each year; not at the recurrence of each birth-day feast, but at the annual termination of the whole of them. \u05d4<\/span><\/span>\u05b4\u05e7\u05b4\u05bc\u05d9\u05e4\u05d5\u05bc<\/span> (hikkiphou<\/span>) conveys this sense. Some expositors have thought otherwise.<\/p>\n

Sent, and sanctified them<\/em>, not sent for them<\/em>, as some render it, but, commissioned some fit person to go and purify the<\/span>m, or charge them to purify themselves by lustrations, &c., preparatory to the sacrifices which he was about to offer on their behalf. Job did this, as, in the event of any uncleanness attaching to them, it would have disqualified them from any participation in the benefit o<\/span>f the sacrifice. Thus Jacob sanctified his household, or rather charged them to sanctify themselves, preparatory to his offering sacrifices at Bethel. (<\/span>Gen. 35:1\u20137<\/a>.) So also the Israelites were sanctified, i.e<\/em>., charged to sanctify themselves, preparatory to their meeting with God on Mount Sinai. (Exod. 19:10\u201315<\/a>.) Just so a<\/span>gain, Samuel sanctified Jesse and his sons, i.e<\/em>., charged them to sanctify themselves, previously to his offering sacrifice for them. (1 Sam. 16:5<\/a>.) The heifer which he was directed by God (ver. 2<\/a>) to<\/span> take on the occasion was probably for the purpose of purification. (Numb. 19:9<\/a>, 19<\/a>, 20<\/a>.) Under the law, people who were ceremonially unclean could not partake in sacrificial rites until they had been<\/span> cleansed. The significancy of the act is explained in Ps. 26:6<\/a>, \u201cI will wash mine hands in innocency; so will I compass thine altar, O Lord.\u201d<\/p>\n

He rose up early in the morning<\/em>,\u2014probably an ordinary pra<\/span>ctice observed on days when solemn sacrifices were offered. (Exod. 32:6<\/a>.)<\/p>\n

Offered burnt offerings<\/em>. In patriarchal times the head of the family was its priest. (Gen. 8:20<\/a>; 12:7<\/a>, 8<\/a>; 13:18<\/a>; 26:25<\/a>; 33:20<\/a>;<\/span> 35:6<\/a>, 7<\/a>.) The \u05e2\u05b9\u05dc\u05b8\u05d4<\/span> (gnolah<\/span>), whole burnt offering<\/em>, was not the only offering in use previously to the giving of the law. We read both of the \u05d7\u05b7\u05d8\u05b8\u05bc\u05d0\u05ea<\/span> (khattath<\/span>), sin-offering<\/em>, and the \u05de\u05b4\u05e0\u05b0\u05d7\u05b8\u05d4<\/span> (minkha<\/span><\/span>h<\/span>), meal-offering<\/em>, in Gen. 4:3\u20137<\/a>.<\/p>\n

May be<\/em>. This peradventure expresses both a proper paternal anxiety on the part of Job for the religious welfare of his children, and also it is a proof of the general<\/span> good conduct of his sons. There was evidently nothing whatever in their outward behaviour, so far as he knew, that called for animadversion. At the same time, they were not now under the paternal roof, and therefore his eye could not be so constantly upon them; and hence his anxiety. Nothing is said here about his daughters; they were probably still at home<\/span> with him; and so, under his more immediate supervision, though it is possible that they may be included in the word <\/span>\u05db\u05bb\u05bc\u05dc\u05b8\u05dd<\/span> (chullam<\/span>), of them all<\/em>.<\/p>\n

And have cursed God in their hearts<\/em>. The meaning of \u05d1\u05b5\u05bc\u05e8\u05b5\u05da\u05b0<\/span> (berech<\/span>) here is a vexed questio<\/span>n. Its meaning in hundreds of passages of Scripture is, to bless;<\/em> and as there are only two places (ver. 11<\/a>, and 1 Kings 21:10<\/a>) in which it does not appear possible to give it this meaning, it has bee<\/span>n thought by some that it should be translated here in its common sense, to bless<\/em>. Of those who take this view, Dr. Lee, and indeed others before him, suppose that \u05d0\u05b1\u05dc\u05b9\u05d4\u05b4\u05d9\u05dd<\/span> (elohim<\/span>) here means false g<\/em><\/span>ods<\/em>, or idols<\/em>. Lee also understands the passage in 1 Kings 21:10<\/a> in precisely the same sense; but in that case it is inconceivable how blessing \u201cthe king<\/em>\u201d could be a punishable offence; besides which,<\/span> \u05d0\u05b1\u05dc\u05b9\u05d4\u05b4\u05d9\u05dd<\/span> (elohim<\/span>) ought not to be taken in the sense of idols<\/em> unless there is something in the passage that very strongly indicates that such is its meaning. Dr. Good endeavours to get over the diffi<\/span>culty by giving a negative power to the \u05d5<\/span> which connects the two verbs\u2014thus, \u201cmay have sinned nor<\/em> blessed God;\u201d and then, in support of this, he lays down an extraordinary canon on the subject, the su<\/span>bstance of which is, he assumes that \u05d5<\/span> is, in itself, an imperfect negative, and that it may take a full negative power whenever it connects two opposite propositions. This bold affirmation is without<\/span> material proof, and needs no refutation.<\/p>\n

For some time I considered that the word \u05d1\u05b5\u05bc\u05e8\u05b5\u05da\u05b0<\/span> (berech<\/span>) ought to be here translated bless<\/em>, and that, chiefly because, out of hundreds of passages in which i<\/span>t occurs, there are but the two, to which I have alluded above, in which this, or any similar rendering of it, is apparently inadmissible. It is the rendering of the Vulgate, \u201cbenedixerint<\/em>,\u201d though no<\/span>t of the old Itala, which has \u201cmaledixerint<\/em>.\u201d The sense however, which I attached to it with the rendering bless<\/em> differed widely both from that adopted by Lee and from that advanced by Good. I underst<\/span>ood it thus:\u2014May be my sons have sinned, and have blessed God in their hearts, i.e.<\/em>, my sons have, perhaps, been guilty of some sin, and, without repenting of it, or without any consciousness of God\u2019s<\/span> anger on account of it, have still thought of God as though He were pleased with them, and, with a sort of self-justifying satisfaction, have felt happy in his supposed favor, and thankful to him for their prosperity. This self-deception is exceedingly common, and perhaps more felt under the influence of wine than <\/span>at any other time; and the sense thus conveyed is sufficiently natural; but then, my objection to this my own former view, and the ground on account of which I abandoned it, is\u20141st, that the Hebrew phraseology demands here, that the two verbs in the clause should not be understood as containing two distinct and independent ideas, and that the second is, in point of fact, no more than an explanation of the first; and that so, the meaning cannot be\u2014<\/span><\/span>My sons have sinned, and then, h<\/em><\/span>ave added to that sin by moreover doing so and so<\/em>; but, they have sinned by doing so and so<\/em>. 2dly, that the \u05d1\u05b5\u05bc\u05e8\u05b5\u05da\u05b0<\/span> (berech<\/span>) in ver. 11<\/a> cannot possibly have the meaning of bless<\/em>, and that its proximit<\/span>y to the one before us renders it probable that they both must have the same meaning\u2014that whatever sense be given to the word in ver. 11<\/a> is the sense required here; and 3dly, that as it is evident, bo<\/span>th from ver. 11<\/a> and also from 1 Kings 21:10<\/a>, that \u05d1\u05b5\u05bc\u05e8\u05b5\u05da\u05b0<\/span> must sometimes have the signification of cursing<\/em>, or some such signification; and as that signification, thus established as possible, is the <\/span>most suited to the sense here, it is the signification which ought probably to be attached to it in the present instance. The attempts made by Lee and Good (both on different grounds, and by different<\/span> arguments) to force the meaning of bless<\/em> on the two passages, just referred to, do too much violence to the language to be considered tenable for a moment.<\/p>\n

I must not pass unnoticed another sense whi<\/span>ch has been given to \u05d1\u05b5\u05bc\u05e8\u05b5\u05da\u05b0<\/span> (berech<\/span>), with much show of plausibility, and supported by eminent expositors. It is said that, as \u05d1\u05b5\u05bc\u05e8\u05b5\u05da\u05b0<\/span> (berech<\/span>) was used as a formula of salutation both at meeting and<\/span> parting (and which is unquestionable), its use in the latter of these senses may very well furnish the idea, not simply of taking leave<\/em>, but of dismissing, renouncing<\/em>, and the like; and that so, the <\/span>meaning here may be, have renounced God in their hearts<\/em>. In support of this, it is urged that \u03c7\u03b1\u03af\u03c1\u03b5\u03c4\u03b5<\/span> in Greek, and valete<\/em> in Latin, are similarly used; and many quotations are adduced in proof of th<\/span>is. I may observe, that this use of the phrase is sufficiently common in English, for, in ordinary parlance, we speak of saying good bye to a person<\/em> in the sense of renouncing his society and having n<\/span>othing more to do with him; and, to wish good morning<\/em> has, not unfrequently, the same polite significancy. We borrow the same style of phraseology from our French neighbours when we speak of giving a <\/em><\/span>man his cong\u00e9<\/em>. So, again, in cant language, Joy go with you<\/em> is an ironical mode of pronouncing a blessing<\/em> on a person who takes himself off when his presence is anything but indispensable; and curious<\/span>ly enough, bowing<\/em>, which is nothing more than salutation in dumb show, may often be similarly construed, for, to be bowed out of a room<\/em> is a distinction too significant to be misunderstood, and not su<\/span>fficiently enviable to be coveted by any.<\/p>\n

My objections to understanding \u05d1\u05b5\u05bc\u05e8\u05b5\u05da\u05b0<\/span> (berech<\/span>) in such a sense are\u20141st, that if it ever had such a sense, that sense must have been common enough to warrant <\/span>our expecting to find it frequently so used in the Scriptures, which contain copious expressions of every-day life; whereas, in the whole Hebrew Bible, this word \u05d1\u05b5\u05bc\u05e8\u05b5\u05da\u05b0<\/span> (berech<\/span>), which, in some form <\/span>or other, occurs many hundred times, cannot have this particular sense attaching to it in more than three or, at most, four passages; and 2dly, that if it ever had such a sense, that sense is of course ironical, and, as suc<\/span>h, could scarcely be applied to the Divine Being without disrespect; and yet, in the only passages in which it is supposed to be so used, it is applied to the Divine Being. It seems to me inconceivable that Job should have said, <\/span>May be my sons have sinned, and have wished God good bye in their hearts<\/em>, or that Satan should have said in ver. 11<\/a> to God of Job, He will wish you <\/em><\/span>good bye to your face<\/em>.<\/p>\n

With regard to the rendering which I prefer to adopt, have cursed<\/em>, I have simply to observe that, as \u05d1\u05b5\u05bc\u05e8\u05b5\u05da\u05b0<\/span> (berech<\/span>) must be understood in a bad sense<\/em> in ver. 11<\/a>, and in 1 King<\/span>s 21:10<\/a>, there is no difficulty in so understanding it here; on the contrary, it appears more natural to do so. The question then arises, What bad sense is the one which most probably attaches to \u05d1\u05b5\u05bc\u05e8<\/span><\/span>\u05b5\u05da\u05b0<\/span> (berech<\/span>)? I have stated my objections to the first of the only two bad senses that can belong to it,\u2014taking leave<\/em>, and cursing<\/em>. The second appears to me to be the most consonant with the general a<\/span>nalogy of language, in which, the close connexion between the two different ideas of blessing<\/em> and cursing<\/em> is found in the fact that, originally, they are both of them acts of religious worship. The ou<\/span>tward act of religious worship in their case is found in the root \u05d1\u05b8\u05bc\u05e8\u05b7\u05da\u05b0<\/span> (barach<\/span>), to kneel<\/em>\u2014an act which may imply at once either (and which is the most natural and common) the <\/em>imploration of a bless<\/em><\/span>ing<\/em>, or the imprecation of a curse<\/em>. In Hebrew, this difference of sense must be determined by the context; in Latin and its more modern languages, it is readily ascertained by the addition of a qualif<\/span>ying preposition to the word in its first and most natural sense; thus, from \u05d1\u05b8\u05bc\u05e8\u05b7\u05da\u05b0<\/span> (barach<\/span>) to kneel<\/em>, and \u05d1\u05b5\u05bc\u05e8\u05b5\u05da\u05b0<\/span> (berech<\/span>) (most naturally) to sue for a blessing either for oneself or for another<\/em>, c<\/span>omes the Latin precor<\/em>, to pray;<\/em> and then, by the addition of a qualifying preposition, imprecor<\/em>, chiefly to imprecate a curse<\/em>.<\/p>\n

Job, in expressing his anxiety lest his sons should have sinned by cursin<\/span>g God in their hearts, means that he feared that possibly, under the excitement of convivial mirth, heightened perhaps by wine, his sons might have indulged, in their hearts, light and irreverent thoughts of God. He does not suppose that they had been guilty of this either<\/span> in word or in action, but only in heart; and so, like the word may be<\/em> above, this shows alike the proper anxiety of the pious <\/span>parent and the general good conduct of the family.<\/p>\n

Having now dwelt upon the three different renderings which may possibly be given to \u05d1\u05b5\u05bc\u05e8\u05b5\u05da\u05b0<\/span> (berech<\/span>) in this place, and having dealt as fairly as pos<\/span>sible with each, in giving my reasons for preferring that which I have retained in my translation, I feel how difficult it is positively to determine which is the most correct; and therefore, It must leave it to the reader as, in great measure, still<\/span> an open question.<\/p>\n

\u05db\u05b8\u05bc\u05dc\u05be\u05d4\u05b7\u05d9\u05b8\u05bc\u05de\u05b4\u05d9\u05dd<\/span> (chol haiyamim<\/span>), lit., all the days;<\/em> not, however, expressive particularly of the days of the feasts, but, of contin<\/span>uance. It is an ordinary phrase in Hebrew, and means continually<\/em>. So in Gen. 43:9<\/a>, &c., &c.<\/p>\n

6<\/a>. The day arrived<\/em>. The article seems to indicate a set time.<\/p>\n

The sons of God<\/em>. In Gen. 6:2<\/a> \u201csons of God\u201d<\/em> are<\/span> evidently godly men, as distinguished from the ungodly; but in Job 38:7<\/a> \u201csons of God\u201d<\/em> are unquestionably angels;<\/em> and it is almost as unquestionable that such are meant here.<\/p>\n

Came to present themselve<\/em><\/span>s<\/em>, \u05dc\u05b0\u05d4\u05b4\u05ea\u05b0\u05d9\u05b7\u05e6\u05b5\u05bc\u05d1<\/span> to stand<\/em>, or rather to take their stand<\/em>, for the purpose of rendering to God an account of the performance of duties which had been given them to discharge, and of receiving fresh orde<\/span>rs respecting further duties. I see no objection to accepting all that is here stated as a literal fact. I certainly do not suppose that it is a mere fiction, introduced by way of preface and embellishment to the poem which follows; nor can I even subscribe to the opinion of those who conceive that the description of the scene here represented<\/span> is borrowed from the mode of conducting an earthly royal audience. I am disposed to think rather that royalty and its attendant circumstances is an instinctive imitation, on the part of man, of the regal government of God. Scripture describes God as robed in awful majesty, enthroned in inaccessible light, surrounded by cherubim and seraphim, with thousand thousands ministering unto him, and ten thousand times ten thousand standing before him; round about his throne angelic beings pour forth their unceasing adorations; throughout his vast <\/span>universal empire are Thrones, Dominions, Principalities, and Powers; and ministering spirits are continually winging their flight on some commission of judgment or of mercy. In all this we behold God carrying on his illimitable government through the instrumentality of his heavenly hosts, having not only, so to speak, his ministers of state immediately around him, but also his vicegerents. <\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span>And so, in like manner, earthly kings, who, in a sense, are in the place of God\u2014i.e.<\/em>, who exercise sovereignty under <\/span>Him\u2014have their officers of state about them, and also their viceroys in various parts of their dominion, who in some instances have, at stated periods, to present themselves before their sovereigns, to render an account of their resp<\/span>ective governments, or pay homage in token of their dependance, or renew their fealty, and receive anew, as it were, the investiture of their respective governments.<\/p>\n

A<\/em><\/span>nd among them came Satan also<\/em>, being obliged, probably, thus to present himself, and render his<\/em> account also as to the way in which he had exercised the high power and authority which God permits him <\/span>to hold, as \u201cthe god of this world,\u201d and the \u201cprince of the power of the air,\u201d and \u201cthe spirit that worketh in the children of disobedience,\u201d and as having under him \u201cangels\u201d (\u201cthe Devil and his angel<\/em><\/span>s<\/em>\u201d). For various wise reasons God permits him to exercise this authority\u2014of course within certain prescribed bounds, and Satan is amenable for the way in which he does exercise it; and as he always do<\/span>es this ill; whilst he thus gives God occasion out of evil to be constantly educing good, so also he is only treasuring up for himself wrath against the day of wrath.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

The ordinary meaning of \u05e9\u05b8\u05c2\u05d8\u05b8\u05df<\/span> (S<\/span><\/span>atan<\/span>) is an opponent<\/em> in general, whether in the field of battle or in a court of justice, and such an opponent as is actuated by an unrelenting animosity;<\/em> with the article, \u05d4\u05b7\u05e9\u05b8\u05bc\u05c2\u05d8\u05b8\u05df<\/span> (hassatan<\/span>) means <\/span>the great opponent<\/em> of God and man\u2014Satan<\/span>, by way of eminence. It was in the character of an opponent to Israel that he provoked David to number Israel, and so occasioned the death of seventy thousand p<\/span>ersons. (See 1 Chron. 21:1<\/a>, 14<\/a>.) In the record given of this same transaction in 2 Sam. 24:1<\/a>, we read that it was God<\/em> who \u201cmoved\u201d David to number Israel. By comparing these two passages together, I in<\/span>fer that Satan asked<\/em>, and then obtained permission of God thus to tempt David, much as in the instance of Job before us, and of Peter in the New Testament\u2014\u201cBehold, Satan hath desired (i.e., hath asked<\/em><\/span>) to have you, that he may sift you as wheat.\u201d In his character of bitter opponent<\/em>, Satan is more than once exhibited as man\u2019s accuser<\/em>. So in the case before us; and again in that very remarkable case<\/span> in Zech. 3:1<\/a>, &c., &c., where Joshua the High Priest is represented as standing before the angel of the Lord, and Satan standing at his right hand to resist him. Compare with this, Ps. 109:6<\/a>:\u2014\u201cLet Sa<\/span>tan stand at his right hand,\u201d i.e.<\/em>, to accuse him; and compare also Rev. 12:10<\/a>:\u2014\u201cNow is come salvation, &c., for the accuser of our brethren is cast down, which accused them before our God day and nig<\/span>ht.\u201d In ver. 9<\/a> this accuser is expressly designated as \u201cthat old serpent<\/em>, called the Devil<\/em>, and Satan<\/span>.\u201d He is also called both Satan<\/span> and the Devil in the account of our Lord\u2019s temptation. (Matt. 4:1<\/a>, <\/span>10<\/a>.) It is important to observe this, because it puts it, to my mind, beyond question that Satan<\/span> and the Devil<\/em> are one and the same being, and so confutes, if it needed confutation, the absurd notion <\/span>of Dathe and others, that the Satan mentioned in this book was a good spirit commissioned by God to inspect the conduct of men, and one who, from his own observation and an over-suspicious temper, doubted whether true piety could exist without some corresponding inducement in the way of se<\/span>lf-advantage. This wild theory, however, never met with much favor, and soon fell into disrepute. Satan is further described in Scripture as <\/span>the tempter<\/em>; so he tempted David (1 Chron. 21:1<\/a>), and Peter (Luke 22:31<\/a>), and Christ (Matt. 4:1<\/a>, &c.), and Judas (John 13:2<\/a>, compared with Luke 22:3<\/a>, where the Devil and<\/span> Satan are again proved to be identical), and Ananias and Sapphira (Acts 5:1\u20133<\/a>); and he is the deceiver<\/em> of the nations. (Rev. 20:1\u20133<\/a>.)<\/p>\n

The scene which is here introduced to our notice is not unlike th<\/span>at in 1 Kings 22:19\u201323<\/a>. There we have God sitting upon his throne, and all the host of heaven standing on his right hand and on his left; and on the Lord\u2019s saying, \u201cWho shall persuade (marg., deceive)<\/span> Ahab, that he may go up and fall at Ramoth Gilead?\u201d an evil spirit comes forth and stands before the Lord, and says, \u201cI will persuade him;\u201d and in answer to the Lord\u2019s inquiry, \u201cWherewith?\u201d further replies, \u201cI will go forth, and I will be a lying spirit in the mouth of all his prophets;\u201d to whom the Lord replies, \u201cThou shalt persuade him, and prevail also: go forth, and do s<\/span>o.\u201d<\/p>\n

It is evident that<\/span>, in the earliest ages, there was considerable knowledge respecting angelie Beings both good and evil, and particularly respecting one who was pre-eminently the Evil one. This knowledge is traceable in the religious sy<\/span>stems of the most ancient nations, and particularly in those of the Persians and Egyptians. In the ancient Persian theology, as taught in the Zendavesta, Ormusd<\/span> or Oromaze<\/span> was the Go<\/span>d of all good; Ahriman<\/em>, his adversary, the author of all evil. Ormusd had his good angels, whom he had created (\u201csons of God\u201d), around him. Ahriman had also his evil angels. Ahriman is constantly enga<\/span>ged in corrupting and endeavouring to destroy whatever good Ormusd does, and that, with various success; but a predestined time is coming when Ahriman, having brought into the world famine and pestilence, is to be entirely destroyed by these very instruments, after which, men are to be of one tongue, and are to live in a state of happiness. (See \u201cDictionaire de Bayle,\u201d on Zor<\/span>oaster; also an infidel work, entitled \u201cOrigine de tous les Cultes.\u201d) Not unlike this also are the Egyptian legends respecting <\/span>Osiris<\/span>, the good god, and Seth<\/span> or Typhon<\/span>, the author of evil. In these traditions of early ages<\/span> we see much truth mixed up with what is purely fabulous and awfully erroneous; as in Persian theology, which teaches that light<\/em> and darkness<\/em> are two eternal principles, and that from them Ormusd and <\/span>Ahriman severally had their origin. But then, the fact of the existence of some truth shows to how great an extent revelation had prevailed in early times. Those argue incorrectly, who maintain that the Hebrews derived their views respecting Satan from their <\/span>captivity at Babylon and consequent intercourse with Persia. The converse rather is the fact. The Persians must have derived their views of Satan from some of the earlier books of God\u2019s Word, and probably that of Job amongst the number\u2014views which they did not long hold in the purity in which they first received them.<\/p>\n

The Eternal<\/em>,\u2014\u05d9\u05b0\u05d4\u05b9\u05d5\u05b8\u05d4<\/span>\u2014<\/span>Yehowah<\/span>. It is commonly supposed that the vowel points of this word are not its own, but borrowed from \u05d0\u05b2\u05d3\u05b9\u05e0\u05b8\u05d9<\/span> (Adonai<\/span>) Lord<\/em>, the word which the Jews always substitute for it in reading, from a supers<\/span>titious reverence for the Name, and a supposition that its true pronunciation is lost. And hence the LXX. render it by \u1f41 \u039a\u03cd\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2<\/span>, and our translators have followed them by rendering it almost invaria<\/span>bly the<\/em> Lord, distinguishing it from \u05d0\u05b2\u05d3\u05b9\u05e0\u05b8\u05d9<\/span> (Adonai<\/span>) Lord<\/em> merely by the use of capital letters. Some have conjectured that \u05d9\u05b7\u05d4\u05b2\u05d5\u05b9\u05d4<\/span> (Yahewoh<\/span>), and others, that \u05d9\u05b7\u05d4\u05b2\u05d5\u05b6\u05d4<\/span> (Yaheweh<\/span>) were the ancient true <\/span>pronunciations; but, after all, there is some ground for the supposition that \u05d9\u05b0\u05d4\u05b9\u05d5\u05b8\u05d4<\/span> (Yehowah<\/span>) may be the true form; and indeed, the majority of proper names compounded with the word, leads to this s<\/span>upposition. As to the meaning of it, as our ordinary translation\u2014the LORD<\/em> is decidedly incorrect, and as the retention of the word Jehovah<\/em> would convey no particular idea to the English reader, and as<\/span> our word\u2014the Eternal<\/em>, expresses its meaning more nearly than any other in our language, I have thought good so to translate it. Much of the force which belongs to the word is lost in many important p<\/span>assages, in which the incorrect the LORD<\/em> is given. I might multiply such passages, but will merely refer to these few\u2014Ps. 102:12<\/a>; 135:13<\/a>; Isa. 41:4<\/a>; 42:5<\/a>, 6<\/a>, 8<\/a>; 43:11\u201313<\/a>; 44:6\u20138<\/a>; 45:17<\/a>, 21<\/a>; 51:15<\/a>; 54:<\/span>5<\/a>; Exod. 3:13\u201315<\/a>; 6:2<\/a>, 3<\/a>, 6\u20138<\/a>; Hosea 12:5<\/a>; Mal. 3:6<\/a>; Ps. 90:1<\/a>, 2<\/a>; 91:2<\/a>, 9<\/a>. As to the full meaning of \u05d9\u05b0\u05d4\u05b9\u05d5\u05b8\u05d4<\/span> (Yehowah<\/span>) see Rev. 1:8<\/a>\u2014\u201cWhich is, and which was, and which is to come.\u201d See also Exod. 3:14<\/a><\/span>, \u05d0\u05b6\u05bd\u05d4\u05b0\u05d9\u05b6\u05d4 \u05d0\u05b2\u05e9\u05b6\u05c1\u05e8 \u05d0\u05b6\u05bd\u05d4\u05b0\u05d9\u05b6\u05d4<\/span> (eheyeh asher eheyeh<\/span>)\u2014I am that I am, i.e., I am that which I have been and shall be;<\/em> in other words, an eternal and unchangeable Being<\/em>.<\/p>\n

7<\/a>. And the Eternal said unto Satan, <\/em><\/span>&c.<\/em> Probably the other \u201csons of God\u201d were similarly interrogated, each in his turn, but nothing is said of this, as it has no concern with the history of Job. Just as the fact, that God carries on his<\/span> government of the universe by the use of means instead of by the exereise of immediate power, does not derogate from his Omnipotence; so, it is no necessary derogation of his Omniscience to suppose, that, in the carrying out of his sovereign purposes, he <\/span>requires<\/em> communications or reports to be made to him by his agents, quite as though he were previously ignorant of the facts respecting which th<\/span>e information is given. So, God knows beforehand our wants and desires, yet he says to us, \u201cWhat wilt thou that I should do unto thee?\u201d and he requires that we should actually express to him what those wants and desires are. The same may be said also as to the confession of our sins; and I doubt not but that the same principle holds g<\/span>ood throughout the whole moral government of God, and that his angels, as responsible creatures, have personally to answer before him, and give him account of their actions, just as though he were not, every instant, exactly cognizant of their conduct.<\/span><\/p>\n

From postin<\/em><\/span>g to and fro, &c.<\/em> \u05e9\u05c1\u05d5\u05bc\u05d8<\/span> (shoot<\/span>) is to whip, lash, &c.<\/em>; hence, to lash into speed<\/em>, whether oneself or another, or as we say, to whip along<\/em>. One of Satan\u2019s objects in these rapid roving expeditions thro<\/span>ugh the earth is explained in 1 Peter 5:8<\/a>. Compare Shakespeare\u2019s account of the witches,\u2014<\/p>\n

\u201cThe weird sisters, hand in hand,<\/p>\n

Posters of the sea and land,<\/p>\n

Thus do go about, about;<\/p>\n

Thrice, &c.\u201d<\/p>\n

8<\/a>. Hast t<\/em><\/span>hou well marked, &c.<\/em> \u05d4\u05b2\u05e9\u05b7\u05c2\u05de\u05b0\u05ea\u05b8\u05bc \u05dc\u05b4\u05d1\u05b0\u05bc\u05da\u05b8 \u05e2\u05b7\u05dc<\/span> (h\u2019samta libbecha gnal<\/span>) is lit., Hast thou set thine heart on, i.e., for the purpose of attentively considering<\/em>,\u2014a sense which the Hebrew idiom requires.<\/p>\n

It<\/span> is probable from this question, that Satan had well marked Job, and had done so for the purpose of finding, if possible, occasion of accusation against him.<\/p>\n

We may observe further from this leading q<\/span>uestion, on the part of God, that although, as the sequel shows, Job\u2019s trials are traceable to the malice of Satan, yet they are traceable beyond this to the purpose of God. The question which led to <\/span>Job\u2019s afflictions originated with God; but God\u2019s object, as we now see, was one of mercy towards his servant. (James 5:11<\/a>.)<\/p>\n

My servant Job that there is none like him, &c.<\/em> It is thus that God is not a<\/span>shamed to acknowledge his servants, notwithstanding their many imperfections, before the hosts of heaven and hell; and that God can make it manifest that even human virtue (of course by his grace only) can be proof against the mo<\/span>st violent assaults of the Prince of darkness.<\/p>\n

9<\/a>. Doth Job fear God for nought<\/em>? A truly diabolical insinuation, that Job\u2019s religion was nothing worth, being merely self-in<\/span>terested.<\/p>\n

For nought<\/em>. \u05d7\u05b4\u05e0\u05b8\u05bc\u05dd<\/span> (khinnam<\/span>) gratuitously<\/em>.<\/p>\n

10<\/a>. Hast thou not hedged about him<\/em>? By God\u2019s blessing upon the work of his hands, Job\u2019s extensive property was well fenced in and enclosed; and thi<\/span>s might be regarded as emblematic of the comfort and protection which God bestowed. It is, I think, implied here that Job\u2019s property was literally hedged in, and if so, here is an additional argument to show that Job did not lead a nomadic life.<\/span><\/p>\n

His stock<\/em>. \u05de\u05b4\u05e7\u05b0\u05e0\u05b5\u05d4\u05d5\u05bc<\/span> (miknehou<\/span>)\u2014his live-stock<\/em>.<\/p>\n

Is spread abroad<\/em>. \u05e4\u05b8\u05bc\u05e8\u05b7\u05e5<\/span> (parats<\/span>)\u2014spread abroad like an inundation of pent-up waters that have broken fort<\/span>h.<\/p>\n

11<\/a>. Put forth, however<\/em>. The force of \u05d5\u05b0\u05d0\u05d5\u05bc\u05dc\u05b8\u05dd<\/span> (weoolam<\/span>) here is, but however that may be, i.e.<\/em>, be it, or be it not, that Job\u2019s religion is interested, at all events put it to the test. A truly Sat<\/span>anic proposal.<\/p>\n

And see if he doth not<\/em>. \u05d0\u05b4\u05dd \u05dc\u05b9\u05d0<\/span> (im lo<\/span>) lit., if not<\/em>; this formula is often used in adjuration, the full sense being, if he does not, &c., &c.<\/em>, then may I be, &c., &c<\/em>.<\/p>\n

Curse thee to thy<\/em><\/span> face<\/em>. For the meaning of \u05d1\u05b5\u05bc\u05e8\u05b5\u05da\u05b0<\/span> (berech<\/span>) here, see note on 5:5<\/span><\/a>.<\/p>\n

13<\/a>. The day arrived<\/em>,\u2014when it came round to the turn of the eldest brother to entertain his brothers and sisters.<\/p>\n

14<\/a>. The oxen<\/em> \u05d4\u05b7\u05d1\u05b8\u05bc\u05e7\u05b8\u05e8<\/span><\/span> (habbakar<\/span>). This word being collective, and also of common gender, is in construction with the plural and feminine \u05d4\u05b9\u05e8\u05b0\u05e9\u05b9\u05c1\u05d5\u05ea<\/span> (khoreshoth<\/span>), and also with the plural and masculine \u05d9\u05b0\u05d3\u05b5\u05d9\u05d4\u05b6\u05dd<\/span> (yedeihem<\/span>). <\/span>(See the Illustrations<\/a>.)<\/p>\n

She-asses<\/em>. She-asses are, on account of their milk, far more in request in the East than he-asses.<\/p>\n

The circumstance that the asses were feeding by the side of the oxen as the <\/span>latter were ploughing, looks much as if Job was at this time engaged in extending his estate\u2014ploughing up new ground, up to that time used as pasture land.<\/p>\n

15<\/a>. The <\/em>Sheba<\/span>. There are three persons beari<\/span>ng the name of Sheba<\/span> early mentioned in the Bible\u2014one of them the great-grandson of Ham<\/em>, and the two others descended from Shem<\/em>. The genealogy of the first stands thus:\u2014Ham\u2014Cush\u2014Raamah\u2014Sheba. (Gen. 10<\/span>:6<\/a>, 7<\/a>.) The descent of the second Sheba<\/span> is from Shem<\/em> through Joktan<\/em>, thus:\u2014Shem\u2014Arphaxad\u2014Salah\u2014Eber\u2014Joktan\u2014Sheba. (Gen. 10:22\u201328<\/a>.) The descent of the third Sheba<\/span> is from Shem<\/span> through Jokshan<\/em>, the son <\/span>of Abraham<\/em>, by Keturah<\/em>, his second wife; it stands thus:\u2014Shem\u2014Arphaxad\u2014Salah\u2014Eber\u2014Peleg\u2014Reu\u2014Serug\u2014Nahor\u2014Terah\u2014Abraham\u2014Jokshan\u2014Sheba. (Gen. 11:10\u201326<\/a>, and 25:1\u20133<\/a>.)<\/p>\n

The question then arises,\u2014Which of the<\/span>se three Shebas<\/span> was the progenitor of the tribe which is here described as making an irruption into Job\u2019s territory and carrying off his herds? To determine this, at least as far as it can be determin<\/span>ed, we must endeavour to discover in what localities the descendants of these different Shebas settled. (See the map<\/a>.)<\/p>\n

We begin with the Sheba<\/span> who was the son of Raamah<\/em>. There is very little question <\/span>but that this first Sheba<\/span> was located in that part of Arabia which abuts upon the entrance of the Persian Gulf, as his own name, together with the names of his father and grandfather, and of some of h<\/span>is uncles, and of his brother, are clearly traceable in the classical and modern nomenclature of towns, mountains, districts, &c., in that part of the country. His own name Sheba<\/span> is preserved in the A<\/span><\/span>sabi<\/span> (lit., The Sabi<\/em>), in the Montes Asaborum<\/em>, and in the villages now called Beldan Beni Shab<\/em>. His brother Dedan<\/em> is identified with the town of Dadena<\/em>; and his father Raamah<\/em>, or Ragnemah<\/em>, with that o<\/span>f Rhegama<\/em>, now Raumps<\/em>. His uncle, Havilah<\/em>, or Hawilah<\/em>, has transmitted the name of Owhalie<\/em> in the district called Bahrein, and which, though at some distance up the Persian Gulf, is sufficiently near <\/span>to help in establishing the identity of these different places with the names of their respective settlers. Further, his grandfather\u2019s name, Cush<\/em>, is retained in Cusean<\/em>; and finally, that of his great<\/span>-grandfather, Ham<\/em>, is found in the \u201clittus Hamm\u00e6um<\/em>\u201d of Pliny (lit., the shore of Ham<\/em>), as also in its chief town, Maham<\/em>. The amount of evidence thus adduced leaves it, I think, unquestionable that the<\/span> Sheba who was the son of Raamah and grandson of Cush settled in that region of the Arabian Peninsula which lies near the entrance of the Persian Gulf; added to which, I would observe that Ezekiel (27<\/span>:22<\/a>) evidently couples his name with that of his father, and speaks of their descendants as being merchants who occupied in the fairs of Tyre, with chief of all spices<\/em>, and with all precious stones, a<\/span>nd with gold<\/em>. It is certainly confirmatory of the above remarks that in the neighbourhood of the Asabi, or the Sheba, was situated the gold<\/em> coast of Arabia (the \u201clittus Hamm\u00e6um<\/em>,\u201d where, as Pliny says,<\/span> there is gold<\/em>), and also the <\/em>Libanotophoros mons<\/em>, or frankincense-bearing mountain<\/em>.<\/p>\n

We must now endeavour to ascertain the locality of the second Sheba mentioned in Scripture, i.e.<\/em>, the son of Joktan<\/span>. It is, I think, incontestably proved (see Bochart, and Forster\u2019s Arabia), 1st, that the Beni Kahtan<\/em>, or sons of Kahtan<\/em>, a numerous and wide-spread tribe, existing to this day, in Arabia, are the Kat<\/em><\/span>abeni<\/em> of classical geography, and are, as the Arabs themselves affirm, the Jocktanites<\/em>; and 2dly, that whilst these Beni Kahtan<\/em> are to be found in the whole southern division of Arabia, their point of<\/span> centralization is Yemen, the extreme south, and that their metropolis was the celebrated Mareb, or Saba<\/em> (as it is also called), i.e., <\/em>Sheba<\/span>.*<\/a> This Sheba, then, the capital of the Joktanites, was evid<\/span>ently so called after Sheba<\/span> the son of Joktan. Now if, in addition to this evidence, we find, in the neighbourhood of this very region, names in the classical geography of Arabia, (some of them existi<\/span>ng to this day,) manifestly derived from the names of many of the brothers of Sheba, the son of Joktan; no room is left to question the fact that Sheba the son of Joktan settled near the extreme south of Arabia, <\/span>i.e.<\/em>, in the region more or less bordering upon the straits of Bab-el-Mandev. The names of seven of Sheba\u2019s brothers were Hazarmaveth<\/em> (or it might be written Hadarmauth<\/em>), Jerah, Uzal<\/em> (or O<\/em><\/span>zal<\/em>), Diklah, Obal, Havilah<\/em>, and Jobab<\/em>. Now all these names may be traced respectively, in the neighbourhood of Sabe or Sheba, in the Adramit\u00e6<\/em> and the Hadramaut<\/em>, in the tribe called the Beni Jerh\u00e4<\/em> (or<\/span> Serh\u00e4<\/em>), in Ozal<\/em> (or Uzal<\/em>), the ancient name of the town of Sanaa, and in the Ocelis<\/em> of Ptolemy, the modern Cella, a port near the straits of Bab-el-Mandev; in the tribe of the Dulkhelait\u00e6<\/em> (pronounced<\/span> Duklaeit\u00e6<\/em>); in the \u201cAvalites sinus<\/em>,\u201d or gulph of Obal<\/em>, on the western side of the strait of Bab-el-Mandev; in the province of Khaulan<\/em>, and in the tribe of the Beni Jobub<\/em>.<\/p>\n

It remains for us now to loo<\/span>k out for the locality of the settlements of the third Sheba mentioned in Scripture\u2014Sheba the son of Jokshan, and grandson of Abraham by Keturah.<\/p>\n

From Gen. 25:6<\/a> we learn that Abraham, whilst he yet li<\/span>ved, sent off the sons of his concubines \u201ceastward unto the east country.\u201d \u201cWe should expect, therefore, to find the settlements of Jokshan and of his son Sheba<\/span>, somewhere eastward of the place where <\/span>Abraham resided; now as the Sabe<\/em> of Ptolemy lay east of Palestine, and as, from what we have already shown, it could not be the locality of either the Raamanite or the Joktanite Sheba, the inference i<\/span>s that it must have been the locality in which the Jokshanite Sheba settled; and moreover (as Bochart has observed), Strabo places the Sabeans in that part of Arabia which borders on Syria, and is near the Nabat\u00e6ans. Now, further, these <\/span>Nabat\u00e6ans<\/em> were the descendants of Nebaioth<\/em>, the first-born of Ishmael, and therefore the first-cousin of Sheba the son of Jokshan; and so, the collocation is just <\/span>what might have been expected, and there can be little question but that the Sabeans<\/em>, who, according to Strabo, were in the vicinity of the Nabat\u00e6ans, were the <\/em>Sheba<\/span> of Jokshan. To which may be added,<\/span> in the way of confirmation, that the Dedanim<\/em>, or descendants of Dedan<\/em>, the brother of the Jokshanite Sheba, were in that same neighbourhood. I agree, then, with those who place the settlements of She<\/span>ba the son of Jokshan somewhere in the northern part of Arabia, to the east of Palestine, and towards the river Euphrates. Thus the three Shebas are found to occupy three distinct corners in the great Arabian Peninsula. The first, or the Raamanite Sheba, being situated near the entrance of the Persian Gulph; the second, or the J<\/span>oktanite Sheba, in the neighbourhood of the strait of Bab-el-Mandev; and the third, or the Jokshanite Sheba, at the northern extremity of the vast country,\u2014the three being respectively at the angles of a nearly equilateral triangle, whose sides are each about a thousand miles in length.<\/p>\n

The immense distance of the two first Shebas from what we have already supposed to be the locality of Job\u2019s residence, renders it very improbable, not to say impossible, that either <\/span>of them could have been the depredators mentioned in the text; whereas, on the other hand, the fact of the third Sheba being at no considerable distance from him, and with nothing but desert between t<\/span>hem, it is very probable that they were the party who made the foray into his estates; added to which, Strabo speaks of both the Sabeans and Nabat\u00e6ans as being in the habit of making predatory excursions; and such is the character, to this day, of the Bedouin Arabs, wh<\/span>o occupy that same portion of the Peninsula.<\/p>\n

And the <\/em>Sheba<\/span> fell upon and took them<\/em>\u2014lit., and <\/em>Sheba<\/span> fell &c<\/em>. I take Sheba here to me<\/span>an the city Sheba<\/em> (the Sabe<\/em> of Ptolemy). The notion of a city is, I think, signified by the absence of the article, and by the gender of \u05ea\u05b4\u05bc\u05e4\u05b9\u05bc\u05dc<\/span> (tippol<\/span>), and of \u05ea\u05b4\u05bc\u05e7\u05b8\u05bc\u05d7\u05b5\u05dd<\/span> (tikkakhem<\/span>), which is femini<\/span>ne. The inhabitants<\/em> of the city, or the tribe are of course meant (so I have rendered it); and this is more fully shown by the plural masc., \u05d4\u05b4\u05db\u05bc\u05d5\u05bc<\/span> (hikkou<\/span>), they have smitten<\/em>. (See the Illustrations<\/a>.<\/span>)<\/p>\n

The young men, i.e., the servants<\/em>. This use of the word is sufficiently common in all languages; so, \u03c0\u03b1\u1fd6\u03c2<\/span>, puer, gar\u00e7on<\/em>, boy<\/em>, &c.<\/p>\n

Am escaped<\/em>. The \u05d4<\/span> paragogic in \u05d0\u05b4\u05de\u05b8\u05bc\u05dc\u05b0\u05d8\u05b8\u05d4<\/span> (immaletah<\/span>), though prece<\/span>ded by \u05d5<\/span> conversive, is evidently expressive of the earnestness of mind employed in the endeavour to effect an escape.<\/p>\n

16<\/a>. Fire of God<\/em>. Probably lightning.<\/p>\n

Set on fire<\/em>. The idea expressed by \u05d1\u05b8\u05bc\u05e2\u05b7\u05e8 \u05d1\u05b0<\/span><\/span>\u05bc<\/span> (bagnar be<\/span>) is that of fire fastening upon fuel previously to burning it.<\/p>\n

The flock of sheep and goats were probably pasturing in a wilderness of stunted trees and shrubs, and these, becoming ignite<\/span>d by the lightning, would soon be in a blaze which might overspread many miles of country, and destroy all animal life within its reach; just so, jungles in India, and prairies in America, are often consumed, together with every living creature within them, to an immense extent.<\/p>\n

17<\/a>. The Chaldeans<\/em>. This ancient people appear, from the evidence of the classical geographers, to have ranged over the w<\/span>ilderness territory that stretches from the Persian Gulph, along the banks of the Euphrates, to the north-western parts of Syria; their true locality being the neighbourhood of Babylon, where they were evidently early consolidated into a kingdom by some of the first of the Assyrian monarchs. See <\/span>Isa. 23:13<\/a>, \u201cBehold the land of the Chaldeans; this people was not, till the Assyrian founded it for th<\/em><\/span>em that dwell in the wilderness<\/em>: they set up the towers thereof; they raised up the palaces thereof.\u201d Their descendants may to this day be recognized in the Beni Khaled<\/span>, an Arab race who lord it over <\/span>the other tribes of their neighbourhood,\u2014Lachsa, immediately south of the Euphrates, on the north-western coast of the Persian Gulph, and who scour the country between Bagdad and Aleppo on their predatory excursions. Niebuhr says of<\/span> them, Vol. III., page 294, \u201cTout le district (i.e.<\/em>, Lachsa, the situation of which I have given above) appartient \u00e0 la tribu Beni Kh\u00e2led, une des plus puissantes parmi<\/span> les Arabes, laquelle s\u2019\u00e9tend si avant dans le d\u00e9sert qu\u2019elle inquiete souvent les caravanes entre Bagdad et H\u00e2leb.\u2026 La plus grande partie de ce pays est habit\u00e9e par les Bedouins, et par diverses tribus Arabes qui reconnoissent la souverainet\u00e9 de la tribu Beni Kh\u00e2led.\u201d And again he says, page 333, \u201cBeni Kh\u00e2led est u<\/span>ne des plus, puissantes tribus qu\u2019il y ait en Arabie, non seulement parcequ\u2019elle poss\u00e9de beaucoup de chameaux, et r\u00e8gne sur plusieurs autres petites tribus riches en b\u00e9tail; mais encore parcequ\u2019elle a conquis les villes et villages du L\u00e1chsa.\u201d I <\/span>think that this statement of Niebuhr\u2019<\/span>s respecting the wealth of this tribe in camels<\/em> is worthy of observation; it certainly is not a little remarkable that the object of a marauding expedition of its ancestors, in the days of Job, was a <\/span>tempting prize of camels. This remark further throws, perhaps, some light upon Mr. Forster\u2019s explanation of the reason why the Chaldeans are called \u05db\u05b7\u05bc\u05e9\u05b0\u05c2\u05d3\u05b4\u05bc\u05d9\u05dd<\/span> (chasdim<\/span>) in Scripture. He says (Vol. I.<\/span> xli., note), \u201cThis famous people of antiquity went by both names, being called Chasdim (from the root \u05db\u05e9\u05d3<\/span> (chsd<\/span>), Tribus digitis mulsit camelam\u2014Def\u00e6cavit butyrum<\/em>) most probably from their pastoral ha<\/span>bits, and Chaldeans, as being the settled branch of the great Bedouin tribe of Beni Khaled, who occupy the ancient Chaldea, and the parts adjoining it, to this day.\u201d It seems to have escaped Mr. Forster\u2019s observation, when he conjectured <\/span>that the name Chasdim might be derived from an Arabic word, signifying milking a camel with three fingers<\/em>, and straining the butter<\/em>, with probable allusion to \u201cth<\/span>eir pastoral habits,\u201d that this same people certainly made it their business to possess themselves with camels<\/em> in the days of Job, and that to this day, according to Niebuhr, they possess a great numb<\/em><\/span>er of camels<\/em>.<\/p>\n

Three columns<\/em>\u2014lit. three heads<\/em>. I take the meaning I have given to be the correct one. Gesenius understands \u05e8\u05b8\u05d0\u05e9\u05b4\u05c1\u05d9\u05dd<\/span> (roshim<\/span>) here in the sense of sums<\/em> or amounts<\/em>, and so bands<\/em>, &c., &c.<\/span>, or, as we might say, sets<\/em>; this, however, is forced; it appears to me rather to indicate a body of troops advancing, or making head in column.<\/p>\n

Opened<\/em>\u2014\u05d9\u05b4\u05e4\u05b0\u05e9\u05b0\u05c1\u05d8\u05d5\u05bc<\/span> (iphshetou<\/span>), i.e., expanded<\/em>, or sprea<\/em><\/span>d themselves out<\/em>. These Chaldeans, having advanced in three separate columns, extended into line when at convenient distance, and so, enclosed the whole of Job\u2019s camels, together with their keepers.<\/p>\n

1<\/span>8<\/a>. He was still speaking<\/em>. We have \u05e2\u05b7\u05d3<\/span> (gnad<\/span>), here, instead of \u05e2\u05b9\u05d5\u05d3<\/span> (gnod<\/span>) which is in the similar passages in the former verses. The distinction is not very important. Perhaps the present form is som<\/span>ewhat the strongest. I have endeavoured to observe the distinction, such as it is, in my translation.<\/p>\n

19<\/a>. From across the wilderness<\/em>. As such storms usually come from the south, this argues that Job\u2019s<\/span> locality was on the north side of the Arabian desert. (See, however, a different reading.)<\/p>\n

The four corners of the house<\/em>. This argues, as Lee has properly remarked, that this violent wind must have b<\/span>een a tornado. (See the Illustrations<\/a>.)<\/p>\n

It is to be observed, with regard to these four calamities which befell Job, and which have just been enumerated, that it is not necessary to suppose that they <\/span>actually occurred in the order in which the intelligence of them was conveyed to him. Though Satan, in his malice, so contrived, that the messengers of the sad tidings should reach Job in rapid and regular succession, it is obvious that the distances these messengers had to travel may have been very various. It is further to be ascribed to Satan\u2019s malicious <\/span>contrivance, that the news of the calamity which was the most terrible was that which arrived last. If Job had been first informed of the sudden, and apparently judicial, death of his children, all his other losses would have appeared comparatively trifling.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

20<\/a>. Then<\/em>. When Job had heard the climax of his misfortunes.<\/p>\n

Job arose and rent<\/em>. Arose<\/em> here means no more than set about<\/em>. We use our words go<\/em> and take<\/em> in a very similar sense; indeed<\/span> the passage before us might be translated without impropriety, Job went and rent, &c<\/em>., or Job took and rent<\/em>, &c. It is easy to see how this metaphorical meaning might easily be attached to \u05e7\u05d5\u05bc\u05dd<\/span> (koum<\/span><\/span>) to arise<\/em>. The idea is of a person being engaged in some particular occupation, then rising up and leaving it off, in order to enter upon<\/em> some other occupation. In process of time the word would natu<\/span>rally enough be used even in cases where there was no actual rising up of the person, and where all that was intended to be expressed would be the setting about some pursuit different from that in which the person had been previously engaged. In ordinary cases, <\/span>change of action would imply also change of position, but not necessarily always so; and yet the same verb might be used in both eases. In Arabic, <\/span>\u05e7\u05d0\u05dd<\/span> (kam<\/span>) means both to arise<\/em> and also to begin<\/em>. Compare with this the Latin ordior<\/em>, to begin<\/em>, or take a thing in hand<\/em>; probably derived from orior, to arise<\/em>.<\/p>\n

His robe<\/em>, \u05de\u05b0\u05e2\u05b4\u05dc\u05d5\u05b9<\/span> (megnilo<\/span>). By <\/span>a comparison of all the passages in Scripture in which this word occurs, I am of opinion that it was a garment strictly regal<\/em> or sacerdotal<\/em>. It was a sort of large fringed shawl, which, when worn, hun<\/span>g down to the feet. (See the Illustrations<\/a>.)<\/p>\n

Rent his robe<\/em>,\u2014probably the most expensive of his garments, and, as I am inclined to believe (see note above), the badge of his royalty. This rending of hi<\/span>s robe must not be regarded as indicative of a temporary excitement on the part of Job. To rend one\u2019s garments was, in the East, the ordinary token of mourning; and in short, the expression, which is very common in Scripture, is not unlike, at least in idea, our own expression of <\/span>going in mourning<\/em>, or putting on mourning<\/em>.<\/p>\n

And shaved his head<\/em>,\u2014another token of mourning. This custom was evidently pr<\/span>actised by the Jews as well as by other nations; there are allusions to it in Scripture, and allusions, moreover, which seem to sanction it. The prohibition in Lev. 21:5<\/a> refers to the priests only, an<\/span>d that in Deut. 14:1<\/a> to a particular mode<\/em> of cutting or shaving the hair, and which was probably forbidden as being an imitation of the idolatrous practices of the Heathen. The conclusions, therefore,<\/span> which Lee draws from the circumstance of Job\u2019s shaving his head, however correct in point of fact, are of no value as far as argument is concerned. He says:\u2014\u201cThis could not have taken place under the law of Moses, it being specifically forbidden. (<\/span>Lev. 21:5<\/a>; Deut. 14:1<\/a>.) Job could not, therefore, have been a Jew, nor could this book have been recommended to the Jews under the law on the suppositi<\/span>on that he was a Jew.\u201d<\/p>\n

The ancient Orientals appear to have paid such marked care, in the dressing of the hair of their heads and of their beards, that to deprive themselves of these ornaments must ha<\/span>ve been an act of great self-denial, and must have betokened great grief. (See the Illustrations<\/a>.)<\/p>\n

And fell to the earth<\/em>. So also Joshua, on an occasion of great sorrow. (Josh. 7:6<\/a>.)<\/p>\n

And worshipped<\/em>. I<\/span>n this act was a marvellous triumph of Job\u2019s faith, a vindication also of the high character which God had given him, and confusion to the enemy who had called it in question.<\/p>\n

21<\/a>. Thither,\u2014i.e., to my<\/em><\/span> mother\u2019s womb<\/em>, which is mentioned previously. In the former case Job uses the expression literally; in the latter case, figuratively, as applied to the earth<\/em>. Solomon evidently copied, in Eccles 5:15<\/a><\/span>, the idea here presented.<\/p>\n

\u05d9\u05b8\u05e6\u05b8\u05ea\u05b4\u05d9<\/span> is, of course, for \u05d9\u05b8\u05e6\u05b8\u05d0\u05ea\u05b4\u05d9<\/span>. This dropping of the \u05d0<\/span> is sufficiently common.<\/p>\n

Blessed be the name, &c.<\/em> This result of Job\u2019s trial was diametrically opposite to what Sa<\/span>tan had predicted. (ver. 11<\/a>.)<\/p>\n

22<\/a>. In all this<\/em>. It is difficult to determine from the mere language whether the meaning is, in all this that happened to him<\/em>, or in all this that he said<\/em>. I certainly pr<\/span>efer the former sense as more natural. It is so self-evident that Job did not sin in the words he uttered that it would have been needless to aver it; it is the sense given by the LXX. and the Vulgate.<\/span><\/p>\n

Nor did he give God foolishness<\/em>. This rendering is so literal that it has the same indeterminate meaning as the original, for the sense may be either that Job did not ascribe foolishness (i.e.<\/em>, sens<\/span>elessness, or want of wise purpose) to God, or that Job did not speak foolish words to God; in that case the nor<\/em> will have the sense of not even<\/em>. Not only did Job not sin, but not even did he say augh<\/span>t foolishly, &c.<\/p>\n

\n

 <\/p>\n

Job 2<\/a><\/p>\n

1<\/a>, 2<\/a>. See the Notes on chap. 1:6<\/span><\/a>, 7<\/span><\/a>.<\/p>\n

3<\/a>. Still holding fast his integrity<\/em>,\u2014maintaining his perfect piety in spite of his trials. \u05ea\u05bb\u05bc\u05de\u05b8\u05bc\u05ea\u05d5\u05b9<\/span> (tummatho<\/span>) might be rendered his perfectness<\/em>. On the wor<\/span>d perfect<\/em>, see the Note, chap. 1:1<\/span><\/a>.<\/p>\n

Thou didst set me<\/em>, \u05ea\u05b0\u05bc\u05e1\u05b4\u05d9\u05ea\u05b5\u05e0\u05b4\u05d9<\/span> (tesitheni<\/span>). There is no doubt, whatever its derivation may be, that this word means to instigate, move, set<\/em>, and the like. I take it<\/span> to be very much i.q.<\/em> \u05e9\u05c1\u05d5\u05bc\u05ea<\/span> (shooth<\/span>); in that case the word set<\/em> will be the exact rendering.<\/p>\n

Without cause<\/em>,\u2014as the event has shown.<\/p>\n

4<\/a>. Skin for skin<\/em>. This was evidently a proverbial saying; but though<\/span> the general import of it is clear, yet not its particular meaning, and a variety of interpretations have consequently been put upon it. The best and most generally received are\u20141. That a man will readily sacrifice the skin, <\/span>i.e.<\/em>, the person or the life of another, for the preservation of his own skin; and that, on this principle, Job might be supposed to care comparatively little for the loss of <\/span>his earthly goods, and even of his children, inasmuch as, at all events, his own life was spared. 2. That, in matters of barter, articles exchanged must be equivalent\u2014as, for instance, one skin for another skin; <\/span>i.e.<\/em>, in point of fact, like for like; but that in Job\u2019s case what he had parted with was by no means equivalent to what he retained; he could very readily give up all that he had, so long<\/span> as he remained secure of his life. A third sense given is, that all external things, (as skin for skin,) are exchangeable articles, but not so, the internal life; there is nothing for which that<\/em> can <\/span>be exchanged. Other solutions besides these have been given, but so decidedly unsatisfactory, as doing violence either to the language or to sense, as not to be worth notice; but even the above are to my m<\/span>ind far from satisfactory. My own view is, that the proverb contains a sort of \u2018reductio ad absurdum<\/em>\u2019 argument, thus:\u2014Never expect a man to part with his <\/em>skin unless you supply him another<\/em>,\u2014an im<\/span>possible condition, and therefore equivalent to, Never expect that a man will part with his skin on any conditions whatever<\/em>; in other words, On no terms will a man part with his life<\/em>. And then Satan d<\/span>raws a sort of inverse inference from this:\u2014Nay more, to save his life, a man will willingly part with everything else<\/em>.<\/p>\n

5<\/a>. See the Notes on 1:11<\/span><\/a>.<\/p>\n

6<\/a>. Only<\/em>. Hence Satan was permitted to afflict Job in h<\/span>is person to the very uttermost, with the proviso that the affliction was not to terminate fatally. This condition Job, of course, could not know.<\/p>\n

7<\/a>. A malignant ulceration<\/em>, \u05e9\u05b0\u05c1\u05d7\u05b4\u05d9\u05df \u05e8\u05b8\u05e2<\/span> (shekhin ragn<\/span>)<\/span>. We may discover something of the nature of this dreadful disease with which Job was afflicted, by reference to other passages of Scripture in which the word \u05e9\u05b0\u05c1\u05d7\u05b4\u05d9\u05df<\/span> (shekhin<\/span>), which was one of the p<\/span>articular symptoms of the disease, occurs; and also by considering other symptoms of it, which are given in various parts of the Book of Job. The word \u05e9\u05b0\u05c1\u05d7\u05b4\u05d9\u05df<\/span> (shekhin<\/span>) itself means an inflamed ulcera<\/em><\/span>tion<\/em>, and is ordinarily translated boil<\/em> or botch<\/em>; it seems to have been particularly common in Egypt, as it, or at least a peculiar kind of it, is called \u201cthe botch of Egypt<\/em>.\u201d (Deut. 28:27<\/a>.) It was on<\/span>e of the ten plagues inflicted on Egypt, which is sufficient to prove its virulent character; and it was so painful that the magicians who were smitten with it were not able to stand before Moses. (Ex<\/span>. 9:10<\/a>, 11<\/a>.) It was one of the early symptoms of leprosy. (Lev. 13:18<\/a>, 19<\/a>.) It was, moreover, a disease which, in its more virulent character, was denounced against the Israelites as a judgment in cas<\/span>e of their disobedience, and is described as being both intolerable and incurable. (Deut. 28:27<\/a>, 28<\/a>, 35<\/a>.) This disease nearly proved fatal to Hezekiah (Isa. 38:1<\/a> and 21<\/a>); and, in his case, was accompa<\/span>nied with pining sickness\u2014if the authorized version be correct (ver. 12<\/a>), with excruciating pains in the bones (ver. 13<\/a>), and with great depression. (ver. 14<\/a>.)<\/p>\n

In Job\u2019s case, the disease must have ass<\/span>umed a most virulent form, as it is specially designated \u05e8\u05b8\u05e2<\/span> (ragn<\/span>), malignant<\/em>, and as it extended over the whole of his body, covering him from head to foot. Its general diagnosis may be learnt from <\/span>incidental allusions to it and notices of it that occur throughout this book. It was accompanied with an itching so intolerable, at least in its early stage, and probably before the formation of purulent matter, that the sufferer had recourse to scratching himself with an instrument for relief (ver. <\/span>8<\/a>); it so changed his features that he was scarcely recognisable (ver. 12<\/a>); and it was accompanied <\/span>with severe bodily pain. (ver. 13<\/a>.) It was further characterized by loss of appetite, by constant sighing, and even by roaring (3:24<\/a>; sec also 33:20<\/a>); by irritability (6:2<\/a>); by loss of spirits, and by<\/span> considerable dejection (ver. 4<\/a>); by an intense longing for death (ver. 9<\/a>); by utter prostration, self-abandonment, extreme debility, and the sensation of a melting languor (vers. 11\u201314<\/a>), accompanied <\/span>by restless nights (7:4<\/a>); the flesh bred vermin, the skin pulverized, and also suppurated (ver. 5<\/a>); there was the restless and vain hope of getting rest by change of posture (ver. 13<\/a>); sleep, when obt<\/span>ained, was attended by terrifying dreams (ver. 14<\/a>), and a temptation to commit suicide was strongly presented to the mind (vers. 15<\/a>, 16<\/a>); extensive salivation was, perhaps, one of its symptoms (ver. 1<\/span>9<\/a>); there was no intermission of pain, nor cessation in the formation of new pustules, and there was difficulty of respiration (9:17<\/a>, 18<\/a>); a weariness of life was experienced, and there was no self-co<\/span>ntrol in lamentation (10:1<\/a>); the face was marked with spots (11:15<\/a>); perhaps the feet felt as if bound in a clog (13:27<\/a>); the flesh had an appearance as of rottenness or a moth-eaten garment (ver. 28<\/a>)<\/span>; there was emaciation in those parts of the body which were not swollen (16:8<\/a>, and 33:21<\/a>); also constant weeping, and a deathlike appearance about the eyes (ver. 16<\/a>); and, possibly, occasional effusi<\/span>ons of blood (ver. 18<\/a>); the disease was not regarded as immediately mortal (16:22<\/a>), yet there was no prospect of eventual recovery (17:1<\/a>, and 30:23<\/a>); the wretched sufferer became an object so disgusti<\/span>ng as to be abhorred by his nearest relatives and most intimate friends (19:13\u201319<\/a>); there was great tenseness of skin (ver. 20<\/a>); also a sensation as of the bones being wrenched, and the flesh picked o<\/span>ff them (perhaps violent muscular twitchings), especially at night, the season for repose (30:17<\/a>); the body swelled (at least in some parts), so that even the loose Oriental clothing was felt to be ti<\/span>ght (ver. 18<\/a>); there was a general appearance as if covered with dust and ashes (ver. 19<\/a>); also whirling sensations (vertigo) (ver. 22<\/a>); and blackness of skin, and great internal heat. (ver. 30<\/a>.)<\/p>\n

This<\/span> disease under which Job was labouring has generally been identified as that which ordinarily goes under the name of Elephantiasis, a disorder having many of the characteristics of, and being evidently of<\/span> the same type as, Leprosy and Psora, though, in its malignant form, far more severe than either of these affections. It is apparently also allied to Syphilis, but not necessarily attributable to the same cause. Its syphilitic appearance, however, may have made Job fear that he laboured under the imputation, in the eyes of his friends, of having led an unchaste life; and hence, in his vindication of h<\/span>is character in general, in chap. <\/span>31<\/a>, the very sins of which he first makes mention, with marked abhorrence, and of which he appears most anxious to clear himself, are those of fornication and<\/span> adultery. (Chap. 31:1\u201312<\/a>.) The disease in question has been called Elephantiasis, from a supposed resemblance between it and the appearance of an elephant; as Aret\u00e6us says, in form, in colour, and in<\/em><\/span> size<\/em> (et specie, et colore, et magnitudine<\/em>). It has sometimes been called Leontiasis also, from the circumstance that it gives a lion-like aspect to the faces of those who are affected with it. The n<\/span>ame of Satyriasis has also been given to it, according to some, from the redness which it imparts to the checks, and great distention of the ears and of other portions of the face which it occasions, or, according to others, from the venereal desires which it excites, though this latter symptom, so far from being established as such, has been found to hav<\/span>e no existence whatever in a very large number of cases.<\/span><\/p>\n

The following notices of this disease by writers ancient and modern, and which I subjoin in brief, may be interesting to some readers:\u2014<\/p>\n

Lucretius refers to it, and distinguishes Egypt as<\/span> being the only country in which it was engendered\u2014<\/p>\n

\u201cEst elephas morbus qui, propter flumina Nili,<\/p>\n

Gignitur \u00c6gypto in medi\u00e2, neque pr\u00e6terea usquam.\u201d<\/p>\n

Celsus, who flourished about the middle of the firs<\/span>t century, speaks of it as a disorder that attacks the whole system, and even the bones, covering the body thickly with spots and tumours, red at first, but gradually becoming black. The skin, thickened in some parts, but attenuated in others, assumes<\/span> a scaly appearance; the body is emaciated, though the face, legs, and feet swell, and, if the disease is of long duration, the fingers and toes get <\/span>buried in the swelling; a slight fever supervening carries off the suffering patient.<\/p>\n

Pliny, who wrote at about the same period, speaks of small pimples first appearing about the face; then of the ent<\/span>ire skin drying up, becoming spotty, variously coloured, in some parts fat, in others thin, or covered with scabs; at last getting black, and producing pressure of the flesh upon the bones, whilst the toes and fingers swell.<\/span><\/p>\n

Aret\u00e6us, who wrote towards the close of the first century, has been charged with exaggerating, in his description of this disease. The extracts from that writer, however, whic<\/span>h follow are taken from the already abridged account given by Adams:\u2014\u201cThere are large callous eminences on the skin, and the veins appear enlarged, owing to a thickening of the vessels, and not to a plethora of blood. The hairs of the head, pubes, and other parts of the body, drop off. The face, in particular, is affected with callous tubercles or warts, and it is not unco<\/span>mmon for the tongue and most parts of the body to be also covered with them. The eyebrows are thickened, stripped of their hair, and hang down like those of the lion. The general appearance of the skin, covered as it is with hard tubercles, and intersected with deep fissures, is said to bear some resemblance to that of the elephant. Sometimes particular members, such as the nose, feet, fingers, the whole hand, or the pudenda, will die and drop off; and it is not uncommon for incurable ulcers to break forth on different parts of the body. Dyspu\u00e6a and a sense of suffocat<\/span>ion are occasionally present. He says it is dangerous to have any intercourse with persons labouring under the disease, no less than in the ease of the plague, as both are readily communicated by respiration.\u201d According to Michaelis, in his questions proposed for the consideration of Niebuhr and his fellow-travellers in Arabia, Aret\u00e6us mentions also that persons afflicted with this disorder are troubled in their sleep by frightful dreams, more cruel than even sleeplessness itself; and likewise that the eyes become disfigured, and assume the appearance of sombre night. Rosenm\u00fcller also quotes a passage from Aret\u00e6us, showing that the eruption is scratched with a feeling of pleasure. Amongst other applications of a detergent nature, as being useful in the treatment of<\/span> the disease, Aret\u00e6us speaks highly of a soap used by the Celts for cleaning their clothes. If that remedy was in use in the days of Job, not impossibly he alludes to it in chap. <\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span>9:30<\/a>, 31<\/a>:\u2014<\/p>\n

\u201cIf I had washed myself in the very snow,<\/p>\n

And had cleaned my hands with soap;<\/p>\n

Then wo<\/span>uldest thou plunge me in the ditch;<\/p>\n

And mine own clothes would abhor me.\u201d<\/p>\n

Galen wrote about the middle of the second century. \u201cHe has briefly mentioned,\u201d says Adams, \u201cthat in this disease the nose bec<\/span>omes flattened, the lips thick, and the ears extenuated; the whole appearance resembling that of a satyr; and he ranks elephantiasis with cancerous swellings.\u201d<\/p>\n

Oetavius Horatianus, a writer of the fou<\/span>rth century, speaks of spots principally affecting the face, and of the general vitiation of the flesh.<\/p>\n

A\u00ebtius, who flourished in the fifth century, says that \u201cthe first symptoms (I quote from Adams) <\/span>of the disease are torpor, slow respiration, constipated bowels, urine like that of cattle, continued eructations, and strong venereal appetites; and when it is determined to the skin, the cheeks and <\/span>chin become thickened, and of a livid colour; the veins below the tongue are varicose, and eminences are formed all over the body, but especially on the forehead and chin. The body becomes increased in bulk, and is borne down by an intolerable sense of heaviness. Those affected with it become pusillanimous, and shun the haunts of men.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n

Paul of \u00c6gina, who died a.d. 630, speaks of elephantiasis as i<\/span>ncurable, and as it were a cancer of the whole body. He states that it is formed from black bile, or, when more malignant, from yellow bile overheated; and that when once the patient is overpowered by the disease, the case is to be aba<\/span>ndoned, though he conceives that if the extremities have not fallen off, nor external ulceration taken place, nor hard swellings appeared, remedies may be applied with effect. Paul of \u00c6gina does not appear to have added to the remarks of preceding writers, from whom he copied, as those who succeeded him have copied from him.<\/span><\/p>\n

Avicenna, or more properly Ebu-sina, a<\/span>n Arabian physician of the eleventh century, \u201cstates (says Mr. Adams) that, although this disease begins internally, its first symptoms are manifested on the extremities. He then describes minutely the symptoms\u2014namely, redness of the face<\/span>, inclining to lividity; falling off of the hairs, enlargement of the veins, affection of the breathing, thickening and discoloration of the lips; and afterwards ulceration of different parts of the body, corrosion of the cartilages of the nose, then falling off of the nose and extremities, loss of voice, &c.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n

Actuarius, a writer of the 13th century, \u201ccalls el<\/span>ephantiasis (Mr. Adams informs us) a cancer of the whole body, which preys upon all the flesh, and derives its origin from black bile corroding everything like fire. The first symptoms of it are a falling-off of the hairs of the eyebrows and chin, tu<\/span>mours on the face, an alteration of the appearance of the eyes, a change of the voice, turgidity of the sublingual veins, and afterwards cutaneous eruptions of an intractable nature.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n

Should the reader be desirous of pursuing his inquiry into the nature and characteristics of this disease further, he may consult the translation of Paulus \u00c6gineta, w<\/span>ith a commentary by Francis Adams, and also an able article by Al. Cazenave in the \u201cDictionnaire de M\u00e9dicine,\u201d as well as the several writers whose opinions have been given above.<\/p>\n

I observe that one o<\/span>f the remedies prescribed by all these writers, with all but universal consent, is the theriac of vipers, and indeed one of them commends, above all things else, eating the flesh of vipers boiled in broth with certain ve<\/span>getables which he enumerates. Was this remedy resorted to in the days of Job? If so, possibly allusion is made to it in ch. 20:14\u201316<\/a>, where Zophar is speaking, in evident reference<\/span> to what had befallen Job, of the condign punishment with which secret sinners are often visited.<\/p>\n

Michaelis, in his \u201cQuestions propos\u00e9es \u00e0 une societ\u00e9 de savants,\u201d wonders whether, as Job speaks of hi<\/span>mself as being covered with worms, and as writers on the subject of elephantiasis have not noticed this as one of its characteristics,\u2014it is a usual accompaniment of that disorder. I should suppose that in this, and indeed in all other cutaneous diseases, the breeding of worms in the flesh would be <\/span>a natural result unless great care were taken to guard against the evil; I heard but lately of a cas<\/span>e of small-pox, in which maggots were extensively generated, arising from neglect on the part of the sufferer\u2019s friends in not applying for timely medical assistance.<\/p>\n

After consideration of the descri<\/span>ptions of the disease, as given by the various medical authors above referred to, compared with the diagnosis of that under which Job laboured (so far at least as we can arrive at it), I come to the conclusion that whilst Job\u2019s disor<\/span>der was elephantiasis in its leading features, yet it was of so aggravated a type, as to present characteristics which do not present themselves in the ordinary forms of the disease; and I think we must bear in mind that, on this occasion, a supernatural agency was directly employed, and divine permission obtained, to exercise that agency to the fullest extent of its malignity without actually destroying the life of its tortured <\/span>victim,\u2014a consideration which will sufficiently account for any symptoms that may be noticed in the case before us of an extraordinary character. I am led to this latter observation chiefly by the remark of a medical friend, who, writing to me briefly on the subject, says: \u201cThe disease referred to may have been an aggravated form of the leprosy of the ancients, or something like it, but it should be recollected that that which was inflicted, or allowed to be inflicted of God, may have differed from what was usually observed <\/span><\/span><\/span>even<\/em><\/span> then<\/em>, or may have been more severe<\/em> than what was usually seen.\u201d The same gentleman goes on to observe,\u2014\u201cIn some respects the description might answer to forms of constitutional and aggravated syphili<\/span>s such as was observed in France in the time of Francis the First after the Italian campaign, or even as late as the end of the last century in France, and in the Peninsula in the time of the Peninsular war.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n

Certainly Satan in his diabolical malice may have contrived to give a syphilitic appearance to Job\u2019s disease, that he might be suspected of having entailed it upon himself by the illicit indu<\/span>lgence of venereal appetites. Zophar seems to allude to such a disease in 20:11<\/a>\u2014<\/p>\n

\u201cHis bones are full of his secret sin;<\/p>\n

And it shall lie down with him on the dust.\u201d<\/p>\n

Job also perhaps alludes to that di<\/span>sorder in ch. 31:3<\/a>, where he speaks of \u201cstrange punishment\u201d being the award of such sins, and of which he there declares his innocence.<\/p>\n

8<\/a>. And he took a potsherd<\/em>. I have retained the ordinary renderin<\/span>g of \u05d7\u05b6\u05e8\u05b6\u05e9\u05c2<\/span> (kheres<\/span>) i.e., a potsherd<\/em>, because I have scarcely sufficient authority to substitute another meaning; but as the root and its cognates (see next note) have the primary signification of sc<\/em><\/span>raping, rasping, scratching<\/em>, &c. (hence \u05d7\u05b6\u05e8\u05b6\u05e1<\/span> (kheres<\/span>) the itch<\/em>), I am inclined to think that \u05d7\u05b6\u05e8\u05b6\u05e9\u05c2<\/span> (kheres<\/span>) here means some instrument that was specially used for the purpose of scratching; the word<\/span> might literally be rendered a grater<\/em>, though, if that be its meaning, it would be different both in its use and construction from what we understand by that word. Such instruments are used to this da<\/span>y for that purpose in the East, and Rosenm\u00fcller, who does not notice the primary meaning of \u05d7\u05b8\u05e8\u05b7\u05e9\u05c2<\/span> (kharas<\/span>) and its cognates, quotes Martial where he describes an instrument called scalptorium<\/span>, used b<\/span>y the Romans, and which, judging from the passage in question, was made in the form of a hand for the purpose of scratching the body in such parts as the natural hand could not reach. The epigram is t<\/span>he 84th in Book XIV.:\u2014<\/p>\n

\u201cScalptorium.<\/p>\n

Defendet manus h\u00e6c scapulas mordente molesto<\/em><\/p>\n

Pulice, vel si quid pulice sordidius<\/em>.\u201d<\/p>\n

\u201cThis hand will defend the back of your shoulders from the biting, teazing flea<\/em><\/span>, or if there be aught more filthy than a flea<\/em>.\u201d<\/p>\n

\u05dc\u05b0\u05d4\u05b4\u05ea\u05b0\u05d2\u05b8\u05bc\u05e8\u05b5\u05d3 \u05d1\u05bc\u05d5\u05b9<\/span> (lehithgared bo<\/span>)\u2014to scratch himself with it<\/em>. \u05d2\u05b8\u05bc\u05e8\u05b7\u05d3<\/span> (garad<\/span>) and all its cognates: \u05d2\u05b8\u05bc\u05e8\u05b7\u05d1<\/span> (garav<\/span>), \u05d2\u05b8\u05bc\u05e8\u05b8\u05d4<\/span> (garah<\/span>), \u05d2\u05b8\u05bc\u05e8\u05b7\u05e2<\/span> (garagn<\/span>), \u05d2\u05b8<\/span><\/span>\u05bc\u05e8\u05b7\u05e8<\/span> (garar<\/span>), \u05d7\u05b8\u05e8\u05b7\u05d8<\/span> (kharat<\/span>), \u05d7\u05b8\u05e8\u05b7\u05e1<\/span> (kharas<\/span>), \u05d7\u05b8\u05e8\u05b7\u05e9\u05c2<\/span> (kharas<\/span>), (see note above,) and \u05d7\u05b8\u05e8\u05b7\u05ea<\/span> (kharath<\/span>), have all the signification of scratching, rasping, scraping, grating<\/em>, and the like.<\/p>\n

Sitting among <\/em><\/span>the ashes<\/em>,\u2014probably in token of utter humiliation and grief. Compare Isa. 58:5<\/a>; 61:3<\/a>; Jer. 6:26<\/a>; Lam. 3:16<\/a>; Dan. 9:3<\/a>; Jonah 3:6<\/a>; and Matt. 11:21<\/a>.<\/p>\n

9<\/a>. Still holding fast thine integrity?<\/em> See the note on<\/span> ver. 3<\/span><\/a>.<\/p>\n

Bless God and die, i.e., bless God and thou shalt die for doing so;<\/em> for, in Hebrew, the second of two imperatives usually states the result or consequence of performing the action commanded i<\/span>n the first\u2014so, \u201cDo this and live<\/em>\u201d means, do this, and in the doing of it, thou shalt live<\/em>. Job\u2019s wife evidently alludes to what Job had said in 1:21<\/a>; and so, the full force of her words seems to be t<\/span>his:\u2014\u201cWhen God stripped you of your property and children you blessed him, saying,\u2014\u201cBlessed be the name of the Eternal,\u201d and now, all the good which this piece of piety on your part has got for you, is this terrible disease superadded to your other mi<\/span>sfortunes; you had therefore better bless God again, and then, the next consequence of such piety will be death, for there is nothing else that remains to be inflicted. Nothing could well be more taunting than this. The temptation must needs be a fearful one which suggests to us that our calamities are the consequence of our religion. God\u2019s people, however, must be content to be sometimes told, that they are \u201cfools for their pains.\u201d<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

10<\/a>. Thou speakest as one of the wicked women speaketh<\/em>. Job does not directly tax his wife with being wicked; he <\/span>may have had a better opinion of her general character than that, and have felt that some allowance was to be made for the exasperation of mind under which she had just spoken; he merely tells her that the sentiments she uttered were such as might be expected<\/span> only from the lips of such women as were utterly destitute of piety.<\/p>\n

Wicked<\/em>. The word \u05e0\u05b0\u05d1\u05b8\u05dc\u05d5\u05b9\u05ea<\/span> (nevaloth<\/span>) has a wide range of signification;<\/span> it evidently refers to a particular class of persons who were notoriously devoid of religion, and means fallen, corrupt, foolish, profligate<\/em>, and the like.<\/p>\n

Ay, &c.<\/em> The force of (\u05d2\u05b7\u05bc\u05dd<\/span>) (gam<\/span>) here has <\/span>been overlooked; the authorized version renders it by what!<\/em> this, however, is incorrect. The meaning which I attach to it here (if the rest of the sentence is to be taken as a question) is, ay;<\/span> and th<\/span>en the sense of the whole passage will be,\u2014The sentiment you have expressed, that the more I retain my piety the more likely God is to destroy me (see note on previous verse), is not only impious, it is, <\/span>moreover<\/em> (\u05d2\u05b7\u05bc\u05dd<\/span> gam<\/span>), unreasonable, for if we take good from God, surely it is only right that we should take evil also. It is questionable, however, whether this latter sentence is to be taken in <\/span>an interrogative form, and if not, then the meaning will be,\u2014Your sentiment is such as one might have expected from that class of women who have thrown off the fear of God, but not from you; added to <\/em><\/span>which<\/em> (\u05d2\u05b7\u05bc\u05dd<\/span> gam<\/span>), it involves this other wrong notion, that we are to receive good but not evil from God.<\/p>\n

From God himself<\/em>. The \u05de\u05b5\u05d0\u05b5\u05ea<\/span> here has this force; it implies that the good and evil (temporal o<\/span>f course are here meant) which we receive come to us directly<\/em> (not indirectly) from God, and that he is the Author of them: so, Isa. 45:7<\/a>, a passage which, by-the-bye, being particularly addressed to <\/span>Cyrus, was evidently aimed against the fundamental doctrine of the Persian theology, which taught the independent authorships of good and evil. And perhaps, indeed, Job may here have been anxious to refute a sentiment which savoured of Magian error, and which may<\/span> even in those times have been extensively entertained; Job may have perceived in his wife\u2019s mind something of the notion that all this evil, that had come upon them, could not have come from God, but from some other power, and that God himself could not defend his servants from it.<\/span><\/p>\n

Job sinned not with his lips<\/em>,\u2014a great proof of that p<\/span>erfection of his, of which God had spoken. (See James 3:2<\/a>.)<\/p>\n

11<\/a>. Three friends of Job<\/em>,\u2014not as the authorized version has it, Job\u2019s three friends<\/em>.<\/p>\n

Eliphaz the Tcmanite<\/em>. This Eliphaz was, no doubt, a des<\/span>cendant of Teman<\/em> the son of Eliphaz<\/em> the son of Esau by his wife Adah. (Gen. 36:10<\/a>, 11<\/a>; 1 Chron. 1:35<\/a>, 36<\/a>.) This Teman was the duke or chieftain of one of the Edomite tribes (Gen. 36:15<\/a>; 1 Chron. 1:51<\/a>,<\/span> 53<\/a>); and of this tribe and of the country which bore his name we have mention made in Gen. 36:34<\/a>; Jer. 49:7<\/a>, 20<\/a>; Ezek. 25:13<\/a>; Amos 1:12<\/a>; Obad. 9<\/a>; Hab. 3:3<\/a>. It must not be confounded with Tema<\/em>, a peop<\/span>le who descended from Tema the son of Ishmael (Gen. 25:15<\/a>), and of whom we shall have occasion to speak more fully in considering chap. 6:19<\/a>. It is difficult to determine accurately the locality occup<\/span>ied by the tribe and descendants of Teman, nor do the passages of Scripture referred to throw much light upon the subject. We gather from them that when Edom was consolidated into one large kingdom, and governed by kings, instead of, as at first, by many appar<\/span>ently independent dukes, one at least of these kings was a Temanite (Gen. 36:34<\/a>); and afterwards Teman assumed so prominent a position in th<\/span>e kingdom as to be often all but identified with it. (Jer. 49:7<\/a>, 20<\/a>; Ezek. 25:13<\/a>; Obad. 8<\/a>, 9<\/a>.) Amos, in chap. 1:12<\/a>, apparently speaks of Bozrah as being its capital; and in Isa. 63:1<\/a> Bozrah is apparen<\/span>tly spoken of as being the capital of Edom. From Jer. 49:21<\/a> and Hab. 3:3<\/a> we might infer that some part of Teman was in the neighbourhood of the Red Sea and the wilderness of Sinai. (Forster\u2019s \u201cArabia,<\/span>\u201d vol. ii., p. 33.) On the whole, however, it would appear that the Temanite race extended over a considerable portion of the territory of Edom, and that it was to be found in the neighbourhood of Bozrah and of Dinhabah, a city which, being written Daihab in the Syriac version, has been identified with Odaib, and the Thauba of<\/span> Ptolemy, and which was situated in the great northern desert of Arabia, about midway between Palestine and the mouth of the Euphrates. And it is about <\/span>here that the Thimanei of Pliny would be placed, whom he speaks of as anciently a mid-land tribe of Arabia, and near the<\/span> Nabat\u00e6i:\u2014\u201cNunc et reliqua mediterranea ejus dicantur. Nabat\u00e6is Thimaneos junxerunt veteres.\u201d (Plin. vi. 32.) These Thimanei I take to be the tribe of Teman, and not that of Tema, though Forster endeavours to identify them with the latter. We have no data for determining where Eliphaz the Temanite lived, but there is, <\/span>I think, evidence to show that the people to whom he belonged were, when considered as the leading tribe of Edom, to be found extending from the Eastern or Elanitic arm of the Red Sea half-way across the desert towards the Euphrates. The modern Maan was probably anciently the capital of Teman Proper, and being in, what we have assumed to be, Job\u2019s neighbourhood, was, not improbably, the residence of Eliphaz the Temanite.<\/p>\n

Bildad the Shuhite<\/em>. The Shuhite or Shukhite tribe were <\/span>probably the descendants of Shuah<\/span> or Shuakh<\/span> (\u05e9\u05c1\u05d5\u05bc\u05d7\u05b7<\/span>), the youngest of Abraham\u2019s sons by Keturah. (Gen. 25:2<\/a>.) This name Shuakh<\/span> may be found in the Saiace<\/span> of Pliny, vi. 32, a town which he places among<\/span>st the Zamareni, perhaps the descendants of Zimran the brother of Shuakh, and now the Shammar tribe dwelling midway between the Red Sea and the mouth of the Euphrates, and one of whose towns still retains the name of <\/span>Sekiale<\/span> or El Saiak<\/span>. I am surprised that Forster, who identifies the Saiace of Pliny with El Saiak, does not notice the affinity of its nomenclature with Shuakh. His desire to identif<\/span>y Shuakh with the Chaldean Shoa<\/span> (\u05e9\u05c1\u05d5\u05b9\u05e2\u05b7<\/span> (shoagn<\/span>), a very different word) mentioned by Ezekiel (23:23<\/a>) has, doubtless, caused him to overlook this.<\/p>\n

Zophar the Naamathite<\/em>. Of this Zophar nothing is know<\/span>n beyond the mention of him in this book, nor does Scripture throw any light upon either his race or his locality; and Forster, in his \u201cArabia,\u201d says:\u2014\u201cThe place of Zophar the Naamathite I have not succeeded in tracing.\u201d Pliny, howe<\/span>ver, speaks of an inland Arabian tribe, which, I think, is not improbably that of the Naamathi<\/span>;<\/em> he calls them the Amathei<\/span>, the first syllable, Na<\/span>, being dropped. This d<\/span>ropping of the first syllable is very common in Arabic, and indeed in Eastern, nomenclature in general. Forster (who places the Amathei in Temama, though there is little similarity of name) himself speaks in another place o<\/span>f \u201cthe suppression of the initiatory syllable of names: as Apatei for Napatei, or Nabatei; Maan for Teman; &c.\u201d And he tells us in a note that, \u201cunacquaintedness with this idiomatic variety has been the cause of sad false criticism in commentators upon the classics. Thus Hardouin ignorantly corrects the Armalchar of Pliny to Naarmalchar, where both forms of the name are equally correct.\u201d Now, this is exactly to the poin<\/span>t, just as the Armalchar of Pliny is really the same name as Naarmalchar; so the <\/span>Amathei<\/span> of Pliny is, with great probability, the same name as Naamathei<\/em>. <\/span>The probability becomes more considerable when we find that Pliny evidently places the Amathei in juxtaposition with the Zamareni and their town Saiace, which we have just presumed to be the Shuakh of B<\/span>ildad. Thus Bildad the Shuhite and Zophar the Naamathite would be near neighbours, which is precisely what we should expect from the history before us. It seems to me, further, not improbable that the modern tribe the <\/span>Beni Naym<\/em> are the descendants of the ancient Naamathites or Beni Naamah<\/em>. This tribe is mentioned by Burckhardt as being a very powerful tribe of Arabs; they range the desert from t<\/span>he south-east of the Dead Sea up towards the Hauran, though their more fixed locality seems to be near Maan, which, by the way, is the ancient Teman. A place marked in the maps Bir Nam<\/em>, the well of Na<\/em><\/span>m<\/em>, may possibly be named after them.<\/p>\n

They had agreed together<\/em>, or they had appointed both the time when, and the place at which, they were to meet<\/em>, in order to visit Job. This concert on their part im<\/span>plies that they lived at no great distance from one another.<\/p>\n

To condole with him<\/em>. The Orientals are remarkable for the way in which they exhibit their grief by outward gesticulations. \u05e0\u05d5\u05bc\u05d3<\/span> (nood<\/span>) is, <\/span>in the first instance, expressive of that continued shaking<\/em> [of the head] often observable in persons who are plunged in deep sorrow; and then, thus to shake the head with any one will mean to condole<\/em><\/span> with him<\/em>.<\/p>\n

And to comfort him<\/em>. An afflicted person is usually more accessible to comfort when there has been a previous manifestation of condolence.<\/p>\n

Nothing could be better than the intentions of thes<\/span>e friends.<\/p>\n

12<\/a>. And knew him not,\u2014i.e.<\/em>, they did not recognise him as the same person he had formerly been. This implies that his disease had materially changed his appearance.<\/p>\n

Rent\u2014his robe<\/em>. See the N<\/span>otes on chap. 1:20<\/span><\/a>. If my remarks there respecting the meaning of the \u05de\u05b0\u05e2\u05b4\u05d9\u05dc<\/span> (megnil<\/span>) are correct, we may infer that Job\u2019s three friends were respectively chieftains of tribes. The Septuagint, either <\/span>by tradition or by presumption, has given to them the regal title; it calls Eliphaz \u201cthe king of the Thaimanites;\u201d Bildad, \u201cthe sovereign of the Saucheans;\u201d and Zophar, \u201cthe king of the Minaians.\u201d<\/p>\n

Spr<\/em><\/span>inkled dust upon their heads towards heaven<\/em>. So (as Rosenm\u00fcller and others point out) Josh. 7:6<\/a>; 2 Sam. 13:19<\/a>; Ezek. 27:30<\/a>; Lam. 2:10<\/a>; Acts 22:23<\/a>. (See the Illustrations<\/a>.)<\/p>\n

13<\/a>. They sat down with him u<\/em><\/span>pon the ground<\/em>. Thus they shared, at least in outward demonstration, his humiliation and grief. (See ver. 8<\/a>.)<\/p>\n

Seven days and seven nights<\/em>. Rosenm\u00fcller refers to Gen. 50:10<\/a>; 1 Sam. 31:13<\/a>; 1 Chron. 10:1<\/span>2<\/a>; Ezek. 3:15<\/a>; Ecclus. 22:12<\/a>, in order to show that this was the time ordinarily spent by the Orientals on occasions of solemn mourning.<\/p>\n

None spake a word unto him<\/em>. They refrained from commenting upon<\/span> the subject of his afflictions. They probably already judged, from the intensity of his sufferings, that his former profession of piety was mere hypocrisy, and that he was now justly visited by the wrath of God; and as, under such circu<\/span>mstances, any remarks of theirs, if honestly made, would only have added to his sufferings, they abstained from all comment, until Job\u2019s hasty exclamations in the next chapter gave them the opportunity of stating the opinions which they, too rashly and too uncharitably, formed. (<\/span>So Barnes<\/em>.)<\/p>\n

\n

 <\/p>\n

\n
\n

Job 3<\/a><\/p>\n

1<\/a>. After this<\/em>,\u2014at the end of the seven days spoken of in the preceding chapter. His day<\/em>,\u2014the day of his birth. (See note on 1:4<\/span><\/a>.)<\/p>\n

2<\/a>. Answered<\/em>. A word often used in Hebrew, as here, at the commen<\/span>cement of a discourse, and which, when so used, may be more philosophical in its signification than at first sight appears, as it probably denotes a correspondence between the speaker\u2019s discourse and <\/span>the occurrences which suggest it. Thus here, Job makes answer<\/em> to the circumstances in which he is placed, and which have just been related in the foregoing narrative.<\/p>\n

And said<\/em>. Job had not as yet sinn<\/span>ed with his lips, but had probably, during the last seven days, begun entertaining hard thoughts on the subject of his afflictions, which were now aggravated by the continued silence, and perhaps suspicious looks, of his frie<\/span>nds; these hard thoughts could no longer be repressed, and he accordingly gives vent to them in the strong and impassioned language which follows. The difficulty which evidently had been working in Job\u2019s mind, and which he now expresses at large, is one which is very common\u2014the question why God should create a creature to misery.<\/span><\/p>\n

3<\/a>. Perish the day<\/em>. Let it be blotted out of<\/span> all remembrance.<\/p>\n

And the night which said, &c<\/em>. The night in question is here personified, and is poetically represented as reporting what it might be supposed as having been privy to. I prefer to tak<\/span>e \u05d4\u05b8\u05e8\u05b8\u05d4<\/span> (harah<\/span>) in its literal sense of conceiving<\/em>, and not, as some understand it, of giving birth to<\/em>. Verse 10<\/a>, I think, establishes that the night of his conception is here alluded to. Job\u2019s passio<\/span>nate exclamations are not unlike those of Jeremiah in ch. 20:14\u201318<\/a>, but they are more sublime. Rosenm\u00fcller cites an instance of imprecations uttered by an Oriental on the day of his birth, in the thir<\/span>teenth century, very similar to that before us. The words are quoted by Abulfeda, in his Annals, from a poem written by the sufferer himself, whose name was Naser Daoud, a chieftain in Palestine, who was driven from his country by the Crusaders. Rosenm\u00fcller gives the quotation in the Latin of Reiske, from which the following is tran<\/span>slated:\u2014\u201cWould that my mother had remained unmarried all her life,<\/em><\/span> undestined by my God to a lord and husband! Would that, as he had destined her to a prince discreet, prudent, pure and sweet, both in his<\/em> [ancestral<\/em>] root and<\/em> [family<\/em>] branches, he had destined her t<\/em><\/span>o be one of those whom<\/em> [he destines<\/em>] barren, that she might never have heard the joyful messenger of the birth of her offspring, whether it were male, or what is worse<\/em> [female<\/em>]! Or since she did carry<\/em><\/span> me in the womb, would that she had lost at once her burden and her life by an unpropitious birth!<\/em>\u201d<\/p>\n

4<\/a>. That day<\/em>. The day of my birth.<\/p>\n

That day! be it darkness<\/em>. There is a fine description in Shakespea<\/span>re of the unnatural darkness of the day which succeeded the night in which Duncan was murdered by Macbeth:\u2014<\/p>\n

\u201cBy the clock, \u2019tis day,<\/p>\n

And yet dark night strangles the travelling lamp.<\/p>\n

Is\u2019t night\u2019s pred<\/span>ominance, or the day\u2019s shame,<\/p>\n

That darkness does the face of earth intomb,<\/p>\n

When living light should kiss it?\u201d<\/p>\n

Require it<\/em>\u2014\u05d9\u05b4\u05d3\u05b0\u05e8\u05b0\u05e9\u05b5\u05c1\u05d4\u05d5\u05bc<\/span> (idreshehou<\/span>). Put it in requisition for any particular purpose, or<\/span> look after it, i.e.<\/em>, expend care or thought about it, or seek it<\/em>, with the view of recovering it from darkness, or make inquisition<\/em> or search for it<\/em>, with a view of finding it.<\/p>\n

5<\/a>. Claim it<\/em>. The root <\/span>\u05d2\u05b8\u05bc\u05d0\u05b7\u05dc<\/span> (gaal<\/span>) means both to redeem<\/em> or re-claim<\/em>, and also to pollute<\/em>. The first is by far its most usual signification, and appears to me to offer a decidedly preferable sense in the present passage.<\/p>\n

J<\/span>ob intimates that the day of his birth must, of right, have originally belonged to darkness and death, and he expresses his wish that they might recover what was really their own; time was when that da<\/span>y had no existence; may it therefore return to that prior condition.<\/p>\n

A cloud<\/em>\u2014\u05e2\u05b2\u05e0\u05b8\u05e0\u05b8\u05d4<\/span> (gnenanah<\/span>). A feminine form of \u05e2\u05b8\u05e0\u05b8\u05df<\/span> (gnanan<\/span>); it occurs only in this place; it seems to mean what we ordinarily c<\/span>all a mass of cloud<\/em>.<\/p>\n

Job, in this and the following clause, explains in what ways he desires that this particular day may be given up to darkness, namely, by its being involved in a dense and thick cl<\/span>oud, and by its suffering successive eclipses of the light that should otherwise have shone upon it.<\/p>\n

Settle<\/em>. This appears to be the primary meaning of \u05e9\u05b8\u05c1\u05db\u05b7\u05df<\/span> (shachan<\/span>).<\/p>\n

Darkenings<\/em>\u2014\u05db\u05b4\u05bc\u05de\u05b0\u05e8\u05b4\u05d9\u05e8\u05b5\u05d9<\/span> (chimrir<\/span><\/span>ei<\/span>). This must, I think, be referred to the root \u05db\u05b8\u05bc\u05de\u05b7\u05e8<\/span> (chamar<\/span>), it was black, &c.<\/em>, and not to \u05de\u05b8\u05e8\u05b7\u05e8<\/span> (marar<\/span>), it was bitter<\/em>, as, in the latter case, the \u05db\u05b0\u05bc<\/span> of similitude would too much enfeeble the <\/span>idea intended; besides which, the notion of something dark<\/em> manifestly accords better with the whole context than that of bitterness<\/em>. It must be admitted that the form \u05db\u05b4\u05bc\u05de\u05b0\u05e8\u05b4\u05d9\u05e8<\/span> (chimrir<\/span>) is so far ano<\/span>malous as that we should have expected it to be written \u05db\u05b7\u05bc\u05de\u05b0\u05e8\u05b4\u05d9\u05e8<\/span> (chamrir<\/span>); but no great amount of dependance is to be placed upon the vowel points; nor even then can we, at this distance of time, an<\/span>d with comparatively an imperfect knowledge of the language, presume to discard whatever may seem to us anomalous. It is moreover certain (as Lee observes) that \u201c(-) and (\u2022) are often substituted for each other.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n

Grotius and others understand here \u05db\u05b0\u05bc\u05de\u05b8\u05e8\u05b4\u05d9\u05dd<\/span> (chemarim<\/span>) idolatrous priests;<\/em> but the reduplication of the word as it stands in the text is a sufficient objection to this view. Taking \u05db\u05b4\u05bc\u05de\u05b0<\/span><\/span>\u05e8\u05b4\u05d9\u05e8\u05b4\u05d9\u05dd<\/span> (chimririm<\/span>) then, from \u05db\u05b8\u05bc\u05de\u05b7\u05e8<\/span> (chamar<\/span>), it will signify darkenings, blackenings, obscurations<\/em>, or the like, and this, in connexion with day<\/em>, may most probably mean eclipses of the sun. This no<\/span>tion is strengthened by the following word, affright<\/em>, which implies that sort of supernatural darkness which eclipses produce, and which usually inspired dread.<\/p>\n

Affright it<\/em>. Poet, for make that day an<\/span> object of terror. Comp. Milton:\u2014<\/p>\n

\u201cAs when the sun, new risen,<\/p>\n

Looks through the horizontal misty air,<\/p>\n

Shorn of his beams; or from behind the moon,<\/p>\n

In dim eclipse, disastrous twilight sheds<\/p>\n

On half th<\/span>e nations, and with fear of change<\/p>\n

Perplexes monarchs.\u201d<\/p>\n

6<\/a>. That night<\/em>. The night in which he was conceived.<\/p>\n

Be it not united<\/em>\u2014\u05d9\u05b4\u05d7\u05b7\u05d3\u05b0\u05bc<\/span> (ikhad<\/span>). If we follow the punctuation we must translate let it not <\/em><\/span>rejoice<\/em>, from \u05d7\u05b8\u05d3\u05b8\u05d4<\/span> (khadah<\/span>); but if we read \u05d9\u05b5\u05d7\u05b7\u05d3<\/span> (yekhad<\/span>), from \u05d9\u05b8\u05d7\u05b7\u05d3<\/span> (yakhad<\/span>), we have the rendering which I have adopted, and which is more in accordance with the parallelism. The Chaldee so trans<\/span>lates it; the Vulg., let it not be counted with<\/em>, and the LXX., let it not be amongst<\/em>. They evidently read \u05d9\u05b5\u05d7\u05b7\u05d3<\/span> (yekhad<\/span>).<\/p>\n

7<\/a>. Barren<\/em>. \u05d2\u05b7\u05bc\u05dc\u05b0\u05de\u05d5\u05bc\u05d3<\/span> (galmood<\/span>). This word in Arabic signifies hard bare rock<\/em>, <\/span>hence, as an adj., stark, hard, unyielding, barren, sterile<\/em>, and the like. The meaning of the whole verse seems to be,\u2014Let no marriage or any bridal festivities take place on that night.<\/p>\n

8<\/a>. The diffic<\/span>ulty of this verse has no doubt been the cause of its omission in one of the MSS. collated by Kennicott. \u05d0\u05b9\u05e8\u05b0\u05e8\u05b5\u05d9\u05be\u05d9\u05d5\u05b9\u05dd<\/span> (orerei yom<\/span>); lit., the cursors of a day, i.e.<\/em>, as we may suppose, persons whose p<\/em><\/span>ractice or profession it was to imprecate ill luck<\/em> upon some particular day or days.<\/p>\n

\u05d4\u05b8\u05e2\u05b2\u05ea\u05b4\u05d9\u05d3\u05b4\u05d9\u05dd \u05e2\u05b9\u05e8\u05b5\u05e8 \u05dc\u05b4\u05d5\u05b0\u05d9\u05b8\u05ea\u05b8\u05df<\/span>\u2014(hagnethidim gnorer livyathan<\/span>). Who are prepared to provoke the crocodile<\/em>. The creature<\/span> here mentioned as leviathan<\/em> I believe to be the crocodile (see this matter discussed in the notes on ch. 41<\/span><\/a>); and so the meaning is, persons who are ready<\/em>, or in a state of preparation for<\/em>, or equipp<\/em><\/span>ed<\/em> (as we might say), to stir up<\/em> and encounter that formidable monster, the crocodile<\/em>. Here is evident allusion to some ancient custom, and it becomes an interesting subject of inquiry whether any rec<\/span>ord of it has been handed down to us. If I mistake not, we have some such record. We are certainly informed of a particular class of people in ancient Egypt who, so far from uniting with the rest of their countrymen in veneration for the crocodile, regarded it, in some sort, in the light of a <\/span>supernatural<\/em> enemy, and superstitiously<\/em> set apart certain days<\/em> for the very purpose of attacking<\/em> and destr<\/span>oying it. Sir G. Wilkinson, in his work on the ancient Egyptians, thus notices the custom:\u2014\u201cPlutarch affirms that the people of Apollinopolis used to eat the crocodile; this, however, was not a general custom, <\/span>but merely upon a certain occasion connected with religious superstition, and intended to show their abhorrence of Typhon, the evil genius of whom it was an emblem. They have likewise,\u201d he continues, \u201ca solemn hunt of this animal upon a particular day, set apart for the purpose, at which they kill as many of them as they can, and afterwards throw their dead bodies before the temple of their god, assigning t<\/span>his reason for their practice, that it was in the shape of a crocodile Typhon eluded the pursuit of Orus.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n

\u05e2\u05b2\u05ea\u05b4\u05d9\u05d3\u05b4\u05d9\u05dd<\/span> (gnethidim<\/span>)\u2014Prepared, ready, expert<\/em>. Wilkinson (\u201cAncient Egypti<\/span>ans,\u201d new ed., Vol. I., 242<\/a>) says,\u2014\u201cThe Tentyrites were so expert from long habit in catching, and even in overcoming this powerful animal (the crocodile), in the water, that they were known to follow<\/span> it into the Nile, and bring it by force to the shore.\u201d<\/p>\n

The sense of the entire verse seems to be, Let that night be stigmatized with names the most odious, by that particular class of men whose pract<\/em><\/span>ice it is solemnly to devote certain days to the object of waging war with the evil demon in the person of the crocodile<\/em>. (See the Illustrations<\/a>.)<\/p>\n

9<\/a>. The meaning is,\u2014Let that night be dark from its ve<\/span>ry evening, and let it be hopeless and endless, with no day to succeed it.<\/p>\n

Its twilight<\/em>. Probably the evening twilight is here meant.<\/p>\n

Let it look for<\/em>. \u05e7\u05b8\u05d5\u05b8\u05d4<\/span> (kawah<\/span>) is to look for a thing with longing<\/em><\/span> anxiety<\/em>.<\/p>\n

The eyelids of the dawn,\u2014i.e.<\/em>, the first rays of the sun as he rises, which, poetically supposing him to be the eye of day, may be compared to eyelashes. Schultens has largely illustrated th<\/span>is by citations from Greek, Latin, and Arabic poets.<\/p>\n

10<\/a>. \u05d3\u05b7\u05bc\u05dc\u05b0\u05ea\u05b5\u05d9 \u05d1\u05b4\u05d8\u05b0\u05e0\u05b4\u05d9<\/span> (dalthei vitni<\/span>), lit., the doors of my belly<\/em>.<\/p>\n

It shut not<\/em>,\u2014so as to prevent my being conceived.<\/p>\n

And hid not<\/em>. The not<\/em> is not ex<\/span>pressed in the Hebrew, but may be understood from the negation in the previous clause; or the verse may be thus translated:\u2014<\/p>\n

\u201cBecause it shut not the doors of the belly that received me<\/em>,<\/p>\n

And it would <\/em><\/span>have hidden trouble from mine eyes<\/em>.\u201d<\/p>\n

In either case the sense is much the same. As in ver. 3<\/a>, the Night is personified, and is poetically represented as having been privy to, and announcing, at least <\/span>to itself, the fact of Job\u2019s conception; so here it is poetically supposed to have had the power of hindering that conception had it been so pleased, and it is cursed because it did not exercise that power.<\/span><\/p>\n

11<\/a>. In the womb<\/em>. So the LXX. and the Vulgate; lit., from the womb<\/em>, i.e.<\/em>, from the time of my being there. If I mistake not, \u05de\u05b5\u05e8\u05b6\u05d7\u05b6\u05dd<\/span> (merekhem<\/span>) is used in the same sense in the similar passage i<\/span>n Jer. 20:17<\/a>, which I would thus translate:\u2014<\/p>\n

\u201cBecause he killed me not in the womb,<\/p>\n

And my mother had been my grave,<\/p>\n

And her womb had been always great [with me].\u201d<\/p>\n

(So Rosenm\u00fcller.)<\/p>\n

12<\/a>. Wherefore did <\/em><\/span>the knees, &c.?<\/em> Why were they so officiously prompt as to be in readiness to receive me at the moment of my birth? Or why the breasts &c.?<\/em> Why were these also in a state of readiness at once to minist<\/span>er to the support of that miserable life which I had just received?<\/p>\n

\u05e7\u05b8\u05d3\u05b7\u05dd<\/span> (kadam<\/span>), which I have translated anticipate<\/em>, besides having the general notion of being beforehand<\/em>, often means being beforeha<\/em><\/span>nd with another in offices of kindness<\/em>.<\/p>\n

13<\/a>. For now,\u2014i.e.<\/em>, supposing that it had been as I wish; that I had died either in the womb, or at the moment of my birth.<\/p>\n

I had lain down<\/em>,\u2014in my grave, as on a<\/span> bed.<\/p>\n

I had slept<\/em>,\u2014in death.<\/p>\n

Being quiet<\/em> and having rest<\/em> are negative ideas, and seem chiefly to imply perfect freedom from all mental trouble and bodily suffering.<\/p>\n

14<\/a>. Job here remarks, with that kee<\/span>n irony which is often sharpened by suffering, that, if he had died in infancy, his lot would have been at least as happy as that of those departed kings and other great men who, whilst they were upon earth, were ambitious of greatne<\/span>ss, but attained to no more of it than the amassing of wealth, and the construction for themselves of those mausoleums in desolate places, in which they now lie.<\/p>\n

Desol<\/em><\/span>ations,\u2014i.e.<\/em>, as we may infer from the connexion of this word with \u05d4\u05b7\u05d1\u05b9\u05bc\u05e0\u05b4\u05d9\u05dd<\/span> (habbonim<\/span>), buildings in desolate places<\/em>. Various senses have been attached to this, but I have little doubt but that Job h<\/span>ere alludes to the vast sepulchres built by monarchs and other great men in those ages, and not improbably there may be particular allusion to the pyramids of Egypt, two of which (if the most received dates are correct) were of then recent construction. (See the <\/span>Illustrations<\/a>.)<\/p>\n

For themselves<\/em>. There is bitter sareasm in these words. These great men, who spent their lives in nothing better than in <\/span>building vast tombs, built them, not for others, but for themselves;<\/em> and there they now, each of them, lie alone in their glory. See this sort of vanity condemned in Isa. 22:15\u201318<\/a>, where also the \u05dc\u05b0\u05da\u05b8<\/span><\/span> (lecha<\/span>), for thyself<\/em>, is as emphatic as the \u05dc\u05b8\u05de\u05d5\u05b9<\/span> (lamo<\/span>) here, for themselves<\/em>.<\/p>\n

15<\/a>. Their houses<\/em>. This, again, is full of irony. Job calls their grand burial-places their houses, which, during their l<\/span>ife, they store with treasures, as though, in so doing, they were making provision for their comfort and enjoyment when dead. There is no objection, however, to take the word houses<\/em> here in its ordina<\/span>ry acceptation, in which case, equally as in the other, the folly of amassing wealth is hinted at. It was, however, by no means unusual to deposit coffers of the precious metals in burial-places.<\/p>\n

16<\/a>. <\/span>I should not be,\u2014i.e.<\/em>, I should not be in existence.<\/p>\n

As these words imply the non-existence of children untimely born, at least of such as never saw light, or never had life at all, so Job, by the ver<\/span>y contrast of these with those whom he mentions previously, certainly implies that the latter, though dead, were still in a state of being. In other words, if the inferences be correct, Job held the doctrine of the immortality of the soul. I take this verse to be a parenthesis.<\/span><\/p>\n

17<\/a>. Job, in this and the two following verses, gives, as a reason for his wish that he had died in infancy, that the cond<\/span>ition of death is superior to that of life.<\/p>\n

There,\u2014i.e.<\/em>, in the grave, along with the dead.<\/p>\n

Cease from troubling<\/em>. I am glad to retain the translation of the authorized version, both on account of its <\/span>beauty and also because of its ambiguity; for \u05e8\u05b9\u05d2\u05b6\u05d6<\/span> (rogez<\/span>), troubling<\/em>, may refer either to the disquietude with which the wicked are themselves agitated, or to that which they inflict upon others. I <\/span>think that both the context and the parallelism in the succeeding verses require the latter sense; and then the verse has this meaning, that in the grave, both those who disquieted others, and those who were disquieted, rest,\u2014the one, from causing trouble; the other, from being troubled.<\/span><\/p>\n

The weary<\/em>,\u2014lit., the wearied of strength<\/em>. Those who are thoroughly worn out by excessive labour, or probably, a<\/span>s is implied in the former clause, by the oppressions of the wicked.<\/p>\n

18<\/a>. The chained<\/em>. Prisoners taken in war, and criminals chained and condemned to hard labour and rigorous treatment at the hands of <\/span>barbarous overseers, are probably here intended. (See the Illustrations<\/a>.)<\/p>\n

\u05db\u05b9\u05d2\u05b5\u05e9\u05c1<\/span> (nogesh<\/span>), taskmaster<\/em>. In this word are contained also the notions of driving, exacting<\/em>, and oppressing<\/em>.<\/p>\n

19<\/a>. The word \u05d7\u05b8<\/span><\/span>\u05e4\u05b0\u05e9\u05b4\u05c1\u05d9<\/span> (khophshi<\/span>), free<\/em>, determines that \u05e2\u05b6\u05d1\u05b6\u05d3<\/span> (gneved<\/span>) here means slave<\/em>, rather than servant<\/em>.<\/p>\n

20<\/a>. Why giveth He, &c.?<\/em> In Hebrew, the name of God is often suppressed where it is understood; and in thi<\/span>s particular instance, Job may have felt the impropriety of connecting that name with the question which he was raising.<\/p>\n

By light<\/em> is of course to be understood life<\/em>, as the parallelism shows.<\/p>\n

21<\/a>. Diod<\/span>orus says, of those whose miserable lot it was to labour in the gold mines of Egypt, (and to which, perhaps, allusion is here made in the second clause,) that they longed for death, as a condition far prefe<\/span>rable to life. (See the Illust. on ver. 18<\/a>.)<\/p>\n

22<\/a>. Who even dance for joy<\/em>,\u2014more lit., who are glad even unto dancing<\/em>. \u05d2\u05b4\u05bc\u05d9\u05dc<\/span> (gil<\/span>) is gladness<\/em> expressed by gesture, and especially by dancing.<\/p>\n

Exult<\/em><\/span>. \u05e9\u05c2\u05d5\u05bc\u05e9\u05c2<\/span> (soos<\/span>) is gladness expressed by leaping<\/em>. There is, therefore, a climax here:\u2014Who even dance for joy<\/em>\u2014(yea more) leap when they find the grave<\/em>.<\/p>\n

23<\/a>. Why,\u2014i.e., Why giveth He light?<\/em> This is to be<\/span> understood from ver. 20<\/a>.<\/p>\n

And about whom God setteth a hedge<\/em>. This aggravates the case. Not only is the way of such a wretch hidden, so that he is utterly at a loss what course to take, but God so hem<\/span>s him in on every side with difficulties and miseries that, take what course he will, he cannot escape from them. (Comp. Hosea 2:6<\/a> and Job 19:8<\/a>.)<\/p>\n

24<\/a>. Job here refers particularly to his own case.<\/p>\n

For<\/em>.<\/span> Why, for instance, did God give me life, for<\/em> I am a miserable man; and as a proof of my misery, instead of my bread, &c.<\/p>\n

Bread<\/em> and water<\/em> often denote food and drink in general. Not unlike the sentime<\/span>nt here expressed are Ps. 42:3<\/a>, \u201cMy tears have been my meat day and night,\u201d and Ps. 102:9<\/a>, \u201cI have eaten ashes like bread, and mingled my drink with weeping.\u201d<\/p>\n

Instead of<\/em>. \u05dc\u05b4\u05e4\u05b0\u05e0\u05b5\u05d9<\/span> (liphenei<\/span>) is used in<\/span> a similar sense in 1 Sam. 1:16<\/a>:\u2014\u201cCount not thine handmaid for<\/em> (\u05dc\u05b4\u05e4\u05b0\u05e0\u05b5\u05d9<\/span>) a daughter of Belial.\u201d So also Job 4:19<\/a>. The parallelism requires this sense in the present passage, and by so translating it, <\/span>all difficulty is removed.<\/p>\n

And like waters, &c.,\u2014i.e.<\/em>, instead of being able to drink. My incessant roarings (which prevent my doing so) are poured out like continued and noisy volumes of water. The f<\/span>ormer clause determines this to be the meaning.<\/p>\n

25<\/a>. Schultens\u2019 objection (which Rosenm\u00fcller and others adopt) to translate this and the following verse in the past tense is weak. He urges the apparent<\/span> impossibility of Job\u2019s being able to have presentiment of such dreadful and unheard-of afflictions as those he was now suffering. But surely Job only means that in his prosperity he was in continual dread of some reverse, and that his presentiments on that score had too unfortunately been realized.<\/span><\/p>\n

For, &c<\/em>. A second reason for his questioning why life should have been given to him. Even in prospe<\/span>rity he was unhappy, because full of apprehensions.<\/p>\n

I apprehended evil<\/em>,\u2014lit., I feared a fear<\/em>. The evil which Job had constantly apprehended, and which at length had befallen him, was probably that so<\/span>me signal judgment of God would fall upon his children, as he feared that they might make their feasts occasions of impiety. We certainly learn from chap. 1:5<\/a> how much anxiety he felt for them on all <\/span>such recurring occasions.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

<\/div>\n

 <\/p>\n

\n

 <\/p>\n

Job 4<\/a><\/p>\n

1<\/a>. Eliphaz the Temanite<\/em>. See the Notes on 2:11<\/span><\/a>.<\/p>\n

2<\/a>. I see no reason for following many, amongst whom Rosenm\u00fcller, and after him Lee, who weaken the force of the passage by understanding \u05e0\u05b4\u05e1\u05b8\u05bc\u05d4<\/span> (n<\/span><\/span>issah<\/span>), to attempt<\/em>, in the sense of \u05e9\u05b8\u05bc\u05c2\u05d0<\/span>. (nissa<\/span>), to take up<\/em>.<\/p>\n

Verse<\/em>, \u05de\u05b4\u05dc\u05b4\u05bc\u05d9\u05df<\/span> (millin<\/span>). This word has, I conceive, been misunderstood in its being supposed to be no more than a word poetically substi<\/span>tuted for \u05d3\u05b8\u05bc\u05d1\u05b8\u05e8<\/span> (davar<\/span>), a word<\/em>. It is only used in poetry, and, as I think, only with reference to poetry. It is of very frequent occurrence in this book, and in every instance our word verse<\/em> seems <\/span>very suitably to express its meaning. Its root, \u05de\u05b8\u05dc\u05b7\u05dc<\/span> (malal<\/span>), though, used once in prose (Gen. 21:7<\/a>), (if indeed it be not verse, being a sort of song of thanksgiving), appears to have evident refere<\/span>nce to verse:\u2014\u201cWho would have uttered in verse<\/em> (i.e.<\/em>, who would have recited in prophetic strains) unto Abraham, that Sarah should have given children suck?\u201d The only other passages in which the word,<\/span> either as a noun or verb, occurs, except in this book, are,\u20142 Sam. 23:2<\/a>:\u2014<\/p>\n

\u201cThe Spirit of the Eternal spake by me;<\/p>\n

And his verse<\/em> was on my tongue.\u201d<\/p>\n

Ps. 19:4<\/a>:\u2014<\/p>\n

\u201cTheir line (chord) is gone out through a<\/span>ll the earth;<\/p>\n

And their verse<\/em> to the end of the world.\u201d<\/p>\n

Ps. 106:2<\/a>:\u2014<\/p>\n

\u201cWho can recite in verse<\/em> the mighty acts of the Eternal?<\/p>\n

Who can show forth all his praise?\u201d<\/p>\n

Ps. 139:4<\/a>:\u2014<\/p>\n

\u201cFor there is not a verse<\/em> o<\/span>n my tongue;<\/p>\n

But lo, thou, O Eternal, knowest it altogether.\u201d<\/p>\n

And Prov. 23:9<\/a>:\u2014<\/p>\n

\u201cSpeak not in the ears of a fool;<\/p>\n

For he will despise the wisdom of thy verse<\/em>.\u201d<\/p>\n

Some have considered this introduction as<\/span> highly courteous on the part of Eliphaz, but I think that the uncharitable character of the man at once betrays itself. He commences by insinuating (for his question is a decided insinuation) that, such is the irritable state of Job\u2019s mind <\/span>that, merely to attempt<\/em> to talk to him would be a ground of annoyance, and too severe a trial for his temper; and then, he immediately adds that (take it as Jo<\/span>b may) he will speak, it being impossible to forbear speaking; thus already implying that Job\u2019s language had been of that aggravating character that no one who had heard him could refrain from giving it a reply. This is concealed under the apology that, when once a poetic fire is kindled, there is no possibility of holding back uttera<\/span>nce.<\/p>\n

3<\/a>. Corrected many, i.e.<\/em>, set many right who were wrong, eit<\/span>her by argument, or, as magistrate, by reprimand, or by the infliction of penalties.<\/p>\n

Hands that were weak<\/em>,\u2014whether through sloth, or fear, or irresolution, or sorrow. Didst thou strengthen<\/em>,\u2014either by <\/span>admonition, or encouragement, or advice, or comfort, as the case might be. The tense may here denote habit,\u2014thou wast wont to strengthen<\/em>. And so in the following verse.<\/p>\n

5<\/a>. No irony can be more keen, n<\/span>o invective more bitter, than is conveyed in this and the following verse. It cometh, it toucheth, i.e.<\/em>, similar misfortune to that which has befallen others, which made their hands weak, and caused t<\/span>hem to stumble, &c., &c., and about which you were in the habit of giving such admirable advice, has now fallen upon you.<\/p>\n

6<\/a>. Rosenm\u00fcller is perhaps right in supposing that \u05ea\u05b4\u05bc\u05e7\u05b0\u05d5\u05b8\u05bd\u05ea\u05b0\u05da\u05b8<\/span> (tikwathecha<\/span>) i<\/span>s transposed, and should stand the last word in the verse; both the parallelism and the sense seem to require this. Would it not be more simple, however, to suppose that the right reading is \u05d5\u05b0\u05ea\u05b4\u05bc\u05e7\u05b0\u05d5\u05b8<\/span><\/span>\u05bd\u05ea\u05b0\u05da\u05b8 \u05ea\u05b9\u05bc\u05dd \u05d3\u05b0\u05bc\u05e8\u05b8\u05db\u05b6\u05d9\u05da\u05b8<\/span> (wetikwathecha tom deracheicha<\/span>)? This would remove all difficulties. The \u05d5<\/span> is supplied before \u05ea\u05b4\u05bc\u05e7\u05b0\u05d5\u05b8\u05bd\u05ea\u05b0\u05da\u05b8<\/span> in 166, 380; 586, 588, K., and 349 (before emendation) De R., and one M<\/span>S. of De R., omits the \u05d5<\/span> before \u05ea\u05b9\u05bc\u05dd<\/span>.<\/p>\n

Thy religion<\/em>,\u2014lit., thy fear, i.e., of God;<\/em> this word is frequently used in Scripture in precisely the same sense as our word religion<\/em>.<\/p>\n

7<\/a>. As, in the former verse<\/span>, Eliphaz insinuates that Job, being without confidence, was therefore without true religion, and that, having no hope, he was therefore very far from having that perfection which he had professed; so, in this verse, he lays <\/span>down the position which is maintained throughout the whole book by Job\u2019s antagonists,\u2014that no man falls into great misfortunes, except as a punishment for his sins; and Eliphaz here challenges Job to produce, if he can, an instance to the contrary. This opinion, so stoutly maintained by Eliphaz and his friends, is undoubtedly incorrect; yet it is some extenuation of their error, that in those days, God did inflict more su<\/span>mmary judgments upon grave offenders, than he does under the present dispensation. The fact of an innocent man being visited with great temporal calamities was apparently a puzzle even to Job himself.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

Effaced<\/em>,\u2014perhaps alluding to the entire extermination of Job\u2019s children, and so, in point of fact, to his extermination also.<\/p>\n

8<\/a>. The sense of this an<\/span>d the former verse seems to be,\u2014I think you cannot produce an instance of any blameless man having been ever visited with signal judgment, and, on the other hand, so far as my own experience extends, I have certainly obser<\/span>ved that the wicked do not go unpunished. If this therefore be true, (and of which I can have no doubt), it becomes a natural inference that your present calamities are a just visitation from heaven,\u2014the natural harvest, in short, of what you have sown.<\/span><\/p>\n

By the three gradations of ploughing, sowing<\/em>, and reaping<\/em>, we may probably understand, the devising of evil, then the perpet<\/span>ration of it, and then its punishment.<\/p>\n

That plough, &c<\/em>.\u2014i.e., fields of<\/em> iniquity.<\/p>\n

That sow, &c<\/em>.\u2014i.e., seeds of<\/em> trouble.<\/p>\n

Reap the same\u2014i.e.<\/em>, reap the fruits<\/em> of iniquity and of trouble.<\/p>\n

Rosenm\u00fcller refe<\/span>rs to the following passages as similar,\u2014Ps. 7:14\u201316<\/a>; Hosea 8:7<\/a>; 10:12<\/a>, 13<\/a>; and Gal. 6:8<\/a>.<\/p>\n

9<\/a>. Breath\u2014blast<\/em>. The metaphor of the preceding verse is in some measure continued; allusion is here evidently <\/span>made to those blighting winds which sometimes destroy corn and other similar crops.<\/p>\n

10<\/a>, 11<\/a>. The meaning of these verses appears to be, (with special reference to Job,)\u2014Retributive justice sooner or la<\/span>ter overtakes violent oppressors and their families; for God silences the insolent menaces of such men, deprives them of those means by which they inflicted injury upon others; and so, being no longer able to live by spoliation, they perish, and their families become dispersed.<\/span><\/p>\n

\u05e0\u05b4\u05ea\u05b8\u05bc\u05bd\u05e2\u05d5\u05bc<\/span> (nittagnou<\/span>),\u2014are broken<\/em>. This, of course, properly belongs to the last noun, but, by a figure sufficiently comm<\/span>on, applies also to the preceding nouns; the meaning if fully expressed would be, the roaring and the voice<\/em> &c. are stopped<\/em>, and the teeth<\/em> &c. are broken<\/em>. Schultens thinks that the metaphor of broken<\/em> <\/span>is not too bold as applied to roaring<\/em> and voice<\/em>, and not unaptly quotes Cicero in Sullana. Excutient tibi istam verborum jactationem<\/em>. And, Noli aculeos orationis me\u00e6, qui reconditi sunt, excussos arbi<\/em><\/span>trari<\/em>.<\/p>\n

We have in these verses, no less than five distinct names given to the lion; some of these certainly mark distinction of age, and others probably denote either sex or some characteristic peculi<\/span>arity. Thus the \u05db\u05b0\u05bc\u05e4\u05b4\u05d9\u05e8<\/span> (chephir<\/span>) is a young lion<\/em> older than the \u05d2\u05bc\u05d5\u05bc\u05e8<\/span> (gour<\/span>) or whelp<\/em> (which, however, is not mentioned here by name), but not come to full growth, old enough, however, to hunt prey f<\/span>or himself. The \u05d0\u05b2\u05e8\u05b4\u05d9<\/span> (ari<\/span>) appears to have been the ordinary generic name for the full-grown lion<\/em>, and \u05dc\u05b8\u05d1\u05b4\u05d9\u05d0<\/span> (lavi<\/span>) the proper denomination for a lioness<\/em>, as seems probable from Gen. 49:9<\/a>; Job 38:39<\/a><\/span>; and Ezekiel 19:2<\/a>, 3<\/a>, and especially from the latter passage, in which, I agree with Bochart, in thinking that the Masorites have been mistaken in their punctuation in substituting the anomalous femi<\/span>nine form \u05dc\u05b0\u05d1\u05b4\u05d9\u05b8\u05bc\u05d0<\/span> (levia<\/span>) for \u05dc\u05b8\u05d1\u05b4\u05d9\u05d0<\/span> (lavi<\/span>). In this latter passage we have a grouping of the four names of the lion just specified. \u201cAnd say, What is thy mother? A lioness<\/em> (\u05dc\u05b0\u05d1\u05b4\u05d9\u05b8\u05bc\u05d0<\/span> levia<\/span>); she<\/em> lay <\/span>down among lions<\/em> (\u05d0\u05b2\u05e8\u05b8\u05d9\u05d5\u05b9\u05ea<\/span> araioth<\/span>); she<\/em> nourished her whelps<\/em> (\u05d2\u05bc\u05d5\u05bc\u05e8\u05b6\u05d9\u05d4\u05b8<\/span> goureiah<\/span>) among young lions<\/em> (\u05db\u05b0\u05bc\u05e4\u05b4\u05d9\u05e8\u05b4\u05d9\u05dd<\/span> chephirim<\/span>). And she brought up one of her whelps<\/em>: it became a young lion<\/em>, and it learne<\/em><\/span>d to catch the prey<\/em>, it devoured men.\u201d It is more difficult to determine what kind of<\/em> lion is meant by \u05e9\u05b8\u05c1\u05d7\u05b7\u05dc<\/span> (shakhal<\/span>), or why it is so called; Bochart\u2019s conjecture is not improbable, that it may be <\/span>the dark coloured lion<\/em> from \u05e9\u05b8\u05c1\u05d7\u05b7\u05e8<\/span> (shakhar<\/span>) to be black<\/em>, the liquids \u05dc<\/span> (l<\/span>) and \u05e8<\/span> (r<\/span>) being interchanged. The \u05dc\u05b7\u05d9\u05b4\u05e9\u05c1<\/span> (laish<\/span>) has been presumed by some to be an old decrepid lion<\/em>, one so worn out as to<\/span> be no longer able to hunt prey for himself; this supposition has been derived chiefly from this present passage in Job, but it is amply confuted by reference to Prov. 30:30<\/a>. \u201cA lion (\u05dc\u05b7\u05d9\u05b4\u05e9\u05c1<\/span> laish<\/span>) wh<\/span>ich is strongest<\/em> among beasts, and turneth not away from any.\u201d We may therefore rather infer from this latter passage that the \u05dc\u05b7\u05d9\u05b4\u05e9\u05c1<\/span> (laish<\/span>) is the strongest species of lion<\/em>, and this view of it acco<\/span>rds well with our text.<\/p>\n

12<\/a>. The vision, of which we have an account in this and the following verses, seems to have been narrated by Eliphaz in order to prove, upon Divine authority, that, after all, <\/span>the very best of men are full of faults in the sight of a holy God; and so, no man may think himself so good as to claim exemption from the common and just fate of all mortals. The tacit inference, I suppose to be, that Job had flattered himself that his professions of superior sanctity ought to have procured for him an immunity from many of those troubles to which flesh <\/span>is heir; if such have been his notions, (Eliphaz implies,) let him now learn, from a Divine oracle, and from his present perishing condition, how thoroughly he has been mistaken.<\/span><\/p>\n

There is no ground for supposing that the visio<\/span>n here introduced was a fiction on the part of Eliphaz, for such visions were common in those days; and moreover the narrative before us has many internal marks of truthfulness. The simplicity of the style, its circumstances of awe, and the import<\/span>ant truths conveyed by it, are evidences in favor of its reality,\u2014to say nothing of the fact, that, had it been an invention, the narrator would have contrived to make the application to Job more direct.<\/span><\/p>\n

A communication<\/em>,\u2014\u05d3\u05b8\u05bc\u05d1\u05b8\u05e8<\/span> (davar<\/span>) lit., a word;<\/em> but it here means, as it often does, an oracular communication from God<\/em>.<\/p>\n

Also, i.e.<\/em>, besides my experie<\/span>nce derived from personal observation (and about which I have just spoken), I have also<\/em> had a direct revelation from heaven which bears upon the subject.<\/p>\n

\u05d9\u05b0\u05d2\u05bb\u05e0\u05b8\u05bc\u05bd\u05d1<\/span> (yegunnav<\/span>)\u2014was unawares made;<\/em> or as <\/span>we should say, and which is perhaps a more exact rendering of the Hebrew,\u2014it stole upon me<\/em>, or, as it is passive,\u2014it was smuggled in upon me, i.e.<\/em>, it came upon me unexpectedly, and without any seekin<\/span>g on my part.<\/p>\n

In using this expression, Eliphaz, I think, implies that he had had this vision since the time of his visit to Job, and that it had come to him without any prayer on his part, and was th<\/span>erefore the more remarkable and the more worthy of Job\u2019s attention.<\/p>\n

\u05de\u05b6\u05e0\u05b5\u05d4\u05d5\u05bc<\/span> (menehou<\/span>) is instead of \u05de\u05b4\u05e0\u05b0\u05bc\u05d4\u05d5\u05bc<\/span> (minnchou<\/span>), a form which occurs in Ps. 68:24<\/a>.<\/p>\n

13<\/a>. From visions<\/em>, \u05de\u05b5\u05bd\u05d7\u05b6\u05d6\u05b0\u05d9\u05d5\u05b9\u05e0\u05d5\u05b9\u05ea<\/span> (mekhezionot<\/span><\/span>h<\/span>). The force of \u05de\u05b4\u05df<\/span> (min<\/span>) gives the sense here,\u2014thoughts arising out of visions<\/em>. Umbreit understands it as meaning before visions<\/em>, but \u05de\u05b4\u05df<\/span> cannot have the sense of before<\/em>, though it might have the se<\/span>nse of apart from<\/em>,\u2014but I prefer here, out of<\/em>.<\/p>\n

\u05e9\u05b0\u05c2\u05e2\u05b4\u05e4\u05b4\u05bc\u05d9\u05dd<\/span> (segnippim<\/span>) are, in the first instance, branches<\/em>, then branchings of the mind<\/em>,\u2014or, as we might say, ramifications of thought<\/em>.<\/p>\n

14<\/a>. The whole of <\/em><\/span>my bones<\/em>,\u2014lit., the multitude of my bones<\/em>.<\/p>\n

15<\/a>. A spirit<\/em>. Rosenm\u00fcller suggests that \u05e8\u05d5\u05bc\u05d7\u05b7<\/span> (ruakh<\/span>) might here be translated wind<\/em>, rather than spirit<\/em>, and refers to 1 Kings 19:11<\/a>, and Acts 2:2<\/a>, as eviden<\/span>ce to show that literal wind has sometimes preceded manifestations of Deity; and to Isaiah 21:1<\/a>, where the verb \u05d7\u05b8\u05dc\u05b7\u05e3<\/span> (khalaph<\/span>) is used with reference to wind. Lee is unnecessarily severe upon Rosenm\u00fc<\/span>ller for the suggestion.<\/p>\n

16<\/a>. \u05d3\u05b0\u05bc\u05de\u05b8\u05de\u05b8\u05d4<\/span> (demamah<\/span>)\u2014a lull after a storm;<\/em> so Ps. 107:29<\/a>. Compare the \u05e7\u05d5\u05b9\u05dc \u05d3\u05b0\u05bc\u05de\u05b8\u05de\u05b8\u05d7<\/span> (kol demamah<\/span>) in 1 Kings 19:12<\/a>,\u2014the still small voice<\/em> which Elijah heard immediately afte<\/span>r the violent wind that rent the rocks in pieces.<\/p>\n

I heard a still voice<\/em>,\u2014lit., I heard stillness, and a voice;<\/em> or it may be translated\u2014There was a lull, and I heard a voice<\/em>.<\/p>\n

17<\/a>. The authorized version<\/span> renders this verse, Shall mortal man be more just than God? shall a man be more pure than his maker?<\/em> This translation is not incorrect, as far as grammar is concerned; but the objections to it are, t<\/span>hat no sane man would ever have supposed that he was more just and more pure than God, and so it was not necessary that any revelation should be made on the subject. Moreover, the rendering which I have adopted accords better with the next verse. The preposition <\/span>\u05de\u05b4\u05df<\/span> (min<\/span>) in \u05de\u05b5\u05bd\u05d0\u05b1\u05dc\u05d5\u05b9\u05d4\u05b7\u05bc<\/span> (meeloah<\/span>) is here equivalent to \u05e2\u05b4\u05dd<\/span> (gnim<\/span>) or \u05dc\u05b4\u05e4\u05b0\u05e0\u05b5\u05d9<\/span> (liphenei<\/span>); it has manifestly that sense, as Rosenm\u00fcller s<\/span>hows, in Numb. 32:22<\/a>, and in Jer. 51:5<\/a>. Compare the present passage with 9:2<\/a>. Or the force of \u05de\u05b4\u05df<\/span> (min<\/span>) here is,\u2014Shall a mortal be just (i.e.<\/em>, pronounced such) by a verdict from<\/em> God?<\/p>\n

\u05d0\u05b1\u05e0\u05d5\u05b9\u05e9\u05c1<\/span> (enosh<\/span>) i<\/span>s sometimes used in poetry in an individual sense, and I have preferred so to render it here, i.e.<\/em>, a mortal<\/em>, as the parallelism is better preserved. \u05d2\u05b6\u05bc\u05d1\u05b6\u05e8<\/span> (gever<\/span>) is a man<\/em> who has all the characteri<\/span>stics of what we understand by the term manliness<\/em>.<\/p>\n

18<\/a>. These words are clearly a continuation of the oracular revelation made to Eliphaz, as no uninspired man could have made the assertion they contai<\/span>n.<\/p>\n

Servants<\/em>. Angelic ministers, as the parallelism points out.<\/p>\n

Putteth no trust<\/em>. Does not count them so secure in their standing as to depend upon them with full confidence. Of course this is speaking<\/span> in some degree after the manner of men.<\/p>\n

With folly<\/em>,\u2014\u05ea\u05b8\u05bc\u05bd\u05d4\u05b3\u05dc\u05b8\u05d4<\/span> (taholah<\/span>) does not occur elsewhere in Scripture; various renderings have been given to it, for the most part guesses, such as default, de<\/em><\/span>fect<\/em>, &c., none of them probably far from the truth; the most apparently accurate supposition is that it is a form from \u05d4\u05b7\u05dc\u05b8\u05dc<\/span> (halal<\/span>), and so that it means folly<\/em>\u2014folly, however, negative rather than p<\/span>ositive\u2014deficiency of wisdom, but not vice. God sees in his angels an incapacity to act with the same perfect wisdom which he himself possesses.<\/p>\n

19<\/a>. Much more<\/em>. Supply, \u05db\u05b4\u05bc\u05d9\u05be\u05d9\u05b8\u05e9\u05b4\u05c2\u05d9\u05dd \u05ea\u05b8\u05bc\u05bd\u05d4\u05b3\u05dc\u05b8\u05d4 \u05d1\u05b0 \u05d5\u05d2\u05d5\u05f4<\/span> (<\/span>chi yasim taholah vc<\/span>, &c<\/em>.), he chargeth with folly<\/em>\u2014\u05d0\u05b7\u05e3<\/span> (aph<\/span>) for \u05d0\u05b7\u05e3 \u05db\u05b4\u05bc\u05d9<\/span> (aph chi<\/span>). Compare the parallel places, 15:16<\/a>; 25:6<\/a>.<\/p>\n

The foundation whereof<\/em> \u05d0\u05b2\u05e9\u05b6\u05c1\u05e8<\/span> (asher<\/span>) may relate either to \u05e9\u05b9\u05bd\u05c1\u05db\u05b0\u05e0\u05b5\u05d9<\/span> (sho<\/span><\/span>chenei<\/span>) dwellers<\/em>, or to \u05d1\u05b8\u05bc\u05bd\u05ea\u05b5\u05bc\u05d9<\/span> (bottei<\/span>) houses;<\/em> with Rosenm\u00fcller, I prefer the latter, as foundations are applied more properly to houses than to inhabitants. By houses of clay are of course meant o<\/span>ur frail bodies. Comp. 2 Cor. 5:1<\/a>.<\/p>\n

\u05d9\u05b0\u05d3\u05b7\u05db\u05b0\u05bc\u05d0\u05d5\u05bc\u05dd<\/span> (yedacheoum<\/span>). Lit., they crush them<\/em>, that is, anybody crushes them;<\/em> and so the meaning is, they get crushed<\/em>.<\/p>\n

\u05dc\u05b4\u05e4\u05b0\u05e0\u05b5\u05d9<\/span> (liphenei<\/span>). Generally translated bef<\/em><\/span>ore<\/em>. The objection is, that it is untrue that a moth<\/em>\u2014\u05e2\u05b8\u05e9\u05c1<\/span> (gnash<\/span>)\u2014ever destroys either houses or bodies; besides, \u05d3\u05b4\u05bc\u05db\u05b5\u05bc\u05d0<\/span> (dichhe<\/span>), he crushed<\/em>, cannot with any propriety be referred to the action of a<\/span> moth; \u05dc\u05b4\u05e4\u05b0\u05e0\u05b5\u05d9<\/span> (liphenei<\/span>), therefore, must be understood here in its rather unusual sense of the Latin instar<\/em>. (See note on 3:24<\/span><\/a>.)<\/p>\n

20<\/a>. From morning to evening<\/em>. Man\u2019s life, at longest, is but as a day <\/span>(Ps. 90:5<\/a>, 6<\/a>), and during the short span usually allotted, he is liable at any moment to destruction, so frail is the material of which he is composed.<\/p>\n

After \u05de\u05b5\u05e9\u05b4\u05c2\u05d9\u05dd<\/span> (mesim<\/span>) supply \u05dc\u05b5\u05d1<\/span> (lev<\/span>). \u05dc\u05b8\u05e0\u05b6\u05e6\u05b7\u05d7<\/span> <\/span>(lanetsakh<\/span>), lit., unto completion<\/em>, so, adverbially, completely<\/em> or utterly<\/em>.<\/p>\n

21<\/a>. The pre-eminence they had<\/em>\u2014lit., their pre-eminence in them<\/em>. Whatever they peculiarly excelled in; their prestige<\/em>, perhap<\/span>s, would express the original.<\/p>\n

As \u05d9\u05b6\u05ea\u05b6\u05e8<\/span> (yether<\/span>) means the cord of a tent<\/em> as well as excellency<\/em>, and \u05e0\u05b8\u05e1\u05b7\u05e2<\/span> (nasagn<\/span>) means in its primary sense to pull up the stakes of a tent<\/em>, in order to departure, s<\/span>ome comparison may be intended here between death and the removal of a tent. Compare 2 Cor. 5:1<\/a>.<\/p>\n

And not in wisdom<\/em>. Their life has been a continued course of vanity and folly, and such also is their d<\/span>eath: the vanity of all that they prided themselves about is then made apparent.<\/p>\n

\n
\n
\n

Job 5<\/a><\/p>\n

1<\/a>. Summon now<\/em>. \u05e7\u05b8\u05e8\u05b8\u05d0<\/span> (kara<\/span>) is evidently to be taken here in its forensic sense, i.e.<\/em>, call<\/em> to a judicial tribunal. The force of \u05e0\u05b8\u05d0<\/span> (na<\/span>) here is excessively ironical. You Job wish to arraign the justice of God, now<\/em> do it, if you can, after such a statement as you have just heard from heaven.<\/p>\n

If there be any to answer thee<\/em>. If you do issue the summons (as in truth you had best do (\u05e0\u05b8\u05d0<\/span>)), are you certain that, there is any who will undertake the office of respondent to you, and who, on the part of God, will accept the challenge you make, and be his advocate?<\/p>\n

And to which of the holy ones <\/em>wilt thou turn?<\/em> And when you have found a respondent, what angel or good man will you call in, to conduct the case for you, and proceed with you in judgment against God; what angel or good man will advocate your principles?<\/p>\n

The sense of the verse is difficult, owing to the ambiguity that attaches to the meaning of the word \u05e7\u05b0\u05d3\u05e9\u05b4\u05c1\u05d9\u05dd<\/span> (kedoshim<\/span>), holy ones<\/em>. It evidently refers to God<\/em> in Prov. 9:10<\/a> and 30:3<\/a>; to saints<\/em> or pious persons in Ps. 16:3<\/a> and 34:10<\/a> (9<\/a>, in the auth. vers.); and to angels<\/em> in this book, 15:15<\/a> (if, at least, we adopt the reading of the Keri. See the note<\/span><\/a> on that verse). Angels<\/em> are probably meant in this instance\u2014a probability which is grounded on the apparent reference of the word to the beings spoken of in 5:18<\/a> of the former chapter. It is possible, however, that both sai<\/em>nts<\/em> and angels<\/em> may be intended here by \u05e7\u05b0\u05d3\u05e9\u05b4\u05c1\u05d9\u05dd<\/span> (kedoshim<\/span>). The probable connexion with the next verse gives some countenance to this view.<\/p>\n

2<\/a>. \u05db\u05b7\u05bc\u05e2\u05b7\u05e9\u05c2<\/span> (chagnas<\/span>) and \u05e7\u05b4\u05e0\u05b0\u05d0\u05b8\u05d4<\/span> (kineah<\/span>). It is difficult to determine whether these words here mean, 1st, that indignation<\/em> which God has against sin, and that jealousy<\/em> for his honor, both which provoke him to destroy the sinner who has been so foolish as to excite his just anger; or 2dly, that indignation<\/em> and jealousy<\/em> which are generally conceived by their fellow men towards those, and especially the wicked, who are in prosperity, and which not unfrequently prove the occasion of their ruin by stirring up enemies against them; or, lastly, that indignation<\/em> and jealousy<\/em> which foolish men entertain, when they are in great trouble, and which, filling them with rage and irritation against the God who afflicts them, and with discontent with their lot, and fretful envyings and repinings at the happiness of others, not unfrequently, hasten their death.<\/p>\n

The first and second of these views appear to be the most in accordance both with the previous and the following context. The \u05db\u05b4\u05bc\u05d9<\/span> (chi<\/span>) for<\/em> seems to have this force,\u2014it is useless your attempting to arraign God, or to appeal to any in support of your cause. Every one, whether it be God, or angels, or pious persons, will be against you; and why? Because<\/em> (or for<\/em>, \u05db\u05b4\u05bc\u05d9<\/span> (chi<\/span>)), the indignation and the jealousy of all are stirred up against a wicked fool (thus Eliphaz implies that Job was such), and so far from any being disposed to befriend him, all will be found ready to fight against him and destroy him.<\/p>\n

\u05d0\u05b1\u05d5\u05b4\u05d9\u05dc<\/span> (awil<\/span>)\u2014the fool<\/em>. The book of Proverbs thoroughly exposes the moral turpitude attaching to such a character, by pointing out, his contempt for true wisdom (Prov. 1:7<\/a>); his talkativeness (10:8<\/a>); his self conceit (12:15<\/a>); his irritability of temper (12:16<\/a>, and 27:3<\/a>); his pride (14:3<\/a>); his deceitfulness (14:8<\/a>); his ridicule of sin (14:9<\/a>); his delight in vain conversation (15:14<\/a>); his error and fretfulness against God (19:3<\/a>); his meddling disposition (20:3<\/a>); the sinfulness of his thoughts (24:9<\/a>); and his incorrigibleness (24:11<\/a>, and 27:22<\/a>). In all these passages the words used are either \u05d0\u05b1\u05d5\u05b4\u05d9\u05dc<\/span> (awil<\/span>) a fool<\/em> or \u05d0\u05b4\u05d5\u05b6\u05bc\u05dc\u05b6\u05ea<\/span> (iwweleth<\/span>), folly<\/em>.<\/p>\n

\u05e4\u05b9\u05bc\u05ea\u05b6\u05d4<\/span> (potheh<\/span>)\u2014the simpleton<\/em>. One who is easily duped\u2014an easy prey to temptation; perhaps here, one who is so silly as to suppose that his prosperity will last for ever.<\/p>\n

This character, also, is well portrayed in the Proverbs, where he is called \u05e4\u05b6\u05bc\u05ea\u05b4\u05d9<\/span> (pethi<\/span>). He is soon enticed by temptation (Prov. 9:14\u201318<\/a>); is credulous (14:15<\/a>); easily decoyed by flattery (7:7<\/a>, &c., &c.); and is heedless (22:3<\/a>).<\/p>\n

3<\/a>. Eliphaz again refers to his own personal observation. As a proof (he says) how true it is that a wicked fool has no friends to whom he can turn, and how exposed he is, on account of that indignation and jealousy that all feel when they see him in prosperity, I may mention, that in my own case, whenever I have seen a rich fool prospering, I have at once expressed my feelings, by foreboding that misfortune would soon overtake him.<\/p>\n

I myself<\/em>. The \u05d0\u05b2\u05e0\u05b4\u05d9<\/span> (ani<\/span>) marks emphasis.<\/p>\n

Homestead<\/em>. This appears to me exactly to suit the word \u05e0\u05b8\u05d5\u05b6\u05d4<\/span>(naweh<\/span>), a pleasant, snug habitation, surrounded with every convenience.<\/p>\n

I doomed<\/em>. I declared very positively, and without hesitation, that a curse would fall upon that man\u2019s house. I knew that it was doomed to destruction, and said so. I said (and certainly with some inward satisfaction), at the time that I saw his great prosperity, \u201cHis children are far from safety,\u201d &c., &c. (See the Illustrations<\/a>.)<\/p>\n

4<\/a>. The words which Eliphaz said, either to himself or to others, when he foretold the doom of some prosperous fool.<\/p>\n

His children, &c<\/em>. This is severely pointed against Job, though there is just enough variety in the case to prevent its being too marked.<\/p>\n

Crushed in the gate<\/em>. Involved in utter ruin by losing their cause in a court of justice. \u05e9\u05b7\u05c1\u05e2\u05b7\u05e8<\/span> (shagnar<\/span>)\u2014the gate<\/em>\u2014the place where all causes were tried, and judgment given. See Deut. 25:7<\/a>; Job 31:21<\/a>; Prov. 22:22<\/a>; Is. 29:21<\/a>; and Amos 5:10<\/a>, 12<\/a>, 15<\/a>.<\/p>\n

5<\/a>. His harvest<\/em>, lit., whose harvest<\/em>. To avoid ambiguity, I have substituted the possessive for the relative pronoun.<\/p>\n

Out of the very spikes<\/em>, lit., even up to out of spikes<\/em>\u2014the full meaning of which appears to be,\u2014the famished thief will venture right up to the spiked enclosure where the grain is stored, and will succeed in carrying it off.<\/p>\n

\u05e6\u05b4\u05e0\u05b4\u05bc\u05d9\u05dd<\/span> (tsinnim<\/span>)\u2014spikes<\/em>. (See the Illustrations<\/a>.)<\/p>\n

\u05e6\u05b7\u05de\u05b4\u05bc\u05d9\u05dd<\/span> (tsammim<\/span>). This word has sorely perplexed all commentators. Lee takes it from \u05e6\u05d5\u05bc\u05dd<\/span> (tsoum<\/span>) (of course rejecting the points), and translates fasting<\/em>, which, he considers, forms a good parallelism with \u05e8\u05b8\u05e2\u05b5\u05d1<\/span> (ragnev<\/span>) the hungry<\/em>. On the same ground many translate, thirsting<\/em>, as if from \u05e6\u05b8\u05de\u05b5\u05d0<\/span> (t<\/span>sam\u00e9<\/span>). The ancient versions, except the Chaldee, favor this view; but the great objection to it is, that \u05e6\u05b0\u05de\u05b5\u05d0\u05b4\u05d9\u05dd<\/span> (tsemeim<\/span>) should in that ease have been the reading. Others translate, robber<\/em>, from the Arabic \u05e6\u05de\u05dd<\/span> (tsmm<\/span>), he struck with a club, stone<\/em>, or sword;<\/em> or from the Arabic \u05e6\u05b8\u05de\u05b4\u05d9\u05dd<\/span> (tsamim<\/span>) a hardy, mighty man<\/em>. Others again, understand, a trap, from \u05e6\u05b8\u05de\u05b7\u05dd<\/span> (tsamam<\/span>), to weave, to<\/em> twine, &c. That\u05e6\u05b8\u05de\u05b7\u05dd<\/span> (tsamam<\/span>) is the root I have no doubt, and that \u05e6\u05b7\u05de\u05b4\u05bc\u05d9\u05dd<\/span> (tsammim<\/span>) is a noun of the same form as \u05e6\u05b7\u05d3\u05b4\u05bc\u05d9\u05e7<\/span> (tsaddik<\/span>); but it strikes me that both the sense and the parallelism here require a person and not a thing\u2014and therefore I would understand, a person weaving<\/em> or plotting evil devices\u2014a schemer<\/em> or an entrapper;<\/em> the cognate \u05d6\u05b8\u05de\u05b7\u05dd<\/span> (zamam<\/span>) particularly favors this signification.<\/p>\n

Hath gaped<\/span>. The schemer has already set his heart upon getting their property, and notwithstanding their present security, is already concerting measures to possess himself of it, so soon as opportunity shall present itself.<\/p>\n

6<\/a>. Eliphaz having ministered reproof, now proceeds to give counsel. From this verse to ver. 17<\/a>, he advises Job to commit himself to God; and then, from ver. 17<\/a> to the end of the chapter, to submit himself to Him.<\/p>\n

Though<\/em>. I so translate \u05db\u05b4\u05bc\u05d9<\/span> (chi<\/span>) here, because I take \u05d0\u05d5\u05bc\u05dc\u05b8\u05dd<\/span> (oulam<\/span>) yet<\/em>, in ver. 8<\/a> to be its apodosis. It is the rendering of the authorized version; but there is some difficulty connected with it, which I wonder commentators should have left unnoticed.<\/p>\n

Iniquity cometh not forth<\/em>, &c., &c<\/em>. Eliphaz seems to allude here to what he had said in chap. 4:8<\/a>:\u2014\u201cThey that plough ini<\/em>quity, and they that sow trouble, reap the same<\/em>.\u201d And therefore he means here that the harvest of iniquity and trouble which men reap is not, after all, the spontaneous produce of the ground. Man may reap it, but it is of his own sowing; and so its cause must be referred not to the earth, but to himself.<\/p>\n

7<\/a>. But<\/em>. \u05db\u05b4\u05bc\u05d9<\/span> (chi<\/span>) has this adversative sense here, as it follows a negation; its more ordinary meaning, for<\/em>, would, however, perhaps be equally suitable, nor would the sense be materially changed.<\/p>\n

Man is born unto trouble<\/em>. Not born into the condition of it, but born to it, as a child is born to a parent; in other words, man is the child of trouble<\/em>. It is as much part and parcel of his nature, as it is of the nature of sparks that they take the same direction as the parent flame from which they spring, and which is upward. Eliphaz makes an omission here, which he leaves to be supplied by obvious inference from the parallelism, which would be otherwise incomplete. The omission may be thus supplied:\u2014<\/p>\n

\u201cIniquity cometh not forth of the dust;<\/p>\n

[Therefore] neither doth trouble spring out of the ground.<\/p>\n

But man is naturally a child of trouble<\/p>\n

[Because he is naturally a child of iniquity].\u201d<\/p>\n

That is, though a man reaps a harvest of troubles arising from iniquities, yet he must not refer either of these to the chance productions of the earth, but must refer them to himself. Sin and sorrow, which are as cause and effect, are both of them elements of his nature.<\/p>\n

The sparks of the flame<\/em>, \u05d1\u05b0\u05bc\u05e0\u05b5\u05d9 \u05e8\u05b6\u05e9\u05b6\u05c1\u05e3<\/span> (benei resheph<\/span>), lit., the sons of the flame<\/em>. There is no doubt that \u05e8\u05b6\u05e9\u05b6\u05c1\u05e3<\/span> (resheph<\/span>) means something that is ignited;<\/em> and so, the sons of anything ignited<\/em> will, in accordance with Hebrew phraseology, be sparks<\/em>. Some prefer to make \u05e8\u05b6\u05e9\u05b6\u05c1\u05e3<\/span> (resheph<\/span>) mean a bird<\/em>, but without sufficient authority.<\/p>\n

\u05d9\u05d5\u05bc\u05dc\u05b7\u05bc\u05d3<\/span> (youllad<\/span>). If this be the Pret. Pual of \u05d9\u05b8\u05dc\u05b7\u05d3<\/span> (yalad<\/span>), then \u05d5\u05bc<\/span> is substituted by a Chaldaism for \u05bb<\/span>; or if it be the Fut. Hophal, then the Dagesh is superfluous.<\/p>\n

8<\/a>. Yet would I seek<\/em>, &<\/em>c<\/em>., &c<\/em>.,\u2014i.e<\/em>., Although the sum and substance of all that I have told you is, that man is naturally a sinner, and as such is naturally exposed to trouble, yet, for all that, I would, on many accounts, when in trouble, refer the whole of my case to God.<\/p>\n

Would I<\/em>. \u05d0\u05b2\u05e0\u05b4\u05d9<\/span> (ani<\/span>) is emphatic. Whatever others might be disposed to do, at all events I<\/em>, under such circumstances, would, &c., &c.<\/p>\n

9<\/a>. Eliphaz now states reasons why Job might confidently commit his cause to God.<\/p>\n

This verse is a general statement of God\u2019s power, wisdom, &c. The particulars follow.<\/p>\n

And unsearchable<\/em>,\u2014lit., and there is no search<\/em>ing out<\/em>.<\/p>\n

Out of number<\/em>,\u2014lit., till there be no numbering<\/em>.<\/p>\n

Notwithstanding that the telescope and microscope have searched out and counted almost infinitely more than Eliphaz knew of God\u2019s great and wonderful things, yet the statement of this verse is doubtlessly as true now, as when it was first made: his great things are still unsearchable, his marvellous things incalculable.<\/p>\n

10<\/a>. Eliphaz instances rain as one of God\u2019s great and marvellous things. By rain, understand also its effects. It is frequently spoken of as being God\u2019s gift. (Ps. 48:9<\/a>; Isa. 5:6<\/a>; Jer. 5:24<\/a>, 14:22<\/a>; 1 Kings 17:1<\/a>; Amos 4:8<\/a>;Matt. 5:45<\/a>; Acts 14:17<\/a>; James 5:17<\/a>.)<\/p>\n

Waters<\/em>. Rivers, &c.<\/p>\n

The country<\/em>. \u05d7\u05d5\u05bc\u05e6\u05d5\u05b9\u05ea<\/span> (khoutsoth<\/span>), outside places<\/em>.<\/p>\n

11<\/a>. Setting<\/em>, \u05dc\u05b8\u05e9\u05c2\u05d5\u05bc\u05dd<\/span> (lasoum<\/span>). This is connected with the ninth rather than the tenth verse.\u05dc\u05b0<\/span> (le<\/span>) may be supplied, from the former hemistich, before \u05d9\u05b6\u05e9\u05b7\u05c1\u05e2<\/span> (yeshagn<\/span>).<\/p>\n

Setting on high<\/em>, &c<\/em>. Another proof that God does great things and unsearchable, &c., derived, not from the consideration of any of his works of creation, as in the former verse, but from that of his works of providence.<\/p>\n

12<\/a>. \u05ea\u05bc\u05d5\u05bc\u05e9\u05b4\u05c1\u05d9\u05b8\u05bc\u05d4<\/span> (toushiyah<\/span>). This word has given some trouble. I think that our word reality<\/em> exactly expresses it.<\/p>\n

Do nothing real<\/em>. Do nothing to any purpose. They are not suffered to carry out their intentions.<\/p>\n

13<\/a>. Taking<\/em>. Snaring them in their own nets. Quoted by St. Paul, 1 Cor. 3:19<\/a>.<\/p>\n

\u05e0\u05b4\u05e4\u05b0\u05ea\u05b8\u05bc\u05dc\u05b4\u05d9\u05dd<\/span> (niphtalim<\/span>). Intricate men\u2014men of complicated designs, intriguers<\/em>.<\/p>\n

Goeth headlong<\/em>, or gets precipitated<\/em>. Their plans are ruined by the very rashness of their design and the hastiness of their execution; and by all this, God\u2019s purposes are fulfilled.<\/p>\n

14<\/a>. This hallucination is judicial. In the clearest light they are unable to see, and so, knock against objects as though it were dark; or should this make them more wary, they can only grope. The sense of the passage is, that God disconcerts their wicked devices, by causing them to stumble upon difficulties where there are really no difficulties at all, and by utterly perplexing them, when, in point of fact, there is no reason for such perplexity.<\/p>\n

15<\/a>. I have but little hesitation in adopting the change of punctuation of \u05de\u05b5\u05d7\u05b6\u05e8\u05b6\u05d1<\/span> (mekherev<\/span>) from <\/em>the sword<\/em>, originally proposed by Capellus, and supported by Michaelis, Dathe, D\u00f6derlein, Hufnagel, &c., and reading \u05de\u05b8\u05bd\u05d7\u05b3\u05e8\u05b8\u05d1<\/span> (mohhorav<\/span>) the desolated<\/em>, or the laid waste<\/em>. This restores the parallelism; avoids the awkwardness of having to supply, in the first clause, \u05d0\u05b6\u05d1\u05b0\u05d9\u05d5\u05b9\u05df<\/span> (avion<\/span>) the needy<\/em>, out of the second; gets over the difficulty of the awkward construction of \u05de\u05b5\u05d7\u05b6\u05e8\u05b6\u05d1 \u05de\u05b4\u05e4\u05b4\u05bc\u05d9\u05d4\u05b6\u05dd<\/span> (mekherev mi<\/span>ppihem<\/span>) from the sword, from their mouth;<\/em> and disembarrasses the whole verse, about which, Schultens confesses\u2014\u201cImpeditior nexus, nec sensus usque quoque liquidus.\u201d<\/p>\n

From their mouth,\u2014i.e.<\/em>, from the devices which they had concerted together.<\/p>\n

From the hand of the strong<\/em>. Preventing the execution of their devices.<\/p>\n

16<\/a>. \u05d3\u05b8\u05bc\u05dc<\/span> (dal<\/span>), destitute, penniless, utterly devoid of any earthly resources whatever<\/em>. For such an one there is hope, for God can be everything to him.<\/p>\n

So there is hope<\/em>, &c<\/em>.,\u2014i.e.<\/em>, God\u2019s ordinary providential dealings, by which, he disappoints designing men, and rescues their intended victims out of their hands, furnish, if rightly considered, a strong ground of hope to those who are reduced, and in themselves helpless.<\/p>\n

Thus has Eliphaz made out his reasons why Job should address himself to God. The observation both of God\u2019s works and ways tends to show that He is infinite in power and goodness; and therefore any sincerely upright person may, in his deepest distresses, approach Him with hopefulness. I think it is evident that, in the administration of this good advice and apparent consolation to Job on the part of Eliphaz, there is in the mind of the latter an undercurrent of uncharitable suspicion, the purport of which is,\u2014if you, Job, are the victim of misfortune\u2014if you are sincerely upright\u2014you will cherish this hope, and, instead of inveighing against God, you will commit yourself to Him; but it may be that you have been a crafty and designing man, and that God has, in these terrible afflictions, been disappointing all your purposes: I do not say that there is hope for you under such circumstances.<\/p>\n

And iniquity stoppeth her mouth<\/em>. Iniquity (which is here personified), perceiving how manifestly God\u2019s hand is against her, is forced, in spite of herself, to be silent.<\/p>\n

17<\/a>. Behold<\/em>. A remarkable sight, an afflicted man blessed. Compare the paradoxes, Matt. 5:1\u201312<\/a>.<\/p>\n

Despise not<\/em>. The verb \u05de\u05b8\u05d0\u05b7\u05dd<\/span> (maas<\/span>) contains the many ideas of despising, loathing, rejecting<\/em>, andslighting;<\/em> and so the passage before us may mean,\u2014Do not, through pride, despise<\/em> God\u2019s correction as a thing to be ashamed of; or, Do not loathe<\/em> it as a man nauseates physic; or, Do not reject<\/em> it as a thing that is useless; or, Do not slight<\/em> it as a thing which may be passed by unnoticed.<\/p>\n

Blessed is the man<\/em>, &c<\/em>. Eliphaz, having advised Job to commit himself to God, now proceeds to advise him to submit himself to Him; and he recommends this duty, by pointing out the blessings that result when affliction is taken in good part.<\/p>\n

18<\/a>. For<\/em>. One reason why an afflicted man should submit himself to God.<\/p>\n

He putteth to pain<\/em>, or He hurteth<\/em>. This second rendering would well suit 2 Kings 3:19<\/a>:\u2014\u201cAnd hurt<\/em> every good piece of land with stones.\u201d<\/p>\n

Make whole<\/em>. The first meaning of \u05e8\u05b8\u05e4\u05b8\u05d0<\/span> (rapha<\/span>) is to sew<\/em>, then to sew up a wound<\/em>, then metaph. to heal<\/em>.<\/p>\n

19<\/a>. In six distresses<\/em>. A definite number for an indefinite. However many your afflictions, you shall be delivered out of all, and in none of them will there be anything that is really evil.<\/p>\n

20<\/a>. Famine<\/em>, and war<\/em>. Two signal public calamities.<\/p>\n

In Hebrew face, mouth<\/em>, and hands<\/em> are attributed to the sword. By the first expression we may understand its being unsheathed for action; by the second, its devouring power; and by the third, its stroke.<\/p>\n

21<\/a>. When the tongue lasheth<\/em>,\u2014lit., in the lash of the tongue<\/em>. Compare the whole clause with Ps. 31:20<\/a>.<\/p>\n

22<\/a>. Shalt thou laugh. Not with a laughter of sinful unbelief, as in Gen. 18:12<\/a>; nor of sinful contempt for what is good, as in 2 Chron. 30:10<\/a>; nor of self-confidence, as in Habak. 1:10<\/a>; nor of mere worldliness, as in Luke 6:25<\/a>; nor of inconsiderateness, as in Eccles. 2:2<\/a>; but from faith in God\u2019s promises, as in Gen. 17:17<\/a>; and from holy scorn, as in Ps. 2:4<\/a>.<\/p>\n

Beasts of the earth<\/em>. One of God\u2019s means of executing judgment. (Jer. 15:3<\/a>.)<\/p>\n

23<\/a>. Stones of the field<\/em>. These may be considered as\u20141. Dangers in the way<\/em>. The godly man\u2019s covenant with them is God\u2019s promise to him. (Ps. 91:11<\/a>, 12<\/a>.) 2. A hindrance to cul<\/em>tivation<\/em>. (Isa. 5:2<\/a>; Matt. 13:5<\/a>.) Yet even stones and rocks shall yield the godly some produce, and keep him from starvation. (Deut. 32:13<\/a>.) 3. Stone fences<\/em>. A defence of property against wild beasts. (Isa. 5:2<\/a>, 5<\/a>.) 4. Boundary stones<\/em>. A defence of property against encroachers. And, 5. Stones were sometimes thrown to destroy property<\/em>. (2 Kings 3:25<\/a>.)<\/p>\n

Shalt thou be in covenant<\/em>,\u2014lit., shall be thy c<\/em>ovenant<\/em>.<\/p>\n

24<\/a>. In the former verses are promises either of deliverance or of preservation from certain specified evils; in this and the three following verses are given assurances of positive blessings.<\/p>\n

Thou shalt know<\/em>,\u2014by experience, or by assurance.<\/p>\n

Thy tabernacle is in peace<\/em>,\u2014from foreign, civil, and domestic strife.<\/p>\n

Thou shalt oversee thy homestead, and not err<\/em>. This is literal, and gives, as I think, the correct sense of the passage. There will be no mismanagement in the superintendence of your farm, household, &c. The difficulty of this verse has led to its omission in one of the MSS. collated by Kennicott.<\/p>\n

25<\/a>. As the grass,\u2014i.e<\/em>., in respect of quantity.<\/p>\n

26<\/a>. In full age<\/em>. The word \u05db\u05b6\u05bc\u05dc\u05b7\u05d7<\/span> (chelakh<\/span>) occurs only once again in the Bible, and that, in this book, chap. 30:2<\/a>. It seems to denote something that has arrived at its acme of perfection as respects age;<\/em> probably a ripe old age<\/em>.<\/p>\n

Like the mounting up<\/em>. Perhaps this may mean like the stacking<\/em>. (See the Illustrations<\/a>.)<\/p>\n

27<\/a>. Know thou i<\/em>t for thyself<\/em>. Take advantage of my investigations and experience.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n
\n

Job 6<\/a><\/p>\n

2<\/a>. O that my vexation<\/em>, &c<\/em>. I only wish (Job imports) that the vexation I feel, and the misfortune I have suffered, could be fairly weighed together, it would then be found that the former by no means exceeds the latter, and that notwithstanding the severe remarks of Eliphaz, I have indeed just ground for complaint.<\/p>\n

Vexation<\/em>. \u05db\u05b7\u05bc\u05e2\u05b7\u05e9\u05c2<\/span> (chagnas<\/span>) may mean either that which worries<\/em> or frets<\/em>, or i<\/em>rritability and fretfulness;<\/em> I think that the context requires it to be understood here in the latter of these senses. Our word vexation<\/em> has about the same ambiguity as the original.<\/p>\n

Exactly weighed<\/em>. The notion of exactness<\/em> is expressed in the original by the conjunction of the infinitive with the finitive verb,\u2014\u05e9\u05b8\u05c1\u05e7\u05d5\u05b9\u05dc<\/span> (shakol<\/span>) with \u05d9\u05b4\u05e9\u05b8\u05bc\u05c1\u05e7\u05b5\u05dc<\/span> (ishshakel<\/span>). (See the Illustrations<\/a>.)<\/p>\n

That they were r<\/em>aised<\/em>, supply \u05dc\u05d5\u05bc<\/span> (loo<\/span>) from the former clause, and understand, \u05d9\u05b4\u05e9\u05b0\u05c2\u05d0\u05d5\u05bc<\/span> (iseou<\/span>) impersonally.<\/p>\n

Raised in scales together<\/em>,\u2014so as to be fairly weighed together.<\/p>\n

3<\/a>. Although I admit that the vexation I feel exceeds even the sand of the sea in weight, yet I do wish it to be correctly estimated, from a conviction that, compared with the aggravation of my calamities, it has not been too excessive; and it is on account of this exceeding great vexation of mind, which, however, by no means outweighs the cause of it, that my words have been uttered at random.<\/p>\n

That is heavier<\/em>,\u2014the verb being masculine, determines its reference to the word vexation<\/em>, and not to calamity<\/em>. I have endeavoured to express this by substituting that<\/em> for it<\/em>.<\/p>\n

Uttered at random<\/em>,\u2014\u05dc\u05b8\u05e2\u05b8\u05d4<\/span> (lagnah<\/span>), which may very well be the root of\u05dc\u05b8\u05e2\u05d5\u05bc<\/span> (lagnou<\/span>), gives us in Arabic, according to Castell, the meanings, locutus fuit<\/em>, pec., temer\u0113, nec ex animo, vana effutivit;<\/em> all which admirably suit the present passage.<\/p>\n

4<\/a>. For<\/em>,\u2014a reason why the vexation I feel, and which I have expressed, is not too excessive.<\/p>\n

The arrows<\/em>, &c<\/em>. Rosenm\u00fcller and others have given some apt quotations from ancient authors on the subject of poisoned arrows\u2014amongst others that from Virg., \u00c6neid IX. 773:\u2014Ungere tela manu, ferrumque armare veneno<\/em>. Arrows are often attributed to God in Scripture, and they are described as swift<\/em>, Zech. 9:14<\/a>; unexpected<\/em>, Ps. 91:5<\/a>; sharp<\/em>, Ps. 45:5<\/a>; not to be drawn out<\/em>, Ps. 38:1<\/a>, 2<\/a>; and deadly<\/em>, when sent in wrath, Deut. 32:42<\/a>.<\/p>\n

It is possible that in this verse Job is describing the pains and other effects of his disease; if so, those pains were like burning wounds inflicted by poisoned arrows, and which produced a sensation of increasing exhaustion, accompanied by a sense of the invasion of great and irresistible terrors: and all this heightened by the feeling that the dreadful infliction was not from the hand of man, but immediately from that of God Almighty.<\/p>\n

5<\/a>. Animals, neither wild nor domestic, are wont to complain if they are supplied with what is suitable to their natures; when they do complain, it is only because they are expressing their natural wants; and just so with myself (says Job), be assured that the complaints I utter are not without cause; if I were surrounded with every thing that was agreeable to my desires, I too, could be as content as are the wild ass or the ox, when they are supplied with abundant and suitable provision.<\/p>\n

6<\/a>. Can any person eat what goes against his stomach? Anything that is tasteless in itself, such as the white of an egg, is unpalatable until mixed with salt. The afflictions that I endure are unpalatable to me, and there is no admixture of any kind of hope or comfort that might render them in some degree palatable; how then can it be expected that I should be forced to swallow them down without betraying the disgust which I consequently feel? Some conceive that Job alludes here to, what he might consider, the insipidity of the discourse of Eliphaz, but this view interferes with the context, in which Job is showing that he had just ground for giving utterance to those complaints upon which Eliphaz had animadverted.<\/p>\n

\u05d7\u05b7\u05dc\u05b8\u05bc\u05de\u05d5\u05bc\u05ea<\/span> (khallamooth<\/span>). A variety of conjectures have been offered respecting this word; some surmising that it may be a herb called purslain<\/span>, in which case, \u05e8\u05b4\u05d9\u05e8<\/span> (rir<\/span>) would be its slimy substance<\/em>. Lee makes it to be cheese<\/em>, and \u05e8\u05b4\u05d9\u05e8<\/span> (rir<\/span>) itswhey<\/em>. The Jewish interpretation, however, and that of the Targums, seems preferable; they conceive \u05d7\u05b7\u05dc\u05b8\u05bc\u05de\u05d5\u05bc\u05ea<\/span> (khallamooth<\/span>) to be the same as \u05d7\u05b6\u05dc\u05b0\u05de\u05d5\u05b9\u05df<\/span> (khelemon<\/span>), the yolk of an egg;<\/em> and so, \u05e8\u05b4\u05d9\u05e8<\/span> (rir<\/span>), saliva<\/em>, and especially drivel<\/em>, will, in this connexion, naturally enough signify the white of the egg,\u2014that slimy substance which envelopes the yolk, and which, as is known, is tasteless. The white of the undressed egg is here called \u05e8\u05b4\u05d9\u05e8<\/span> (rir<\/span>) slobber<\/em>, probably, in order to heighten the idea of disgust that is intended to be conveyed.<\/p>\n

7<\/a>. If I cannot stomach my afflictions, it may look like refractoriness, but it is no more than natural; for they are to my taste like the most disgusting food.<\/p>\n

These<\/em>. This word is not expressed, but is clearly understood. Job refers to his afflictions, which he compares to food which is so unpalatable as necessarily to excite loathing.<\/p>\n

8<\/a>. Job having defended his complaints, on the ground that they were not causeless, now goes even beyond what he had before expressed on the subject of death; he had regretted his birth; he now prays that he may speedily die.<\/p>\n

What I ask<\/em>, lit., my request<\/em>.<\/p>\n

What I long for<\/em>, lit., my longing<\/em>.<\/p>\n

10<\/a>. My consolation<\/em>. Namely, my religion, as Job shows in the third clause; the testimony of my conscience to my uprightness, and so, my hope and confidence in God; these I know would outlive my dissolution, and, under these circumstances, so bright a prospect as speedy deliverance would enable me even to rejoice in present sufferings.<\/p>\n

I would exult<\/em>\u2014\u05d0\u05b2\u05e1\u05b7\u05dc\u05b0\u05bc\u05d3\u05b8\u05d4<\/span> (asalledah<\/span>). This word occurs only in this passage, and is probably the same as the Arabic word \u0635\u0644\u062f<\/span> (tsld<\/span>) (\u05e1<\/span> and \u05e6<\/span> being interchanged), to leap as a horse striking sparks from stones<\/em>, and hence (as in all words of leaping, jumping &c.<\/em>), to exult<\/em>. The Sept. render the word by \u1f21\u03bb\u03bb\u03cc\u03bc\u03b7\u03bd<\/span>, and the Vulg. by saliebam<\/span> (so Gesenius).<\/p>\n

For I have not disowned<\/em>, &c<\/em>.\u2014\u05dc\u05b9\u05d0 \u05db\u05b4\u05d7\u05b7\u05d3\u05b0\u05ea\u05b4\u05bc\u05d9<\/span> (lo chikhadti<\/span>). This verb conveys the ideas of denying<\/em>, and covering so as to conceal<\/em>. The full meaning is, so far from disowning God\u2019s precepts or laws of any kind, it has been my habit openly to acknowlege myself bound by them, and constantly to practise them. Ps. 40:9<\/a>, 10<\/a> throws some light upon the passage,\u2014\u201cI have preached righteousness in the great congregation: lo, I have not refrained my lips, O LORD, thou knowest. I have not hid thy righteousness within my heart; I have declared thy faithfulness and thy salvation: I have not concealed \u05dc\u05b9\u05d0 \u05db\u05b4\u05d7\u05b7\u05d3\u05b0\u05ea\u05b4\u05bc\u05d9<\/span> (lo chikhadti<\/span>) thy loving-kindness and thy truth from the great congregation.\u201d<\/p>\n

Job, in this verse, explains the ground of his desire to die, and clearly shows, as I think, that he entertained none of those earthly hopes which Eliphaz had set before him (v. 19\u201326<\/a>). He had evidently abandoned all expectation of restoration to worldly prosperity, and if so, this state of Job\u2019s mind assists us in determining the meaning of the celebrated and controverted passage in 19:25<\/a>.<\/p>\n

11<\/a>. What is my strength, &c<\/em>. My physical strength is too far gone to admit of my entertaining any such worldly hopes as Eliphaz would fain have me embrace (v. 19\u201326<\/a>).<\/p>\n

And what is my term, &c<\/em>. Or, even supposing I still lived, and had enjoyment of such things, yet my time must necessarily be so short as to render it not worth while to foster any such desires. \u05e0\u05b6\u05e4\u05b6\u05e9\u05c1<\/span> (nephesh<\/span>), in its meaning of desire<\/em>, applies peculiarly to desires of animal gratification<\/em>, such as eating, drinking<\/em>, and all other corporeal enjoyments<\/em>, as well as all mental indulgences<\/em>. The nature then, of the desire<\/em> expressed in the second hemistich, sufficiently explains the character of the hope<\/em> spoken of in the parallel place in the first hemistich, and altogether, this verse greatly corroborates the view taken of the last.<\/p>\n

Not unlike this is Ps. 39:5<\/a>, 6<\/a>, 7<\/a>.<\/p>\n

12<\/a>. In this verse again, Job shows that he has not the slightest expectation of restoration to health.<\/p>\n

13<\/a>. Interpreters, generally, have involved themselves in inextricable difficulties about this verse; and that, from not observing that the interrogative \u05d4\u05b7\u05d0\u05b4\u05dd<\/span> (haim<\/span>) here is strongly affirmative of the preceding implied negative proposition, which is put also in an interrogative form, thus\u2014Is Job a man of immense strength? [No!<\/em>] Surely rather<\/em> (\u05d4\u05b7\u05d0\u05b4\u05dd<\/span> (haim<\/span>)) he is devoid of all self-sufficiency?<\/p>\n

Or if it be translated in its interrogative form, the \u05dc\u05b9\u05d0<\/span> (lo<\/span>), not<\/em>, which is implied in the preceding interrogative must be supplied here, as though it were \u05d4\u05b7\u05d0\u05b4\u05dd \u05dc\u05b9\u05d0<\/span> (haim lo<\/span>), Is it not that, &c<\/em>.<\/p>\n

And substance<\/em>, &c<\/em>. I am so weak as to have no remaining substance of body.<\/p>\n

Expelled<\/em>. This is the exact meaning of \u05e0\u05b4\u05d3\u05b0\u05bc\u05d7\u05b8<\/span>\u05d4<\/span> (niddekhah<\/span>), and in some measure corresponds with the ordinary medical use of it.<\/p>\n

14<\/a>. As a general rule, any man, with any pretence to piety, extends mercy towards a friend in the extremity of suffering; but my friend (says Job) has shown me no mercy, therefore he cannot pretend to any present piety. Such appears to me to be Job\u2019s meaning. It is common enough to leave premises to be inferred from a conclusion, and such I conceive to be the case here. Besides which, inferences may often be suggested merely by the parallelism; here it is implied in the first clause, by inference from the second, that a man who does not show mercy to his dying friend, shows, ipso facto<\/em>, that he is no longer under the fear of God; whilst again, it is implied in the second clause, by inference from the first, that as Job\u2019s friend is here stated to be no longer under the fear of God, Job considered that that friend had not shown him mercy. This sort of inferential meaning to be supplied from parallel clauses is very common in the book of Proverbs, and often furnishes a largeness of sense which ordinarily is unobserved.<\/p>\n

That melteth away<\/em>. This expression is evidently closely connected with that in the former verse\u2014substance hath been expelled out of me<\/em>.<\/p>\n

15<\/a>. Job, having taxed Eliphaz in particular, with want of mercy, and with impiety, now reproaches all his friends with failure of duty. Their professions of friendship, which had been as noisy and as full of promise as winter torrents in the desert, like them also, were found to have disappeared in the real hour of need. That scorching sun of affliction, which would have rendered offices of friendship most grateful and refreshing to Job, had been the very means of disappointing his hopes, and of showing him how foolish and misplaced those hopes had been. Nothing can be more beautiful and affecting than the lively picture, which Job here draws, of the disappointment he experienced at the conduct of his friends.<\/p>\n

My brethren<\/em>. This expression tends to aggravate the faithless conduct of his friends.<\/p>\n

Dealt deceitfully as a torrent<\/em>. Compare Isa. 58:11<\/a> (margin), \u201cLike a spring of water, whose waters deceive not;\u201d also 33<\/a>:16<\/a>, \u201cBread shall be given him; his waters shall be sure,\u201d or rather faithful<\/em>\u2014\u05e0\u05b6\u05bd\u05d0\u05b1\u05de\u05b8\u05e0\u05b4\u05d9\u05dd<\/span> (neamanim<\/span>).<\/p>\n

16<\/a>. Turbid<\/em>. Dark and swollen.<\/p>\n

By reason of the ice<\/em>. Probably owing to the masses of floating ice which these torrents carry down with them.<\/p>\n

Upon them, &c., &c<\/em>. The snow, by melting away, disappears (lit., hides itself<\/em>), but helps to swell them; and on both these accounts,\u2014the dislodgment of ice and the accumulation of snow water, these mountain torrents are turbid.<\/p>\n

17<\/a>. What time they wax warm, &c<\/em>. \u05d6\u05b8\u05e8\u05b7\u05d1<\/span> (zarav<\/span>) occurs here only, and has been variously translated. If we take it from the Arabic, \u05de\u05b4\u05d6\u05b0\u05e8\u05b8\u05d0\u05d1<\/span> (mizrav<\/span>), a <\/em>channel<\/em>, then we may render the passage,\u2014so soon as they are channelled out, they are cut off;<\/em> i.e., they have scarcely time to form their watercourse before they become spent. Or, if the Syriac \u05d6\u05e8\u05d1<\/span> (zrv<\/span>) is our guide, then the passage will run thus;\u2014so soon as they get narrowed, they are cut off<\/em>. The parallel, however, seems to require some other meaning; and as we have in Hebrew \u05e6\u05b8\u05e8\u05b7\u05d1<\/span> (tsarav<\/span>), \u05e6\u05b8\u05e8\u05b7\u05e3<\/span> (tsaraph<\/span>), \u05e9\u05b8\u05c2\u05e8\u05b7\u05e3<\/span> (saraph<\/span>), \u05e1\u05b8\u05e8\u05b7\u05e3<\/span> (saraph<\/span>), \u05d7\u05b8\u05e8\u05b7\u05d1<\/span> (kharav<\/span>), \u05e2\u05b8\u05e8\u05b7\u05d1<\/span> (gnarav<\/span>), all conveying ideas of burning<\/em> or drying<\/em> up (the very meaning required to correspond with \u05d7\u05bb\u05de\u05bc\u05d5\u05b9<\/span> (khummo<\/span>) in the next hemistich), it seems most natural to consider \u05d6\u05b8\u05e8\u05b7\u05d1<\/span> (zarav<\/span>) as cognate with them.<\/p>\n

In their getting hot<\/em>,\u2014lit., in its getting hot,\u2014i.e<\/em>., one and the other of these torrents.<\/p>\n

18<\/a>. Turn aside out of their<\/em> way<\/em>. Being induced to do so in the hope of finding one of these torrents, which, from its size, when they had passed it some time previously, had given promise of a plentiful and constant supply of water.<\/p>\n

The objections to the rendering of the authorized version are,\u2014that it makes the description of the drying up of the streams in question too lengthened; that description properly ends at ver. 17<\/a>; and if we understand this present verse as referring to the same subject, it becomes unmeaning tautology. And further, as the word \u05d0\u05b8\u05e8\u05b0\u05d7\u05d5\u05b9\u05ea<\/span> (orkhoth<\/span>) undoubtedly means caravans<\/em> in the next verse, it is highly probable that it should have the same signification in this.<\/p>\n

As the men<\/em> composing the caravan are to be understood in \u05d0\u05b8\u05e8\u05b0\u05d7\u05d5\u05b9\u05ea<\/span> (orkhoth<\/span>), this noun agrees with a verb and pronoun which are in the masculine gender.<\/p>\n

19<\/a>. The caravans of Tema<\/em>. The father of this tribe, who must not be confounded with Teman<\/em> the progenitor of Eliphaz (about whom see Note on 2:11<\/span><\/a>), was the ninth son of Ishmael. (Gen. 25:15<\/a>.) Isaiah 21:14<\/a> makes mention of this tribe, and describes it as affording shelter and provision to their neighbours, the Kedarites, when fleeing before the victorious arms of Nebuchadnezzar:\u2014<\/p>\n

\u201cThe inhabitants of the land of Tema brought water to him that was thirsty:<\/p>\n

They prevented with their bread him that fled.\u201d<\/p>\n

Forster has successfully shown, that Kedar occupied a portion of the coast of what is now called the Hedjaz; the presumption, therefore, is strong, from the passage just quoted and its context, that some part at least of the land of Tema lay in the country which borders upon the Hedjaz on the east. Ptolemy mentions the city of Thema<\/span> or Tema<\/span>, (now called Teima<\/span>), in the neighbourhood of the Nabat\u00e6i, and in the territory of the Saraceni. He speaks also of the <\/em>Themi<\/span> as extending to the shores of the Persian Gulf. And in modern geography we find the Beni Temin<\/span> occupying the great central desert in the northern part of the Nedjed. This tribe is unquestionably alluded to in the apocryphal book of Baruch, as it is there distinguished as being descended from Hagar (and so from Ishmael), and therefore is not to be confounded with the Teman of Esau. The allusion is interesting, as it points to the mercantile pursuits of that people, and so agrees with the mention by Job of their caravans. Baruch 3:22<\/a>, 23<\/a>:\u2014<\/p>\n

\u201cIt (wisdom) hath not been heard of in Chanaan,<\/p>\n

Neither hath it been seen in Theman<\/em>.<\/p>\n

The Agarenes<\/em> that seek wisdom upon earth,\u2014<\/p>\n

The merchants of Meran and of Theman<\/em>,\u2014<\/p>\n

The authors of fables, and searchers out of understanding;<\/p>\n

None of these have known the way of wisdom,<\/p>\n

Or remember her paths.\u201d<\/p>\n

The allusion in the two last lines is probably to their knowledge of their own trackless deserts; they could cross these, laden with the rich produce of the earth, from one distant market to the other, but they were ignorant of the way of that wisdom which is above the price of all merchandise.<\/p>\n

The <\/em>Sheba<\/span>. The tribe here referred to is probably that which occupied that portion of Arabia which is situated near the entrance of the Red Sea. (See Note on chap. 1:15<\/span><\/a>.) They and the Tema were, no doubt, at this time, some of the principal carriers of merchandise from the emporiums on the south-eastern coast of Arabia to Canaan and Syria. It would be, when they arrived at that part of the northern desert which lies in the neighbourhood of Lebanon, that they would meet with the torrents of snow waters referred to by Job. This reference, as I think, undoubtedly points to that locality.<\/p>\n

Looked out wistfully<\/em>. In earnest search of these torrents.<\/p>\n

20<\/a>. Job intimates that he had been anxiously on the look out for the arrival of his friends; he had raised high expectations of the refreshment he should receive from intercourse with them; but had now to endure the mortification of finding how mistaken had been his confidence in them.<\/p>\n

The word ashamed<\/em> here, as often elsewhere, conveys the notion of disappointment<\/em>.<\/p>\n

They had been confident<\/em>,\u2014or more lit., each<\/em> had been confident.<\/p>\n

Up to it<\/em>. Either up to the place, or up to one or other of the streams.<\/p>\n

21<\/a>. Job now makes application of the foregoing illustration to his friends.<\/p>\n

Ye are nothing<\/em>. Like a dried-up torrent. (See the Various Readings.)<\/p>\n

Ye behold a terror, &c<\/em>. You are scared because you see in me an object of terror; and this confusion of yours renders you utterly useless as to the discharge of any office of friendship. It is observable that Job does not so severely tax his friends in general, as Eliphaz in particular. He charges Eliphaz with positive impiety (ver. 14<\/a>), but the friends in general merely as being utterly useless in the way of affording him comfort in his trouble, and so, of disappointing his too sanguine expectations; and this failure on their part he generously ascribes to fear.<\/p>\n

22<\/a>, 23<\/a>. Job now aggravates the conduct of his friends, by reminding them that the favors he had expected of them were not pecuniary (favors which are certainly, in a general way, the severest tests of friendship):\u2014I have not asked you to relieve my poverty, nor to bribe a judge to deal leniently with me, nor to pay a ransom to an enemy for my deliverance.<\/p>\n

Is it that?<\/em>\u05d4\u05b2\u05db\u05b4\u05d9<\/span> (hechi<\/span>). Is this the explanation that you can give for your unnatural conduct, that I have put your friendship to the severest tests possible? Certainly not.<\/p>\n

24<\/a>. I am willing enough to learn, if you will only speak to the purpose. Only convince me that I am as guilty as you infer, and, in token of self-condemnation, I will utter no more complaints, and say nothing more in self-justification.<\/p>\n

25<\/a>. Right words<\/em>. Words of honesty and fairness, and straight to the point.<\/p>\n

Forcible<\/em> is probably the best of the conjectured meanings that have been given to \u05de\u05b8\u05e8\u05b7\u05e2<\/span> (marats<\/span>), a word which seems to convey the ideas of pungency, sha<\/em>rpness<\/em>, &c. (See Notes on 16:3<\/span><\/a>.)<\/p>\n

26<\/a>. If you would convince, you should judge of facts rather than of mere poetic effusions, and especially those of one who has abandoned all hope of ameliorating his condition in this world.<\/p>\n

Verse<\/em>. (See the Note on 4:2<\/span><\/a>.)<\/p>\n

27<\/a>. Nay, ye let fall, &c<\/em>. Nay, more than this (for I understand the full force of your invectives), the reproofs which you have directed against my words are neither more nor less than evil attempts on your part to entrap me into other expressions, by which you hope that I may condemn myself, or lay myself more open to your attacks.<\/p>\n

Ye let fall<\/em>, &c<\/em>. The net<\/em>, though not expressed, is probably to be understood, just as when we speak of letting fly<\/em> we understand an arrow, or stone, or some other projectile. (See the Illustrations<\/a>.)<\/p>\n

The orphan<\/em>. Job means himself, as the parallelism shows. The word orphan here probably means one who is in the same forlorn position as the orphan may be supposed to be.<\/p>\n

Job certainly reflects here upon the conduct even of those of his friends who had not as yet spoken; hence, they probably had, in some decided manner, marked their approbation of the statements advanced by Eliphaz.<\/p>\n

28<\/a>. Job here exhorts his friends to act towards him in a more manly and straightforward way than they had done: instead of endeavouring to draw him into the snares which they had laid, but which, with all their subtlety, they could not conceal from him, let them boldly contend with him in fair and open argument.<\/p>\n

To your faces will it be if I lie<\/em>. If you are willing to meet me in honest argument, instead of veiling yourselves under subterfuges, it will be sufficiently obvious to you whether, or not, the statements that I put forward in my own defence are correct. In plain words,\u2014Be honest, and then you can judge.<\/p>\n

29<\/a>. Tu<\/em>rn again now, &c<\/em>. Reconsider the whole case, look at it in what point of view you please, only with impartiality, and you will find me innocent of all charges.<\/p>\n

Yea, turn I yet again<\/em>. I am inclined to think that \u05e9\u05d1\u05d9<\/span>, i.e<\/em>., \u05e9\u05bb\u05c1\u05d1\u05b4\u05d9<\/span> (shouvi<\/span>), is not an incorrect reading, but perhaps a kind of old imperative form of the first person.<\/p>\n

Injustice<\/em>. \u05e2\u05b7\u05d5\u05b0\u05dc\u05b8\u05d4<\/span> (gnavlah<\/span>) is here used in a forensic sense, as also the word \u05e6\u05b4\u05d3\u05b0\u05e7\u05b4\u05d9<\/span> (tsidki<\/span>), my righteousness, i.e<\/em>., my guiltlessness<\/em>, or my innocency<\/em>.<\/p>\n

In it,\u2014i.e.<\/em>, in the whole matter under disputation.<\/p>\n

30<\/a>. You tax me with injustice in the utterance of complaints, but am I unjust because I give expression to feelings excited by the acutest sorrows? Certainly not, unless you suppose that I can be insensible to sorrow.<\/p>\n

The palate<\/em>. The organ of taste is here put for the feelings in general, and was chosen by Job in connexion with the tongue<\/em> probably to mark the sympathy that might be supposed to exist between them. If the palate is put to pain by anything that is excessively pungent, the tongue also suffers with it. In plain words, Job means,\u2014I feel acutely, and so I cannot but cry out; nor can I see that I am wrong in doing so.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n
\n
\n

Job 7<\/a><\/p>\n

1<\/a>, 2<\/a>. Job defends his desire of death by the examples of the mercenary soldier, the hireling, and the bondslave. As the two first naturally look forward to the expiration of their term of service, and as the other longs for that rest which the eventide will bring him, so, Job could not do otherwise than desire death, which would be the period of his deliverance from all hardships, the time of his receiving his reward, and a season of sweet rest for him.<\/p>\n

A soldiership to serve<\/em>. \u05e6\u05b8\u05d1\u05b8\u05d0<\/span> (tsava<\/span>), a certain term in which to serve as a soldier<\/em>. (See the Illustrations<\/a>.)<\/p>\n

He is<\/em>. It is necessary to supply this, as the next verse is the apodosis to the first verse, rather than to this.<\/p>\n

The shade<\/em>. Probably the shade of evening.<\/p>\n

3<\/a>. Job having, at the close of the last chapter, besought his friends to give attentive consideration to his case, proceeds to lay it before them by detailing his sufferings.<\/p>\n

So<\/em>. Job feels exactly in the position of such men as are described in the two previous verses. Like them, he has been born to an inheritance of hardship; and therefore, if, like them, he longs for deliverance (a deliverance which death alone can bring), he does no more than what is natural.<\/p>\n

This passage, I think, again corroborates the view I have advanced (see Notes on 6:10<\/span><\/a>, 12<\/span><\/a>), that Job had no expectation whatever of any temporal restoration.<\/p>\n

Are apportioned<\/em>,\u2014lit., they apportion;<\/em> but \u05de<\/span>\u05b4\u05e0\u05bc\u05d5\u05bc<\/span> (minnou<\/span>) is here to be taken impersonally.<\/p>\n

4<\/a>. \u05de\u05b4\u05d3\u05b7\u05bc\u05d3<\/span> (middad<\/span>) is not the Piel of \u05de\u05b8\u05d3\u05b7\u05d3<\/span> (madad<\/span>), which would be \u05de\u05b4\u05d3\u05b5\u05bc\u05d3<\/span> (midded<\/span>), but is probably a noun from \u05e0\u05b8\u05d3\u05b7\u05d3<\/span> (nadad<\/span>); and so, the passage before us would be lit., and<\/em> [when<\/em>] shall be the flight of the evening<\/em>. If the evening seemed so long, how much more the night!<\/p>\n

5<\/a>. My flesh is clothed with, &c<\/em>. Ulcers, so impure as to generate worms, and scabs like clods of dust, cover my body as a garment.<\/p>\n

Gathereth<\/span>. The \u00c6thiopic \u05e8\u05d2\u05e2<\/span> (rggn<\/span>) which means to contract<\/em> and to coagulate as milk<\/em>, favors this rendering; and the Syriac version gives, my ski<\/em>n is contracted<\/em>.<\/p>\n

\u05d9\u05b4\u05de\u05b8\u05bc\u05d0\u05b5\u05dd<\/span> (immaes<\/span>), from \u05de\u05b8\u05d0\u05b7\u05dd<\/span> (maas<\/span>), i.q.<\/em>, \u05de\u05b8\u05e1\u05b7\u05dd<\/span> (masas<\/span>), to melt and flow away<\/em>. Compare Ps. 58:8<\/a>.<\/p>\n

6<\/a>. The web<\/em>, \u05d0\u05b6\u05e8\u05b6\u05d2<\/span> (areg<\/span>). If a weaver\u2019s shuttle<\/em> were intended, as many translate this word, we should have expected, as Schultens remarks, the form \u05de\u05b7\u05d0\u05b2\u05e8\u05b5\u05d2<\/span> (maereg<\/span>). In the second clause the metaphor might be preserved by translating (and indeed both renderings may, perhaps, be intended), And are come to an end without a thread<\/em>. (See the Illustrations<\/a>.)<\/p>\n

Another proof that Job had no expectation of recovery either of health or of former prosperity.<\/p>\n

7<\/a>. Remember thou<\/em>. Job now addresses God. I have endeavoured to express this by inserting thou<\/em>.<\/p>\n

My life is a wind<\/em>. Compare Ps. 78:39<\/a>:\u2014\u201cFor he remembered that they were but flesh; a wind that passeth away, and cometh not again<\/em>.\u201d<\/p>\n

8<\/a>. S<\/em>hall not observe me,\u2014i.e.<\/em>, when once I am gone.<\/p>\n

I shall not be<\/em>. And so, it will be too late for you to confer any earthly blessings upon me, should such be your intention.<\/p>\n

11<\/a>. I also<\/em>, &c., Such being the case, God having dealt so hardly with me, it belongs to me, as a kind of right, to speak out my grievances, and I, for my part<\/em>, will do it. The \u05d2\u05b7\u05bc\u05dd\u05be\u05d0\u05b2\u05e0\u05b4\u05d9<\/span> (gam ani<\/span>) is emphatic.<\/p>\n

12<\/a>. Am I so boisterous and ungovernable, or so dreadfully fierce, that I require to be kept within bounds, as it were, by dykes and bars, &c., &c.?<\/p>\n

13<\/a>. Shall ease, &c<\/em>.,\u2014more lit., shall take off of my plaint<\/em>. This use of the particle \u05d1\u05b0\u05bc<\/span> (be<\/span>) in the sense of \u05de\u05b4\u05df<\/span> (min<\/span>) is rather unusual; there is, however, a very good similar instance in Eccles. 5:14<\/a> (Heb. Bible), 15<\/a> (Au. Ver.). See also Nehemiah 4:11<\/a> (Heb. Bible), 17<\/a> (Au. Ver.).<\/p>\n

My plaint<\/em>. The rendering of the authorized version, my complaint<\/em>, though correct, is rather equivocal. \u05e9\u05b4\u05c2\u05d9\u05d7\u05b4\u05d9<\/span> (sikhi<\/span>) is, my complaint<\/em>, in the sense of lamentation<\/em>, not of malady<\/em>.<\/p>\n

15<\/a>. The temptation to die by my own hands has been presented to me in my visions, and I have had to resist it, though it has been in spite of my natural inclination. We may infer, from the close connexion of this with the former verse, that in those terrifying visions, of which Job conceived God to be the author, Satan was permitted to tempt his victim to suicide. The horrible temptation must, of course, have been the stronger, if Job imagined that it proceeded from God himself; and the more so, as we know that he desired, above all things else, that release from his sufferings which he believed death alone could bring. Indeed, he admits the force of the temptation, in stating that his inclination decidedly sided with it, though happily he was able to reject it.<\/p>\n

My soul,\u2014i.e.<\/em>, my strong desire<\/em>. \u05e0\u05b6\u05e4\u05b6\u05e9\u05c1<\/span> (nephesh<\/span>) has that force.<\/p>\n

Maketh choice<\/em>. \u05d1\u05b8\u05bc\u05d7\u05b7\u05e8<\/span> (bakhar<\/span>) is to choose something that is presented to be either selected or rejected, approved of or disapproved of.<\/p>\n

Strangling<\/em>, \u05de\u05b7\u05d7\u05b2\u05e0\u05b7\u05e7<\/span> (makhen<\/span>ah<\/span>). This word can scarcely refer to that sensation of choking which, it is said, is experienced in elephantiasis. In the other two places in Scripture, in which it occurs, it refers to violent external strangulation (2 Sam. 17:23<\/a>; Nahum 2:13<\/a> (Heb. Bible), 12<\/a> (Au. Ver.)), and in the former of those places to a suicidal act.<\/p>\n

By my own hands<\/em>,\u2014lit., by my own bones<\/em>. The bones of his fingers being the intended instruments of destruction if he should perpetrate the crime to which he was tempted; or, by the expression his own bones<\/em>, Job may simply mean himself<\/em>.<\/p>\n

Have I refused<\/em>, \u05de\u05b8\u05d0\u05b7\u05e1\u05b0\u05ea\u05b4\u05bc\u05d9<\/span> (maasti<\/span>). The parallelism requires that this word should belong to this clause, and accordingly I have so rendered it. It is manifestly in apposition with \u05ea\u05b4\u05bc\u05d1\u05b0\u05d7\u05b7\u05e8 \u05e0\u05b7\u05e4\u05b0\u05e9\u05b4\u05c1\u05d9<\/span> (tivkhar naphsi<\/span>); and indeed this latter verb determines its sense here; for \u05d1\u05b8\u05bc\u05d7\u05b7\u05e8<\/span> (bakhar<\/span>) and \u05de\u05b8\u05d0\u05b7\u05dd<\/span> (maas<\/span>) have this close affinity, that they refer, though in two opposite ways, to the decision which is arrived at on some subject which has been submitted for approval or disapproval; thus, \u05d1\u05b8\u05bc\u05d7\u05b7\u05e8<\/span> (bakhar<\/span>) means to choose<\/em>, and that, with a very decided preference;<\/em> whilst \u05de\u05b8\u05d0\u05b7\u05dd<\/span> (maas<\/span>) means to refuse with abhorrence<\/em>.<\/p>\n

Umbreit\u2019s view of the passage is somewhat similar to that which I have given, though he misses the beauty of the parallelism and obscures the sense, by connecting \u05de\u05b8\u05d0\u05b7\u05e1\u05b0\u05ea\u05b4\u05bc\u05d9<\/span> (maasti<\/span>) with the next verse.<\/p>\n

16<\/a>. I shall <\/em>not live for ever<\/em>. An argument by which Job repelled the temptation to suicide which he has just noticed: sooner or later my sufferings must come to an end. And also an argument to persuade God to cease from tempting him to commit suicide. Job evidently thought that the temptation was from God.<\/p>\n

Let me alone<\/em>. This may perhaps mean,\u2014cease to alarm me with such frightful visions and with so dreadful a temptation.<\/p>\n

For my days are vanity<\/em>. I need not have recourse to the expedient of self-destruction, since anyhow, my days will soon be ended.<\/p>\n

17<\/a>. Compare Ps. 8:4<\/a> (A. V.), and 144:3<\/a>.<\/p>\n

That thou dost ma<\/em>gnify him<\/em>, i.e<\/em>., that thou dost make him of that consequence as to notice him at all.<\/p>\n

That thou dost set thine heart upon him<\/em>, i.e<\/em>., that thou dost in any way make him an object of thy notice.<\/p>\n

19<\/a>. Jus<\/em>t till I swallow down my spittle<\/em>. Schultens, by some apt citations, has shown this to be an Arabic proverb, equivalent in meaning to momentary respite<\/em> or delay<\/em>. \u201cDeglutire me fac salivam meam<\/em>, pro Con<\/em>cede mihi tantum mor\u00e6 ac spatii, quo eam glutire possim<\/em>.\u201d And again he thus translates another Arabic quotation,\u2014\u201cTum ille lassitudinem conqueri c\u0153pit; ego vero rogare qui valeret, et quo tenderet<\/em>. At<\/em> ille, deglutire sinas me, inquit, salivam meam; nam sane confecit me iter meum<\/em>.\u201d The meaning of the whole clause then, in our ordinary language, would be,\u2014Let go your hold of me that I may have a lit<\/em>tle breathing time<\/em>.<\/p>\n

Just till<\/em>. \u05e2\u05b7\u05d3<\/span> (gnad<\/span>) seems to have this force here.<\/p>\n

20<\/a>. I have sinned!<\/em> Supposing such to be the case, yet, &c., &c. Yet what do I unto thee?<\/em> This has evidently the same sense as 35:6<\/a>. Be it so, that I have sinned, yet in what way can my sins affect thee?<\/p>\n

A butt<\/em>,\u2014either in the sense of a target<\/em>, or an object of attack<\/em>. (See the Illustrations<\/a>.)<\/p>\n

21<\/a>. And why dost thou not take awa<\/em>y, &c<\/em>. Supposing that I have sinned, and seeing that my sins cannot really affect thee, why not pardon them?<\/p>\n

Now do I lie down<\/em>, i.e<\/em>., I am about to do so.<\/p>\n

Lie down in the dust<\/em>, lit., to the dust<\/em>,\u2014a pregnant construction; the full meaning is, go to the dust and lie down in it<\/em>.<\/p>\n

And thou shalt seek me early, &c<\/em>. When once I am dead, all opportunity of your showing me any kindness in this life will be gone.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n
\n
\n

Job 8<\/a><\/p>\n

Bildad the Shuhite<\/em>. See notes, 2:11<\/span><\/a>.<\/p>\n

3<\/a>. Does God so distort from their true end the principles of right and equity, as to award evil things to good men, or good things to bad men? Job had not said this, but Bildad unfairly assumes that at least he had implied it.<\/p>\n

The words \u05d0\u05b5\u05dc<\/span> (el<\/span>), the mighty God<\/em>, and \u05e9\u05b5\u05c1\u05d3\u05b7\u05bc\u05d9<\/span> (shaddai<\/span>), the All-sufficient<\/em>, are probably used to point out the improbability of such a God being swayed, as human judges may be, by motives of fear, or by weakness, or by bribes, or by any kind of personal considerations.<\/p>\n

4<\/a>. The particle \u05d0\u05b4\u05dd<\/span> (im<\/span>), if<\/em>, does not imply any uncertainty; like the English word, it is often intended to be a strong affirmative, and is to be so understood here.<\/p>\n

Bildad most unjustly infers the guilt of Job\u2019s children from what he considers to have been their punishment, and here speaks in a way that must have been particularly galling to the heart of the bereaved father. Bildad\u2019s meaning in this and the preceding verse is,\u2014Surely the fact, that your children have been justly punished, is no proof that God is an unjust judge.<\/p>\n

Have dismissed them<\/em>,\u2014in his capacity as Judge, either to banishment, or execution, as the case might be.<\/p>\n

By the hand of <\/em>their transgression<\/em>,\u2014thus making, as it were, their transgression become the executioner of his justice.<\/p>\n

5<\/a>. Though God, in the exercise of strict justice, has punished your children, yet, if you will but appeal with earnestness to the mercy of that same great and Almighty Judge, you will find him clement. Bildad implies that Job had not done this, and, at the same time, infers that Job was in the position of a guilty criminal, who, unless he succeeded in pacifying his judge, must expect to be dealt with according to his crimes.<\/p>\n

If thou wouldest seek unto God betimes<\/em>, i.e.<\/em>, if you would make it your very first duty to seek God.<\/p>\n

6<\/a>. He would certainly, &c<\/em>. \u05db\u05b4\u05bc\u05d9<\/span> (chi<\/span>) here has the force of the Greek \u1f00\u03bb\u03bb\u1f70<\/span>. If you were (what I infer you are not) pure and upright, then God would not leave you in your present misery, no, but<\/em> he would, &c., &c.<\/p>\n

He would wake up<\/em>. God is here represented as one who had been asleep, but who would wake up<\/em> if he were sought early<\/em>.<\/p>\n

And prosper<\/em>,\u2014or the meaning might be, he would salute with peace<\/em>, or pronounce it a place of peace;<\/em> the very reverse of what Eliphaz had said he did, when he passed by the dwellings of wicked men who were prospering. See chap. 5:3<\/a>, I<\/em> doomed his homestead;<\/em> see also the note<\/span><\/a> and illustration<\/a> on that verse.<\/p>\n

Thy righteous home<\/em>,\u2014lit., the home<\/em> or homestead of thy righteousness<\/em>.<\/p>\n

7<\/a>. Though thy beginning were small<\/em>. It is not certain whether Bildad means, that Job\u2019s former prosperity would seem small as compared with that which he might now expect; or whether he means, that although Job\u2019s new prosperity might be small in its commencement, yet, in the end it would become great.<\/p>\n

8<\/a>. But, &c<\/em>. Do not, however, receive my mere dictum, but<\/em> test it, by reference to the experience of antiquity.<\/p>\n

9<\/a>. As Bildad and his companions were very aged as compared with Job (see 15:10<\/a>), so, by depreciating his own and their wisdom, he in effect still more depreciates that of Job. Job must not depend upon even their wisdom, much less, therefore, upon his own; he must rather consult the Patriarchs of bye-gone ages.<\/p>\n

A shadow<\/em>,\u2014as compared with the days of their progenitors; so Gen. 47:9<\/a>.<\/p>\n

10<\/a>. Shall not they teach thee?<\/em> You have asked to be taught (6:24<\/a>); attend then, to what the wise men of antiquity have handed down to us.<\/p>\n

Teach thee, and speak to thee<\/em>. This may mean, teach thee by speaking to thee; or, their teaching, though now they be dead, will, if attended to, prove as influential as the actual conversation of a living man might be supposed to be.<\/p>\n

Out of their heart<\/em>, and therefore, experimental and valuable doctrine, not hasty assertions, but digested and premeditated truths.<\/p>\n

Verse<\/em>. (See the Note on 4:2<\/span><\/a>.)<\/p>\n

11<\/a>. Eliphaz here recites what was probably the fragment of some ancient, and perhaps inspired, poem. Its admission into the book of Job, at all events, stamps the truths it contains with the seal of Divine authority.<\/p>\n

Can the paper-reed, &c<\/em>. The marshy nature of the ground in which the paper-reed grows is the true secret of its stately appearance; so, the mere adventitious circumstance of outward prosperity is the only ground of a wicked man\u2019s elevation and greatness.<\/p>\n

Lift itself high<\/em>. This refers, I conceive, not to the growth but to the erect and stately bearing of the plant, for which it is absolutely dependant upon abundant moisture.<\/p>\n

The imagery here employed, as well as the Egyptian word \u05d0\u05b8\u05d7\u05d5\u05bc<\/span> (akhou<\/span>), flag<\/em>, suggests, I think, the idea that this ancient lay may have been composed in Egypt.<\/p>\n

12<\/a>. Whilst yet in their vigour, &c<\/em>. These succulent plants are so dependant upon moisture, that, even though they should not be cut down, yet when that which supports their vigour is withdrawn, they immediately wither; and that, much sooner than other grasses which are not so showy in appearance, and whose growth is not so rapid. The application to the prosperity of wicked men is obvious: having no other greatness or happiness than that which worldly fortune gives, and no resources in themselves, the moment that goes, they are utterly ruined.<\/p>\n

The pronouns in this verse are in the singular number in the Hebrew, but as the reference is clearly to each of the plants specified in the preceding verse, I have rendered them in the plural number.<\/p>\n

13<\/a>. The moral derived from the foregoing illustration.<\/p>\n

Paths<\/em>. They lead to the same miserable end.<\/p>\n

That forget God<\/em>. Men who are forgetful of his being<\/em>, or character<\/em>, or work<\/em>s<\/em>, whether of creation, or providence, or grace, or of his word<\/em>, whether preceptive or promissory.<\/p>\n

The ungodly<\/em>. There is no ground for rendering \u05d7\u05b8\u05e0\u05b5\u05e3<\/span> (khaneph<\/span>) by the word hypocrite<\/em>. And so, the hope<\/em> of such an one is not a religious hope, but the hope that his worldly prosperity shall continue.<\/p>\n

14<\/a>. Some consider that this is the comment of Bildad himself upon the fragment he has just cited; but Bildad would scarcely commence remarks of his own with the pronoun \u05d0\u05b2\u05e9\u05b6\u05c1\u05e8<\/span> (asher<\/span>). It seems more reasonable to believe that these words are still part of the poem cited.<\/p>\n

Reliance,\u2014i.e.<\/em>, the dependance which he places on something which he supposes to be firm and capable of supporting him,\u2014just as a man rests the weight of his body, and, so to speak, leans, upon his loins<\/em>, for this last word is the primary meaning of \u05db\u05b6\u05bc\u05e1\u05b6\u05dc<\/span> (chesel<\/span>); or it might perhaps be translated here, prop<\/em>,\u2014the thing itself on which he relies, just as in the parallel place in the next hemistich we have \u05de\u05b4\u05d1\u05b0\u05d8\u05b8\u05d7\u05d5\u05b9<\/span> (mivtakho<\/span>), his confidence<\/em>, lit., the object of his confidence<\/em>.<\/p>\n

The house of the spider, i.e.<\/em>, of course, the spider\u2019s web<\/em>. Schultens cites a passage from the Koran not unlike the one before us, and indeed not improbably borrowed from it; his translation of it is,\u2014Similes sunt illi, qui pr\u00e6ter Deum sibi Patronos assumunt, Araneo, domam struenti: infirmissima enim domuum domus est aranei<\/em>, i.e., Those who put<\/em> God aside to depend upon others are like a spider constructing her house, for of all buildings that of the spider is the weakest<\/em>. The spider weaves its web out of its own entrails, so the confidence of sinners usually comes from themselves.<\/p>\n

15<\/a>. He leaneth upon his house, &c<\/em>.,\u2014i.e.<\/em>, he rests upon and clings to the object of his worldly hopes with the same tenacity with which the spider holds on to its web, but to him that object proves as insecure as though it were a mere web.<\/p>\n

16<\/a>. A third similitude, setting forth the uncertain tenure by which a worldly man holds those possessions which constitute his prosperity and happiness. He is compared to some rank plant, probably a weed, which overspreads a portion of a garden, and clambers and penetrates stones, but which soon gets plucked away because of its uselessness and noxiousness.<\/p>\n

Luxuriant before the sun<\/em>. So succulent and full of juice as to be uninjured by the heat of the sun. The case before us is of a plant which differs, in many respects, from the paper-reed mentioned in 5:11<\/a>. That is dependent for moisture upon its marshy soil; this seems to have an internal principle of luxuriance independent of soil, as it can thrive, as we find afterwards, even over stones; that withers by being deprived of that which supplies to it moisture and life; this appears to fear no such termination to its existence, and yet, in another way its destruction is certain and sudden,\u2014it is forcibly plucked up, and its very existence is forgotten.<\/p>\n

Over his garden, i.e.<\/em>, over the garden in which it grows.<\/p>\n

17<\/a>. A stony heap<\/em>.\u2014This is the ordinary meaning of \u05d2\u05b7\u05bc\u05dc<\/span> (gal<\/span>), and the parallelism determines that it is to be used in this sense here; besides which, to give \u05d2\u05b7\u05bc\u05dc<\/span> (gal<\/span>) here the meaning of a well<\/em>, which it has only in Cant. 4:12<\/a>, would be to destroy the beautiful contrast between this plant and those bibulous plants adverted to in 5:11<\/a>, and which are wholly dependent for their existence upon plentiful moisture, whilst this is not so.<\/p>\n

He se<\/em>eth the inside of stones<\/em>, lit., he seeth the house of stones<\/em>. This has been a source of great difficulty to commentators: I wonder it has not occurred to any to remember how frequently \u05d1\u05b5\u05bc\u05d9\u05ea<\/span> (beith<\/span>) means not only house<\/em>, but also within<\/em>, or inside<\/em>. The obvious meaning of the highly poetic expression, he seeth the inside of stones<\/em>, is that this plant, with its fibrous roots, penetrates into the smallest interstices of stones, or gets in between one stone and another. In short, the idea intended is, that it is a plant that can flourish independently of soil.<\/p>\n

18<\/a>. When he is destroyed<\/em>. The \u05d0\u05b4\u05dd<\/span> (im<\/span>) here denotes that he certainly shall be destroyed.<\/p>\n

Is destroyed<\/em>, lit., is swallowed up<\/em>. It denotes the application of some external force. This plant does not wither, as those in 5:11<\/a>, but is violently torn up from its place.<\/p>\n

Then doth it deny him, &c<\/em>. As though the very ground which it covered were ashamed of it, and were glad to disown having had acquaintance with it. So, when a wicked rich man gets ruined, or meets with some violent end, his former acquaintances and boon companions are ashamed of their connexion with him, and are anxious to disown it if they can.<\/p>\n

19<\/a>. Behold, this is the j<\/em>oy of his way!<\/em> Ironical. See this is the happy end he comes to.<\/p>\n

And another, and another, &c<\/em>. This is evidently the force of \u05d0\u05b7\u05d7\u05b5\u05e8<\/span> (akher<\/span>), another<\/em>, in its connexion with the plural verb. Others sprin<\/em>g up<\/em>, but then by one at a time, i.e.<\/em>, there is a constant succession of such plants.<\/p>\n

So, no sooner is one wicked rich man removed, than another is found ready, notwithstanding the fearful example before him, to occupy his position; and indeed there are never wanting, in any place, a constant succession of such men. They come up rapidly, one after the other, to flourish, and then to perish.<\/p>\n

20<\/a>. Bildad now draws his own conclusions from the fragment of poetry which he had just cited, and draws Job\u2019s attention to, what he conceived to be, the lessons it contained.<\/p>\n

God will not cast away a perfec<\/em>t man<\/em>. God may try him, but not reject him. Bildad probably deduces this truth from the assumption that none of the cases, to which he has adverted, are applicable to that of a righteous man\u2014that, in fact, neither the paper-reed, dependent on the marsh for its beauty and existence, nor the frail web of the spider, nor the thriving weed which grows up only to be rooted out, are, in any way, emblems of a righteous man, either in his true resources, or in the objects of his confidence, or in his end.<\/p>\n

Neither will he hold evil doers, &c<\/em>. God will neither connive at their practices, nor help to raise them when they fall: when once their earthly prosperity fails, they have nothing whatever to fall back upon, for God, who is the only refuge at such times, will not help them, and therefore their destruction is utter.<\/p>\n

21<\/a>. Till, &c<\/em>.\u2014\u05e2\u05b7\u05d3<\/span> (gnad<\/span>). This word has sorely tried expositors\u2014some labouring to prove that it may mean even<\/em>, others that it may mean whilst<\/em>. The auth. vers. correctly retains its ordinary signification. The difficulty, of not understanding it in that sense, arises from not observing that this verse is connected immediately with the first clause of the preceding verse, as, in the same way, the second clause is referred to in the 22d verse. The full meaning then (a meaning which is developed by that change of persons which is common in Hebrew, and also by a pregnant construction) is,\u2014God will not cast away a perfect man<\/em> (and I mean you if you are such<\/em>), till he fill your mouth, &c<\/em>.; in other words, if you are a perfect man, God, so far from finally casting you away, wi<\/em>ll not leave off dealing with you<\/em> (here is a pregnant construction), till he have given you cause for rejoicing<\/em>.<\/p>\n

22<\/a>. This verse is an amplification of the second clause of 5:20<\/a>.<\/p>\n

Clothed with shame<\/em>. Both on account of the prosperity of the righteous, and their own disgrace.<\/p>\n

It is to be observed that Bildad, whilst he holds out these fair promises to Job, evidently considers that he is not really the perfect man to whom such promises are applicable.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

Job 9<\/a><\/p>\n

2<\/a>. Verily, &c<\/em>. I fully admit the truth of all that you have advanced: you have informed me of no principle of which I was ignorant before.<\/p>\n

But how shall, &c<\/em>. But, with all the truths that you have advanced on the subject of God\u2019s punishing the wicked and prospering the righteous, you have not yet informed me how any mortal man can be accounted righteous with God.<\/p>\n

3<\/a>. If he be inclined<\/em>. If God should, of his own free will and pleasure, choose to enter into controversy with a man, the trial must needs be so awful, and the man\u2019s case so desperate, that all attempt at self-defence would be impossible.<\/p>\n

Job further implies that God, if he pleases, has an undoubted right to afflict, and thus to enter into controversy with any man; and if so, the insinuations of his friends that his afflictions were necessarily a proof of his being ungodly were utterly groundless.<\/p>\n

The pronouns in this verse are somewhat ambiguous, but the only admissible sense is obvious.<\/p>\n

4<\/a>. Who hath persisted against him<\/em>. With the bold and stubborn determination of arguing his perfectness before God, or of arraigning the justice of God\u2019s dealings with him. What man has ever succeeded, or come off unhurt from any such controversy as this?<\/p>\n

\u05dc\u05b5\u05d1<\/span> (lev<\/span>), heart<\/em>, or \u05e2\u05b9\u05e8\u05b6\u05e3<\/span> (gnoreph<\/span>), neck<\/em>, may be supplied after \u05d4\u05b4\u05e7\u05b0\u05e9\u05b8\u05c1\u05d4<\/span> (hikshah<\/span>).<\/p>\n

5<\/a>. Job proceeds to illustrate God\u2019s wisdom and power, by referring to various acts in creation and providence; and thus shows how impossible it is to suppose that any mortal can cope with God.<\/p>\n

He removeth, &c<\/em>. This might be rendered,\u2014<\/p>\n

He removeth mountains and they know<\/em> [it<\/em>] not<\/em>,<\/p>\n

[In<\/em>] that h<\/em>e hath overturned them in his wrath<\/em>.<\/p>\n

In this case the expression they know it not<\/em> is equivalent to suddenly<\/em>. Compare Ps. 35:8<\/a> (both the text and the marginal reading).<\/p>\n

6<\/a>. The dry land<\/em>, lit., earth<\/em>, but used here, evidently as in Gen. 1:10<\/a>, i.e.<\/em>, earth or dry land, as contradistinguished from seas.<\/p>\n

The pillars thereof<\/em>. Perhaps the granitic and other primary bases of the earth\u2019s crust. The great disruption described in this and the previous verse may very well apply to the deluge,\u2014an event of then comparatively recent occurrence,\u2014when the fountains of the great deep were broken up. By pillars<\/em>, as here used, we must not imagine the tall stately columns of Grecian temples, but the heavy and massive supports of early Egyptian architecture, and thus, the comparison, between pillars and the masses of rock that hold up the earth\u2019s crust, appears more appropriate.<\/p>\n

7<\/a>. And it riseth not<\/em>. The darkness is such, that, in appearance, it is as though the sun had not risen. During the torrents that fell, when the windows of heaven were opened, at the time of the deluge, neither sun nor stars could have appeared, and the earth must have been enveloped in thick darkness. Not improbably the allusion is to that great event. Job judged of God\u2019s power, especially when displayed, as it then was, in controversy with man, by that extraordinary manifestation of it.<\/p>\n

Or possibly, this verse may mean no more than that God is the author of night and day; it is by His word that the sun does not make its appearance during the night season, and also it is His veil that hides the stars in the day-time.<\/p>\n

8<\/a>. Bo<\/em>wing the heavens, &c<\/em>. So Ps. 18:10<\/a> (Heb. Bible).<\/p>\n

This verse may be descriptive of God\u2019s coming down with his stormy clouds, and directing and controlling the floods of the deluge; or it may refer to any ordinary tempest.<\/p>\n

9<\/a>. Arcturus, Orion, and Pleiades<\/em>. Much has been written to prove that these constellations are severally represented by \u05e2\u05b8\u05e9\u05c1<\/span> (gnash<\/span>), \u05db\u05b0\u05bc\u05e1\u05b4\u05d9\u05dc<\/span> (chesil<\/span>), and \u05db\u05b4\u05bc\u05d9\u05de\u05b8\u05d4<\/span> (chimah<\/span>), and so satisfactorily, that I shall not think it necessary to enter into the subject. A few further remarks will be found in the Illustrations<\/a>.<\/p>\n

Making, &c<\/em>. This does not refer to God\u2019s original creation of these constellations, but to his causing their appearance in the heavens at certain periods.<\/p>\n

And the chambers of the south<\/em>. The constellations of the southern hemisphere, as those in the first clause are chiefly in the northern hemisphere.<\/p>\n

10<\/a>. This is the same sentiment that Eliphaz had advanced in chap, 5, ver. 9<\/a>, and almost in the same words, though Job\u2019s statement is more strongly put.<\/p>\n

11<\/a>. Job passes on, from his mention of God\u2019s doings in the natural world, to speak more particularly of his dealings with man. We have here a very decided and remarkable reference to the invisibility<\/em> and inc<\/em>omprehensibility<\/em> of the Deity.<\/p>\n

He passeth near me<\/em>. Perhaps more literally, He passeth over against me,\u2014i.e., He meets me in my way.<\/em><\/p>\n

12<\/a>. God is absolute<\/em>. Job probably alludes to what had befallen his children, and to the loss of his property.<\/p>\n

13<\/a>. However proudly men may behave themselves,\u2014however much they may stand up for their rights, and impugn the justice of God when He does what He will with his own,\u2014however much they may venture to call in question his proceedings, and say to Him, \u201cWhat doest thou?\u201d yet God will not on this account withdraw his anger; on the contrary, He will not cease to inflict it, until all such abettors of pride are humbled beneath his uplifted hand.<\/p>\n

14<\/a>. How much less, &c<\/em>. God being so mighty, and all his creation, whether heavens, or earth, or mountains, or seas, or man, being so completely at his disposal, how should I, insignificant creature that I am, dare to contend with Him respecting the right which He possesses to do with me as He pleases.<\/p>\n

And choose o<\/em>ut my words, &c<\/em>. So as to plead my cause with the greatest possible effect.<\/p>\n

15<\/a>. I would not answer<\/em>. On the supposition of his summoning me, I would not venture to dispute with Him, or attempt to set up any plea of self-justification.<\/p>\n

My judge<\/em>, or Him that judgeth me<\/em>. \u05de\u05b0\u05e9\u05b9\u05bd\u05c1\u05e4\u05b0\u05d8\u05b4\u05d9<\/span> (meshopheti<\/span>) is probably a Poel participle.<\/p>\n

16<\/a>. Though I had cited him<\/em>. Though it were I who summoned Him to answer for his conduct towards me.<\/p>\n

Answered<\/em>. Obeyed my summons.<\/p>\n

That he would give car to my voice<\/em>. That He would pay any attention to my representations, in the opening of the case, or in the course of the proceedings.<\/p>\n

17<\/a>, 18<\/a>. God deals with me, so evidently according to his own sovereign will and pleasure, that I cannot think that He would consent to give up that sovereignty, by explaining to me, in consequence of representations on my part, the reasons of his dealings with me.<\/p>\n

Without cause<\/em>. Either without any definite object in view<\/em>, or without sufficient ground of guiltiness on my part<\/em>.<\/p>\n

19<\/a>. Lo, he i<\/em>s strong<\/em>. \u05d0\u05b7\u05de\u05b4\u05bc\u05d9\u05e5 \u05d4\u05b4\u05e0\u05b5\u05bc\u05d4<\/span> (ammits hinneh<\/span>) can scarcely be taken, as many have taken it, for \u05d4\u05b4\u05e0\u05b5\u05bc\u05d4 \u05d0\u05b7\u05de\u05b4\u05bc\u05d9\u05e5<\/span> (hinneh ammits<\/span>); and Houbigant\u2019s conjecture, that \u05d4\u05d5\u05bc\u05d0<\/span> (hou<\/span>) is probably the correct reading rather than \u05d4\u05b4\u05e0\u05b5\u05bc\u05d4<\/span> (hinneh<\/span>), is not sufficiently supported, even by similarity of letters, to warrant its entertainment. I concur in the very ingenious conjecture of Schnurrer, adopted by Dathe, and cited by Rosenm\u00fcller, that the \u05d5<\/span> in the following word \u05d5\u05b0\u05d0\u05b4\u05dd<\/span> (weim<\/span>) belongs to the preceding \u05d4\u05b4\u05e0\u05b5\u05bc\u05d4<\/span> (hinneh<\/span>). This would give \u05d4\u05b4\u05e0\u05b5\u05bc\u05d4\u05d5\u05bc<\/span> (hinnehou<\/span>) as the reading (a word which occurs in Jer. 18:3<\/a>), and would remove all difficulty.<\/p>\n

Who will make me the appointment?<\/em> Settle the place and time, &c., for the judicial proceeding. Who is to undertake to make the necessary arrangements for such a trial?<\/p>\n

20<\/a>. If I plead not guilty<\/em>,\u2014lit., if I justify myself<\/em>. But then the expression is to be understood here in a strictly forensic sense.<\/p>\n

My own mouth would condemn me<\/em>. It would convict me of falsehood; or, through my ignorance, I should so commit myself as to say something that would lead to my conviction.<\/p>\n

Would prove me perverse<\/em>,\u2014lit., would pervert me<\/em>.<\/p>\n

21<\/a>. I blameless, &c<\/em>. If I should set up such a plea, it would argue much ignorance of my own heart; I should be acting as if I had no conscience; and I should, in effect, be disavowing my very life, which I cannot but acknowledge to have been imperfect. This verse is difficult, and I give the above sense doubtfully.<\/p>\n

22<\/a>. Whether I plead guilty or not guilty is, as I have intimated, alike; for the fact is, that, so far as outward circumstances go in this world, God puts no difference in his dealings between those two different classes of characters.<\/p>\n

23<\/a>. If the scourge<\/em>. (See the Illustrations<\/a>.)<\/p>\n

At the trial, &c<\/em>.,\u2014i.e.<\/em>, at those afflictions, and, perhaps, unrighteous acts on the part of their fellow-creatures, whereby the faith and patience of the innocent are sorely tried.<\/p>\n

Dathe\u2019s conjecture to read \u05e4\u05b0\u05bc\u05ea\u05b8\u05d0\u05b4\u05dd<\/span> (pethaim<\/span>) instead of \u05e4\u05b4\u05bc\u05ea\u05b0\u05d0\u05b9\u05dd<\/span> (pit<\/span>heom<\/span>) is not bad, as it would certainly give a good parallelism. The translation of the verse would then be:\u2014<\/p>\n

\u201cIf the scourge slay fools<\/em>,<\/p>\n

He laughs at the trial of the innocent<\/em>.\u201d<\/p>\n

That is, whilst God utterly destroys sinners, at the same time He seems to take pleasure in inflicting sorrows upon the good, though, those sorrows are in the shape of trials, and are not, as in the former case, of a penal character.<\/p>\n

I prefer, however, the received text and the translation I have given; in which case the meaning is:\u2014If that scourge (the emblem of executive power), which is in the hand of kings by God\u2019s authority, should, as is frequently the case, be unjustly uplifted, and the innocent should suffer; God, by his very permission of such injustice, certainly seems to connive with those who are allowed to practise it with impunity, and even seems to join with them in their mockery of justice.<\/p>\n

24<\/a>. A case in point, and of frequent occurrence:\u2014By God\u2019s overruling providence, some country happens to be under the sway of a bad man, and the consequence is, that all justice is perverted, the judges being hoodwinked.<\/p>\n

Who will contradict me?<\/em> The sense is incomplete unless some such word as \u05d9\u05b7\u05db\u05b0\u05d6\u05b4\u05d9\u05d1\u05b5\u05e0\u05b4<\/span>\u05d9<\/span> (yachziveni<\/span>) be supplied after \u05d4\u05d5\u05bc\u05d0<\/span> (hou<\/span>); and so, the sentence in full will be, just as it is given in 24:25<\/a>, \u05d5\u05b0\u05d0\u05b4\u05dd \u05dc\u05b9\u05d0 \u05d0\u05b5\u05e4\u05d5\u05b9 \u05de\u05b4\u05d9 \u05d9\u05b7\u05db\u05b0\u05d6\u05b4\u05d9\u05d1\u05b5\u05e0\u05b4\u05d9<\/span> (weim lo apho mi yachziveni<\/span>); and this may be intended as a retort upon the question of Eliphaz in 4:7<\/a>:\u2014Remember, I pray thee, who that was innocent ever perished?<\/em>or where have the upright been effaced?<\/em> Yes, says Job, this is of common occurrence. God has only to make a wicked man king, and injustice becomes the order of the day; the innocent do perish, and the upright are effaced; and this, too, by God\u2019s providence. And this, neither Eliphaz nor any other person can deny.<\/p>\n

25<\/a>. As for my days, &c<\/em>. And then, if I look at my own experience, I find it bears me out in the position I have just laid down, and which I have established by a case in point\u2014that the innocent do<\/em> suffer as well as the guilty.<\/p>\n

Happiness<\/em>,\u2014lit., good<\/em>.<\/p>\n

26<\/a>. In this and the preceding verse Job mentions what travelled the most expeditiously, on land, on water, and through the air.<\/p>\n

Like<\/em>,\u2014lit., with,\u2014i.e., along with;<\/em> and so, as fast as<\/em>.<\/p>\n

\u05d0\u05b5\u05d1\u05b6\u05d4<\/span> (aveh<\/span>). Rosenm\u00fcller adopts the reading \u05d0\u05d9\u05d1\u05d4<\/span> (aivh<\/span>), which is found in many MSS. He punctuates it \u05d0\u05b5\u05d9\u05d1\u05b8\u05d4<\/span> (aivah<\/span>), hostility<\/em>, and so, translates, hostile ships<\/em>. I prefer, however, to retain the received text, and to take it in the same sense as the Arabic \u05d0\u05d1\u05d0\u05d4<\/span> (avah<\/span>), a reed<\/em>. This agrees well with the \u05db\u05b0\u05bc\u05dc\u05b5\u05d9\u05be\u05d2\u05b9\u05de\u05b6\u05d0<\/span> (chelei gom\u00e9<\/span>), vessel<\/em>s of bulrushes<\/em>, in Isa. 18:2<\/a>, and (as Lee observes) those carried in them are there called \u05de\u05b5\u05dc\u05b0\u05d0\u05b8\u05db\u05b4\u05d9\u05dd \u05e7\u05b7\u05dc\u05b4\u05bc\u05d9\u05dd<\/span> (malachim kallim<\/span>), swift messengers<\/em>. (See the Illustrations<\/a>.) Jerome\u2019s translation of the present passage, naves poma portantes<\/em>, i.e., fruit-ships<\/em>, and the Chaldee, cum navibus onustis fructibus delicatis<\/em>, as if from the root \u05d0\u05b8\u05d1\u05b7\u05d1<\/span> (avav<\/span>), is too far-fetched; and still worse, is the translation of some, ships of desire<\/em>, meaning ships hastening, as it were, through desire, to reach port.<\/p>\n

27<\/a>. My plaint,\u2014i.e.<\/em>, my lamentation, or my doleful strain. My elegy<\/em> would, perhaps, as well as any other word, express the original.<\/p>\n

The meaning of this and the two following verses appears to be:\u2014If I have recourse to the expedient of endeavouring to forget my sorrows, and of persuading myself to take a more cheerful view of my case, I feel at once that I cannot do so, for the thought, that God will not clear me of the charge of guilt, rushes upon me, and fills me with alarm; and so, this expedient is as unsuccessful, as the others I have mentioned before.<\/p>\n

My sad looks<\/em>. \u05e4\u05b8\u05bc\u05e0\u05b4\u05d9\u05dd<\/span> (panim<\/span>) has this meaning in 1 Sam. 1:18<\/a>.<\/p>\n

Brighten up<\/em>. This exactly corresponds with the original.<\/p>\n

28<\/a>. I know,\u2014i.e.<\/em>, feel certain<\/em>. The conviction again and again comes upon me that God will deal with me as guilty, and thus excites anew my worst fears.<\/p>\n

29<\/a>. That<\/em>. Supply \u05db\u05b4\u05bc\u05d9<\/span> (chi<\/span>) from the preceding clause, and this removes all difficulty.<\/p>\n

I shall be held guilty, &c<\/em>.,\u2014i.e.<\/em>, accounted so by God in any case, and dealt with by him as such. Why, then, should I be at any pains to clear myself? Why attempt what is impossible?<\/p>\n

30<\/a>. It is generally supposed, I know not how far correctly, that snow has greater detergent properties than ordinary water. I prefer to retain the Kethib \u05d1\u05de\u05d5<\/span> (bemo<\/span>) rather than adopt the Keri \u05d1\u05de\u05d9<\/span> (bemi<\/span>), and have so translated it.<\/p>\n

With soap<\/em>. (See the Illustrations<\/a>.)<\/p>\n

31<\/a>. Although I should be at great pains to make myself appear innocent, yet you would at once make me appear guilty. Job by no means acknowledges his guilt\u2014not, at least, to the extent of considering that he deserved the sufferings that had been inflicted upon him. His argument is simply, that it is useless, for even a good man (as he evidently considers himself to have been), to contend with God on the subject of his innocence, for such are God\u2019s power and holiness, that, if He pleases to be extreme in marking all that is done amiss\u2014if He chooses to enter into exact judgment, He can at once make the best of men appear most deeply guilty.<\/p>\n

Mine own clothes, &c., &c<\/em>. A strong poetical figure. My very clothes would shrink with abhorrence from coming in contact with a body so polluted.<\/p>\n

32<\/a>. He is not, as I, a man, &c<\/em>. To enter into controversy with God would be sheer folly, for we are not on terms of equality. I might be able to vindicate myself and prove my entire innocence before a fellow-man, but not before Him who is a being of altogether another nature than my own,\u2014who cannot enter into the infirmities of my nature,\u2014who is too pure to behold the slightest iniquity without taking cognizance of it,\u2014whose knowledge is such, that He is acquainted with the sin that may be in my inmost thoughts, and whose power is such, that He does what He wills.<\/p>\n

That I should answer him<\/em>. That I, as defendant, should answer to the charges which He, as plaintiff, might proffer against me. (See the Illustrations<\/a>.)<\/p>\n

That we <\/em>should come together, &c<\/em>. That we should refer, as plaintiff and defendant, to a judicial decision.<\/p>\n

33<\/a>. No arbitrator<\/em>. No judge to arbitrate.<\/p>\n

He would lay his hands, &c<\/em>. If there were an arbitrator, he would, by his authority, enforce fair play on both sides, and give an impartial verdict. I call the reader\u2019s attention to the very many MSS. which read \u05dc\u05d5\u05bc<\/span> instead of \u05dc\u05b9\u05d0<\/span>,\u2014i.e., O that there were an<\/em> arbitrator between us!<\/em><\/p>\n

34<\/a>. He would take his rod, &c<\/em>. Such an arbitrator, if there were one to act between God and myself, would not, as God is now doing, lay punishment upon me before my case is tried. The rod, having been an instrument of castigation in frequent use in very early ages, may have been regarded as the symbol of executive justice. (See the Illustrations<\/a>.)<\/p>\n

And the fear of him, &c<\/em>. Under such circumstances, I should be relieved from all those fears which now so operate upon me as to make me afraid of undertaking my own cause.<\/p>\n

35<\/a>. I would speak, &c<\/em>. In such a case\u2014that is, supposing that there were some impartial judge to arbitrate between God and myself,\u2014I would make my depositions without fear, feeling assured that no merely arbitrary power would be exercised against me.<\/p>\n

The language of Job in these last few verses is highly unbecoming. Extreme suffering is the only excuse (if excuse at all is to be admitted) for such rash and intemperate questioning of God\u2019s justice.<\/p>\n

Fo<\/em>r I am not so with myself<\/em>. Perhaps this literal translation may mean,\u2014I am not naturally timid; I am not so with myself, and should not be so in the presence of an arbitrator. In the first instance, I had translated this clause, But in this state I have no self-possession;<\/em> or, as we should say, Under present circumstances I do not feel at home with myself<\/em>. I am, however, doubtful whether the Hebrew phraseology will admit of this latter meaning.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

 <\/p>\n

Job 10<\/a><\/p>\n

1<\/a>. My plaint<\/em>, or plaintive ode<\/em>, and which Job commences in the next verse, and continues to the end of the chapter.<\/p>\n

2<\/a>. Condemn me not<\/em>\u2014without, at least, first stating specifically what are the <\/span>charges against me, and giving me an opportunity of replying to them.<\/p>\n

3<\/a>. Is it good to thee, &c.?<\/em> Job is unwilling to suppose the possibility that God is afflicting him in mere wanton pleasure, but he<\/span> sees no alternative by which he can avoid entertaining the supposition; for he cannot, for a moment, bring himself to think that God is contending with him because he is a sinful man. Job\u2019s position was certainly one of extreme difficulty, and every allowance must be made for it, before we judge him. <\/span>He was not conscious of any moral obliquity, on account of which it was necessary that he should be dealt with so severely, and it did not enter into his mind that his affliction might be sent as a trial of his faith and patience.<\/span><\/p>\n

The work<\/em>. \u05d9\u05b0\u05d2\u05b4\u05d9\u05e2\u05b7<\/span> (yegiagn<\/span>), a work that has required some conside<\/span>rable amount of labour.<\/p>\n

4<\/a>, 5<\/a>. Can it be that you are subject to any of the imperfections which belong to human nature, such as, defect of knowledge, and limited duration of life? The reason of the que<\/span>stion put in ver. 5<\/a> is given in the latter clause of ver. 7<\/a>.<\/p>\n

6<\/a>. Makest inquisition, &c<\/em>. As men do, by means of torture, in order to extort from me some confession of crime. Cannot you judge correctly <\/span>of my case without having recourse to such cruel expedients?<\/p>\n

7<\/a>. Knowing as thou dost<\/em>,\u2014lit., upon thy knowledge;<\/em>\u2014that is, it being upon thy knowledge<\/em>, or, notwithstanding that thou knowest<\/em>. Inasmuch as<\/span> you are omniscient, (for it is not true that you see as man seeth,) you must already be aware of the general uprightness and sincerity of my conduct. And since further, as your existence is not limited like that <\/span>of man (v. 5<\/a>), and I cannot survive you, and so, cannot escape from your power; why should I be so narrowly watched, like a presumed criminal who might possibly effect his escape, from an<\/span> earthly judge, before the day of his trial, or might altogether get off, by the previous death of his accusers?<\/p>\n

8<\/a>. And yet\u2014thou destroyest me!<\/em> It is most mysterious to me that you should now be destr<\/span>oying, by a simultaneous combination of attacks, a work which you have so curiously and wonderfully wrought.<\/p>\n

9<\/a>. Madest me as the clay,\u2014i.e.<\/em>, you formed me as the clay is formed in the hand of the pott<\/span>er. The connexion of this verse with its context has been found most difficult. I consider that the first clause forms a parallelism with the first clause of the preceding verse, and that the latter clauses of both verses are also parallel; and that Job\u2019s meani<\/span>ng is\u2014It appears to me as mysterious, that you should destroy me, the work of your hands, as if a potter, after elaborating some beautiful work out of clay, should break it up and again reduce it to its original shapelessness. Job evidently did not sufficiently recognize the justice of God in making man\u2019s nature accountable for original sin.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

10<\/a>, 11<\/a>. Job very properly looks beyond what are called natural causes, and ascribes his conception and gradual formation in the womb immediately to God.<\/p>\n

12<\/a>. He speaks here of God\u2019s goodness in fi<\/span>rst giving him life, and then, in having preserved it by his ever-watchful Providence. This very proper acknowledgment on the part of Job is somewhat contradicted by what he says in 5:18<\/a>. Job means, i<\/span>n fact, that it was a questionable sort of goodness, that is, that he could not reconcile what appeared to be loving-kindness on the part of God towards him, with God\u2019s after treatment of him.<\/p>\n

13<\/a>. Not<\/span>withstanding all the loving-kindness and care you have bestowed upon me, I feel certain that you all along intended, in your own mind, to bring these calamities upon me. Job intimates that God\u2019s conduct to<\/span>wards him, in this respect, was very mysterious. God had originally, with much wisdom, made him, and had assiduously kept him in being; and yet, strange to say, in the very acts of this continued course of, so to speak, painstaking goodness, God must have always had it in his mind to afflict him.<\/span><\/p>\n

The word evils<\/em> is not expressed in the original, but there is, I think, no doubt that it is to be<\/span> understood. Job, by these things<\/em>, alludes to the manifold sufferings by which God was destroying him on every side\u20145:8<\/a>.<\/p>\n

14<\/a>, 15<\/a>. Innocent<\/em>,\u2014lit., righteous<\/em>, but in a forensic sense, and evidently oppos<\/span>ed to guilty<\/em> in the previous verse.<\/p>\n

Being full of shame, &c<\/em>. I take \u05e9\u05b0\u05c2\u05d1\u05b7\u05e2<\/span> (sevagn<\/span>), and \u05e8\u05b0\u05d0\u05b5\u05d4<\/span> (reeh<\/span>), as infinitives, and to be dealt with as gerunds in this place, and so the literal translation wou<\/span>ld be,\u2014In being full of shame, and in seeing my misery<\/em>. The Hebrews often employ the verb to see<\/em> to express any other faculties of perception, whether of mind or body; such as, hearing, tasting, feeli<\/em><\/span>ng<\/em> (as here), and the like.<\/p>\n

The meaning of these two verses appears to be this. God having long ago decreed (verse 13<\/a>) to afflict me, I have no possible chance of escape; any sin I may have committed <\/span>has been sedulously observed, and will not be passed by; and then, if I be pronounced guilty, I know that a dreadful penalty is inevitable. At the same time, however innocent I may be, yet I cannot look as if I were so; for, the mere idea that I am already punished, and have already<\/span> incurred reproach through my affliction, has brow-beaten me, and makes me feel and look as though I were guilty and <\/span>already condemned.<\/p>\n

16<\/a>. If it did hold itself up,\u2014i.e., my head<\/em>. If I did boldly maintain my innocence\u2014even that would not avail me; you would still pursue me like a lion and make a prey of me, and the<\/span>re would be no escape from your power.<\/p>\n

Wouldest turn again, and act wondrously, &c<\/em>. You would afflict me with new and marvellous sufferings.<\/p>\n

17<\/a>. If I did stand up in my own defence, so determined are <\/span>you to carry out your designs (verse 13<\/a>) against me, that you would only be the more exasperated, and would bring upon me new sorrows, and new pains, and new troubles of every kind, which would be lik<\/span>e so many witnesses against me to make me appear guilty; and so overwhelming and continued would they be, that there would be no standing against them.<\/p>\n

To confront me<\/em>,\u2014lit., before me<\/em>, or, in my prese<\/em><\/span>nce<\/em>.<\/p>\n

A host of reinforcements<\/em>, lit., changes<\/em>, or renewals and a host<\/em>.<\/p>\n

Most translators have misunderstood this verse, and its elegant connexion with the preceding context, by rendering its verbs in th<\/span>e present tense, and thus destroying its manifestly conditional sense.<\/p>\n

18<\/a>. Why then, &c<\/em>. Seeing you are so determined to carry your point against me, and accomplish your long-cherished designs, how is<\/span> it, under such circumstances, that you gave me being at all? Why should I have been born to misery which I could not, by any possibility, have avoided; and the more so, as I might just as easily have died in the womb, as have come out of it? In this, and the following verse, Job is supposing a possible case, an<\/span>d its very possibility aggravates, in his view, the wrong which God had done him, in giving him, or at least in prolonging, his existence.<\/span><\/p>\n

19<\/a>. Job here ends that portion of his song of complaint which is addressed directly to God, and which he had begun in verse 2<\/a>.<\/p>\n

20<\/a>. I have no hesitat<\/span>ion here, notwithstanding the authority of many MSS., in preferring the written text \u05d9\u05d4\u05d3\u05dc<\/span> (ikhdl<\/span>) (i.e.<\/em>, \u05d9\u05b6\u05d7\u05b0\u05d3\u05b7\u05bc\u05dc<\/span> yekhedal<\/span>) to the Masorite reading \u05d5\u05b7\u05d7\u05b2\u05d3\u05b8\u05bd\u05dc<\/span> (wakhedal<\/span>), and so, of course, \u05d9\u05b8\u05e9\u05b4\u05c1\u05d9\u05ea<\/span> (yas<\/span><\/span>hith<\/span>) to \u05d5\u05b0\u05e9\u05b8\u05c1\u05d9\u05ea<\/span> (weshith<\/span>).<\/p>\n

Let him leave me alone<\/em>,\u2014as in 7:16<\/a>.<\/p>\n

Let him put off from me,\u2014i.e.<\/em>, let him take off what he has laid upon me. Job presses this, as before, on the ground that he has not muc<\/span>h longer to live.<\/p>\n

21<\/a>. To a land of darkness, &c<\/em>. This of course is to be connected with the first, and not with the second sentence of the previous clause.<\/p>\n

22<\/a>. Gloom<\/em>,\u2014\u05e2\u05b5\u05e4\u05b8\u05ea\u05b8\u05d4<\/span> (gnephathah<\/span>) is that kind<\/span> of darkness which is produced by a covering intercepting and obscuring light.<\/p>\n

Thick-darkness itself<\/em>. I supply the pronoun in order to give the force of \u05db\u05b0\u05bc\u05de\u05d5\u05b9<\/span> (chemo<\/span>).<\/p>\n

Without intermission<\/em>, or more l<\/span>it., without successions<\/em>. \u05e1\u05b6\u05d3\u05b6\u05e8<\/span> (seder<\/span>) means series, order, succession<\/em>, and the like. Job\u2019s meaning appears to be, that in that dark land there is no vicissitude of day and night; it is one unbroken,<\/span> uninterrupted night there.<\/p>\n

And it shineth, &c<\/em>.,\u2014i.e.<\/em>, the land shineth. This is a sequence and explanation of the previous clause; in that land, there is no grateful succession of day and night, for <\/span>the very daylight there is utter darkness.<\/p>\n

\n

Job 11<\/a><\/p>\n

1<\/a>. Zophar the Naamathite<\/em>. See note on 2:11<\/span><\/a>.<\/p>\n

2<\/a>. Shall not the multitude<\/em>, &c<\/em>. Job perhaps thinks that because he has spoken at great length, he has silenced us, but he is much mistaken; he must a<\/span>nd shall be answered.<\/p>\n

A great talker<\/em>,\u2014lit., a man of lips<\/em>.<\/p>\n

And is a great talker to be justified?<\/em> Are we to take it for granted that long speeches, loud professions, and manifold assertions, are proof<\/span>s that a man is in the right? and are we to give countenance to this idea by being silent?<\/p>\n

3<\/a>. There is no necessity for carrying on the interrogation from the previous verse, and indeed much of the fo<\/span>rce and beauty of the passage is lost by doing so.<\/p>\n

Thy fictions<\/em>,\u2014\u05d1\u05b7\u05bc\u05d3\u05b6\u05bc\u05d9\u05da\u05b8<\/span> (baddeicha<\/span>); this word is usually referred to the root \u05d1\u05b8\u05bc\u05d3\u05b7\u05d3<\/span> (badad<\/span>) in the sense of separation;<\/em> hence, separation from trut<\/em><\/span>h<\/em>, i.e., lies<\/em>. If, however, I referred it to this root, I should consider both from that root and the context here, that irrelevant talking<\/em> was its meaning, but this sense would not be suitable to oth<\/span>er passages in which the word occurs. Gesenius derives it from \u05d1\u05b8\u05bc\u05d3\u05b7\u05d3<\/span> (badad<\/span>) i.q.<\/em>, \u05d1\u05b8\u05bc\u05d8\u05b8\u05d0<\/span> (bata<\/span>), to babble<\/em>, &c.; it seems to me, however, more natural, to take it from \u05d1\u05b8\u05bc\u05d3\u05b7\u05d3<\/span> (badad<\/span>), i.q.<\/em>, \u05d1\u05b8\u05bc\u05d3\u05b8\u05d0<\/span> (<\/span>bada<\/span>), to form, to fashion<\/em> like a potter, and then to devise, to feign;<\/em> in this case our word figment<\/em> or fiction<\/em> will exactly correspond with the original. Lies<\/em> is too strong an expression. Zophar cha<\/span>rges Job with giving utterance to his own fancies and speculations, and which, in point of fact, were misrepresentations of the truth.<\/p>\n

4<\/a>. Thou art to say!<\/em>\u2014and, forsooth, you are to say, &c., &c., with<\/span>out fear of contradiction.<\/p>\n

My doctrine<\/em>,\u2014\u05dc\u05b6\u05e7\u05b7\u05d7<\/span> (lekakh<\/span>) is, something which is received and held and taught as a truth<\/em>.<\/p>\n

5<\/a>. O that God had indeed spoken<\/em>,\u2014as you have challenged him to do. (10:2<\/a>.)<\/p>\n

6<\/a>. Thi<\/span>s verse is one of great difficulty. The translation I offer is literal. If we read \u05d5\u05b0\u05d3\u05b5\u05e2\u05b7<\/span> (wedeagn<\/span>) for \u05d5\u05b0\u05d3\u05b7\u05e2<\/span> (wedagn<\/span>), a conjecture, which, besides furnishing a better sense, gives a more correct div<\/span>ision of the clauses, and does away with what would be, in this place, the awkward necessity of taking an imperative in a future sense.<\/p>\n

\u05ea\u05bc\u05d5\u05bc\u05e9\u05b4\u05c1\u05d9\u05b8\u05bc\u05d4<\/span> (toushiyak<\/span>) from \u05d9\u05b5\u05e9\u05c1<\/span> (yesh<\/span>), and so, anything that <\/span>is real, substantial, and matter of fact; reality<\/em>, as opposed to ideality.<\/p>\n

\u05d3\u05b5\u05e2\u05b7<\/span>\u2014(deagn<\/span>). This word occurs again in this book\u201432:6<\/a>, 10<\/a>, 17<\/a>, and 36:3<\/a>. It means knowledge which is purely notional<\/em>, and so<\/span>, ideal, mere opinion<\/em>. It is here contrasted with reality<\/em>.<\/p>\n

\u05d9\u05b7\u05e9\u05b6\u05bc\u05c1\u05d4<\/span> (iashsheh<\/span>) from \u05e0\u05b8\u05e9\u05b8\u05c1\u05d4<\/span> (nashah<\/span>) = \u05e0\u05b8\u05e9\u05b8\u05c1\u05d0<\/span> (nasha<\/span>). When this word signifies to deceive<\/em> it is followed, as here, by \u05dc\u05b0<\/span> (le<\/span>); compare 2 <\/span>Kings 18:29<\/a>, and Jer. 4:10<\/a>.<\/p>\n

Are double folds<\/em>.\u2014Reality and ideality<\/em> furnish a twofold<\/em> knowledge; one differing almost totally from the other.<\/p>\n

\u05db\u05b4\u05bc\u05d9<\/span> (chi<\/span>)\u2014\u05db\u05b4\u05bc\u05d9<\/span> (chi<\/span>). The second of two causal \u05db\u05b4\u05bc\u05d9<\/span> s is b<\/span>est translated by and<\/em>.<\/p>\n

The meaning of the verse, then, I take to be this:\u2014I wish that God would make you truly wise, by revealing to you the true state of the case, of which you are utterly ignorant, <\/span>for real fact and mere notional knowledge are two distinct things, and God has evidently suffered you to fall into error as a punishment for your iniquity.<\/p>\n

7<\/a>. Zophar insinuates that Job was making the<\/span> vain attempt.<\/p>\n

To perfection,\u2014i.e., to the utmost extent of his perfection<\/em>.<\/p>\n

8<\/a>. Heights of heavens!\u2014i.e.<\/em>, God\u2019s perfection extends to those heights.<\/p>\n

9<\/a>. Of it<\/em>. Of God\u2019s perfection.<\/p>\n

10<\/a>. This verse is ver<\/span>y concise; the meaning of it is,\u2014If God, like an officer of justice, should come suddenly and unexpectedly upon you, and shut up, you or anyone else, in prison, and then bring you out to a public trial and execution, wh<\/span>o is to prevent him? Zophar intimates that God was now acting thus towards Job.<\/p>\n

For instances of \u05e1\u05b8\u05d2\u05b7\u05e8<\/span> (sagar<\/span>), he shut up<\/em>, being used in this sense, see 12:14<\/a>; Deut. 32:30<\/a>; and Ps.<\/span> 31:9<\/a> (8<\/a>, A. V.); and for instances of the use of \u05dc\u05b8\u05d4\u05b7\u05dc<\/span> (kahal<\/span>) in the sense above given, assembling the public to take part in a trial and execution of judgment<\/em>\u2014see Ezek. 23:46<\/a>; also 16:39<\/a>, 40<\/a>.<\/p>\n

The i<\/span>deas of slipping<\/em> and gliding<\/em> in \u05d7\u05b8\u05dc\u05b7\u05e3<\/span> (khalaph<\/span>) give it a sense here of coming at unawares<\/em>.<\/p>\n

11<\/a>. He at least<\/em>. \u05d4\u05d5\u05bc\u05d0<\/span> (hou<\/span>) is emphatic; i.e.<\/em>, God, though no one else.<\/p>\n

Knoweth vain men<\/em>,\u2014knows who amongst <\/span>men is worthless.<\/p>\n

One thinketh it not<\/em>. The unthinking party here spoken of is not actually expressed, but is evidently the same as that which, in the previous verse, is alluded to, as being seized upo<\/span>n and imprisoned, &c., by God.<\/p>\n

God has a perfect right to take the law into his own hands, as described in the previous verse, for he of course is cognizant of all human actions, and can punish the gu<\/span>ilty without any possibility of so mistaking as to cause the innocent to suffer. Men may think to escape because their sins are secret, and do not come under the cognizance of an earthly judge, but God can, and does, readily detect them. Zophar\u2019s insinuation is, that as God had suddenly made Job a spectacle of punishment\u2014it was evident that God was acquainted with so<\/span>me villany or other on the part of Job, and of which his fellow-creatures were ignorant.<\/span><\/p>\n

12<\/a>. For hollow man is full of heart<\/em>. The comparison is between man and such plants as some sorts of reeds, &c., which, though hollow, are full<\/span> of pith; so, man, empty, foolish, really weak, and with nothing to boast of, is nevertheless so full of heart, or perhaps, as we should say, so full of pluck<\/em>, as to be audacious, proud, insolent, and<\/span> self-conceited.<\/p>\n

The meaning of the whole verse seems to be a reason why man does not think or consider (as stated in the previous verse) that God knows and sees wickedness, even because he is made up<\/span> of boldness, and is, by his very nature, as indomitable and obstinate as the wild ass.<\/p>\n

13<\/a>. But<\/em>. I have introduced this word to supply the emphasis of \u05d0\u05b7\u05ea\u05b8\u05bc\u05d4<\/span> (attah<\/span>). The force is,\u2014I say so and so of <\/span>others, but<\/em>, as to you<\/em>, perhaps the case is different,\u2014perhaps you<\/em> have done so and so, &c.<\/p>\n

It is quite in accordance with the Hebrew idiom to translate \u05d5\u05bc\u05e4\u05b8\u05bd\u05e8\u05b7\u05e9\u05b0\u05c2\u05ea\u05b8\u05bc<\/span> (oupharasta<\/span>) here as an imperativ<\/span>e; and so, the parallelism between this and the next verse is preserved. This preterite may have here the sense of a permissive <\/em>imperative<\/em>. Thus, thou hast spread=thou shalt spread=thou mayest spread=<\/em><\/span>spread if you please<\/em>.<\/p>\n

The palms of thy hands<\/em>. These must be spread wide open in prayer, at least in a metaphorical sense, in order to show that they are clean, and that no iniquity is retained in them<\/span>. This much, the next verse sufficiently intimates.<\/p>\n

14<\/a>. Thy tabernacles<\/em>. The dwelling being composed of many tents, the word here may be considered as equivalent to the whole household; it would not b<\/span>e enough for Job to be a man of piety himself, but he must not countenance iniquity in any of his household. Indeed, let not iniquity dwell<\/em>, &c<\/em>., may be considered as equivalent to let not a wicked pe<\/em><\/span>rson dwell<\/em>, &c<\/em>. Compare Gen. 35:1\u20134<\/a>, Jacob cleansing his household previously to presenting himself before God at Bethel.<\/p>\n

15<\/a>. Zophar evidently alludes to Job\u2019s having complained, in 10:15<\/a>, that he cou<\/span>ld not raise his head through fulness of shame (\u05e7\u05b8\u05dc\u05b9\u05d5\u05df<\/span> kalon<\/span>), that shame being occasioned by the miseries with which God had as it were branded him, and which gave him the appearance of one whom God <\/span>had marked as a criminal. Here Zophar promises, that if Job would but put away those iniquities which had clearly been the cause of his sufferings, and of the opprobrium which he endured through them, and would but cease to offer up mere prayers of hypocrisy, then, God would heal him, and so, would remove those scars from his face which a<\/span>t present were so many marks of ignominy to him; he would no longer feel like a culprit, and would be able to raise his head full of conscious rectitude.<\/span><\/p>\n

\u05de\u05d5\u05bc\u05dd<\/span> (moum<\/span>) spot<\/em>. In the Arabic, particularly applied to the pock of the small pox<\/em>, here evidently to the <\/span>marks of Job\u2019s disease.<\/p>\n

Solid<\/em>\u2014\u05de\u05bb\u05e6\u05b8\u05bc\u05e7<\/span> (mutstsak<\/span>). This word properly means fused<\/em> as metal, and so may be taken in the sense either of solidified<\/em> or of refined<\/em>. Lee takes it in the latter sense, and tra<\/span>nslates it pure, on the ground that it ought to be synonymous with \u05de\u05d5\u05bc\u05dd<\/span> (moum<\/span>) spot<\/em>, which, however, he is mistaken in understanding in a moral sense. The parallelism moreover requires that \u05de\u05bb\u05e6\u05b8\u05bc\u05e7<\/span> (mu<\/span><\/span>tstsak<\/span>) should be understood here as signifying what is massive, firm, compact<\/em>, or stanch<\/em>, or perhaps, as we should say, made of iron<\/em>. Job was now in a relaxed and weak condition, so bowed down that h<\/span>e was unable to raise himself, but if he performed the proposed conditions, he would be able to lift himself up; and more than that, strong in the might of conscious uprightness, he would be able to hold himself erect, stiff as a molten statue, and would be fearless.<\/span> This word may be contrasted with \u05e0\u05b8\u05d1\u05d5\u05bc\u05d1<\/span> (navouv<\/span>) hollow<\/em>, in 5:12<\/a>.<\/p>\n

16<\/a>. As waters that have passed away<\/em>. Perhaps here is allusion to t<\/span>he deluge, which had been of then recent occurrence. Or the reference may be to torrents of waters, which, at the time of their rolling down, and threatening destruction, cause alarm, but which, as soon as they subside, are, togeth<\/span>er with the temporary alarm they occasioned, forgotten.<\/p>\n

17<\/a>. Wrapped in gloom<\/em>. Three MSS. read \u05ea\u05b0\u05bc\u05e2\u05bb\u05e4\u05b8\u05d4<\/span> (tegnouphah<\/span>), as also the Chaldee and Syriac versions appear to ha<\/span>ve done. In this case the translation would be, Mantling gloom shall be as the morning<\/em>.<\/p>\n

18<\/a>. You have hitherto been put to shame through disappointment of your hopes; you have not found the rest you ha<\/span>d expected; your hopes have proved unsubstantial and unreal, but the case will be different if you repent; your confidence will be well founded, your hope will rest on a solid basis, and you will feel<\/span> secure from all further alarm.<\/p>\n

There shall be hope<\/em>. The force of \u05d9\u05b5\u05e9\u05c1<\/span> (yesh<\/span>) is there shall be real hope<\/em>.<\/p>\n

Though thou hast blushed<\/em>, i.e.<\/em>, through disappointment of hopes formerly indulged. This is ev<\/span>idently contrasted with the real existence of hope<\/em> spoken of in the former clause.<\/p>\n

If \u05d7\u05b8\u05bd\u05e4\u05b7\u05e8\u05b0\u05ea\u05b8\u05bc<\/span> (khapharta<\/span>) be taken in its primary signification, then the translation will be, And thou shalt dig, an<\/em><\/span>d shalt repose in security<\/em>, meaning either thou shalt dig wells<\/em>, or thou shalt entrench thyself<\/em>.<\/p>\n

19<\/a>. The picture presented in this verse is one of pastoral repose and security. Like cattle that lie do<\/span>wn in their pastures, without any fear of being disturbed by the incursion of wild beasts, and that are gratified when their faces are stroked by those of whom they have no dread. So Job, according to Zophar\u2019s promise, shall have full enjoyment of ease without fear of molestation, and shall have the <\/span>additional gratification of being much caressed.<\/p>\n

Thou shalt couch<\/em>. To couch\u2014\u05e8\u05b8\u05d1\u05b7\u05e5<\/span> (ravats<\/span>)\u2014is to li<\/span>e down as animals do.<\/p>\n

Shall stroke thy face<\/em>. The meaning is, shall gratify<\/em>, or caress<\/em>, or curry favor with<\/em>, but no doubt we have here the very origin of the phrase, giving pleasure to an animal by rub<\/em><\/span>bing<\/em> or stroking its face<\/em>.<\/p>\n

20<\/a>. This graphic verse is no doubt pointed at Job. If Job does not repent, and continues wicked, he can indulge no other prospect but a miserable termination of his hopes.<\/p>\n

B<\/em><\/span>ut the eyes of the wicked<\/em>, &c<\/em>. When danger presses, the wicked shall strain and weary their eyes in looking out for a place to flee to, but they shall be utterly disappointed, for they shall not be ab<\/span>le to find the expected place of refuge, and their hope will undergo a death as real as that which takes place in natural dissolution.<\/p>\n

Refuge<\/em>. \u05de\u05b8\u05e0\u05b9\u05d5\u05e1<\/span> (manos<\/span>), a place to flee to<\/em>.<\/p>\n

Hath disappeared from<\/em><\/span> them<\/em>,\u2014or hath got lost to them<\/em>. This is the first sense of \u05d0\u05b8\u05d1\u05b7\u05d3<\/span> (avad<\/span>), and is particularly its meaning when followed, as here, by \u05de\u05b4\u05df<\/span> (min<\/span>).<\/p>\n

The expiring of life<\/em>. There is no doubt about this being<\/span> the meaning of \u05de\u05b7\u05e4\u05b7\u05bc\u05d7 \u05e0\u05b8\u05bd\u05e4\u05b6\u05e9\u05c1<\/span> (mappakh naphesh<\/span>). The phrase occurs again in another form in ch. 31:39<\/a>.<\/p>\n

\n

Job 12<\/a><\/p>\n

2<\/a>. Ye are the people<\/em>, lit., ye are a people<\/em>. But I suspect that the Hebrew phrase precisely corresponds with the English one here given, and which I have retained from the authorized version.<\/p>\n

S<\/span>ome versionists appear to have read \u05ea\u05bb\u05bc\u05de\u05b9\u05bc\u05d5\u05ea<\/span> (tummoth<\/span>) instead of \u05ea\u05b8\u05bc\u05de\u05d5\u05bc\u05ea<\/span> (tamouth<\/span>) in the second clause, in which case the translation would be, And the perfection of wisdom is with you<\/em>.<\/p>\n

3<\/a>. Mind<\/em>, lit<\/span>., a heart;<\/em> but then the Hebrews often used the word heart<\/em> just as we use the word head<\/em> or brain<\/em>.<\/p>\n

And who hath not such things as these?<\/em> Who is ignorant of such common-place aphorisms and truths as th<\/span>ose you have brought forward?<\/p>\n

4<\/a>. A man that calleth<\/em>, &c<\/em>., i.e.<\/em>, I who am a man that calleth.<\/p>\n

5<\/a>. This verse has been misunderstood. The translation I have given is literal. Job is evidently here citing<\/span> some well-known proverb. The application of the adage is clearly to himself and his friends.\u2014You, being in circumstances of ease and security, hold me in contempt, as one who is not likely to be of any further use to you; and yet, the time may come when you may be glad to avail yourselves of my services.<\/span> A season of darkness and danger may arrive, and then you may wish to make use of my light. That such proved in some measure to be the case, we learn from the sequel of the history.<\/span><\/p>\n

It is immaterial whether we read \u05e2\u05b7\u05e9\u05b0\u05c1\u05ea\u05b9\u05bc\u05d5\u05ea<\/span> (gnashtoth<\/span>), thinkings<\/em>, as in the received text, or \u05e2\u05b7\u05e9\u05b0\u05c1\u05ea\u05bc\u05d5\u05bc\u05ea<\/span> (gnas<\/span><\/span>htouth<\/span>), thinking<\/em>, as in some copies. But I prefer the former.<\/p>\n

6<\/a>. Tabernacles<\/em>, &c<\/em>. You, my friends, have promised me, if I am a righteous man, a safe tabernacle and secure repose, &c.; and you have to<\/span>ld me that it is the tent of the wicked that gets destroyed, &c. (chap. 5:24<\/a>; 8:22<\/a>; 11:18<\/a>, 19<\/a>); but I deny all this. I maintain that safe tabernacles and full security are not for pious persons, but f<\/span>or those who ravage other people\u2019s property, and who by their lawlessness provoke God.<\/p>\n

After \u05d4\u05b5\u05d1\u05b4\u05d9\u05d0<\/span> (hevi<\/span>), supply \u05ea\u05b0\u05bc\u05d1\u05d5\u05bc\u05d0\u05b8\u05d4<\/span> (tevouah<\/span>), income<\/em> or revenue<\/em>.<\/p>\n

Ravagers<\/em>, &c<\/em>. Men who are the pests of societ<\/span>y, and the most impious, appear to be under God\u2019s special protection, and to Him they owe the success of their maraudings. Asaph\u2019s complaint in Ps. 73:3\u201312<\/a> is not unlike this. (See the Illustrations<\/a>.)<\/span><\/p>\n

7<\/a>. The connexion of this verse with the foregoing is difficult. Some suppose that Job breaks the thread of his discourse by a digression (vers. 4<\/a>, 5<\/a>, 6<\/a>), and that he here resumes his thread. This ver<\/span>se is in that case connected with verse 3<\/a>. Job intimates that it is not necessary to scale heaven, or fathom hell, &c., &c. (chap. 11:8<\/a>), in order to discover that God is infinitely wise and powerful.<\/span> The brute creation, in their instincts, habits, and natures in general, are an evidence of an almighty and all-wise Creator and Preserver.<\/p>\n

Others, however, suppose that the connexion of the verse is <\/span>with the immediately preceding context. In this I agree, and understand the passage thus,\u2014Look at the brute creation, and see there if what I say be not true, that the most destructive are the most secure. Look at lions, and vultures, and great reptiles, and s<\/span>harks; and they are all so many proofs of the truth of my statement.<\/p>\n

Ask any beast<\/em>, &c<\/em>.,\u2014lit., ask the beasts, and it, i.e., each<\/em>, or any of<\/em><\/span> them, shall teach thee<\/em>.<\/p>\n

8<\/a>. Address<\/em>. Some take \u05e9\u05b4\u05c2\u05d9\u05d7\u05b7<\/span> (siakh<\/span>) as a noun, and translate it shrubs<\/em>, meaning the vegetable kingdom in general; but, besides the fact that \u05e9\u05b4\u05c2\u05d9\u05d7\u05b7<\/span> (siakh<\/span>) is masculine, and <\/span>so could ill agree with the feminine verb \u05ea\u05b9\u05bc\u05e8\u05b6\u05da\u05b8\u05bc<\/span> (torecha<\/span>), the appeal to the vegetable, in the midst of that to the animal kingdom, would be forced and abrupt; whereas, if \u05e9\u05b4\u05c2\u05d9\u05d7\u05b7<\/span> (siakh<\/span>) be taken a<\/span>s a verb, it forms a good parallelism with \u05e9\u05b0\u05c1\u05d0\u05b7\u05dc<\/span> (sheal<\/span>) in the preceding verse; and if we understand by \u05d0\u05b6\u05e8\u05b6\u05e5<\/span> (erets<\/span>) here the reptiles of the earth<\/em>, we have an enumeration of the four great divisio<\/span>ns of the animal kingdom, and the same four which are recorded in the history of the creation in Gen. 1<\/a>.<\/p>\n

9<\/a>. By every one of these<\/em>,\u2014lit., by all these;<\/em> but \u05d6\u05b9\u05d0\u05ea<\/span> (zoth<\/span>) in the following clause, being si<\/span>ngular, individualizes; and so, Job asserts not merely a general, but also a special Providence.<\/p>\n

Let any one of all these creatures be examined, and who is so dull as not to perceive in each the handi<\/span>work of the Eternal God? Job\u2019s inference probably is\u2014As they are manifestly made by God, so also their natural habits are of Him; and of Him, therefore, it comes that those animals which are the most rapacious are the strongest, and so, the most secure. And thus, from the analogy of nature, Job deduces<\/span> an argument in proof of his position, that, as a general rule of God\u2019s providence, those men who are the greatest scourges of society are the most prosperous.<\/span><\/p>\n

10<\/a>. God is not only the Creator, but also the Preserver and Governor of all.<\/p>\n

The flesh of all men<\/em>,\u2014lit., all the flesh of man<\/em>.<\/p>\n

The infere<\/span>nce here is, that both beast and man are alike subject to one and the same Divine administration; and that as in the one case the law is that the stronger subdues the weaker, irrespectively of disposition or ch<\/span>aracter so the same law holds good in the other case; and this law is traceable to God\u2019s providence.<\/p>\n

Soul<\/em> and spirit<\/em> are here distinguished. The \u05e0\u05b6\u05e4\u05b6\u05e9\u05c1<\/span> (nephesh<\/span>), or soul<\/em>, as it is usually t<\/span>ranslated, is that principle of natural life which is common to the whole animal creation, both man and brute; the \u05e8\u05d5\u05bc\u05d7\u05b7<\/span> (rouakh<\/span>), or spirit<\/em>, is that which is generally used to distinguish man from th<\/span>e brute.<\/p>\n

11<\/a>. I have no doubt but that Job is here citing a proverb. The same proverb is cited also by Elihu in 34:3<\/a>. The meaning appears to be:\u2014It is as natural and as much the duty of the ear to exam<\/span>ine for itself, and to judge of the opinions that are proposed to it, as it is for the palate to taste and judge of food. It does not become me, therefore, to receive the sentiments which you have advanced, without making use of that discriminating judgment which I have by nature, and<\/span> of which I am bound to avail myself. Let me, then, bring doctrines to the test.<\/p>\n

12<\/a>. Also, probably, a proverbial s<\/span>aying. The connexion of this and the previous verse with the context has given much difficulty to commentators. Reiske, with some ingenuity, conjectures that they should be placed after the second verse of this chapter, whilst Micha<\/span>elis supposes that Job, from ver. 13<\/a> to the end of the chapter, cites some portion of an ancient poem, as Bildad had done in chap. 8<\/a>. But it appears to me that the conn<\/span>exion is this:\u2014I must use my own discrimination in judging of your statements, (ver. 11<\/a>.) Well, what are they worth? You have appealed to antiquity in support of your views, on the ground that with th<\/span>e hoary is wisdom, &c. Well, I grant this; but of what value to the argument is this appeal, seeing that with God is power as well as wisdom, and that He does just what He pleases? (ver. 13<\/a>, &c.)<\/p>\n

13<\/a>. <\/span>With God<\/em>,\u2014lit., with him;<\/em> but of course God is intended:<\/p>\n

God is powerful as well as wise, and what He does, He does by design. Job then proceeds, in the verses which follow, to illustrate this truth b<\/span>y instances of daily occurrence\u2014to show, in fact, that God\u2019s ways of proceeding with men were such as could not be accounted for by any laws which men, however ancient or however wise (see ver. 12<\/a>), m<\/span>ight please to assume to be the laws of the Divine government. Thus, with one sweep, Job overturns the arguments of his opponents. They had all maintained that God\u2019s rule was to prosper the righteous and <\/span>overthrow the wicked, and Bildad especially had appealed to antiquity in support of this view: but, says Job, no amount of human learning can discover upon what principles that God, who is infinitely wise and powerful, is pleased to act; all that we can see is, that God raises up and puts down men just as seemeth Him good; but there is nothing to show that, in all this, He observes any particular law,<\/span> and still less that that law is\u2014that He rewards the good and punishes the wicked.<\/span><\/p>\n

14<\/a>. He breaketh down<\/em>\u2014houses, cities, kingdoms, or whatever He pleases.<\/p>\n

He shutteth up a man<\/em>,\u2014lit., He shuttet<\/em><\/span>h upon<\/em> or over a man<\/em>; therefore, after \u05d9\u05b4\u05e1\u05b0\u05d2\u05b9\u05bc\u05e8<\/span> (isgor<\/span>), understand \u05e1\u05b0\u05d2\u05b9\u05d5\u05e8<\/span> (segor<\/span>), an inclosure<\/em>, or \u05e1\u05d5\u05bc\u05d2\u05b7\u05e8<\/span> (sougar<\/span>), a prison<\/em>, or some such word. Or perhaps the pregnant construction is supplied from<\/span> \u05d9\u05b4\u05d1\u05b8\u05bc\u05e0\u05b6\u05d4<\/span> (ibbaneh<\/span>), the word immediately preceding, giving this sense\u2014God shuts up<\/em> a man, by building over<\/em> him; a figurative way of expressing that God incarcerates him in the tomb.<\/p>\n

15<\/a>. The dry land<\/em>,<\/span> \u05d0\u05b6\u05e8\u05b6\u05e5<\/span> (erets<\/span>),\u2014lit., earth<\/em>, but here, I think, synonymous with \u05d9\u05b5\u05d1\u05b8\u05bc\u05e9\u05b8\u05c1\u05d4<\/span> (yabbashah<\/span>), dry land<\/em>. See Gen. 1:10<\/a>, with which Job was of course acquainted. Not unlikely, allusion is here made to the delu<\/span>ge.<\/p>\n

16<\/a>. Reality<\/em>. Reality of purpose, fact, &c<\/em>.<\/p>\n

The misled and the misleader are his<\/em>. This is true, whether in a general, or in a particular, sense. God makes use alike of deluders and deluded for the <\/span>accomplishment of his designs; so that what is done through these his instruments is done to purpose; there is a reality<\/em> in the work. We have instances in 1 Kings 22:19<\/a>, &c.; Ezek. 14:9<\/a>, &c.; and 2 Th<\/span>ess. 2:11<\/a>.<\/p>\n

17<\/a>. He marcheth off counsellors stripped<\/em>\u2014as prisoners taken in war, more or less denuded, to their greater disgrace. (See the Illustrations<\/a>.) Compare also Isa. 20<\/a>.<\/p>\n

\u05e9\u05c1\u05d5\u05b9\u05dc\u05b8\u05dc<\/span> (sholal<\/span>), probabl<\/span>y for \u05de\u05b0\u05e9\u05b9\u05c1\u05d5\u05dc\u05b8\u05dc<\/span> (mesholal<\/span>). The singular is used in order to express that each<\/em> of the counsellors referred to is in the predicament described.<\/p>\n

Counsellors<\/em>. Men who, by their superior sagacity and poli<\/span>tical knowledge, it might have been supposed would have avoided so disgraceful a calamity.<\/p>\n

Maketh judges fools<\/em>. Job means that whilst experience shows this sometimes to be the case, yet it is unaccoun<\/span>table according to human calculation, and must be referred to God\u2019s will and power. His object throughout is to show how impossible it is for man to find out any fixed law according to which God acts. (See the <\/span>Illustrations<\/a>.)<\/p>\n

18<\/a>. He looseth the authority<\/em>, \u05de\u05d5\u05bc\u05e1\u05b8\u05e8<\/span> (mousar<\/span>),\u2014lit., the correction<\/em> or discipline<\/em>, such as a parent exercises over his children, or a king over his subjects. I think, however<\/span>, that as the root \u05d9\u05b8\u05e1\u05b7\u05e8<\/span> (yasar<\/span>) is evidently cognate with \u05d0\u05b8\u05e1\u05b7\u05e8<\/span> (asar<\/span>), to bind<\/em>; and as \u05e4\u05b4\u05bc\u05ea\u05b5\u05bc\u05d7\u05b7<\/span> (pitteakh<\/span>), He looseth<\/em>, particularly implies the undoing<\/em> or unfastening<\/em> of something that is bound; an<\/span>d as, moreover, the parallelism would be more complete, we might translate this passage\u2014He unfasteneth the sash of kings<\/em>; in other words, He takes off from them the insignia of their office (see the I<\/span>llustrations<\/a>), and then (as in the next clause), He fastens upon them a very different girdle\u2014one that is the badge of slavery, or the cord by which they are led away captive.<\/p>\n

19<\/a>. Stripped<\/em>. Divested o<\/span>f their sacerdotal robes, and in the garb of captives. (See the Illustrations<\/a>.)<\/p>\n

20<\/a>. Removeth the lip, &c<\/em>. God, when it seemeth Him good, deprives of the faculty of eloquence trustworthy men, who might<\/span> otherwise have given sound and faithful advice, and which would have been followed. And, at the same time, He deprives of all capacity of discernment aged men, who are generally depended upon for sage counsels; and thus, the affairs of the nation being mismanaged, ruin ensues.<\/span><\/p>\n

21<\/a>. Looseneth the belt of the impetuous<\/em>. (See the Illustrations<\/a>.)<\/p>\n

22<\/a>. There is nothing so secret or murderous in men\u2019s de<\/span>signs but God can, and often does, expose and frustrate them.<\/p>\n

23<\/a>. Carrieth them off<\/em>. The ordinary meaning of \u05e0\u05b8\u05d7\u05b8\u05d4<\/span> (nachah<\/span>) is simply to lead<\/em>, but the whole context and the parallelism require that th<\/span>e sense attached to it here be one of calamity of some kind\u2014leading into captivity<\/em>, or the like. It is thus used in 2 Kings 18:11<\/a>. The Arabic \u05d0\u05e0\u05d7\u05d0<\/span> (ankha<\/span>) means to remove a thing out of its place, to <\/em><\/span>lead off<\/em>, &c.,\u2014meanings which are very suitable here.<\/p>\n

24<\/a>. He depriveth of sense, &c<\/em>. God makes the rulers of a nation or community lose their heads (as we might say) just when these are most needed; a<\/span>nd so, the affairs of the people get involved in inextricable confusion; or, under the guidance of their bewildered leaders, the people do literally get entangled in some pathless desert, and are lost.<\/span><\/p>\n

The people of a land<\/em>,\u2014lit., the people of the land<\/em>, i.e.<\/em>, of any particular land.<\/p>\n

25<\/a>. Compare Isa. 19:14<\/a>; 28:7<\/a>; and 29:9<\/a>, 10<\/a>.<\/p>\n

\n
\n
\n

Job 13<\/a><\/p>\n

1<\/a>. All that I have said with reference to God is from my own personal knowledge: I have been no inattentive observer of such facts.<\/p>\n

2<\/a>. He here repeats in substance what he had asserted in the beginning of his discourse in 12:3<\/a>; evidently with the conviction that he had now made good that assertion by what he had just said respecting the sovereignty of God.<\/p>\n

3<\/a>. But<\/em>,\u2014in spite of all that you might urge to the contrary of what I have said, I will now address myself to God.<\/p>\n

I do choose<\/em>,\u2014the \u05d0\u05d5\u05bc\u05dc\u05b8\u05dd<\/span> (oulam<\/span>) but<\/em> in the previous clause gives this force to \u05d0\u05b6\u05d7\u05b0\u05e4\u05b7\u05bc\u05e5<\/span> (ekhepats<\/span>).<\/p>\n

Job declines to have any further discussion with his friends upon the subject on which they had been, up to this time, arguing, for reasons which he gives in the next verse, namely, that they did no more than set off, what was false, to the best advantage. He prefers to refer the solution of the question to God himself, and in future to direct his inquiries to him. This Job does, after some preliminary observations addressed to his friends, from 5:20<\/a> to the end of his discourse.<\/p>\n

4<\/a>. Glossers<\/em>.\u2014I cannot see upon what authority the ideas of sewing together<\/em>, then of fabricating<\/em>, and then of forging<\/em>, should have been given to \u05d8\u05b8\u05e4\u05b7\u05dc<\/span> (taphal<\/span>). The Chaldee \u05d8\u05b0\u05e4\u05b7\u05dc<\/span> (tephal<\/span>) is to adhere<\/em>, (in the Pihel, metaphorically, to stick to a thing, i.e.<\/em>, to be assiduous<\/em>), to anoint<\/em>, to plaister over<\/em>, to besmear<\/em>, hence in Syriac t<\/em>o soil<\/em>; and in the Rabbinic use of the word we have the meaning of glazing<\/em> earthenware jars, and other like things.<\/p>\n

Ye are glossers of falsehood<\/em>,\u2014you give a colouring to, and set off, what is really false to the best advantage. This suits the similar passage in Ps. 119:69<\/a>. Such men are of course the most dangerous to deal with.<\/p>\n

Physicians of a non-entity,\u2014i.e.<\/em>, the principle that you are attempting to doctor up with all the skill you can command, is after all a mere nothing\u2014a thing that has no real existence. The word physician<\/em> is from \u05e8\u05b8\u05e4\u05b8\u05d0<\/span> (rapha<\/span>), to sew up, to mend<\/em>, and there may be allusion to this, here. Job\u2019s friends were patching up<\/em> what was worthless.<\/p>\n

5<\/a>. So Proverbs 17:28<\/a>.<\/p>\n

6<\/a>. This is no contradiction to what he had said in 5:3<\/a>; for he does not address his friends on the subject upon which the discussion had hitherto principally turned, but merely assigns a reason why he will not attend again to their reasonings.<\/p>\n

7<\/a>. How can you justify your conduct when, under the pretence of vindicating God\u2019s dealings, you are dishonest enough (having no sufficient grounds except your own malevolence and suspiciousness to do so) to charge me with impiety? Can you suppose that God desires such wicked artifices to be resorted to, in order to exculpate him from all appearance of injustice?<\/p>\n

8<\/a>. Will ye show him personal favor?<\/em>\u2014lit., Will ye accept his person?<\/em> as unrighteous judges who respect not so much the justice of the cause, as the influence, &c., of the person.<\/p>\n

It is great hypocrisy when under the semblance of doing God right, we wrong our fellow-men; Isa. 66:5<\/a>, and John 16:2<\/a>.<\/p>\n

Wil<\/em>l ye plead for God?<\/em> Does he stand in need of such advocates as you are?<\/p>\n

It is a duty incumbent upon us to plead for God with those who are ignorant of him, or who affect to despise him, or who question his goodness; but care must be taken that we do this in a way that becomes his greatness and his righteousness; not in a patronising spirit, and as though we were doing him great service, in attempting to vindicate his honour when assailed, and certainly not in a spirit of uncharitableness against those with whom we argue on his behalf.<\/p>\n

9<\/a>. Would it be to your advantage, if that heart-searching God, whom you cannot deceive, should expose the motives by which you are actuated, in condemning me, under the pretence of vindicating his dealings?<\/p>\n

10<\/a>. That God who hates and condemns all partiality in judgment cannot but hate and condemn it, even when ostensibly exercised in his favor.<\/p>\n

Covertly<\/em>,\u2014outwardly professing to judge fairly of the controversy between me and God; but biassed in your judgment by secret feelings of hostility towards me, and a secret wish to make me appear guilty, and that, in spite of your own convictions (which you are unjust enough not to acknowledge) that I am not so.<\/p>\n

11<\/a>. Ought you not to be deterred from such unscrupulous conduct by a sense of the awful majesty of God?<\/p>\n

12<\/a>. Your heaps of proverbial sayings are mere rubbish,\u2014no better than the ashes of the men who long ago uttered them, no better than the mounds of clay that mark their burial places. This appears to me the meaning of this verse, which has occasioned much perplexity, and has been very variously rendered. The Arabs of old, like the present Arabs, apparently prided themselves in being able to quote abundant proverbs. So also the Spaniards, who no doubt had it from the Arabs: thus we find Sancho Panza bringing them out by dozens, on all occasions, to the great annoyance of his master Don Quixote.<\/p>\n

13<\/a>. I repeat my determination (5:3\u20135<\/a>), I will not enter into further argument with you upon the subject of our discussions\u2014but will address myself to God\u2014be the consequences what they may.<\/p>\n

Be silent<\/em> [and hold off<\/em>] from me<\/em>,\u2014a pregnant construction; supply \u05d5\u05b0\u05d7\u05b4\u05d3\u05b0\u05dc\u05d5\u05bc<\/span> (wekhidelou<\/span>) or some such word.<\/p>\n

14<\/a>. Why should I (do you suppose) act so cruelly towards my own self, as to run any risks, and expose myself to unnecessary danger; if it be not from the confidence I feel of being able to justify myself before God as a sincere and honest man?<\/p>\n

And put my own life in my hand<\/em>,\u2014the following passages sufficiently show that the meaning of this Hebrew phrase is, put myself in jeopardy<\/em>,\u2014Jud. 12:3<\/a>; 1 Sam. 19:5<\/a>; 28:21<\/a>; and Ps. 119:109<\/a>. I am inclined to think that Job is here using some common proverbial expression.<\/p>\n

15<\/a>. Though he should slay me, I will not wait<\/em>.\u2014I have said that I will argue my case before God, and before him alone: be the consequences what they may (5:13<\/a>), I stand to this; yea, though the consequence of my doing so should be, that I should provoke God to slay me outright, yet I am determined that I shall wait no longer in doing this.\u2014This explanation exactly suits the context, and I see no reason whatever for departing from the original text \u05dc\u05b9\u05d0<\/span> (lo<\/span>) and for adopting the Masoretic reading \u05dc\u05b9\u05d5<\/span> (lo<\/span>).<\/p>\n

Defend my own ways before him<\/em>. It is difficult to give concisely the full meaning of the original,\u2014argue with him that my ways are right<\/em>, or put them in a right point of view <\/em>that he may be convinced<\/em>, &c., &c.<\/p>\n

16<\/a>. \u05d4\u05d5\u05bc\u05d0<\/span> (hou<\/span>) is here, that<\/em>, not he<\/em>;\u2014so the Sept., Schultens, Rosenm\u00fcller, Dathe, Lee, &c., &c.<\/p>\n

Ay! and that will, &c<\/em>. And, moreover, this very fact of my determination to defend before him the principles and actions, &c., &c., of my life, is already an indication of my conscious uprightness and of my final triumph; for in a general way, no ungodly person would venture upon such a step.<\/p>\n

17<\/a>. I mean what I say, in stating that it is my positive intention to argue my case with God, and therefore I wish you particularly to note that such is my intention.<\/p>\n

18<\/a>. I h<\/em>ave opened the proceedings<\/em>,\u2014more lit., arrayed the trial<\/em>, or drawn up every thing, as in battle array, and so, ready for the trial<\/em>.<\/p>\n

I shall be justified<\/em>,\u2014this does not mean, acquitted from charge of g<\/em>uilt<\/em>, as though Job were a presumed criminal at the bar, but, my cause will be found to be a righteous one<\/em>; Job appears here in the character of a litigant with God.<\/p>\n

19<\/a>. If we take \u05de\u05b4\u05d9\u05be\u05d4\u05d5\u05bc\u05d0<\/span> (mi hou<\/span>) as it stands in the text, the difficulties are insuperable. I gladly adopt Lee\u2019s conjecture that \u05d9\u05b4\u05ea\u05b5\u05bc\u05df<\/span> (itten<\/span>) ought to be understood, and the ellipsis thus supplied \u05de\u05b4\u05d9\u05be\u05d9\u05b4\u05ea\u05b5\u05bc\u05df \u05d4\u05d5\u05bc\u05d0 \u05d9\u05b8\u05e8\u05b4\u05d9\u05d1<\/span> (mi itten h<\/span>ou yariv<\/span>). But I cannot agree with the view he takes of the latter clause of the verse.<\/p>\n

The meaning of the whole seems to be\u2014Everything being now ready for the trial to proceed, and conscious of the justice of my cause (5:18<\/a>), I wish that God would accept my challenge, for it would now be death to me, having launched out thus far, not to go forward with the case.<\/p>\n

20<\/a>, 21<\/a>. Only do not two things, &c<\/em>. The two things which are specified in the next verse. This is of course addressed to God. Job here wishes God to act towards him, as he (Job) had supposed that a fair arbitrator would act (see 9:34<\/a>, &c.).<\/p>\n

Then will I not hide myself, &c<\/em>.,\u2014as Adam, when conscious of guilt\u2014Gen. 3:8\u201310<\/a>; or as a criminal who absconds that he may evade his trial.<\/p>\n

He now addresses himself to God, but, before proceeding with the case, he begs to make two provisoes, in order that he may be able to conduct it without any suspicion, on his part, of its being prejudged, or any fear of being brow-beaten by the terrible majesty of his opponent: he accordingly asks, first, for an entire cessation of his present sufferings; and secondly, that God\u2019s visible presence (which he seems all along to have expected,\u2014an expectation which at length he appears to have realized\u201438:1<\/a>, and 42:5<\/a>) might not be attended with any awful demonstrations of his Majesty.<\/p>\n

22<\/a>. He gives God the option of being either appellant or defendant.<\/p>\n

23<\/a>. Apparently forgetful of his offer in the former verse, he instantly assumes that he is the appellant and God the defendant, and opens the debate in most impassioned strains. This sudden outburst of Job\u2019s reminds one not a little of the \u201cQuousque tandem, Catilina,\u201d of Cicero.<\/p>\n

How many, &c<\/em>. Judging from the severity with which you have dealt with me, one would imagine that my sins must be multitudinous, but tell me what and how many they are, or inform me of even one of them.<\/p>\n

24<\/a>. Show me what is the ground of your evident displeasure, and of the hostility you evince towards me.<\/p>\n

25<\/a>. Job implies that God does so act in nature, and so also with him, but he cannot understand the reason of his doing so. Job does not question the fact, but the right of it.<\/p>\n

26<\/a>. Job again (see 5:23<\/a>) apparently forgets himself, and regards God as plaintiff, himself as defendant. In the ancient Egyptian courts, the plaintiff always made his deposition of charges against the defendant in writing<\/em>, and to some such deposition of charges on the part of God against Job reference may here be made. Or else the writing here alluded may have been the sentence of the Judge (see Ps. 149:9<\/a>, and Jer. 22:30<\/a>). The Arabic \u05db\u05ea\u05d0\u05d1<\/span> (chthav<\/span>), a writing<\/em>, means also a judicial sentence<\/em>. So Schultens, Rosenm\u00fcller, Dathe, &c., &c.<\/p>\n

27<\/a>. The clog<\/em>\u2014\u05e1\u05b7\u05d3<\/span> (sad<\/span>)\u2014evidently some instrument which so bound the feet as to impede, but, as the next clause shows, not altogether hinder motion. I have not found anything in the way of illustration of it. The feet of Joseph when a prisoner in Egypt were put into a \u05db\u05b6\u05bc\u05d1\u05b6\u05dc<\/span> (chevel<\/span>), a fetter<\/em> made of \u05d1\u05b7\u05bc\u05e8\u05b0\u05d6\u05b6\u05dc<\/span> (barzel<\/span>) iron<\/em>. See Ps. 105:18<\/a>.<\/p>\n

And guardest all my paths<\/em>,\u2014to prevent the possibility of my escape.<\/p>\n

Upon the nerves, &c<\/em>. This clause has occasioned much perplexity, arising from the supposition that the roots of the feet<\/em> must necessarily mean the soles<\/em>; but it appears to me far more natural to understand by these roots, the nerves<\/em>, which actually have the appearance of roots: the meaning of the whole thus becomes simple; the clog when fastened upon the foot by degrees frets the skin, and then cuts into the nerves, causing of course intense pain. So we read of Joseph, \u201cWhose feet they hurt with fetters,\u201d and the meaning of \u201chis soul entered into the iron\u201d may perhaps be, as it is given in the Prayer-book version, \u201cthe iron entered into his soul.\u201d Ps. 105:18<\/a>.<\/p>\n

God is here said to make these cuts, because the clog which actually makes them is of his fastening. Job may perhaps allude to some particular symptoms of his disease, such as great weight and intense pains in his legs, and which prevented his moving about except with great difficulty; at all events, putting figurative language apart, the meaning in connexion with the previous verses is obviously this\u2014not only do you bring grave charges against me, but you treat me as a criminal, who, you are determined, shall not escape.<\/p>\n

28<\/a>. And he, &c<\/em>. \u05d4\u05d5\u05bc\u05d0<\/span> (hou<\/span>) is emphatic, he<\/em>\u2014the poor wretch just alluded to, whose feet are mangled with the clog into which they are inserted. Job of course means himself. He thus compares himself to some long-neglected prisoner, who, without any proof having been given of his guilt, is placed in confinement, and who, instead of being brought to trial, is suffered to pine away and rot in misery.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n

 <\/p>\n

Job 14<\/a><\/p>\n

1<\/a>. Of few days<\/em>, lit., short of days<\/em>.<\/p>\n

3<\/a>. Thou openest thine eyes<\/em>,\u2014for the purpose of observing the least iniquity, in order to take judicial cognizance of it.<\/p>\n

And me<\/em>,\u2014who am this rotten thing\u2014th<\/span>is moth-eaten garment\u2014this child of feeble woman\u2014this short-lived wretch\u2014this flower soon cut down\u2014this passing shadow.<\/p>\n

4<\/a>. Job here pleads the force of the law of fallen nature as an argument why God <\/span>should deal less rigorously in judgment.<\/p>\n

5<\/a>. Is with thee<\/em>. That it is in thy power to terminate them the moment the predestined period closes.<\/p>\n

6<\/a>. Look away<\/em>. Cease to look upon him with the severity wit<\/span>h which a taskmaster eyes the labourer at his work.<\/p>\n

That he may pause<\/em>. That he may have some cessation of toil.<\/p>\n

His pay-day<\/em>. The day on which the hireling\u2019s term of engagement ends. In Job\u2019s case, and<\/span> in that of toil-worn man in general, the day of death.<\/p>\n

Job here urges another argument, to persuade God to relax somewhat of his severity. Man has an appointed term, as in the case of an hireling; le<\/span>t not God, then, be too exacting, but suffer him to have some little respite of his toils.<\/p>\n

7<\/a>. The tree<\/em>. The tree has this hope, but man can have no such hope. I have no doubt the palm tree is here mea<\/span>nt, called anciently \u03c6\u03bf\u03af\u03bd\u03b9\u03be<\/span> (ph\u0153nix<\/span>); and from its powers of renewal, not improbably, the origin of the fable of the bird of that name.<\/p>\n

Doth exist<\/em>\u2014\u05d9\u05b5\u05e9\u05c1<\/span> (yesh<\/span>).<\/p>\n

It will renew<\/em>\u2014\u05d9\u05b7\u05bd\u05d7\u05b2\u05dc\u05b4\u05d9\u05e3<\/span> (yakheliph<\/span>). Th<\/span>is word is so translated in Isa. 40:31<\/a>, and 41:1<\/a>. Job uses it again, as a noun, in 5:14<\/a>, evidently with reference to the resurrection.<\/p>\n

8<\/a>. Its stump<\/em>. That which remains of it in the ground, supposing t<\/span>hat it has been cut down.<\/p>\n

9<\/a>. Through the reek<\/em>, or, exhalation<\/em>, or, scent of water<\/em>,\u2014\u05e8\u05b5\u05d9\u05d7\u05b7<\/span> (reyakh<\/span>). This word, perhaps, implies some degree of instinctive power in the tree to apprehend the nearness of<\/span> water.<\/p>\n

Crop<\/em>. The exact meaning of \u05e7\u05b8\u05e6\u05b4\u05d9\u05e8<\/span> (katsir<\/span>), and very appropriate, as applied to the fruit of the palm tree. (See the Illustrations<\/a>.)<\/p>\n

Just as a new plant<\/em>. I prefer taking \u05e0\u05b8\u05bd\u05d8\u05b7\u05e2<\/span> (natagu<\/span>) as a n<\/span>oun, rather than as a verb, as some do.<\/p>\n

10<\/a>. But man<\/em>\u2014\u05d2\u05b6\u05bc\u05d1\u05b6\u05e8<\/span> (gever<\/span>), i.e.<\/em>, man in his best estate, as we might say, the manly fellow<\/em>. \u05d0\u05b8\u05d3\u05b8\u05dd<\/span> (adam<\/span>) in the next clause is man in general<\/em>.<\/p>\n

Is prostrate<\/em>\u2014\u05d9\u05b6\u05bd<\/span><\/span>\u05d7\u05b1\u05dc\u05b7\u05e9\u05c1<\/span> (yekhelash<\/span>). This verb, it appears to me, is used here in striking contrast to \u05d9\u05b7\u05bd\u05d7\u05b2\u05dc\u05b4\u05d9\u05e3<\/span> (yakheliph<\/span>), it will renew<\/em>, in 5:7<\/a>. The tree (the palm tree for instance) has a certain innate vigour wh<\/span>ich enables it, when cut down, and to all appearance dead, to put forth foliage, wood, and fruit, and to live anew; but man (take even the case of the \u05d2\u05b6\u05bc\u05d1\u05b6\u05e8<\/span> (gever<\/span>) the fine manly fellow<\/em>) has no such<\/span> innate vigour. When once dead, there is no internal power in him whereby he can be resuscitated.<\/p>\n

Where is he?<\/em> He is gone, for ever, as far as this world and its present order of things is concerned.<\/p>\n

<\/span>The argument implied from the 7th to the 10th verse appears to be this,\u2014Since man cannot have the same hope, which there is for a tree, of reviving and living again in this world, when once dead, ther<\/span>efore he is an object of commiseration; and God, in his dealings with him, should take this melancholy fact into consideration.<\/p>\n

It is evident that the doctrine of the transmigration of souls, probably<\/span> then current amongst the priests of Egypt, did not enter into Job\u2019s theology\u2014he appears rather to be refuting it. (See the Illustrations<\/a>.)<\/p>\n

11<\/a>. An answer to the question in the previous verse, Man exp<\/em><\/span>ireth, and where is he?<\/em> Such phenomena as lakes and rivers drying up and altogether disappearing have happened, and may continually occur in the ordinary course of nature; they have gone, we know not <\/span>whither; so, man, when once he departs this life, altogether disappears from the earth, and so far as our natural reason or our natural senses can judge, we know not whither he is gone.<\/p>\n

A lake<\/em>\u2014\u05d9\u05b8\u05dd<\/span> (ya<\/span><\/span>m<\/span>), generally, a sea<\/em>. But as the Hebrews called the smallest piece of water a sea, and as seas (properly so called) have never been known to dry up, we may correctly translate the word here by lake<\/em>.<\/p>\n

1<\/span>2<\/a>. Shall not arise<\/em>, so as to return to his former terrestrial condition.<\/p>\n

Till the heavens he no more, &c., &c<\/em>. These words have no reference, either one way or the other, to the resurrection; all that<\/span> Job here intends is, that man when once dead can never again return to this earthly life. He expresses the same idea in 7:7\u201310<\/a>; 10:21<\/a>; and 16:22<\/a>. The phrase till the heavens be no more<\/em> must be unders<\/span>tood in the same sense as the expressions, \u201cAs the days of heaven<\/em>,\u201d \u201cShall endure as the sun before me<\/em>,\u201d \u201cShall be established for ever as the moon<\/em>,\u201d (Psalm 89:29<\/a>, 36<\/a>, 37<\/a>,) where the idea of duration <\/span>is evidently intended.<\/p>\n

13<\/a>. Job again beseeches God that he might die, a manifest proof, again, that he entertained no hope of restoration in this life.<\/p>\n

Secrete me<\/em>. The word \u05e6\u05b8\u05e4\u05b7\u05df<\/span> (tsaphan<\/span>) is here ver<\/span>y exactly applied to the dark and inaccessible recesses of ancient sepulchres.<\/p>\n

Wouldest appoint me a set time<\/em>. Perhaps an allusion to the cycles fixed by the ancient corrupt teachers of religion, as t<\/span>he periods during which the departed soul underwent a variety of purgations previously to its returning to its original and celestial life. (See the Illustrations<\/a>.)<\/p>\n

Job, in this verse, expresses his b<\/span>elief that, at some indefinite period or other, (it might be long after his death,) God\u2019s anger would pass away, and he should be restored to the Divine favor. Compare this passage with Isa. 26:20<\/a>, wh<\/span>ere \u201cthe chambers\u201d spoken of have been interpreted, by some, as meaning the chambers of the grave.<\/p>\n

14<\/a>. If a man die shall he live?<\/em> This question has, naturally enough, been discussed by man, in all ag<\/span>es, as one of vast importance to himself. It suddenly suggests itself to Job, whilst he is praying that God would hide him in the grave until the passing away of his anger. He puts it to himself in the form of an objection, but instantly answers it in a way that inconte<\/span>stably proves that he had at least a hope of immortality and life.<\/p>\n

Until my renovation come<\/em>. It is not possible positively to dete<\/span>rmine whether Job is here expressing a hope of the resurrection of his body, or a hope of a change for the better at death. The word \u05d7\u05b2\u05dc\u05b4\u05d9\u05e4\u05b8\u05d4<\/span> (kheliphah<\/span>) contains the different, though consistent idea<\/span>s of change, succession<\/em>, and renewal<\/em>. If Job is here referring to his death, then the translation should be, Until my recruiting come, i.e.<\/em>, until I obtain my discharge<\/em>, by new recruits succeeding<\/em> me,<\/span> and this certainly corresponds well with \u05e6\u05b0\u05d1\u05b8\u05d0\u05b4\u05d9<\/span> (tsevai<\/span>) my term of soldiership<\/em> (see 7:1<\/a>), in the previous clause. If, however, Job is here speaking of his hope of the future resurrection of his bod<\/span>y, then renovation<\/em> will be the most proper rendering of \u05d7\u05b2\u05dc\u05b4\u05d9\u05e4\u05b8\u05d4<\/span> (kheliphah<\/span>); and to this I rather incline, as we have the same word as a verb, \u05d9\u05b7\u05bd\u05d7\u05b2\u05dc\u05b4\u05d9\u05e3<\/span> (yakheliph<\/span>), a few verses before, obviously wi<\/span>th the meaning of renewing; and in the next verse, where Job expresses his belief that God will at some future day (whenever that may be) hanker after him, as the work of his hands, it seems to me more than probable that Job means, by \u201c<\/span>the work of God\u2019s hands,\u201d his body rather than his spirit, or rather, both combined (see 10:8\u201312<\/a>). Milton uses the word renovation<\/em> with reference to the resurrectio<\/span>n,\u2014<\/p>\n

\u201cTo second life,<\/p>\n

Waked in the renovation of the just,<\/p>\n

Resigns him up, with heaven and earth renewed.\u201d<\/p>\n

15<\/a>. This verse cannot be rendered in the imperative mood, as Rosenm\u00fcller, Barnes, and others, <\/span>have it, to get over the difficulty of making this refer to some such future period as the resurrection.<\/p>\n

Thou shalt summon and I will answer thee<\/em>. This must be understood, as 13:22<\/a>, in a forensic sens<\/span>e; and so, the meaning is,\u2014After I have been kept for a certain period in the grave, during which time thine anger shall have been turned away (5:13<\/a>), then, because of the affection thou bearest to me<\/span> as the work of thine hands, thou wilt summon me to my trial, and I will gladly respond, knowing (see vers. 16<\/a>, 17<\/a>) that my sins will then have been obliterated by thy mercy.<\/p>\n

The work of thine hands<\/em>. <\/span>Job clearly means his body, about which he speaks so beautifully as being the work of God\u2019s hands in 10:8\u201312<\/a>.<\/p>\n

16<\/a>. Although you now take exact and severe cognizance of all my deeds, yet, when the set t<\/span>ime you shall have appointed for me (ver. 13<\/a>) shall have arrived, when the time of my renovation (ver. 14<\/a>) shall have come, and when you will summon me to judgment (ver. 15<\/a>), then, it shall be found t<\/span>hat you will not have so kept watch over my sin as to bring it forth to my condemnation.<\/p>\n

From this and other passages it is clear that, whilst Job most pertinaciously persisted, in opposition to the i<\/span>nsinuations of his friends, in asserting the general integrity of his life, and the fact that his affliction did not necessarily prove him ungodly, he, at the same time, was far from supposing that his conduct had been that of sinless perfection.<\/span><\/p>\n

17<\/a>. This verse has been entirely misunderstood through omitting to supply \u05db\u05b4\u05bc\u05d9<\/span> (chi<\/span>), though<\/em>, from the previous verse,\u2014a means by which the parallelism o<\/span>f the two verses is preserved. Though my transgression is now written upon documents which have been sealed up and put into a bag, ready to be brought out against me at judgment, yet I know that before that time comes you will have smeared over my iniquity (<\/span>i.e.<\/em>, obliterated it from those documents upon which it has been written). Compare \u05d7\u05b8\u05ea\u05bb\u05dd \u05d1\u05b4\u05bc\u05e6\u05b0\u05e8\u05b9\u05d5\u05e8<\/span> (khathum bitsror<\/span>), sealed up in a bag<\/em>, with<\/span> Hosea 13:12<\/a>, \u201cThe iniquity of Ephraim is bound up (\u05e6\u05b8\u05e8\u05d5\u05bc\u05e8<\/span> (tsarour<\/span>) put in a bag<\/em>); his sin is hid.\u201d<\/p>\n

Thou wilt smear over<\/em>. \u05d8\u05b8\u05e4\u05b7\u05dc<\/span> (taphal<\/span>), to cover over with plaister<\/em>, or wax<\/em>, or any kind of glaze<\/em>; al<\/span>so to besmear, daub<\/em>, &c. See Note on 13:4<\/span><\/a>. Perhaps our expression, to whitewash<\/em>, would, in some sort, convey the sense intended. Compare this word with its cognate, \u05d8\u05b8\u05d1\u05b7\u05dc<\/span> (taval<\/span>), to dip<\/em>, and then wit<\/span>h the Arabic \u05d8\u05de\u05dc<\/span> (tml<\/span>), to colour, dye<\/em>, &c.<\/p>\n

18<\/a>, 19<\/a>. For otherwise, &c<\/em>. If man\u2019s hope be not such as I have represented it\u2014a hope beyond the grave\u2014a hope of immortality in another state of existence, t<\/span>hen he has no hope at all; for his notions\u2014if he has such\u2014of returning again to this earth are utterly delusive, it being an unquestionable fact that Thou dost completely destroy him as far as this world is concerned.<\/span><\/p>\n

A mountain falling, &c<\/em>., \u2026 the soil of the earth<\/em>. These are geological truths. As the d\u00e9bris<\/span> of a mass of rock that has fallen from a mountain decomposes and goes to waste; and as a <\/span>rock, however firm its hold may have been on the surrounding mass, does, from one cause and another, get dislodged, and can never re-occupy its former position; or as waters have, by their continual action, worn away the hardest stones; and as inundations do sweep away the alluvial deposit<\/span>s formed by the detritus of mountains, &c.; so, man, so far as his hope respecting this world is concerned, is brought to destruction;\u2014however mighty, however firmly seated, however determined his resistance, whatever the accumulation of his resources\u2014it is impossible for him to hold out against the action of those various dispensations by which God, at length, and sometimes suddenly, brings him to nought. Umbreit notices the gradual scries here,\u2014mountains, rocks, stones, soil.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

The connexion of these vers<\/span>es with the preceding context has been generally misunderstood. That connexion, of course, depends mainly upon the meaning of \u05d5\u05b0\u05d0\u05d5\u05bc\u05dc\u05b8\u05dd<\/span> (weoulam<\/span>) in ver. 18<\/a>. As a noun, \u05d0\u05d5\u05bc\u05dc\u05b8\u05dd<\/span> (oulam<\/span>) signifies a front<\/em><\/span>; as a particle, it is strongly adversative, and ushers in some sentence, as it were, confronting<\/em>, or opposite to<\/em>, the former sentence; hence, contrariwise<\/em> or otherwise<\/em> will correctly express its sign<\/span>ification; as though the speaker said,\u2014You have looked at the question on one of its sides, now look at it on the opposite side<\/em>. Thus it often means but<\/em>; and then, from its being thus put forward as a<\/span> positive objection, it comes to signify certainly<\/em>. Any of these meanings will be suitable here; and therefore the true sense of the passage mainly rests upon the signification of the \u05d5\u05b0<\/span> (we<\/span>). Now, as<\/span> it appears to me that the whole context requires that the sentences which follow and depend upon this \u05d5\u05b0<\/span> (we<\/span>) should be causal, I have no hesitation in translating it for<\/em>, which is one of its ordinar<\/span>y meanings; and so, the connexion of the passage is this:\u2014If you do not these things (mentioned in vers. 14\u201317<\/a>),\u2014if it be not true that man lives again, and that his sins are pardoned, &c., and that y<\/span>ou receive him into another state, &c., &c., then there is no possible hope for man, for<\/em> you certainly destroy him as far as this world is concerned.\u2014I have dwelt upon this, for I think it of great im<\/span>portance, as showing the extent of a pious man\u2019s hope, in those days, respecting the future state, and also as exhibiting one of the strong arguments by which such a hope was supported,\u2014because God certainly does not allow man to entertain hope as regards this world; therefore the hope of a good man must necess<\/span>arily be set on another state of existence.<\/p>\n

Will decay<\/em>. This word\u2014from the Latin de<\/em> and <\/span>cado<\/em> to fall<\/em>\u2014well expresses \u05e0\u05b8\u05d1\u05b7\u05dc<\/span> (naval<\/span>). Compare its cognate, \u05e0\u05b8\u05e4\u05b7\u05dc<\/span> (naphal<\/span>), to fall<\/em>.<\/p>\n

Will remove<\/em>,\u2014or get transferred<\/em>. This is the ordinary and proper sense of \u05e2\u05b8\u05ea\u05b7\u05e7<\/span> (gnathak<\/span>). Some, following the <\/span>Septuagint, translate it, will wax old<\/em>; but as the idea of age<\/em>, in this word, is always connected with permanency, durability<\/em>, &c., the context will not admit of this sense here.<\/p>\n

Have worn away<\/em>,\u2014or ru<\/em><\/span>bbed away<\/em>.<\/p>\n

Schultens, and after him Dathe, Rosenm\u00fcller, Umbreit, Lee, &c., are agreed that the suffix in \u05e1\u05b0\u05e4\u05b4\u05d9\u05d7\u05b6\u05d9\u05d4\u05b8<\/span> (sephikheyah<\/span>) must be referred to \u05de\u05b7\u05d9\u05b4\u05dd<\/span> (maim<\/span>), according to an Arabic construction <\/span>by no means unusual, by which a singular feminine suffix agrees with a plural masculine; and that, for the same reason also, this same word is the nominative to \u05ea\u05b4\u05bc\u05e9\u05b0\u05c1\u05d8\u05b9\u05e3<\/span> (tishtoph<\/span>). But, as regards t<\/span>he first of these propositions, I see no reason for going so far out of the way to account for an apparently awkward construction, when this feminine suffix may so naturally be referred to \u05d0\u05b6\u05e8\u05b6\u05e5<\/span> (eret<\/span><\/span>s<\/span>), and so, at the same time furnish a more suitable sense,\u2014its own floodings, &c<\/em>., i.e<\/em>., the very floodings which the earth itself generates sweep away its own soil; and so, the meaning may be, that,<\/span> by God\u2019s appointment, nature herself contains the means of her own dissolution\u2014furnishes the instruments of her own destruction!<\/p>\n

So hast thou destroyed, &c<\/em>. You have already destroyed man\u2019s hope of r<\/span>estoration to this life; you prevent the possibility of his entertaining any such hope, by showing him, that, in nature, everything gets utterly destroyed by the lapse of time and by various fortuitous circumstances.<\/span><\/p>\n

20<\/a>. To the last thou overpowerest him<\/em>. You are always showing yourself stronger than man in your perpetual contests with him, and you maintain this superiority over him to the very en<\/span>d, when you dismiss him altogether from this scene of action.<\/p>\n

Thou changest his countenance<\/em>. Causing the ravages of time and affliction to be marked by wrinkles on his face and grey hairs on his head,<\/span> &c., &c.; and then still more strongly at death.<\/p>\n

And sendest him away<\/em>,\u2014as it were into perpetual banishment.<\/p>\n

21<\/a>. So completely is man, when once dead, gone, that he has no longer any connexion whatev<\/span>er with this world; whatever may be the condition of his family after his departure, he is utterly ignorant of all that concerns them.<\/p>\n

22<\/a>. The only thing that he is conscious of is what concerns his t<\/span>hen existing condition. His body is suffering dissolution in the grave, and his soul is mourning over the misery that has now come upon him. His hope had been of a worldly character, and it is now utterly and for ever destroyed. The feeling of pain which the body<\/span> is capable of experiencing in life is here, by a highly poetical figure, attributed to the body in death, whilst it is being destroyed by worms and other agents of dissolution.<\/span><\/p>\n

Or Job may mean that, if there is no hope for man beyond this world, then indeed man\u2019s case is truly deplorable; for as far as human cognizance by itself can g<\/span>o, all that we know about him, when he dies, is that he goes into the lonely tomb, where he is completely severed from all domestic ties; and where, for aught we know to the contrary, he suffers with, and mourns over, his body whilst it is hastening to decay. I have given both these meanings as probable. I rather incline to the latter of them.<\/p>\n

\n

Job 15<\/a><\/p>\n

A new round of disputation here commences, but, in it, no particularly new line of argument is taken by Job\u2019s opponents; their language is more full of invective, and its application to him is <\/span>more undisguised than before.<\/p>\n

2<\/a>. A wise man<\/em>, \u05d7\u05b8\u05db\u05b8\u05dd<\/span> (khacham<\/span>), equivalent to what we understand by a philosopher<\/em>. You, Job, profess to be wise (12:2<\/a>, 3<\/a>; 13:2<\/a>); but if you were so, would you have attemp<\/span>ted your vindication with so much nonsense and to such little purpose as you have done?<\/p>\n

The east wind<\/em>. This wind is in its effects blasting<\/em> (Gen. 41:23<\/a>), vehement<\/em> (Ex. 14:21<\/a>), destructive by its viole<\/em><\/span>nce<\/em> (Ps. 48:7<\/a>), nipping<\/em> (Isa. 27:8<\/a>), and insufferably hot<\/em> (Jonah 4:8<\/a>). Eliphaz insinuates that of like vehement and intolerable character were Job\u2019s words.<\/p>\n

3<\/a>. Arguing on<\/em>. The infinitive absolute here <\/span>conveys, I think, the idea of continuance.<\/p>\n

There is no profit<\/em>. The parallelism is more complete by referring \u05d9\u05d5\u05b9\u05e2\u05b4\u05d9\u05dc<\/span> (yognil<\/span>) to \u05de\u05b4\u05dc\u05b4\u05bc\u05d9\u05dd<\/span> (millim<\/span>) rather than to \u05d7\u05b8\u05db\u05b8\u05dd<\/span> (khacham<\/span>).<\/p>\n

Supply \u05d1\u05b0\u05bc<\/span> (be<\/span>) before<\/span> \u05de\u05b4\u05dc\u05b4\u05bc\u05d9\u05dd<\/span> (millim<\/span>) from the previous clause.<\/p>\n

Eliphaz explains in this verse what he means by windy knowledge, as in the next he shows in what way Job\u2019s sentiments might be compared to the destructive i<\/span>nfluence of the east wind.<\/p>\n

Verse<\/em>. See the Note on chap. 4:2<\/span><\/a>.<\/p>\n

4<\/a>. Thou, \u05d0\u05b5\u05ea\u05b8\u05bc\u05d4<\/span> (attah<\/span>), and therefore emphatic; thou<\/em>, the very last person from whom one could have expected to hear words so disparaging <\/span>to religion.<\/p>\n

The meaning of this verse appears to be:\u2014Not only are your opinions unprofitable, but they are positively mischievous: their direct tendency is decidedly irreligious, for they are calcula<\/span>ted to destroy in the minds of others all religious feeling, and to cut down to nothing all spirit of devotion. Eliphaz (4:6<\/a>) had charged Job with being devoid of religious principle, but here he inve<\/span>ighs against him as talking in a strain that would make others irreligious also. He alludes probably to his desire to contend with God (13:3<\/a>, &c., &c.), to the assertions which he had made of his inno<\/span>cency, and especially to his statements respecting the equality of God\u2019s dealings with bad and good. (9:23<\/a>; 12:6<\/a>.) If your position is true, that God makes no difference in h is dealings between bad a<\/span>nd good men, then good bye to all religion.<\/p>\n

\u05e9\u05b4\u05c2\u05d9\u05d7\u05b8\u05d4<\/span> (sikhah<\/span>) means, amongst other things, meditation, prayer uttered from a sense of distress<\/em>, and communing<\/em>. I think that here, it is taken in a genera<\/span>l sense, and means very much what we understand by the word devotion<\/em> in its ordinary religious acceptation.<\/p>\n

5<\/a>. It is evident that your arguments are calculated to injure the religious principles of ot<\/span>hers, for<\/em>, by them, you, in point of fact, give lessons of iniquity, and teach others to entertain notions as loose as your own; although, with much craftiness and address, you endeavour to cover your<\/span> impieties by solemn protestations of innocence, by complaints of Divine iujustice, and at the same time by the pretence of appealing to God for adjudication, &c.<\/p>\n

6<\/a>. Bear witness against thee<\/em> \u05e2\u05b8\u05e0\u05b8\u05d4<\/span> (g<\/span><\/span>nanah<\/span>), again in its forensic sense,\u2014the answer made by the witnesses<\/em> in refutation of the statements of the presumed criminal. You, Job, have stoutly denied the charges of impiety which we have broug<\/span>ht against you; but the words you have spoken are themselves so full of impiety that their very testimony is against you, and so, you are convicted, not so much by us, as out of your own mouth.<\/p>\n

7<\/a>. Com<\/span>pare this verse with Prov. 8:23\u201326<\/a>.<\/p>\n

8<\/a>. Are you a being of so superior an order as to enjoy the privilege of admission into the secret counsels of God?<\/p>\n

Shearing<\/em>,\u2014cutting it down, and restricting it to <\/span>thyself.<\/p>\n

9<\/a>. We are not conversant with it<\/em>,\u2014lit., it is not with us;<\/em> something like our expression, not being at home with a subject<\/em>.<\/p>\n

Eliphaz challenges Job to make good his assumption of superior wisd<\/span>om, by informing them, if he could, wherein his knowledge exceeded theirs.<\/p>\n

11<\/a>. Of these,\u2014i.e.<\/em>, of these men who are greater in days than thy father. I prefer the supposition that \u05d0\u05b5\u05dc<\/span> (el<\/span>) is here put <\/span>for \u05d0\u05b5\u05dc\u05b6\u05bc\u05d4<\/span> (elleh<\/span>), these<\/em>, than that it should be here translated God<\/em>. \u05de\u05b0\u05e2\u05b7\u05d8<\/span> (megnat<\/span>) then becomes properly contrasted with \u05db\u05b7\u05bc\u05d1\u05b4\u05bc\u05d9\u05e8<\/span> (chabbir<\/span>) in the former verse, and the general sense is decidedly b<\/span>etter and more consistent. We have instances of this substitution of \u05d0\u05b5\u05dc<\/span> (el<\/span>) for \u05d0\u05b5\u05dc\u05b6\u05bc\u05d4<\/span> (elleh<\/span>) in Gen. 19:8<\/a>, 25<\/a>; 26:3<\/a>, 4<\/a>; Lev. 18:27<\/a>; Deut. 4:42<\/a>; 7:22<\/a>; 19:11<\/a>; and also in 1 Chron. 20:8<\/a>. It is true t<\/span>hat these instances are limited, with only one exception, to the Pentateuch; but be it remembered, that there is strong evidence for the supposition that the Book of Job is of about the same date as t<\/span>he earlier portion of the Pentateuch.<\/p>\n

Eliphaz evidently reflects here upon what Job had said in 13:4<\/a>.<\/p>\n

In gentleness<\/em>, \u05dc\u05b8\u05d0\u05b7\u05d8<\/span> (laat<\/span>), from the root \u05d0\u05b8\u05d8\u05b7\u05d8<\/span> (attat<\/span>), not from \u05dc\u05bc\u05d5\u05bc\u05d8<\/span> (lout<\/span>).<\/p>\n

And a word with t<\/em><\/span>hee in gentleness<\/em>. Understand, Is this also too small for thee?<\/em><\/p>\n

12<\/a>. How thine heart, &c<\/em>. To how extraordinary an extent you suffer yourself to be transported by mere passion.<\/p>\n

Thine eyes wink<\/em>. As a man<\/span> is apt to do when he is saying anything which, he conceives, proves him to be knowing. Job may possibly have done this in the course of his remarks; and if so, of course to the great annoyance of his opponents<\/span>. The word \u05e8\u05b8\u05d6\u05b7\u05dd<\/span> (razam<\/span>) does not occur elsewhere in the Bible, but, without much doubt, it is the same, by transposition, as the Arabic \u05e8\u05de\u05d6<\/span> (rmz<\/span>), to wink with the eyebrows<\/em>. \u05d9\u05b4\u05e8\u05b0\u05de\u05b4\u05d6 \u05df<\/span> (irme<\/span><\/span>zoun<\/span>) is found in some copies.<\/p>\n

13<\/a>. Hast brought forth verse<\/em>. Supply from the former clause, against God. Verse<\/em>. (See the Note on ch. 4:2<\/span><\/a>.)<\/p>\n

14<\/a>, 15<\/a>. Eliphaz again ours to the oracle which he had before <\/span>cited in 4:17<\/a>, 18<\/a>.<\/p>\n

The heavens<\/em>, i.e.<\/em>, probably, the heavenly powers, being in apposition with holy ones<\/em> in the previous clause.<\/p>\n

I am not sure, however, that the Keri is here to be followed in its read<\/span>ing of \u05d1\u05b4\u05bc\u05e7\u05b0\u05d3\u05e9\u05b8\u05c1\u05d9\u05d5<\/span> (bikdoshaiw<\/span>). The text \u05d1\u05e7\u05d3\u05e9\u05d5<\/span> (bkdshw<\/span>) appears to me preferable; the rendering would in that case be, in his holy place<\/em>, instead of in his holy ones<\/em>, and this would form a more perfe<\/span>ct parallelism with the heavens<\/em> in the next clause; in either case, however, the inhabitants, rather than the place itself, are intended.<\/p>\n

16<\/a>. How much less<\/em>, i.e.<\/em>, how much less clean. If that which is<\/span> most clean to our thinking is impure before God, how impure is that which we know to be filthy!<\/p>\n

Filthy<\/em>\u2014\u05e0\u05b6\u05bd\u05d0\u05b1\u05dc\u05b8\u05d7<\/span> (neelakh<\/span>). In the Arabic, we have for a meaning of this word, anything that has turned <\/em><\/span>sour<\/em> (as milk). If this be the primary meaning of the word, it suggests the idea, not only of man\u2019s corruption, but of his departure from original righteousness.<\/p>\n

17<\/a>. Eliphaz, having thus far inveighed<\/span> against what he assumes to be the nonsense and mischievous tendency, and arrogance and impiety, and self-righteousness of Job\u2019s discourses, now proceeds to establish his former position,\u2014that they are the wicked, and not the righteous,<\/span> who are visited by signal judgments (4:7\u201311<\/a>). He supports this view, by stating his own experience, and again, by reference to the recorded opinion of past ages.<\/p>\n

1<\/span>8<\/a>. Have not kept back<\/em>, i.e.<\/em>, on the contrary, have widely published, as knowledge of importance. The word kept back<\/em> may refer to the practice of idolatrous priests and teachers, who were looked up to <\/span>as the \u05d7\u05b2\u05db\u05b8\u05de\u05b4\u05d9\u05dd<\/span> (khechamim<\/span>), but who withheld, much of what they knew, from the public, and revealed it only to the initiated.<\/p>\n

19<\/a>. The land<\/em>. Perhaps that part of Arabia in which the Joktanites origina<\/span>lly settled. (See Schultens, Dathe, and Forster\u2019s \u201cArabia.\u201d) It was probably somewhere amongst these that the \u05d7\u05b2\u05db\u05b8\u05de\u05b4\u05d9\u05dd<\/span> (khechamim<\/span>), afterwards called the Magi, became celebrated.<\/p>\n

In the midst of whom <\/em><\/span>no stranger passed<\/em>,\u2014and therefore, as Eliphaz would infer, the religious views of these wise men were not contaminated by any foreign intercourse. As the immediate descendants of Shem, their fathers h<\/span>ad received the pure truth, untainted by any admixture of error, and had transmitted it in that same uncorrupted state to their descendants.<\/p>\n

20<\/a>. From this verse to the end of the chapter, Eliphaz cite<\/span>s some fragment of revealed truth, handed down from the more ancient fathers. The statements it contains are forcible, sublime, and in themselves just, but the application of them to Job by Eliphaz is of course inadmissible.<\/span><\/p>\n

Is his own tormentor<\/em>. I cannot but think that the Hithpolel here must have a reflexive sense; so Castell. The next verse explains that the torments he suffers, and which are t<\/span>he consequences of his wickedness, consist in the endurance of constant fears, on account of the peril of his life, in which he knows that he is placed.<\/p>\n

From the tyrant is hidden, &c<\/em>. He is constantly<\/span> exposed to danger, and so is kept in a state of perpetual alarm, or, whilst he knows not when his end is to be, he is almost momentarily expecting to lose his life, by some hidden snare, or by the hand of an assassin.<\/span> All this is enlarged upon in the following verses.<\/p>\n

21<\/a>. A fearful voice<\/em>, lit., a voice of fears<\/em>. I think that the sense requires the words which I have supplied in this verse, and th<\/span>e Hebrew readily admits of their being so supplied; thus,\u2014even in time of peace, the tyrant is kept in a state of constant alarm; every sound he hears is, so to speak, a voice that tells him, whether it be really so or not, that he is about to be attacked.<\/span><\/p>\n

22<\/a>. \u05e6\u05b8\u05e4\u05d5\u05bc<\/span> (tsaphou<\/span>), evidently for \u05e6\u05b8\u05e4\u05d5\u05bc\u05d9<\/span> (tsaphoui<\/span>), which is the reading in many MSS. collated by Kennicott and De Rossi.<\/p>\n

Whether in a season<\/span> of peace, \u05e9\u05b8\u05c1\u05dc\u05b9\u05d5\u05dd<\/span> (shalom<\/em>), or in adversity<\/em>, \u05d7\u05e9\u05b6\u05c1\u05da\u05b0<\/span> (khoshech<\/span>), such an one always dreads evil. However, literal darkness may be intended here.<\/p>\n

That he is watched for the sword<\/em>, i.e.<\/em>, watched for the<\/span> purpose of being despatched by the sword.<\/p>\n

23<\/a>. Anywhere<\/em>\u2014\u05d0\u05b7\u05d9\u05b5\u05bc\u05d4<\/span> (aiyeh<\/span>), lit., where?<\/em> but the answer implied is, wherever he can<\/em>. Some prefer to read \u05d0\u05b7\u05d9\u05b8\u05bc\u05d4<\/span> (aiyah<\/span>), in which ease the meaning of the cl<\/span>ause would be, He wandereth about to become food for the vulture;<\/em> so the Septuagint but none of the other ancient versions.<\/p>\n

24<\/a>. \u05e6\u05b7\u05e8<\/span> (tsar<\/span>), and \u05de\u05b0\u05e6\u05d5\u05bc\u05e7\u05b8\u05d4<\/span> (metsoukah<\/span>), mean also siege<\/em> and pressure<\/em>, and <\/span>are evidently used here in a military sense; those evils besiege, and so closely invest the wretch, that he cannot possibly escape.<\/p>\n

For the rout<\/em>. We know nothing about the word \u05db\u05b4\u05bc\u05d9\u05d3\u05b9\u05d5\u05e8<\/span> (chidor<\/span>). I ha<\/span>ve, however, followed most other commentators in supposing that it may be traced to the Arabic \u05db\u05d3\u05e8<\/span> (chdr<\/span>), turbid, tumultuous, &c<\/em>., and so, may mean military tumult<\/em>.<\/p>\n

25<\/a>. Was playing the hero<\/em>, i.e.<\/em>, he<\/span> was engaged in doing so, at the very time, when the above-mentioned calamities came upon him. \u05d9\u05b4\u05ea\u05b0\u05d2\u05b7\u05bc\u05d1\u05b6\u05bc\u05e8<\/span> (ithgabber<\/span>), he was making himself a<\/em> \u05d2\u05b4\u05bc\u05d1\u05b9\u05bc\u05d5\u05e8<\/span> (gibbor<\/span>), a hero<\/em>.<\/p>\n

26<\/a>. In the attitude of an arm<\/span>ed warrior rushing to the fight. We have here an amplification of the previous verse.<\/p>\n

27<\/a>. By fatness<\/em>, and collops of fat<\/em>, I think may be understood, in a metaphorical sense, the tyrant\u2019s wealth, and w<\/span>hatever else tended to his prosperity; and by his covering his face and his loins with these, we may understand his trusting in them, as in pieces of armour, whilst he defied God; they were, as it wer<\/span>e, his helmet and his girdle. Allusion may also be intended to the luxurious and sensual life of such a person.<\/p>\n

28<\/a>. This verse does not speak of his crimes (as some have thought), but of the punishmen<\/span>t of his crimes; it does not mean that, by his tyrannies, he has reduced cities to the condition here described, but that he is condemned, as an exile from his land, to end his days in such places.<\/p>\n

29<\/a><\/span>. \u05de\u05b4\u05e0\u05b0\u05dc\u05b8\u05bc\u05dd<\/span> (minlam<\/span>) is another word of which we know nothing, and about which (as it stands) we cannot even conjecture satisfactorily. The ancient versions evidently either read, or conjectured the re<\/span>ading of, some other word\u2014thus the Sept. translate it, their shadow<\/em>, as though it were \u05e6\u05b4\u05dc\u05b8\u05bc\u05dd<\/span> (tsillam<\/span>). The Syriac and Arabic have it, their words, i.e<\/em>., \u05de\u05b4\u05dc\u05b8\u05bc\u05dd<\/span> (millam<\/span>). And the Chaldee renders it, <\/span>of theirs, i.e<\/em>., \u05de\u05df \u05dc\u05b8\u05d4\u05b6\u05dd<\/span> (min lahem<\/span>). One MS. has \u05de\u05b4\u05db\u05b0\u05dc\u05b8\u05dd<\/span> (michlam<\/span>), from \u05de\u05b4\u05db\u05b0\u05dc\u05b6\u05d4<\/span> (michleh<\/span>), i.q.<\/em>, \u05de\u05b4\u05db\u05b0\u05dc\u05b8\u05d0<\/span> (michla<\/span>) a fold<\/em>. So the rendering, in that case, would be, Neither shall the fold of such ex<\/em><\/span>tend upon the earth<\/em>, which gives a sense sufficiently good. The objection to the ordinary practice of referring \u05de\u05b4\u05e0\u05b0\u05dc\u05b8\u05dd<\/span> (minlam<\/span>) to a supposed root \u05e0\u05b8\u05dc\u05b8\u05d4<\/span> (nalah<\/span>), which is conjectured to be equivalent<\/span> to the Arabic \u05e0\u05d5\u05dc<\/span> (noul<\/span>), to give largely, &c.<\/em>, or to \u05e0\u05d9\u05dc<\/span> (nil<\/span>) to obtain one\u2019s wishes<\/em>, is, that in the Ph\u0153nicio-Shemitic languages (so Gesenius) there exists no root beginning with the letters \u05e0\u05dc<\/span> (n<\/span><\/span>l<\/span>), and which in Arabic are incompatible. As it is clear that we are left here solely to conjecture, I venture to suppose that there may be a transposition here (which is by no means unusual) of the t<\/span>wo first letters of the word; this, instead of \u05de\u05b4\u05e0\u05b0\u05dc\u05b8\u05dd<\/span> (minlam<\/span>), would give us \u05e0\u05b4\u05de\u05b0\u05dc\u05b8\u05dd<\/span> (nimlam<\/span>), or, without the suffix, \u05e0\u05b6\u05de\u05b6\u05dc<\/span> (nemel<\/span>), which, from the root \u05e0\u05b8\u05de\u05b7\u05dc<\/span> (namal<\/span>), to cut<\/em>, would signify a cutt<\/em><\/span>ing<\/em>, and as applied to a tree, would be understood just in the sense, I presume, in which we use it. The translation will then be, Neither shall the cutting<\/em> (or offset<\/em>) of such extend in the earth<\/em>. Je<\/span>rome, curiously enough, seems to have had the idea that some such sense as this was required here, for he translates the passage, nec mittet in terram radicem suam<\/em>, neither shall he send his root into<\/em><\/span> the earth;<\/em> and Rosenm\u00fcller, who, although he takes \u05de\u05b4\u05e0\u05b0\u05dc\u05b8\u05dd<\/span> (minlam<\/span>) from the supposed root \u05e0\u05b8\u05dc\u05b8\u05d4<\/span> (nalah<\/span>), in the sense of perfection<\/em> or accomplishment<\/em>, yet remarks on \u05d9\u05b4\u05d8\u05b6\u05bc\u05d4<\/span> (itteh<\/span>), \u201cextendet se, ab<\/em><\/span> arbore duct\u00e2 metaphor\u00e2, radices suas in terram latins diffundente, cui et mox versu seq. comparabitur, et supra<\/em> 8:16<\/a>, a Bildado comparatus est impius<\/em>. I conceive it possible then, that the author, wh<\/span>om Eliphaz cites, may here be alluding to a tree (probably the palm-tree, the<\/em> tree of the East, and to which the words \u05d9\u05b6\u05e2\u05b0\u05e9\u05b7\u05c1\u05e8<\/span> (yegneshar<\/span>) and \u05d7\u05b5\u05d9\u05dc\u05b9\u05d5<\/span> (kheylo<\/span>) in the preceding clause may very well ap<\/span>ply, and might easily be so understood by an Oriental, as suggestive of straightness<\/em> and of abundance<\/em> or strength<\/em>), and that the meaning of the speaker is, that the wicked man, unlike the palm-tree, s<\/span>hall not be flourishing either in growth or in produce; neither shall his vigour be such as to render him abiding, nor shall the offsets (i.e<\/em>., progeny) of such persons ever take root and spread thems<\/span>elves over the earth. (See notes and illustrations<\/a> on 14:7<\/span><\/a>, &c.)<\/p>\n

30<\/a>. Out oj darkness<\/em>. The next clause, and indeed, as I think, the previous verse, show that the wicked man is here compared to a tree\u2014a<\/span> tree doomed to destruction,\u2014and that, by the hand, not of man, but of God himself; and so, by darkness, we may here understand the darkness of the tempest which is about to destroy it. The descriptio<\/span>n in the whole verse is very graphic: the black storm envelopes the ill-fated tree, and there is no escape for it. It is then reduced to a mere charred stump by the lightning\u2019s stroke, and finally is removed by the violence of<\/span> the blast that carries everything before it.\u2014A dreadful picture of an impious man\u2019s end, and which Eliphaz very unjustly intends should apply to Job. Whatever the prosperity, &c., of such an one may have been, Divine wrath at length overtakes him; impenetrable gloom thickens round him; he is awfully stricken by successive and rapid judgments; and then is suddenly hurled from his place by that Almighty power which he had, <\/span>for so long a time, proudly defied (<\/span>5:25<\/a>).<\/p>\n

The flash<\/em>. No doubt lightning is intended.<\/p>\n

His sucker<\/em>, or his suckers<\/em>. Eliphaz probably intends that this<\/span> should apply to Job\u2019s children and property, which had been destroyed, partly by the wind from the desert, and partly by lightning. (See chap. 1<\/a>.)<\/p>\n

God\u2019s mouth<\/em>, lit., his mouth<\/em>.<\/p>\n

31<\/a>. Vanity<\/em>. \u05e9\u05b8\u05c1\u05d5\u05b0\u05d0<\/span> (sh<\/span><\/span>aw<\/span>) is here used in two senses; in the first instance, it means such vain things as riches, &c., by which men of the world are usually seduced into error both of doctrine and practice, and in which th<\/span>ey place their confidence; and, in the second instance, it means, that disappointment which is the result of such confidence in what is vain.<\/p>\n

Shall be his bargain<\/em>\u2014\u05ea\u05b0\u05bc\u05de\u05bd\u05d5\u05bc\u05e8\u05b8\u05ea\u05b9\u05d5<\/span> (temouratho<\/span>). That which<\/span> he shall get in exchange<\/em> for his ill-placed reliance on his prosperity.<\/p>\n

32<\/a>. It shall be paid in full<\/em>,\u2014lit., it shall be fulfilled;<\/em> namely, his \u05ea\u05b0\u05bc\u05de\u05d5\u05bc\u05e8\u05b8\u05d4<\/span> (temourah<\/span>), barter<\/em> or bargain<\/em>, mentioned in th<\/span>e previous verse. He shall get his full amount of disappointment, and that, sooner than he bargained for.<\/p>\n

His branch<\/em>. Gesenius considers, and with some amount of probability, that \u05db\u05b4\u05bc\u05e4\u05b8\u05bc\u05d4<\/span> (chippah<\/span>) is<\/span> the branch of a palm-tree.<\/p>\n

33<\/a>. Shall wring off<\/em>. A bold poetical figure. The untimely destruction of his best hopes and immature plans will be as certainly the consequence of his vain confidence as th<\/span>ough that destruction were his own act.<\/p>\n

In this and the preceding verse, the man who places confidence in his prosperity, as that it shall continue, is compared (as it seems to me) to the three differ<\/span>ent sorts of fruit trees most important in the East,\u2014first, to the palm, which must not rely too much on its situation near water, &c., for if that resource fail, which it may do, its branch must cease to flourish; secondly, to the vine, which, however promising its show of fruit, may yet shed that fruit before it comes to maturity; and thirdly, to the olive<\/span>-tree, which, though full of fatness at first, may, from several causes, lose its blossoms, and so be unfruitful.<\/span><\/p>\n

34<\/a>. Clan<\/em>,\u2014lit., the assembly<\/em>, or the gathering; i.e<\/em>., those whom he gathers round him.<\/p>\n

For the clan of the ungodly &c., &c<\/em>. Hi<\/span>mself, and his family, and his retainers, shall be sterile\u2014i.e<\/em>., bare as the hard rock<\/em> (\u05d2\u05b7\u05bc\u05dc\u05b0\u05de\u05d5\u05bc\u05d3<\/span> galmoud<\/span>), being reduced to a state of complete destitution.<\/p>\n

Tabernacles of bribery<\/em>. This is probably i<\/span>ntended as a reflection upon Job, as though, in his magisterial capacity, he had been guilty of this sin.<\/p>\n

35<\/a>. They go on, &c., &c<\/em>. I consider that the two infinitives absolute here denote continuance <\/span>of action. So 2 Sam. 15:30<\/a>.<\/p>\n

The meaning appears to be:\u2014Such men, in spite of successive disappointments, still persevere in procuring to themselves that misery which is only the natural consequence of<\/span> their evil designs and acts.<\/p>\n

Their belly, &c<\/em>.,\u2014just as the uterus may be said to frame or form the embryo which it contains. These bad men have always some wicked design or other in embryo; and this,<\/span> when it comes to the birth, proves deceitful to their expectations. Compare the Apostle\u2019s expression, \u201cthe deceitfulness of sin.\u201d<\/p>\n

\n
\n
\n

Job 16<\/a><\/p>\n

2<\/a>. I have heard, &c<\/em>. These are stale truths.<\/p>\n

Many such things<\/em>,\u2014or such things many times<\/em>. So Jerome, audivi frequenter talia<\/em>.<\/p>\n

Troublesome-comforters<\/em>,\u2014lit., comforters of trouble<\/em>. You pretend to speak comfort to me, but, in point of fact, you speak only of trouble; your arguments and statements are all so pointedly severe upon me, that they contradict your professions of speaking with a view to administer consolation. It is difficult to give an exact translation of \u05de\u05b0\u05e0\u05b7\u05bd\u05d7\u05b2\u05de\u05b5\u05d9 \u05e2\u05b8\u05de\u05b8\u05dc<\/span> (menakhemei gnamal<\/span>). It appears to me that the signification of the genitive here has the force not so much of an adjective as of an ablative, and that the meaning in full is, comforting with<\/em> [arguments of<\/em>] trouble;<\/em> and indeed, that the phrase in the singular would exactly mean what we understand by our own common expression,\u2014a Job\u2019s comforter<\/em>. Job probably alludes to what Eliphaz had said in 15:11<\/a>.<\/p>\n

3<\/a>. To words of wind<\/em>. Job here retorts upon Eliphaz the expression he had used. (15:2<\/a>.)<\/p>\n

What teaseth thee<\/em>?<\/em>\u05de\u05b8\u05e8\u05b7\u05e5<\/span> (marats<\/span>) is an unknown word; and much has been said in the endeavour to discover its meaning. I have sought to arrive at this, by comparing the meanings of other words which may be considered as, to some extent at least, cognate with it. In \u05de\u05b8\u05e8\u05b8\u05d0<\/span>, we have the ideas of lashing with a whip<\/em>, and contumaciousness<\/em>; in \u05de\u05b8\u05e8\u05b7\u05d3<\/span> (marad<\/span>), again, contumaciousness;<\/em> in \u05de\u05b8\u05e8\u05b8\u05d4<\/span> (marah<\/span>), again, the ideas oflashing with a whip<\/em>, and contumaciousness;<\/em> in \u05de\u05b8\u05e8\u05b7\u05e8<\/span> (marar<\/span>), bitterness, acridness, irritation;<\/em> and then, by transposition of radical letters and substitution of one guttural for another, we have \u05d7\u05b8\u05de<\/span>\u05b5\u05e5<\/span> (khamets<\/span>), signifying sharpness, sourness<\/em>. We thus obtain general ideas of pungency, stimulus, sharpness<\/em>, and so on; meanings which very well suit the different passages in which \u05de\u05b8\u05e8\u05b7\u05e5<\/span> (marats<\/span>) occurs\u2014namely, besides in this verse, in 6:25<\/a>, \u201cHow forcible<\/em> (or pungent<\/em>) are right words<\/em>?\u201d also in 1 Kings 2:8<\/a>,\u2014A pungent curse, i.e<\/em>., a curse which stung to the quick\u2014a meaning which well agrees with the character of the curse in question (2 Sam. 16:5\u201313<\/a>), and in Micah 2:10<\/a>, \u201csore destruction<\/em>.\u201d<\/p>\n

4<\/a>. The \u05d4<\/span> (h<\/span>) paragogic in all the verbs in this verse is expressive of determination under a stated condition\u2014i.e<\/em>., if, as I could wish (\u05dc\u05d5\u05bc<\/span>, lou<\/span>), so and so were the case, I would most certainly<\/em> act in such and such a way.<\/p>\n

If only<\/em>. \u05dc\u05d5\u05bc<\/span> (lou<\/span>), a particle, both conditional and optative, at the same time expressive of regret at the apparent impossibility of the condition being realized. There are, however, exceptions to this its general meaning.<\/p>\n

I would combine<\/em>. Just as you have combined against me. By not observing this obvious allusion to the friends, this clause has given much trouble to expositors.<\/p>\n

Would nod at you with my head<\/em>. In token of disapprobation, just as you do to me.<\/p>\n

5<\/a>. This verse is one of some difficulty, as the more common meaning of \u05d0\u05b4\u05de\u05b5\u05bc\u05e5<\/span> (immets<\/span>), to strengthen<\/em>, is by no means apposite here to the context, for it would express a sense contradictory to the statements of the previous verse. Lee tells us that he takes \u05d0\u05b2\u05d0\u05b7\u05de\u05b4\u05bc\u05bd\u05e6\u05b0\u05db\u05b6\u05dd<\/span> (eammitschem<\/span>) to be written for \u05d0\u05b2\u05d0\u05b7\u05de\u05b6\u05a3\u05e5 \u05e2\u05b2\u05dc\u05b5\u05d9\u05d1\u05b6\u05bd\u05dd<\/span> (eammits gneleichem<\/span>), and translates it, I might prevail against you<\/em>\u2014a sense which satisfies the context, but scarcely the grammar. Dathe gives much the same meaning\u2014pr\u00e6valerem vobis<\/em>, but derives it in a different way, by proposing a different punctuation, \u05d0\u05b6\u05bd\u05d0\u05b1\u05de\u05b8\u05e6\u05b0\u05db\u05b6\u05dd<\/span> (aematschem<\/span>); but even this change will scarcely give the signification he attaches to it. I take \u05d0\u05b4\u05de\u05b5\u05bc\u05e5<\/span> (immets<\/span>) in a sense in which it is frequently used\u2014that of hardening<\/em>, a sense which appears to me to agree well with the context. I would harden you, i.e<\/em>., I would (just as you do with me) confirm you in your own sentiments, and make you more obstinate than ever by the manner in which I would address you.<\/p>\n

And my lip<\/em>s, &c., &c<\/em>.,\u2014lit., and the condolence of my lips would be sparing; i.e<\/em>., I would not speak much to you in the way of comfort.<\/p>\n

With verse<\/em>. See the Note on 4:2<\/span><\/a>.<\/p>\n

6<\/a>. The continuance of the Paragogic \u05d4<\/span> (h<\/span>) in each of the first verbs of the two clauses of this verse sufficiently establishes its intimate connexion with the preceding. Lee has observed this, but, strangely enough, he all but contradicts his own statement by beginning a new paragraph here. That the connexion is not to be easily understood is certain, and amongst all commentators I can find nothing satisfactory upon this subject. One thing, however, has been overlooked, and one which, I think, furnishes a key to understanding the passage before us. We must bear in mind that Job is here speaking on a supposition\u2014the supposition that his friends are in his position, and he in theirs, (ver. 4<\/a>.) Whilst lie admits the impossibility, yet he expresses the wish (\u05dc\u05d5\u05bc<\/span>, lou<\/span>) that it were so; and he tells them that in that case he would deal with them as they were now dealing with him; and further, that they would in that case find themselves just in the same predicament in which he now found himself\u2014that of having no option of deciding whether he had best speak or be silent, as, in either case, the force of his disease would be as unabated as ever. I therefore understand the verse thus:\u2014If I<\/em> (i.e<\/em>., if you<\/em>, being, as I am supposing, in my stead) should speak, my<\/em> (i.e., your<\/em>) pain would not be assuaged<\/em>. And so the next clause.<\/p>\n

7<\/a>, 8<\/a>. He<\/em>. Not Job\u2019s disease, as some have it; nor God, as most interpret it; but Eliphaz.<\/p>\n

Surely now, &c<\/em>. Certainly by this time Eliphaz has tired me out (alluding to what Eliphaz had said, 4:2<\/a>).<\/p>\n

Thou hast desolated, &c<\/em>.,\u2014i.e., given over to desolation<\/em>, or declared desolate<\/em>; a very common Hebraism.<\/p>\n

All m<\/em>y clan<\/em>. In allusion to what Eliphaz had said in 15:34<\/a>. Circle<\/em> would not be a bad translation of \u05e2\u05b5\u05d3\u05b8\u05d4<\/span> (gnedah<\/span>); so Ewald translates it in German, kreis<\/em>.<\/p>\n

And tied me up<\/em>. Like a sheep for the slaughter. After all that has been written on this word \u05e7\u05b8\u05de\u05b7\u05d8<\/span> (kamat<\/span>), I am convinced that the meaning of the Arabic word is the right sense here\u2014to tie up the four legs of a sheep in order to kill it<\/em>. It means also, to bind hand and foot as a captive<\/em>; and possibly that may be the sense in which it is used here, but I prefer the former meaning. It will be observed that I have paid no attention to the accents in connecting this verb so immediately with the preceding; but this is of little consequence, and I see no other way of avoiding an exceedingly awkward construction and a disarrangement of the parallelisms.<\/p>\n

My leanness<\/em>. \u05db\u05b7\u05bc\u05d7\u05b7\u05e9\u05c1<\/span> (chakhash<\/span>) implies deficiency<\/em>, either physical or moral; not unlike our word failing<\/em>, though, in its moral sense, it has particular respect to want of truthfulness<\/em>. The context sufficiently shows that it is used here in its physical sense. Time was when Job (according to the construction which Eliphaz put upon his case, 15:27<\/a>) had covered his face with his fatness, and made collops of fat upon his loins. But now the case was different. A disease inflicted by God had completely attenuated him; and this circumstance was urged as an argument of his wickedness.<\/p>\n

The meaning of the two verses, then, appears to be this:\u2014Eliphaz has certainly, as he expected (4:2<\/a>), tired me out. And do you, Eliphaz, ask in what way you have done so? I will tell you. You have denounced utter destruction against me and all my belongings; you have represented me as so tied up by my calamities that escape is impossible; and then you have urged these circumstances against me as so many proofs and evidences of my guilt.<\/p>\n

9<\/a>. Job here speaks of the animus which actuated Eliphaz, and which excited him to exhibit towards him the rage and ferocity of a wild beast.<\/p>\n

10<\/a>. They have gaped at m<\/em>e, &c<\/em>. They (my friends), like wild beasts, have opened wide<\/em> their mouths, with intent of swallowing me up. Johnson has totally misunderstood this passage in quoting it in his Dictionary as an instance in which to gape upon<\/em> means to stare at<\/em>. The passage in Ps. 22:13<\/a>, 14<\/a> (authorized version), is not unlike this.<\/p>\n

My checks have they smitten, &c<\/em>. The greatest possible indignity that could be offered. Christ tells us not to resent it. (Matt. 5:39<\/a>.) He was himself so treated. (Micah 5:1<\/a>.) The meaning of the passage here is:\u2014My friends have, by the reproaches which they have heaped upon me, treated me as ignominiously as though they had actually smitten me upon the cheek. St. Paul, if I mistake not, alludes to this passage, or at least seems to have it in his eye, when he says (2 Cor. 11:20<\/a>, 21<\/a>), \u201cIf a man smite you on the face;\u201d and then adds, in apparent explanation, \u201cI speak as concerning reproach, &c.,\u201d i.e<\/em>., as though you had been reproached with my weakness.<\/p>\n

11<\/a>. The two verbs in this verse may be translated in the past rather than in the present tense, because the idea intended is that of continuance of consequence, not continuance of action. Job does not mean that God was every moment shutting him up, but that, having once done so, He kept him<\/em> shut up.<\/p>\n

An ungodly man,\u2014i.e<\/em>., Eliphaz.<\/p>\n

The wicked,\u2014i.e<\/em>., his friends.<\/p>\n

Job here refers the sufferings which he endured at the hands of his friends more immediately to the hand of God.<\/p>\n

12<\/a>. A play upon words is very frequent throughout this book; in this instance, the English words smash<\/em> and dash<\/em> exactly express the meaning, and at the same time preserve the paranomasia of the corresponding Hebrew words.<\/p>\n

13<\/a>. His shooters,\u2014i.e., his archers<\/em>. My friends, who are God\u2019s instruments in the matter. God sets me up as a mark, and then sets my friends on to shoot at me. \u05e8\u05b7\u05d1\u05b8\u05bc\u05d9\u05d5<\/span> (rabbaiw<\/span>), his shooters<\/em>, from \u05e8\u05b8\u05d1\u05b7\u05d1<\/span> (ravav<\/span>), = its cognate \u05e8\u05b8\u05d1\u05b8\u05d4<\/span> (ravah<\/span>), = \u05e8\u05b8\u05de\u05b8\u05d4<\/span> (ramah<\/span>), to throw, shoot<\/em>, &c., the letters \u05de<\/span> (m<\/span>) and \u05d1<\/span> (b<\/span> or v<\/span>) being interchanged. We all know how necessarily we exchange m<\/span> for b<\/span> when under the influence of a eold. Just so, physical peculiarities of different tribes easily affect their language, and accountably produce the changes we meet with in dialects.<\/p>\n

He splitteth my reins<\/em> (or kidneys<\/em>); He poureth out my gall; &c<\/em>.; i.e<\/em>., He has inflicted mortal wounds upon me.<\/p>\n

14<\/a>. The allusions here are, of course, to the storming of a fortified city\u2014first to the breaching of it, then to the assault.<\/p>\n

15<\/a>. I have been forced to humiliate myself in every possible way.<\/p>\n

Have abused my horn in the dust<\/em>. I think that this means no more than a poetical way of stating, I have rolled my head in the dust<\/em>, which was usually done in token of mourning. The head is here called the horn, in allusion to wild beasts, such as bulls, &c., which, when infuriated, rake up the dust with their horns. It is common to suppose that the horn here is to be understood as one of the insignia of power and dignity, and we are presented with illustrations from the present habits of the Druses of Mount Lebanon and of the Abyssinians, who wear such horns; but I question exceedingly the antiquity of these ornaments; they certainly are not found on the sculptures either in Egypt or at Nineveh. Their appearance on the heads of Deities is altogether beside the purpose.<\/p>\n

16<\/a>. Inflamed<\/em>. \u05d7\u05b2\u05de\u05b7\u05e8\u05b0\u05de\u05b0\u05e8\u05bb\u05d4<\/span> (khomarmeruh<\/span>) gives the double idea of being swollen and <\/em>red<\/em>. This word, in its true reading, is third person feminine sing.; but the Masoretic pointing gives it the pronunciation of the third masc. plural, in order to make it agree with \u05e4\u05b8\u05bc\u05e0\u05b7\u05d9<\/span> (panai<\/span>), which is plural. See, however, the Various Readings.<\/p>\n

And upon mine eyelids, &c<\/em>.\u2014My powers of vision are impaired by excessive weeping; or, perhaps,\u2014My sight is failing by reason of the near approach of death.<\/p>\n

17<\/a>. My very innocence, and the sincerity of my religion, are the cause of my sufferings! The taeit inference intended by Job is,\u2014If I were a man of robbery and of impiety, as you make me out to be, I should have escaped these misfortunes.<\/p>\n

The force of \u05e2\u05b7\u05dc<\/span> (gnal<\/span>) here is, upon<\/em> the circumstance that so and so is not the case,\u2014i.e<\/em>., because<\/em>.<\/p>\n

In my hands,\u2014i.e.<\/em>, when I spread them out before God in prayer, they are not stained with blood, or polluted with bribes, or robbery, or any such crimes.<\/p>\n

Isa. 53:9<\/a> is a very parallel passage to this.<\/p>\n

18<\/a>. Job here compares himself to one who has been unjustly slain; and, in order that his blood may be avenged by God, he calls upon the earth not to conceal it, and not to suffer his cry to rest anywhere, that it may go up to heaven. Compare Gen. 4:10<\/a>, 11<\/a>; 37:26<\/a>; Isa. 26:21<\/a>; Ezek. 24:7<\/a>, 8<\/a>.<\/p>\n

19<\/a>. Ay, even now, &c<\/em>. Yes, and I know that it shall be so, for God himself is my witness, and sooner or later He will avouch for me. We see here, as in a few other remarkable passages in this book, Job\u2019s faith rising immensely superior to, and triumphing over, all difficulties. His confidence was in God; and hence the secret of its power.<\/p>\n

20<\/a>. My interpreter is<\/em> my friend, &c<\/em>. He who will interpret my motives, actions, &c., is really my friend, and so will put a fair and right construction upon them, and will not distort them or misinterpret me, as these my pretended friends have done. That interpreter, who is my friend, and who, being my witness (ver. 19<\/a>), is cognizant of all the facts of the case as they really are, is God himself; and it is to Him, and to Him alone, that, with weeping eye, I make supplication.<\/p>\n

This verse and indeed the whole of this passage is most important, as setting forth the religious views and hopes of Job on the subject of a Mediator,\u2014and as it is only after much consideration that I have translated the first clause (which in point of fact is the key to the whole passage) as I have done,\u2014I must succinctly give my reasons for departing from the ordinary view that is taken of the passage. And 1st, the participial noun \u05de\u05b5\u05dc\u05b4\u05d9\u05e5<\/span> (melits<\/span>) occurs again in this book\u201433:23<\/a>; and in three other places in Scripture,\u2014Gen. 42:23<\/a>; 2 Chron. 32:31<\/a>; and Isa. 43:27<\/a>;\u2014in neither of which places can it mean a scorner<\/em> (for which \u05dc\u05b5\u05e5<\/span> (lets<\/span>) is the proper word), and indeed, can only mean an interpreter<\/em> or ambassador<\/em> or mediator<\/em>, or some similar word. 2ndly. Although \u05de\u05b0\u05dc\u05b4\u05d9\u05e6\u05b7\u05d9<\/span> (melitsai<\/span>) (the word here) is in the plural number, yet there is no objection to consider it what grammarians call a pluralis excellenti\u00e6; and the less so, on the supposition that the word is applied by Job to a superior being; and so, it should be translated in the singular, the force of the plural giving it a superlative sense, equivalent to,\u2014of all interpr<\/em>eters my best interpreter<\/em>,\u2014compare the very frequent use of \u05d0\u05b2\u05d3\u05b9\u05e0\u05b8\u05d9<\/span> (adonai<\/span>), and in this book, 35:10<\/a>, \u05e2\u05b9\u05e9\u05b7\u05c2\u05d9<\/span> (gnosai<\/span>), my Maker<\/em>; also in Eccles. 12:1<\/a>, \u05d1\u05b9\u05bc\u05e8\u05b0\u05d0\u05b6\u05d9\u05da\u05b8<\/span> (boreicha<\/span>), thy Creator<\/em>. Nor again can there be any objection (and for the same reasons) to regard \u05e8\u05b5\u05e2\u05b8\u05bd\u05d9<\/span> (regnai<\/span>) as also a pluralis excellenti\u00e6; or, it may be plural simply by apposition; we have a remarkable instance of two consecutive plural nouns, both having the sense of the singular, in Isa. 54:5<\/a>, \u201cThy Maker is thy husband<\/em>,\u201d lit., thy makers<\/em> [are<\/em>] thy husbands<\/em>. 3rdly. As the plural here rests on the authority only of the vowel points, and which are little better than a kind of Jewish traditional commentary on the sense of Scripture, it is quite possible that the reading should have been \u05de\u05b0\u05dc\u05b4\u05d9\u05e6\u05b4\u05d9 \u05e8\u05b5\u05e2\u05b4\u05d9<\/span> (melitsi regni<\/span>), or perhaps \u05de\u05b0\u05dc\u05b4\u05d9\u05e6\u05b7\u05d9 \u05e8\u05b5\u05e2\u05b4\u05d9<\/span> (melitsai regni<\/span>), and indeed this latter supposition will more easily account for the corruption (if such it be) of \u05e8\u05b5\u05e2\u05b4\u05d9<\/span> (regni<\/span>) into \u05e8\u05b5\u05e2\u05b8\u05bd\u05d9<\/span> (regnai<\/span>). Lee rather suspects a wilful corruption of the text, or at least supposes that ignorance of a divine Mediator may have led the Jews to determine that these words must be in the plural number, and applicable to Job\u2019s friends. 4thly. The preceding context seems to require a singular here, the person spoken of in 5:19<\/a> as \u05e2\u05b5\u05d3\u05b4\u05d9<\/span> (gnedi<\/span>) my witness<\/em>, and \u05e9\u05b8\u05c2\u05d4\u05b3\u05d3\u05b4\u05d9<\/span> (sohodi<\/span>), my testifier<\/em>, being evidently the same person mentioned in this verse. And 5thly, the succeeding context seems to require the translation which is here given, for, on any other grounds, 5:21<\/a> is certainly not translatable without doing violence to the construction; hence, Rosenm\u00fcller is obliged to make out that \u05d5\u05b0\u05d9\u05d5\u05b9\u05db\u05b7\u05d7 \u05dc\u05b0\u05d2\u05b6\u05d1\u05b6\u05e8<\/span> (veyochakh legever<\/span>) is \u201cconcise dictum\u201d for \u05d5\u05bc\u05de\u05b4\u05d9\u05be\u05d9\u05b4\u05ea\u05b5\u05bc\u05df \u05dc\u05b0\u05d2\u05b6\u05d1\u05b6\u05e8 \u05e9\u05b6\u05c1\u05d9\u05bc\u05d5\u05b9\u05db\u05b5\u05d7\u05b7<\/span> (oumi itten legever sheyocheakh<\/span>); whilst Schultens acknowledges, in his prefatory remarks on the verse, \u201cImpedita constructio multum peperit dissensum\u201d; and Dathe remarks of the seeond clause\u2014\u201cH\u00e6rent interpretes maxime in posteriori membro\u201d\u2014and then proceeds to understand \u05d1\u05b6\u05bc\u05df<\/span> (ben<\/span>) as a preposition instead of a noun, and so, makes the very common phrase \u05d1\u05b6\u05bc\u05df\u05be\u05d0\u05b8\u05d3\u05b8\u05dd<\/span> (ben adam<\/span>), son of man<\/em>, signify between a man<\/em>. Now there is no necessity for incumbering ourselves with any such difficulties, for by simply translating the first clause of 5:20<\/a>, My interpreter is my friend<\/em>, every difficulty vanishes.<\/p>\n

Unto God hath mine eye wept<\/em>. Evidently the same divine person unto whom Jacob wept, the \u05de\u05b7\u05dc\u05b0\u05d0\u05b8\u05da\u05b0<\/span> (malach<\/span>), angel<\/em>, and at the same time \u05d0\u05b1\u05dc\u05b9\u05d4\u05b4\u05d9\u05dd<\/span> (elohim<\/span>), God<\/em>\u2014see the incident as recorded in Gen. 32:25\u201331<\/a>, and the allusion to it in Hosea 12:4<\/a>.<\/p>\n

21<\/a>. A<\/em>nd he will plead,\u2014He<\/em>, who is my witness in heaven<\/em>, being acquainted with all my ways, who is also my testifier there<\/em>, and so, is ready to appear and bear testimony for me when occasion shall require; who is my interpreter<\/em> likewise, and as such, and being my friend<\/em>, will put a right interpretation on my actions and motives, or will at least set them in such a point of view as that I shall be dealt with graciously; and who, at the same time being the God<\/em> unto whom I have confidingly poured out my sorrows, will not disappoint my confidence;\u2014He<\/em> will plead my cause with God, just as one man pleads on behalf of another. If this be the right interpretation (and I can conceive of no other without doing violence to the language), it is evident that Job here speaks of God at least in two different characters, I might almost say in two distinct personalities\u2014on the one hand as an advocate, on the other, as a judge. Umbreit has some glimmering of the sense of the first clause, though he utterly misunderstands the second; and he remarks on that first clause,\u2014\u201cWith melancholy qnaintness Job says, God must support me against God.\u201d There is nothing, however, either melancholy or quaint about Job\u2019s statement here; and it appears to me strange that Umbreit should have failed to discover the very pointed allusion that is here made to a divine Mediator.<\/p>\n

22<\/a>. When a few years, &c<\/em>.,\u2014a proof that Job did not expect his cause to be righted in this world. His hope is, that after a few years have passed away and he has gone no more to return, then his divine Mediator will take up his cause, and see him righted. We may gather from this also, that Job\u2019s disease was not considered as immediately mortal,\u2014he evidently expected that his life would be prolonged for some few years yet.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n
\n

Job 17<\/a><\/p>\n

1<\/a>. Job had alluded to the period of his death in the previous verse, and he now states his conviction that nothing would interfere with or interrupt that event, which, judging from circumstances, could not now be very far distant. His real meaning appears to be,\u2014All my earthly happiness is gone, and nothing remains for me in prospect but the grave.<\/p>\n

My spirit hath been broken<\/em>,\u2014and so, there is no probability of its being mended again.<\/p>\n

My days have been extinguished<\/em>,\u2014my days of happiness have been put out as a candle never to be re-lighted.<\/p>\n

Have been extinguished<\/em>,\u2014from \u05d6\u05b8\u05e2\u05b7\u05da\u05b0<\/span> (zagnach<\/span>) i.<\/em>q.<\/em>, \u05d3\u05b8\u05bc\u05e2\u05b7\u05da\u05b0<\/span> (dagnach<\/span>). Much has been said against this, but nothing better offered; and moreover three MSS. of Kennicott and nine of De Rossi have the usual form \u05e0\u05d3\u05e2\u05db\u05d5<\/span> (ndgnchw<\/span>).<\/p>\n

For me are the cataco<\/em>mbs<\/em>,\u2014I have no other earthly prospect.<\/p>\n

The catacombs<\/em>,\u2014or the graves<\/em>, probably referring to the many cells ordinarily cut in the sides of the rock, in ancient subterranean sepulchres.<\/p>\n

Here again, we have another proof that Job entertained no kind of hope of restoration in this life. He had full assurance indeed that he had one in heaven who would undertake and advocate his cause, but this was not to be in this life. (See the whole passage, 16:19\u201317:1<\/a>.)<\/p>\n

2<\/a>. A verse which has been found full of difficulty, chiefly because commentators have been at the pains of going out of the way in order to discover its meaning, instead of taking it literally.<\/p>\n

If not, &c<\/em>.\u2014I see nothing before me but the grave, unless it is that I am mistaken, and that I am the victim of the most extraordinary delusions,\u2014delusions which, if they are such, are so obstinately fixed, that my eye does nothing but dwell upon them.<\/p>\n

Illusions beset me<\/em>,\u2014lit., illusions<\/em> (not mockers<\/em>, as the auth. vers. and many have it) are with m<\/em>e<\/em>.<\/p>\n

Mine eye dwelleth<\/em>,\u2014lit., lodgeth<\/em>, if they are deceptions (which I cannot think them to be), my eye at all events does nothing but rest upon them, as though they were realities.<\/p>\n

On their pertinacity<\/em>,\u2014\u05d1\u05b0\u05bc\u05d4\u05b7\u05de\u05b0\u05bc\u05e8\u05d5\u05b9\u05ea\u05b8\u05dd<\/span> (behammerotham<\/span>). Infinitive Hiphil from \u05de\u05b8\u05e8\u05b8\u05d4<\/span> (marah<\/span>), to rebel, to be contumacious, to offer determined resistance<\/em>, and the like, with dagesh euphonic in the \u05de<\/span> (m<\/span>). Lee takes the word to be of the form \u05d4\u05b7\u05de\u05b5\u05bc\u05e8\u05b8\u05d4<\/span> (hammerah<\/span>) for \u05d4\u05b7\u05e0\u05b0\u05de\u05b5\u05e8\u05b8\u05d4<\/span> (hanmerah<\/span>), as a verbal noun of the Niphal species. It might be a formative from \u05d4\u05b7\u05de\u05b5\u05bc\u05e8<\/span> (hammer<\/span>) Hiphil of \u05e0\u05b8\u05de\u05b7\u05e8<\/span> (namar<\/span>), and so, might be translated\u2014their variegations<\/em>, a word which would be suitable to the sense. I give a very decided preference, however, to the first-mentioned of these derivations, and to the sense which it conveys.<\/p>\n

3<\/a>. Job is still addressing himself to that divine Being in heaven, in whom he had just expressed his confidence as being his \u201cwitness \u201cand his \u201ctestifier\u201d and his \u201cinterpreter,\u201d and, who would undertake and plead his cause (16:19\u201321<\/a>); and he now prays him to engage himself as surety before God on his behalf, as he had none else to look to.<\/p>\n

Engage, I pray thee<\/em>,\u2014lit., put or deposit, I pray thee<\/em>; the following \u05e2\u05b8\u05e8\u05b0\u05d1\u05b5\u05e0\u05b4\u05d9<\/span> (gnorveni<\/span>) be surely for me<\/em> and the next clause show that \u05d9\u05b8\u05d3\u05b0\u05da\u05b8<\/span> (yodcha<\/span>) thine hand<\/em> must be supplied here, and so, give the meaning to \u05e9\u05b4\u05c2\u05d9\u05dd<\/span> (sim<\/span>), which I have here attached to it. We have the expression in full in Gen. 24:2<\/a>, and 47:29<\/a>\u2014\u05e9\u05b4\u05c2\u05d9\u05dd\u05be\u05e0\u05b8\u05d0 \u05d9\u05b8\u05d3\u05b0\u05da\u05b8<\/span> (sim na yodcha<\/span>), put now thine hand<\/em>; or the word to be supplied may be \u05e2\u05b5\u05e8\u05b8\u05d1\u05d5\u05b9\u05df<\/span> (gneravon<\/span>), a gage<\/em> or pledge<\/em>. With reference to the last clause\u2014Who else would strike hands, &c.<\/em>?\u2014see Prov. 6:1<\/a>; 11:15<\/a> (marg. reading); 17:18<\/a>; and 22:26<\/a>.<\/p>\n

Be surety for me with thyself<\/em>, is a very striking expression as addressed to God. God is here appealed to, as himself a Mediator between man and himself.<\/p>\n

4<\/a>. Thou hast hidden understanding from their heart<\/em>,\u2014lit., thou hast hidden their heart from understanding<\/em>;\u2014Thou hast rendered them incapable of acting as adjudicators in my cause, and therefore thou wilt not suffer them to be exalted to any such office.<\/p>\n

5<\/a>. So far from allowing them any grounds of exaltation, thou wilt severely punish them; for he that betrayeth friends, &c., &c<\/em>. Possibly this may have been some trite proverb which Job here introduces, and applies to the conduct of his friends who had (as he describes in 5:6<\/a>) exposed him to the public to be made sport of.<\/p>\n

He that betrayeth<\/em>,\u2014lit., he that pointeth out<\/em>, or telleth of<\/em>.<\/p>\n

To be made spoil of<\/em>,\u2014lit., to booty<\/em>, or to spoil<\/em>.<\/p>\n

Shall waste away,\u2014i.e<\/em>., with disappointed expectation. Compare the statement of this verse with Ps. 109<\/a>, a psalm applied by Peter in Acts 1<\/a> to the betrayer of our Lord\u2014see especially verses 9\u201313<\/a>.<\/p>\n

6<\/a>. He,\u2014i.e<\/em>., Eliphaz in particular. Not God, as some consider; for Job is still addressing God.<\/p>\n

So hath he set me up, &c<\/em>.,\u2014i.e<\/em>., He has said such things about me that I am become a subject of common talk and ribaldry. He has betrayed me, and exposed me to the public, that I might be made sport of. Thus, this verse explains the sense which Job intended to be attached to the former verse. As to \u05ea\u05b9\u05bc\u05e4\u05b6\u05ea<\/span> (topheth<\/span>), which I have translated a subject of abuse<\/em>, we have in the Chaldee \u05ea\u05d5\u05e3<\/span> (toph<\/span>), and in the \u00c6thiopic \u05ea\u05e4\u05d0<\/span> (tpha<\/span>), to spit out;<\/em> then in Arabic \u05ea\u05e4\u05e3<\/span> (tphph<\/span>), to spit, and call a person<\/em> \u201ctoufa<\/span>\u201d with detestation<\/em>. This word toufa<\/span> appears to have been used as an exclamation expressive of contempt and abhorrence; and so, as Rosenm\u00fcller remarks, is not unlike the Aramaic \u05e8\u05b7\u05e7\u05b8\u05bc\u05d0<\/span> (rakka<\/span>), \u1fe5\u03b1\u03ba\u1f70<\/span> (raca<\/span>) (Matt. 5:22<\/a>), which is derived from \u05e8\u05e7\u05e7<\/span> (rakak<\/span>), to<\/em> spit<\/em>. \u05ea\u05d5\u05e3<\/span> (toph<\/span>) may be considered as \u05ea\u05d0\u05e3<\/span> (taph<\/span>), and this as cognate with \u05ea\u05b8\u05bc\u05d0\u05b7\u05d1<\/span> (taav<\/span>), which = \u05ea\u05b8\u05bc\u05e2\u05b7\u05d1<\/span> (tagnav<\/span>), to abominate.<\/p>\n

Openly<\/em>. \u05dc\u05b0\u05e4\u05b8\u05e0\u05b4\u05d9\u05dd<\/span> (lephanim<\/span>),\u2014lit., to faces<\/em>.<\/p>\n

We may infer from this verse that these discussions were, to some extent, public, or at least that they were made subjects of much conversation far and wide; and we may further infer, that as Job was aware that he was already what we should call town talk<\/em>, so, these discussions must have occupied considerable time.<\/p>\n

7<\/a>. My frame<\/em>. \u05d9\u05b0\u05e6\u05bb\u05e8\u05b4\u05d9\u05dd<\/span> (yetsurim<\/span>), which occurs only here, means things formed<\/em> or framed<\/em>. Job probably intends by the word the several parts of which his bodily frame consisted.<\/p>\n

8<\/a>. Amazed<\/em>. That I should have been so held up by Eliphaz to public scorn.<\/p>\n

Be roused, &c<\/em>. All right-thinking men will work themselves up to a high pitch of indignation when they hear of the impious conduct of Eliphaz.<\/p>\n

9<\/a>. Job here consoles himself with the thought that hereafter, when his innocence should have been proved, good men in like circumstances, gathering consolation from the consideration of his history, would be the more confirmed by it in their faith and piety towards God. And no doubt, many an afflicted and persecuted child of God has taken fresh courage by meditating on the trials of this patriarch, according to the suggestion of James 5:11<\/a>.<\/p>\n

10<\/a>. You all<\/em>,\u2014lit., all of them<\/em>. This change of person is common enough in Hebrew Idiom. This, of course, is addressed to his friends.<\/p>\n

Turn again now, and come on<\/em>,\u2014or as we should say, return to the charge<\/em>. Renew the controversy if you will, my opinion on the subject of your wisdom and of your boasted consolations will still be unchanged. Job seems to wax confident in making this challenge. His meaning is, as we learn from the sequel:\u2014Attack me again with another round of arguments, but I tell you that you are all wrong, in attempting to buoy me up with hopes of an earthly character, on the condition of my repenting of what yon consider my wicked ways. I tell you again that I have abandoned every merely worldly prospect.<\/p>\n

11<\/a>. Job, in this and the following verses, animadverts upon the want of wisdom which his friends had betrayed, in that, although all his worldly hopes were for ever gone, they continued holding out to him the expectation of a complete temporal restoration. Here again, if language means anything, we must be convinced that Job entertained no prospect whatever of a return to earthly happiness. Nor is there anything of a gloomy cast in his language here. He speaks of the things which he once most cherished as being all removed from him; but his challenge to his friends in the previous verse, and his subsequent remarks, prove that he adverts to this fact without any great regret; he seems rather to triumph in the thought of his severance from worldly hopes, as it made more precious to him that hope from which he knew that even death could not separate him.<\/p>\n

My contrivances are broken<\/em>. Broken like a rope. \u05d6\u05b4\u05de\u05bc\u05d5\u05b9\u05ea\u05b7\u05d9<\/span> (zimmothai<\/span>),\u2014I have translated this word\u2014my contrivances<\/em>, as it is derived from the root \u05d6\u05b8\u05de\u05b7\u05bc\u05dd<\/span> (zammam<\/span>), the first meaning of which appears from the Arabic to be\u2014to bind, to tie<\/em>; hence, to lay snares, to plot, to des<\/em>ign<\/em>, &c.<\/p>\n

The possessions of my heart<\/em>. The things that I once most doted upon,\u2014those schemes and contrivances (so former clause) by which I once endeavoured to realize the various hopes of a worldly character which I then entertained;\u2014all these are now, and for ever, utterly destroyed.<\/p>\n

12<\/a>. My friends so distort truth that what is really bright and hopeful about my case, such as my sincerity, confidence in God, &c., &c., they put in a most gloomy point of view; and on the other hand, though my worldly prospects are as dark as possible, they hold out vain hopes of speedy prosperity.<\/p>\n

Out of very d<\/em>arkness<\/em>,\u2014lit., out of the face of darkness<\/em>. Job means,\u2014My friends represent light as being near, as if it could come out of the face of darkness itself!<\/p>\n

13<\/a>. If I must entertain hope, as you would have me to do, pray what kind of hope shall it be? for I already look upon the grave as my home, and I have already, as it were, spread my bed in the dark sepulchre.<\/p>\n

14<\/a>. So certain am I of speedy dissolution, that I already claim relationship to the destructive agencies that will soon be at work on my body.<\/p>\n

15<\/a>. Such being the case, you may naturally inquire upon what my hope can be fixed, and who is to witness the accomplishment of it. I will tell you. (ver. 16<\/a>.)<\/p>\n

16<\/a>. Many take \u05d1\u05b7\u05bc\u05d3\u05b5\u05bc\u05d9<\/span> (baddei<\/span>) to signify the bars<\/em> of the grave; but the word means bars<\/em> in the sense of staves for porterage<\/em>, not in the sense of fastenings<\/em> (\u05d1\u05b0\u05bc\u05e8\u05b4\u05d9\u05d7\u05b4\u05d9\u05dd<\/span>, berikhim<\/span>) for a door or gate. I take it from \u05d1\u05b8\u05bc\u05d3\u05b7\u05d3<\/span> (badad<\/span>), to divide<\/em> or separate<\/em>, and here to mean the divisions<\/em> or separate places<\/em> which were usually excavated in Eastern subterranean burial vaults; and so, I translate it, cells<\/em>.<\/p>\n

\u05ea\u05b5\u05bc\u05e8\u05b7\u05d3\u05b0\u05e0\u05b8\u05d4<\/span> (teradnah<\/span>) is plural; and so the meaning is,\u2014My hope in general,\u2014i.e<\/em>., all my hopes shall descend<\/em>. Some, however, consider the \u05e0\u05b8\u05d4<\/span> (nah<\/span>) here as paragogic, and refer to Judges 5:26<\/a> as a similar instance.<\/p>\n

Shall we be set down<\/em>,\u2014lit., there shall be a setting down<\/em>. Supply \u05dc\u05b8\u05e0\u05d5\u05bc<\/span> (lanou<\/span>), for us<\/em>. \u05e0\u05b8\u05d7\u05b7\u05ea<\/span> (nakhath<\/span>) is a noun, from \u05e0\u05d5\u05bc\u05d7\u05b7<\/span> (noukh<\/span>). The Sept. evidently understood the word as \u05e0\u05b5\u05d7\u05b7\u05ea<\/span>, (nekhath<\/span>), from \u05e0\u05b8\u05d7\u05b7\u05ea<\/span> (nakhath<\/span>), and so translated it \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u03b2\u03b7\u03c3\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03b8\u03b1<\/span>, we shall go down<\/em>. The meaning I have given, and which requires no alteration of the vowel points, is, I think, preferable. We have in the two clauses a graphic description of the placing of a body in its final resting-place. First, it descends<\/em> into the subterranean vault, and then it is set down on<\/em> (\u05e2\u05b7\u05dc<\/span>, gnal<\/span>) the ground, in the cell which had been set apart for it. Job says that his hope would accompany him, and remain with him there. Certain it is, that if Job had no hope beyond the grave, he had indeed no hope at all. They must be blind who cannot see that his confidence in God had respect to a future, and not to a present, deliverance.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n

Job 18<\/a><\/p>\n

2<\/a>. This and the next verse are addressed by Bildad to his friends. Annoyed that neither himself nor they have been able to terminate the already lengthened controversy, he blames them for some <\/span>want of discretion in the matter, and intimates in ver. 3<\/a> that so prolonged a discussion could only have the effect of making them appear stupid in each other\u2019s eyes.<\/p>\n

How long ere ye, &c., &c.,\u2014i.e<\/em>., <\/span>I foresee no end to this dispute, unless, in our replies, we exercise more discretion before we speak. Bildad, to some extent, seems to include himself in this censure, but evidently more by way of polit<\/span>eness than of actual intention; hence, of the three verbs, the last only is in the first person.<\/p>\n

Limits<\/em>. \u05e7\u05b4\u05e0\u05b0\u05e6\u05b5\u05d9<\/span> (kintsei<\/span>) is for \u05e7\u05b4\u05e6\u05b5\u05bc\u05d9<\/span> (kitstsei<\/span>), the plural of \u05e7\u05b5\u05e5<\/span> (kets<\/span>), an end<\/em>. The Dagesh is <\/span>here resolved into \u05e0<\/span> (n<\/span>), which is a Chaldaic usage. Others understand it as signifying traps<\/em>, from \u05e7\u05b6\u05e0\u05b6\u05e5<\/span> (kenets<\/span>), root \u05e7\u05e0\u05e5<\/span> (knts<\/span>), which in Arabic signifies to hunt<\/em>. The first, however, is the more <\/span>natural solution.<\/p>\n

3<\/a>. Why should, &c<\/em>. Why should we have occasion to regard each other as stupid brutes?<\/p>\n

And be unclean<\/em>. Because accounted as beasts.<\/p>\n

In each other\u2019s eyes<\/em>,\u2014lit., in your eyes<\/em>; but I thi<\/span>nk that Bildad\u2019s meaning clearly is,\u2014Why should I appear so and so, &c., in your eyes, as you do in mine?<\/p>\n

\u05e0\u05b4\u05d8\u05b0\u05de\u05b4\u05d9\u05e0\u05d5\u05bc<\/span> (nitminou<\/span>), from \u05d8\u05b8\u05de\u05b8\u05d4<\/span> (tamah<\/span>), i.q.<\/em>, \u05d8\u05b8\u05de\u05b5\u05d0<\/span> (tam\u00e9<\/span>).<\/p>\n

4<\/a>. Is the usual course of natur<\/span>e to be interrupted to appease your insane rage? As \u05d8\u05b9\u05e8\u05b5\u05e3<\/span> (toreph<\/span>), tearing<\/em>, refers to the action of a wild beast, Bildad seems here to retort upon Job,\u2014You, and not we, are like an infuriated beast. <\/span>(16:9<\/a>, 10<\/a>.)<\/p>\n

Thou that tearest thyself, &c<\/em>.,\u2014lit., tearing his self, &c<\/em>., the meaning being,\u2014[Thou a person<\/em>] tearing his own self, &c<\/em>.<\/p>\n

For thy sake, is the earth to be deserted, &c., &c.?<\/em> Both this and<\/span> the succeeding clause savour of proverbial phraseology. In a note on Lowth\u2019s \u201cLectures on Hebrew Poetry\u201d (Lecture XXXIV.) are the following remarks:\u2014\u201cWhen the Orientals would reprove the pride or arrogance of any <\/span>person, it is common for them to desire him to call to mind how little and contemptible he and every mortal is, in these or similar apothegms:\u2014<\/p>\n

\u201c\u00a0\u2018What though Mohammed were dead?<\/em><\/p>\n

\u201c\u00a0\u2018His <\/em><\/span>Imauns<\/em> (or ministers<\/em>) conducted the affairs of the nation<\/em>.\u2019<\/p>\n

\u201c\u00a0\u2018The universe shall not fall for his sake<\/em>.\u2019<\/p>\n

\u201c\u00a0\u2018The world does not subsist for one man alone<\/em>.\u2019<\/p>\n

Nay, this very phrase is still in use among <\/span>the Arabic writers, \u05e2\u05d6\u05d1\u05ea \u05d0\u05dc \u05d0\u05e8\u05e5<\/span> (gnzuth al arts<\/span>), the earth is desolate<\/em>. (Gol. Col., 1570.)\u201d<\/p>\n

Rosenm\u00fcller also cites Golius on the passage.<\/p>\n

5<\/a>. So far from God\u2019s departing from the ordinary course of na<\/span>ture to please you or anyone else, it will still hold good, as an invariable rule and natural consequence, that the prosperity of the wicked will come to an end.<\/p>\n

Light,\u2014i.e<\/em>., splendour, wealth, glory,<\/span> &c.<\/p>\n

Go out<\/em>. \u05d9\u05b4\u05d3\u05b0\u05e2\u05b8\u05bd\u05da\u05b0<\/span> (idegnach<\/span>), not, be extinguished<\/em>, but, go out of its own self<\/em>.<\/p>\n

6<\/a>. Is darkened<\/em>. So certain is this of accomplishment that it may be regarded as having already taken place.<\/p>\n

His la<\/em><\/span>mp over him,\u2014i.e.<\/em>, suspended over him. Compare 29:3<\/a>. Schultens cites a common expression among the Arabs, \u201cMisfortune has put out my lamp<\/em>,\u201d as signifying misfortune has destroyed my hopes, &c., &c.<\/p>\n

7<\/a>.<\/span> \u05d9\u05b5\u05e6\u05b0\u05e8\u05d5\u05bc<\/span> (yetserou<\/span>), shall be straitened<\/em>, from \u05d9\u05b8\u05e6\u05b7\u05e8<\/span> (yatsar<\/span>), i.q.<\/em>, \u05e6\u05d5\u05bc\u05e8<\/span> (tsour<\/span>).<\/p>\n

The strides of his might<\/em>, &c. Schultens has abundantly proved, by reference to many Arabic examples, how tritely this<\/span> phrase is used by the Arabians to express rapid and sudden diminution of power; the first he gives is from Iben Doreid:\u2014<\/p>\n

\u201cWhoso keepeth, not within the bounds of strength<\/em>,<\/p>\n

His widest strides shall he<\/em><\/span> straitened<\/em>.\u201d<\/p>\n

8<\/a>. An explanation of the former verse, showing how the strides of an ungodly man suddenly become straitened, and how his own counsel casts him down; even because, in the pursuit of his o<\/span>wn counsel, his own feet, so to speak, carry him directly into the trap in which he becomes caught.<\/p>\n

9<\/a>. The gin shall seize him<\/em>, &c. Not, as some understand it, he shall take hold of the gin by the hee<\/em><\/span>l<\/em>.<\/p>\n

\u05e6\u05b7\u05de\u05b4\u05bc\u05d9\u05dd<\/span> (tsammim<\/span>), the noose<\/em>. (See Note on ch. 5:5<\/span><\/a>.) The parallelism here requires that a thing or instrument, and not a person, be meant.<\/p>\n

8\u201310<\/a>. I take all the different words in these verses, the <\/span>net<\/em>, the meshes<\/em>, the gin<\/span>, the noose<\/em>, and the cord<\/em>, to be the several parts of the trap<\/em>. All this must be understood here metaphorically, and not literally. As some foolish wild beast steps carelessly <\/span>into the snare that is spread for him, so the ungodly man here spoken of, deliberately, though without being conscious of it, gets entrapped in walking in the way of his own devices, and in pursuing his own counsels.<\/span><\/p>\n

The cord that snareth him<\/em>,\u2014lit., his cord<\/em>.<\/p>\n

The trap that taketh him<\/em>,\u2014lit., his trap<\/em>.<\/p>\n

The pathway,\u2014i.e<\/em>., the pathway that he takes.<\/p>\n

11<\/a>. Terrors on every side<\/em>, &c. Because he sees no wa<\/span>y of escape, the trap securely holding his feet; and the only prospect before him is starvation, or falling into the hands of those who thirst for his life.<\/p>\n

Because of his feet<\/em>,\u2014which are caught in th<\/span>e trap. This signification of \u05dc\u05b0<\/span> (le<\/span>) is sufficiently common.<\/p>\n

Bewilder him<\/em>,\u2014lit., scatter him<\/em>, or as we might say, throw him abroad, put him in confusion<\/em>, &c.<\/p>\n

12<\/a>. His strength is here poetically said <\/span>to suffer the pangs of hunger.<\/p>\n

13<\/a>. The first-born of death,\u2014i.e<\/em>., death in its most terrible aspect. Not the worm<\/em>, as some suppose, because that is after death, and all are equally devoured by it, whi<\/span>ch would not suit Bildad\u2019s argument; but, perhaps, starvation<\/em>, to which allusion is made in the former verse.<\/p>\n

It,\u2014i.e., the first-born of death<\/em> in the second clause; or this might refer to destruction<\/em><\/span> in the previous clause; or the meaning may be, he shall eat the parts of his own skin<\/em>, being driven to do so by starvation.<\/p>\n

14<\/a>. \u05d1\u05b7\u05bc\u05dc\u05b8\u05bc\u05d4\u05d5\u05b9\u05ea<\/span> (ballahoth<\/span>), a plural noun; it is here nominative to the ver<\/span>b, though that is in the singular number, as in 27:20<\/a>. This is by no means unusual.<\/p>\n

He will lose all presence of mind and the security which he once indulged in; for terror, invading his tabernacle in<\/span> the shape of awful judgments from heaven (as explained in the next verse), will effectually expel every feeling of security, and will master him.<\/p>\n

Terror<\/em>,\u2014lit., terrors<\/em>; but, probably, a pluralis exce<\/span>llenti\u00e6, and so, signifying great terror<\/em>.<\/p>\n

Shall march it off,\u2014i.e<\/em>., shall march off his confidence.<\/p>\n

15<\/a>. It shall dwell<\/em>, &c.,\u2014i.e., terror shall dwell<\/em>.<\/p>\n

That it shall not be his own<\/em>. Terror, such as he <\/span>cannot get rid of, having taken up its abode in his tabernacle, may more properly be considered the master of it than himself.<\/p>\n

16<\/a>. His crop<\/em>. Alluding, no doubt, to the fruit of the palm tree.<\/p>\n

\u05d9\u05b4\u05de\u05b7\u05bc\u05dc<\/span> (<\/span>immal<\/span>). I agree with Rosenm\u00fcller in taking this as 3 fut. Kal of the verb \u05e0\u05b8\u05de\u05b7\u05dc<\/span> (namal<\/span>), i.q.<\/em>, \u05e0\u05b8\u05d1\u05b7\u05dc<\/span> (naval<\/span>), or \u05d0\u05b8\u05de\u05b7\u05dc<\/span> (amal<\/span>), he languished, drooped<\/em>, &c., and this sense preserves the parallelism bet<\/span>ter than that of cutting off<\/em>, as if from \u05de\u05d5\u05bc\u05dc<\/span> (moul<\/span>), or \u05de\u05b8\u05dc\u05b7\u05dc<\/span> (mallal<\/span>). Compare also the cognate \u05e0\u05b8\u05e4\u05b7\u05dc<\/span> (naphal<\/span>), to fall, &c<\/em>. For a similar instance of the interchange of \u05de<\/span> (m<\/span>) and \u05d1<\/span> (b<\/span> or v<\/span>) in \u05e0\u05b8\u05de\u05b7<\/span><\/span>\u05dc<\/span> (namal<\/span>), i.q.<\/em>, \u05e0\u05b8\u05d1\u05b7\u05dc<\/span> (naval<\/span>), see \u05e8\u05b8\u05d1\u05b8\u05d4<\/span> (ravah<\/span>), i.q.<\/em>, \u05e8\u05b8\u05de\u05b8\u05d4<\/span> (ramah<\/span>), in ch. 16:13<\/a>, and see the Note<\/span><\/a>.<\/p>\n

18<\/a>. Being treated by every one as an outlaw, he shall be forced to hide himself by day, and vent<\/span>ure out only at night. Or this may simply refer to the expulsion of his name from the memories and the converse of men, and this would agree well with the former verse.<\/p>\n

From the world,\u2014i.e<\/em>., from huma<\/span>n society.<\/p>\n

19<\/a>. In his places of sojourn<\/em>. This implies that he shall be a wanderer.<\/p>\n

\u05e0\u05b4\u05d9\u05df<\/span> (nin<\/span>), and \u05e0\u05b6\u05db\u05b6\u05d3<\/span> (neked<\/span>). Whatever may be the origin of these two words, there can be no question as to their ge<\/span>neral meaning.<\/p>\n

20<\/a>. Men in every part of the world will be astonished and horrified when they hear of his miserable end.<\/p>\n

The people of the West<\/em>. \u05d0\u05b7\u05bd\u05d7\u05b2\u05e8\u05b9\u05e0\u05b4\u05d9\u05dd<\/span> (akheronim<\/span>),\u2014lit., those behind<\/em>; but as behi<\/em><\/span>nd<\/em> was used by the Hebrews to signify the west<\/em>, so probably here. This word occurs in Deut. 11:24<\/a>; 34:2<\/a>; and Joel 2:20<\/a>, where hinder sea<\/em> means western sea<\/em>.<\/p>\n

At his day,\u2014i.e<\/em>., the day of his downfall. S<\/span>o Psalm 37:13<\/a>, and 137:7<\/a>. Those of the East<\/em>,\u2014lit., those before<\/em>. But this word is sometimes used to signify eastern<\/em>, Ezek. 47:18<\/a>, and Joel 2:20<\/a>.<\/p>\n

Some understand by \u05d0\u05b7\u05bd\u05d7\u05b2\u05e8\u05b9\u05e0\u05b4\u05d9\u05dd<\/span> (akheronim<\/span>) and \u05e7\u05b7\u05d3\u05b0\u05de\u05b9\u05e0\u05b4<\/span><\/span>\u05d9\u05dd<\/span> (kadmonim<\/span>) posterity<\/em> and ancestors<\/em>, but I prefer, with others, the translation above.<\/p>\n

Will be horrified<\/em>,\u2014lit., will take hold of horror<\/em>, much as we should say, will take fight<\/em>.<\/p>\n

21<\/a>. Such is the cond<\/span>ition to which the households of the wicked get reduced. In more modern Arabic usage, a dwelling<\/em> and a place<\/em> sometimes have the signification of state<\/em> and condition<\/em>.<\/p>\n

\n

Job 19<\/a><\/p>\n

2<\/a>. How long<\/em>. This is evidently intended as a set-off to Bildad\u2019s \u201chow long\u201d in 18:2<\/a>.<\/p>\n

Crush me to pieces<\/em>, as with a pestle in a mortar.<\/p>\n

\u05ea\u05b0\u05bc\u05d3\u05b7\u05db\u05b0\u05bc\u05d0\u05d5\u05bc\u05e0\u05b7\u05e0\u05b4\u05d9<\/span> (tedacheounani<\/span>), an Aramaic form for \u05ea\u05b0\u05bc\u05d3<\/span><\/span>\u05b7\u05db\u05b0\u05bc\u05d0\u05d5\u05bc\u05e0\u05b0\u05e0\u05b4\u05d9<\/span> (tedacheouneni<\/span>). (Rosenm\u00fcller.)<\/p>\n

With verse<\/em>. (See the Note on ch. 4:2<\/span><\/a>.)<\/p>\n

3<\/a>. \u05ea\u05b7\u05bc\u05d4\u05b0\u05db\u05b0\u05bc\u05e8\u05d5\u05bc<\/span> (tahecherou<\/span>), ye astound<\/em>. Whether this word be Kal or Hiphil is comparatively of little consequence, <\/span>so far as the sense is concerned; if the former, the (-) is not easily accounted for; if the latter, the \u05d9<\/span> (i<\/span>) is wanting between the second and third radicals. This, however, would be of small conseq<\/span>uence compared with the discovery of the meaning of the word, which at best is uncertain. This word has been variously referred to \u05db\u05e8\u05d4<\/span> (chrh<\/span>), and \u05e0\u05db\u05e8<\/span> (nchr<\/span>), and even \u05d0\u05db\u05e8<\/span> (achr<\/span>), as its root; \u05d4\u05db\u05e8<\/span> (hc<\/span><\/span>hr<\/span>), however, would seem to be more obviously the correct root; and as it does not exist, so far at least as we know, in Hebrew, we fall back upon the Arabic for a meaning, and there we have, to be st<\/em><\/span>ruck with astonishment, amazed<\/em>, &c. May not the reading originally have been \u05ea\u05d7\u05e4\u05e8\u05d5<\/span> (tkhprou<\/span>), or \u05ea\u05d7\u05e4\u05d9\u05e8\u05d5<\/span> (tkhpirou<\/span>), ye put me to the blush?<\/em> This would remove all difficulty, and would make the paralle<\/span>lism perfect. (See the Various Readings.)<\/p>\n

These ten times<\/em> seems to have been a common expression, meaning several times. (Gen. 31:7<\/a>; Numbers 14:22<\/a>; Nehemiah 4:12<\/a>.)<\/p>\n

4<\/a>. With me, &c<\/em>. It is I and not you <\/span>that have to bear the consequences of my error; [and, therefore, you might have been more sparing of invective].<\/p>\n

After all<\/em>, \u05d0\u05b7\u05e3\u05be\u05d0\u05b8\u05de\u05b0\u05e0\u05b8\u05dd<\/span> (aph omnam<\/span>) besides verily<\/em>. Taking the extreme view of the case,<\/span> admitting to the fullest extent all that you say.<\/p>\n

Doth mine error lodge<\/em>. Umbreit remarks, \u201cThe proverbial expression of the original seems to be taken from harbouring a stranger who is an unpleasant <\/span>guest.\u201d<\/p>\n

5<\/a>. My reproach,\u2014i.e<\/em>., that which you consider to be a reproach unto me, namely, my affliction. (Compare Gen. 30:23<\/a>; 1 Sam. 25:39<\/a>; 2 Sam. 13:13<\/a>.)<\/p>\n

If (putting the case that) you are determined t<\/span>o maintain, at my expense, the high and dictatorial position you have assumed, by the argument, that my affliction, divinely sent, is a proof of my moral guilt; I am ready to concede, to the fullest extent, that my affliction is indeed great, and <\/span>from the hand of God himself (vers. 6\u201322<\/a>); but I altogether repudiate your conclusion. (Vers. 23\u201329<\/a>.)<\/p>\n

6<\/a>. Job admits that God had brought him into the sam<\/span>e troubles which Bildad had just declared to be the merited lot of a wicked man (18:7\u201310<\/a>); and that those troubles certainly seemed to be inextricable.<\/p>\n

7<\/a>. Of violence<\/em>. I complain to God, but in vain, <\/span>of the violent wrong my friends do me in arguing that I must be guilty of some great crime.<\/p>\n

There is no justice<\/em>. I acknowledge that my appeals to God to vindicate my aspersed character have as yet bee<\/span>n fruitless.<\/p>\n

9<\/a>. Job means, that just as a king is degraded by being divested of his royal robes and other insignia of majesty, so, God had degraded him from a state of great dignity and prosperity. Se<\/span>e this enlarged upon in ch. 30:1\u201315<\/a>.<\/p>\n

10<\/a>. Ruined me<\/em>. \u05e0\u05b8\u05ea\u05b7\u05e5<\/span> (nathats<\/span>), is literally to beat<\/em>, or break down<\/em>, such things as houses, cities, &c. It is here applied, like our word ruin<\/em>, to a man\u2019s circumst<\/span>ances.<\/p>\n

Pulled up<\/em>. There is hope of a tree if it be cut down that it will again flourish. So says Job himself. (14:7<\/a>.) But of a tree pulled up<\/em> there can be no hope. How evident again that Job had no ho<\/span>pe of restoration in this life!<\/p>\n

11<\/a>. \u05dc\u05d5\u05b9<\/span> (lo<\/span>) is pleonastic here. I have therefore omitted it in the translation.<\/p>\n

He maketh count, &c<\/em>. Not that Job considered that God really regarded him in the light <\/span>of an enemy, but that he treated him as though he had been such. Job, though he could not explain this severe treatment, yet knew that God was his friend. (See ch. 16:19\u201321<\/a>, and Notes<\/span><\/a>.)<\/p>\n

12<\/a>. \u05d2\u05b0\u05bc\u05d3\u05d5\u05bc\u05d3\u05b4\u05d9\u05dd<\/span><\/span> (gedoudim<\/span>), are literally the sections<\/em> of an army. The whole language here is of course metaphorical, and is borrowed from siege operations, three successive stages of which are here alluded to\u2014first<\/span>, invasion; secondly, the throwing up of entrenchments; and then, complete investment.<\/p>\n

Come in together, &c<\/em>. His troubles had come upon him more or less simultaneously, and had thus far taken up a pos<\/span>ition of permanency.<\/p>\n

14<\/a>. Have ceased<\/em>. I regard them as having ceased, because they no longer act towards me as persons related to me by the tie of kindred.<\/p>\n

Those whom I knew<\/em>. Not, those who knew me<\/em>, a<\/span>s in the former verse, and where I have rendered it my acquaintance<\/em>, but, those whom I honoured by knowing them<\/em>, and from whom, therefore, Job might have expected gratitude at least.<\/p>\n

15<\/a>. Guests<\/em>, or so<\/em><\/span>journers<\/em>. Whether these were dependants living in Job\u2019s house or passing travellers partaking of his hospitality is uncertain. The main idea intended is that they were at all events foreigners.<\/p>\n

My han<\/em><\/span>dmaids<\/em>. These were probably purchased slaves, and so were also foreigners. The aggravation of Job\u2019s complaint here therefore is, that even the very strangers, who were living upon him, dealt with him <\/span>as though he were a stranger in his own home. These handmaids<\/em> (\u05d0\u05b2\u05de\u05b8\u05d4\u05d5\u05b9\u05ea<\/span> amahoth<\/span>) were not treated as menials<\/em> (\u05e9\u05b0\u05c1\u05e4\u05b8\u05d7\u05d5\u05b9\u05ea<\/span> shephakhoth<\/span>), but rather as confidants<\/em> of the mistress, and not unfrequently the<\/span>y were concubines of the master. So the Chaldee here; but ch. 31:1\u20138<\/a> disproves that notion in this case.<\/p>\n

16<\/a>. There is not one of my servants who will obey me, even though I so far demean myself as to <\/span>use entreaties, rather than issue commands. An intimation by hand, or other gesture, should have been sufficient to secure obedience from a servant; but Job had to speak, and that, in the language of supplication.<\/span><\/p>\n

Very<\/em>. I take this to be the force of \u05de\u05d5\u05b9<\/span> (mo<\/span>) here.<\/p>\n

17<\/a>. This verse is full of difficulties. Is \u05e8\u05d5\u05bc\u05d7\u05b4\u05d9<\/span> (roukhi<\/span>) to be here translated my breath<\/em> or my spirit<\/em>? Is \u05d6\u05b8\u05e8\u05b8\u05d4<\/span> (zarah<\/span>) from \u05d6\u05d5\u05bc\u05e8<\/span> (z<\/span><\/span>our<\/span>), in the sense of being strange<\/em>? or, i.q.<\/em>, Arab, dsar<\/span>, or dsir<\/span>, to be loathsome<\/em> (compare \u05d6\u05b8\u05e8\u05b8\u05d0<\/span> (zara<\/span>), Numbers 11:20<\/a>)? Then, again, is \u05d7\u05b7\u05e0\u05bc\u05d5\u05b9\u05ea\u05b4\u05d9<\/span> (khannothi<\/span>) here, as in Exod. 33:19<\/a>, first pers. pr<\/span>et. Kal of \u05d7\u05b8\u05e0\u05b7\u05df<\/span> (khanan<\/span>), he was gracious<\/em>? or is it the plural with suffix from the noun \u05d7\u05b7\u05e0\u05b8\u05bc\u05d4<\/span> (khannah<\/span>), and so, for \u05d7\u05b7\u05e0\u05bc\u05d5\u05b9\u05ea\u05b7\u05d9<\/span> (khannothai<\/span>)? And in that case, can it mean my entreaties<\/em>, seeing that<\/span> \u05d7\u05b8\u05e0\u05b7\u05df<\/span> (khanan<\/span>) never has the sense of entreating<\/em> in Kal? Or is \u05d7\u05b7\u05e0\u05bc\u05d5\u05b9\u05ea\u05b4\u05d9\u05b9<\/span> (khannothi<\/span>) (see Ps. 77:10<\/a>) an infinitive form, as though from \u05d7\u05b8\u05e0\u05b8\u05d4<\/span> (khanah<\/span>), according to other similar anomalous forms whi<\/span>ch Rosenm\u00fcller gives, as \u05e9\u05b7\u05c1\u05de\u05bc\u05d5\u05b9\u05ea<\/span> (shammoth<\/span>) from \u05e9\u05b8\u05c1\u05de\u05b7\u05dd<\/span> (shamam<\/span>) (Ez. 36:3<\/a>), and \u05d7\u05b7\u05dc\u05bc\u05d5\u05b9\u05ea\u05b4\u05d9<\/span> (khallothi<\/span>), from \u05d7\u05b8\u05dc\u05b7\u05dc<\/span> (khalal<\/span>) (Ps. 77:11<\/a>)? Then, is \u05d6\u05b8\u05e8\u05b8\u05d7<\/span> (zarah<\/span>) to be understood or not in the second c<\/span>lause of the verse? And who are the \u05d1\u05b0\u05bc\u05e0\u05b5\u05d9 \u05d1\u05b4\u05d8\u05b0\u05e0\u05b4\u05d9<\/span> (benei vitni<\/span>), lit., the children of my belly<\/em>? Are they the children of Job of whose death we read in chap. 1<\/a>? Or may \u05d1\u05b4\u05d8\u05b0\u05e0\u05b4\u05d9<\/span> (vitni<\/span>) be taken here i<\/span>n the same sense as in ch. 3:10<\/a>, and signify my<\/em> [mother\u2019s<\/em>] belly<\/em>, or womb<\/em>, and so, the children he speaks of mean his uterine brothers<\/em>? Or may \u05d1\u05b4\u05d8\u05b0\u05e0\u05b4\u05d9<\/span> (vitni<\/span>) mean my<\/em> [wife\u2019s<\/em>] womb<\/em>, called his as belo<\/span>nging exclusively to him? Or does it mean my own body<\/em>, as in Ps. 132:11<\/a>? Or are these children to be understood as begotten of Job by his concubines, as the Sept. boldly translates?<\/p>\n

These questions ar<\/span>e more easily proposed than answered. However, I take \u05e8\u05d5\u05bc\u05d7\u05b4\u05d9<\/span> (roukhi<\/span>) here to mean my spirit<\/em>, in the sense of the general tone of my character, my disposition, &c.<\/em>, for had Job meant that his breath<\/em> w<\/span>as, through his disease, so loathsome as to be strange or offensive to his wife, this would scarcely have constituted a sufficient ground of complaint against her. As to \u05d6\u05b8\u05e8\u05b8\u05d4<\/span> (zarah<\/span>), I translate it <\/span>was strange<\/em>, as from \u05d6\u05d5\u05bc\u05e8<\/span> (zour<\/span>); at the same time I may remark that the Arab, dsar<\/span> has, amongst other meanings, that of being refractory<\/em>, and especially as applying to a disobedient wife<\/em>, and also to<\/em><\/span> a camel which from want of natural affection forsakes its newly-born offspring<\/em>\u2014meanings certainly very suitable to the passage before us, the only difficulty in that case being that we should have to<\/span> admit of an inverted construction of the sentence, as though it read \u05d0\u05b4\u05e9\u05b0\u05c1\u05ea\u05b4\u05bc\u05d9 \u05d6\u05b8\u05e8\u05b8\u05d4 \u05dc\u05b0\u05e8\u05d5\u05bc\u05d7\u05b4\u05d9<\/span> (ishti zarah leroukhi<\/span>). Then \u05d7\u05b7\u05e0\u05bc\u05d5\u05b9\u05ea\u05b4\u05d9<\/span> (khannothi<\/span>) I understand as first pers. pret. Kal. of \u05d7\u05b8\u05e0\u05b7\u05df<\/span> (khana<\/span><\/span>n<\/span>), as in Exod. 33:19<\/a>; and the \u05d1\u05b0\u05bc\u05e0\u05b5\u05d9 \u05d1\u05b4\u05d8\u05b0\u05e0\u05b4\u05d9<\/span> (benei vitni<\/span>) to be the children of my bowels<\/em> (Philemon 12<\/a>).<\/p>\n

Job apparently alludes here to some occasion when the spirit upon which he had acted had appe<\/span>ared strange to his wife. That occasion not improbably was, when, hearing of the death of his children by the visitation of God (as recorded in chap, 1<\/a>), he fell down upon the ground and worshipped, s<\/span>aying, \u201cNaked came I forth from my mother\u2019s womb, and naked shall I return thither. The Eternal gave, and the Eternal hath taken away. Blessed be the name of the Eternal.\u201d To his less religious wife such conduct, under such circumstances, may have a<\/span>ppeared unnatural, and she may have reproached him with it, as we find her actually doing in ch. 2:9<\/a>, on the occasion of his next affliction. Job, howe<\/span>ver, had nothing to reproach himself about, either in submitting cheerfully to God\u2019s will under so trying a bereavement, or in reflecting on the way in which he had acted towards his children whilst they were alive; he had ever acted graciously toward<\/span>s them (so the second clause of this verse); and the sacrifices he so continually offered on their behalf (ch. 1:5<\/a>) were a proof of his love for them<\/span>, and the concern he took about their truest interests. So that any reflections on the part of his wife (who evidently misunderstood the spirit upon which he acted), with reference to what appeared to her his strange conduct at the tim<\/span>e of their death, would be as unkind as they were undeserved: the allusion which (as I suppose) he now makes to the circumstance shows how keenly he felt such reproach.<\/span><\/p>\n

Under a somewhat similar though not nearly so afflictive dispensation, the spirit upon which David acted was misunderstood, though not made the subject of particular reproach, but only of remark (<\/span>2 Sam. 12:19\u201323<\/a>).<\/p>\n

18<\/a>. Babes<\/em>. Probably young persons, called here babes, by way of contempt. Some take \u05e2\u05b2\u05d5\u05b4\u05d9\u05dc\u05b4\u05d9\u05dd<\/span> (gnewilim<\/span>) here to mean wicked persons<\/em>, as in 16:11<\/a>. But it suits the context better to <\/span>take the meaning (as it evidently is in 21:11<\/a>), babes<\/em>.<\/p>\n

If I rise<\/em>,\u2014to show them that respect which might not be expected from a person of my years.<\/p>\n

Speak at me<\/em>. I think the Hebrew phrase is equivalent <\/span>to our English; they direct their conversation against me, and in my hearing.<\/p>\n

19<\/a>. My intimate friends<\/em>, lit., men of my secret, i.e<\/em>., associates who had my confidence, and, as such, were admitted to te<\/span>rms of great intimacy with me; the next clause shows, as I conceive, that Job alludes to his friends then present.<\/p>\n

These<\/em>. \u05d6\u05b6\u05d4<\/span> (zeh<\/span>) may have a plural sense here, as in verse 3<\/a>, or may be taken distrib<\/span>utively, this<\/em>, meaning each one of these<\/em>. At all events, its demonstrative force must not be lost sight of here, and therefore, I cannot agree with Lee and others in considering it as, more or less, e<\/span>quivalent to \u05d0\u05b2\u05e9\u05b6\u05c1\u05e8<\/span> (asher<\/span>), but rather, I conceive, that \u05d0\u05b2\u05e9\u05b6\u05c1\u05e8<\/span> (asher<\/span>) must be supplied after it.<\/p>\n

20<\/a>. My bone cleaveth, &c<\/em>. We have a similar expression in Lam. 4:8<\/a>, and Ps. 102:5<\/a>. Apparently the id<\/span>ea intended is, of the skin and flesh being so tense that there was no possibility of raising it from the bone; and this probably, from extreme emaciation.<\/p>\n

And I barely get off with the skin of my tee<\/em><\/span>th<\/em>. There have been various conjectures as to the meaning of this clause. By the skin of the teeth<\/em> I am inclined to understand, not the gums<\/em>, as some take it, though the German Zahnfleisch<\/em>, lit., toot<\/em><\/span>h-flesh<\/em>, seems to corroborate that notion, nor merely the lips<\/em>, as Jerome and others, but the whole of the flesh which covers the upper and lower jaws, and which is partially detached from them. The m<\/span>eaning of the verse, then, as it appears to me, will be,\u2014that the only part of Job\u2019s flesh and skin which did not adhere tightly to his bones was the integument which covers the teeth; and even that w<\/span>as so tightly drawn over them by emaciation, that he might say it was all but, though not actually, glued to them.<\/p>\n

22<\/a>. As God<\/em>. Lee translates, like a hero<\/em>; this is fanciful, and his reasons are very i<\/span>nsufficient. Job speaks a few verses before (5:11<\/a>) of God\u2019s counting him as an enemy, and indeed dealing with him as such, and so, the term persecuting<\/em>, as applied to God, need not be considered out o<\/span>f place here. Besides which, the meaning here may be, just as though you were God<\/em>; admitting the right of God to deal with him as he pleases, he questions the right of his friends to do the same.<\/p>\n

And <\/em><\/span>why not be satisfied with my flesh<\/em>? Why are you so ravenous as not to be content with feasting upon the sight of my extreme bodily sufferings, but you must needs add to my pangs by the infliction of t<\/span>he most cruel insults?<\/p>\n

23<\/a>, 24<\/a>. My verse<\/em>. (See Note on 4:2<\/span><\/a>.)<\/p>\n

Might be engraven<\/em>. \u05db\u05b8\u05bc\u05ea\u05b7\u05d1<\/span> (chathav<\/span>) is evidently to be taken here in what must be its primary sense. The two other verbs with which it is in<\/span> apposition\u2014namely, \u05d7\u05b8\u05e7\u05b7\u05e7<\/span> (khakak<\/span>) and \u05d7\u05b8\u05e6\u05b7\u05d1<\/span> (khatsav<\/span>) convey the idea of cutting out, carving, &c<\/em>., and with the last of these \u05db\u05b8\u05bc\u05ea\u05b7\u05d1<\/span> (chathav<\/span>) is clearly, in some measure, cognate.<\/p>\n

\u05d1\u05b7\u05bc\u05e1\u05b5\u05bc\u05e4\u05b6\u05e8<\/span> (bassep<\/span><\/span>her<\/span>), in the book<\/em>. Perhaps book<\/em> here means such leaves as are still used in the East for the purpose of recording, and upon which the writing is formed by the incision<\/em> of some sharp instrument (\u05d9\u05b4\u05db\u05b8\u05bc\u05bd<\/span><\/span>\u05ea\u05b0\u05d1\u05d5\u05bc\u05df<\/span>, ichathevoun<\/span>). The expression \u2018in the<\/em> book,\u2019 seems to refer to some particular book; perhaps that much of the Bible which was then extant, containing the records of the creation, and the histor<\/span>y of the antediluvian world. In the Adite inscriptions found on rocks at Hasan Ghorab, and proved, as I think, by Forster to be as ancient as the period of the sojourn of the Israelites in Egypt, and deciphered by him, there is a remarkable reference to a book of importance as being the depository of sacred truths. His translation of the part to which I <\/span>now refer is as follows:\u2014\u201cOver us presided kings far removed from baseness, and stern chastisers of reprobate and wicked men, and they noted down for us, according to the doctrine of H\u00fbd (Heber), <\/span>good judgments written in a book<\/em>, to be kept,\u201d &<\/span>c., &c. I would suggest a change in the translation of this last word, to be kept<\/em>. The word in the inscription is (zeb<\/span>). This, Forster takes as from the Arabic root \u0632\u0628\u0627<\/span> (zba<\/span>), and defines it, from G<\/span>olius, to be, i.q.<\/em>, \u062d\u0645\u0644<\/span> (khml<\/span>), \u201cPortandum, sustinendum, suscepit; sustulit; onus imposuit; oneravit; fecit, pctiit, jussitve, ut portaret onus<\/em>.\u201d Now Castell gives also very similar meanings\u2014Portandam<\/em><\/span>, sustinendum, suscepit; sustulit; portavit<\/em>. And compare with this the Chald. \u05d3\u05b8\u05d1\u05b8\u05d0<\/span> (dava<\/span>) apportavit<\/em>. All these meanings certainly convey the idea of something to be carried<\/em>, something portable<\/em> as we<\/span> should say, and not something to be kept<\/em>; and that, I take to be the true meaning of the word in this inscription, a book that might be carried about<\/em> from place to place, and always at hand for use, <\/span>and so, contradistinguished from writing upon rock. Job desires that his words might be written upon both. (See the Illustrations<\/a>.)<\/p>\n

\u05e2\u05b5\u05d8<\/span> (gnet<\/span>), a pen<\/em>\u2014in the first instance a chisel<\/em>, or graver<\/em>, but as <\/span>it also signifies a pen<\/em>, I have retained this meaning. A graver<\/em> would not convey the whole idea intended, because of course Job means that particular sort of graver which was used for the purpose of c<\/span>utting out inscriptions in atone. Here is evidence that the earving of letters, hieroglyphics, &c., was executed with tools of iron, and not necessarily entirely of bronze, as has been supposed. (See <\/span>Wilkinson\u2019s \u201cAncient Egyptians,\u201d First Edition, III., 249.)<\/p>\n

\u05e2\u05b9\u05e4\u05b6\u05e8\u05b6\u05ea<\/span> (gnophereth<\/span>), lead<\/em>, not [a pen<\/em>] of lead<\/em>, as some take it, that metal being of course out of the question for such a purpose; nor, on<\/span> a leaden tablet<\/em>, as Jerome and others after him, but rather, lead<\/em> poured into the cavities of the letters after they had been cut out in the rock, for the purpose of preserving the sharpness of their<\/span> edges.<\/p>\n

How clear it is, from this wish, that Job expected that the vindication of his conduct would be after his death, and not before it; this is important in interpreting the verses that follow.<\/p>\n

25<\/a><\/span>. \u05d5\u05b7\u05bd\u05d0\u05b2\u05e0\u05b4\u05d9<\/span> (waani<\/span>),\u2014For I,\u2014i.e., for as regards myself<\/em>, the pronoun I<\/em> being emphatic: whatever the creed of others may be, this at least is my<\/em> belief, &c., &c.<\/p>\n

\u05d9\u05b8\u05d3\u05b7\u05e2\u05b0\u05ea\u05b4\u05bc\u05d9<\/span> (yadagneti<\/span>), I know, i.e<\/em>, as <\/span>matter of experience, and have known it.<\/p>\n

\u05d2\u05b9\u05bc\u05d0\u05b2\u05dc\u05b4\u05d9<\/span> (goeli<\/span>), my Vindicator<\/em>,\u2014I regret that I cannot retain here the translation of the A. V.,\u2014Redeemer<\/em>, for the word has become, so to speak, consecrated i<\/span>n this particular passage, by many sad though comforting associations: but \u05e4\u05b9\u05bc\u05d3\u05b6\u05d4<\/span> (podeh<\/span>), as Lee remarks, is more properly the word for redeemer<\/em>, in the sense of paying down a compensation price. The<\/span> \u05d2\u05b9\u05bc\u05d0\u05b5\u05dc<\/span> (goel<\/span>) might indeed be called upon, in the discharge of his duty as a vindicator, to pay money for the recovery of alienated estates, &c., but as this was only a part of his duty as a redresse<\/em><\/span>r of grievances<\/em>, the term redeemer<\/em> is not sufficiently full to express his exact office. The principal duties attaching to the office appear to have been,\u20141st. To recover by purchase for the original <\/span>possessor, being a kinsman, property which had become alienated by sale or mortgage, Lev. 25:25<\/a>. 2dly. To deliver, whether by force or by ransom, a kinsman who had been taken into captivity, or sold i<\/span>nto bondage\u2014so Gen. 14:14\u201316<\/a>. 3dly. To avenge the death of a murdered kinsman,\u2014Numb. 35:12<\/a>; and 4thly. To marry the widow of a deceased childless kinsman. See the book of Ruth.<\/p>\n

\u05d7\u05b7\u05d9<\/span> (khai<\/span>), liveth<\/em>,\u2014I m<\/span>ay and shall certainly die, but not so, my vindicator; he liveth, and will certainly, at some future time, stand up to avenge my cause.<\/p>\n

\u05d0\u05b7\u05bd\u05d7\u05b2\u05e8\u05d5\u05b9\u05df<\/span> (akheron<\/span>) may perhaps here mean Last<\/em>: and if so, the t<\/span>erm is apparently applied by Job to the Vindicator with allusion to his being \u05d7\u05b7\u05d9<\/span> (khai<\/span>), for, as such he outlives all. It is worthy of observation that this term \u05d0\u05b7\u05bd\u05d7\u05b2\u05e8\u05d5\u05b9\u05df<\/span> (akheron<\/span>) is applied, in a <\/span>very remarkable way, by God to himself, in two passages in Isaiah 44:6<\/a>, and 48:12<\/a>, and both, in connexion with his calling himself the \u05d2\u05b9\u05bc\u05d0\u05b5\u05dc<\/span> (goel<\/span>) the vindicator<\/em>, of Israel; this connexion is partic<\/span>ularly obvious in the former instance, as it occurs in the same verse:\u2014<\/p>\n

\u201cThus saith The Eternal, the king of Israel,<\/p>\n

\u201cAnd his Vindicator<\/em>, The Eternal [the God] of hosts,\u2014<\/p>\n

\u201cI am First and I am Last<\/em>,<\/p>\n

\u201cA<\/span>nd beside me there is no God.\u201d<\/p>\n

If this be the meaning here, probably St. Paul quotes this passage where he says, 1 Cor. 15:45<\/a>, \u201cAnd so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the las<\/em><\/span>t<\/em> Adam [was made] a quickening spirit<\/em>.\u201d The word, however, may mean later<\/em> in an indefinite sense; and, in the uncertainty, I have so translated it.<\/p>\n

He shall stand up upon the earth<\/em>,\u2014or upon the dust<\/em>, <\/span>meaning either the dust of the grave in particular, or the dust of the earth in general; \u05e2\u05b8\u05e4\u05b8\u05e8<\/span> (gnaphar<\/span>) is often used in both senses in this book. Stand up<\/em>,\u2014to vindicate; he shall not then, as now, s<\/span>eem to sit still, and take no notice.<\/p>\n

26<\/a>. This my skin<\/em>,\u2014perhaps, more literally, this<\/em> [thing<\/em>] my skin<\/em>, for \u05d6\u05b9\u05d0\u05ea<\/span> (zoth<\/span>) being feminine cannot strictly agree with \u05e2\u05d5\u05b9\u05e8\u05b4\u05d9<\/span> (gnori<\/span>), which is masculine; Job<\/span> may be supposed to point to his body, and to mean,\u2014this thing which you behold, this half-decayed worn-out thing,\u2014my skin.<\/p>\n

Shall have been destroyed<\/em>,\u2014lit., they<\/em>, i.e<\/em>., some destructive agents or othe<\/span>r (no matter what) shall have destroyed<\/em>; and hence, the word may be rendered passively, of which there are not wanting innumerable examples. We are not sufficiently acquainted with the precise meaning<\/span> of \u05e0\u05b8\u05e7\u05b7\u05e3<\/span> (nakaph<\/span>) to determine what sort of destruction is here intended, though I rather incline to that which is, perhaps rather too boldly, asserted in the A. V.\u2014[worms<\/em>] destroy<\/em>; we certainly have<\/span> in the Arabic \u05e0\u05e7\u05d9\u05e3<\/span> (nkiph<\/span>) worm-eaten<\/em>; and then compare with this, the Hebrew \u05e0\u05b8\u05e7\u05b7\u05d1<\/span> (nakav<\/span>), to perforate<\/em>. I leave this, however, undetermined.<\/p>\n

In my flesh<\/em>,\u2014more properly, out of<\/em>, or from my flesh<\/em>, t<\/span>he flesh being the place, or the instrument of vision.<\/p>\n

I shall see God<\/em>. Supply \u05d9\u05b8\u05d3\u05b7\u05e2\u05b0\u05ea\u05b4\u05bc\u05d9<\/span> (yadagneti<\/span>) from the preceding verse, I know<\/em> that I shall see God. God is evidently the same being whom he cal<\/span>ls, just before, his Vindicator<\/em>, and who, he knows, will stand later or Last upon the earth. To see God<\/em> is evidently the great promise to, and the blessed hope of, God\u2019s people in all ages. Compare Is<\/span>aiah 33:17<\/a>; Matt. 5:8<\/a>; John 17:24<\/a>; 1 Cor. 13:12<\/a>; 1 John 3:2<\/a>; and Rev. 22:4<\/a>.<\/p>\n

27<\/a>. \u05d0\u05b2\u05e9\u05b6\u05c1\u05e8<\/span> (asher<\/span>) I take here in the sense of \u05dc\u05b0\u05de\u05b7\u05e2\u05b7\u05df \u05d0\u05b2\u05e9\u05b6\u05c1\u05e8<\/span> (lemagnan asher<\/span>), which is sufficiently usual.<\/p>\n

The parallelism<\/span> will, I think, assist greatly in the translation of this verse, and so, I conceive that the words in apposition to each other, in the first and in the second hemistich, are \u05d0\u05b2\u05e0\u05b4\u05d9<\/span> (ani<\/span>), I<\/em>, and \u05e2\u05b5\u05d9\u05e0\u05b7\u05d9<\/span><\/span> (gneinai<\/span>), mine eyes<\/em>; \u05d0\u05b6\u05bd\u05d7\u05b1\u05d6\u05b6\u05d4<\/span> (ekhezeh<\/span>), I may see<\/em>, and \u05e8\u05b8\u05d0\u05d5\u05bc<\/span> (raou<\/span>) may behold<\/em>; \u05dc\u05b4\u05d9<\/span> (li<\/span>) as mine own<\/em> (lit., to me<\/em>, or for me<\/em>), and \u05d5\u05b0\u05dc\u05b9\u05d0\u05be\u05d6\u05b8\u05e8<\/span> (welo zar<\/span>), and not as a foe<\/em>.<\/p>\n

As mine own,\u2014i.e<\/em>., decided<\/span>ly taking my part as my Goel<\/span> or Vindicator, and not allowing, as now, appearances to be against me.<\/p>\n

Not as a foe<\/em>. God seems, by his silence and dealings with me, to be acting the part of an enemy agai<\/span>nst me (5:6\u201313<\/a>), but it will not be so then.<\/p>\n

Pine with expectation<\/em>. For a similar use of \u05db\u05b8\u05bc\u05dc\u05b8\u05d7<\/span> (chalah<\/span>) see Deut. 28:32<\/a>; Job 11:20<\/a>; Ps. 69:3<\/a>; 84:2<\/a>; 119:81<\/a>, 82<\/a>; 143:7<\/a>; Jer. 14:6<\/a>; Lam. 4:17<\/a>.<\/p>\n

\u05d1\u05b0\u05bc\u05d7\u05b5\u05e7\u05b4\u05d9<\/span> (<\/span>bekheki<\/span>),\u2014Within me<\/em>, lit., in my bosom<\/em>; the bosom is regarded as the seat of strong desires.<\/p>\n

So many commentators have strongly contested that Job, in these three celebrated verses (25<\/a>, 26<\/a>, 27<\/a>), makes<\/span> no allusion whatever to the resurrection of his body, and only to a restoration to health and perhaps other temporal blessings, that I feel it will not be out of place for me to state some of the reasons by <\/span>which I have been led, after much careful consideration, to adhere to the commonly received opinion, that Job here makes a noble confession of his faith and hope respecting the resurrection of his body.<\/span><\/p>\n

1st. I consider that the words speak for themselves<\/em>, and that they cannot be made to mean aught else than u hope in the resurrection of the body, without doing great violence to their plain<\/span>, and literal, and grammatical sense. My translation may not express this view quite so strongly as that of the authorized version, but I have studiously avoided giving, in any the slightest degree, any colouring to a word which I conceived the original did not exactly bear; hence, I have not given <\/span>\u05d2\u05b9\u05bc\u05d0\u05b5\u05dc<\/span> (goel<\/span>) so specific a meaning as Redeemer<\/em>, though undoubtedly it has that sense: I have not re<\/span>ndered \u05d0\u05b7\u05bd\u05d7\u05b2\u05e8\u05d5\u05b9\u05df<\/span> (akheron<\/span>), at the latter day<\/em>, though possibly it may have that meaning: neither have I defined the particular sort of destruction<\/em> implied in \u05e0\u05b4\u05e7\u05b0\u05bc\u05e4\u05d5\u05bc<\/span> (nikkephou<\/span>), though, as I have no<\/span>ticed above, there is some little evidence in favor of its meaning destruction by worms<\/em>: nor again have I made \u05d6\u05b9\u05d0\u05ea<\/span> (zoth<\/span>) signify this<\/em> [body<\/em>], though possibly it might do so. The words, however, as t<\/span>hey stand, evidently point out thus much.\u2014Job\u2019s assurance that a Being, whom he calls both his Vindicator and also God, was living; not that he had any hope of immediate succour from that divine and living vindicator,\u2014his hope was respecting a future period w<\/span>hich might be yet very remote, even when that vindicator should stand later<\/em> or last<\/em> upon the dust, either of the earth or of the dead (which <\/span>of these I cannot determine), that, then, his skin and flesh (flesh is sufficiently implied by his statement in the next clause), having been destroyed by certain destructive agents (what agents is not clear, though perhaps worms), he would nevertheless, loo<\/span>king out from his body of flesh (\u05de\u05b4\u05d1\u05b0\u05bc\u05e9\u05b8\u05c2\u05e8\u05b4\u05d9<\/span> mibbesari<\/span>) and with his eyes (just as a person might be said to look out of his house and through<\/span> his windows), see God: and his reins within him, he declares, were even now consuming with the longing desire he felt for that period to arrive when he might himself see God, not, as now, apparently against him, but, as his vindicator, decidedly taking his part, and, not as a foe, but a<\/span>s a friend.<\/p>\n

2ndly. I consider that the preface, which ushers in these remarkable words, sufficiently indicates t<\/em><\/span>hat the statements they contain must be of the highest importance, and such as cannot have a mere trivial or common-place meaning attached to them<\/em>. The sublimity of the language in that preface and th<\/span>e desire expressed by Job that the words he was about to utter might be perpetuated to the remotest generations, are certainly out of place, if those words were to imply no more than an assurance that God would shortly restore his half-destroyed body to <\/span>health, and assert his innocence in opposition to his adversaries.<\/p>\n

After reading so magnificent an exordium, it is scarcely possible to turn to Da<\/span>the\u2019s translation of the verses in question, or that of any other commentator who cannot see here a hope of the resurrection, without being reminded of Horace\u2019s \u201cParturiunt montes nascetur ridiculus mus.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n

3rdly. I consider that the wish which Job repeatedly expressed that he might die, and that, as soon as possible, is utterly inconsistent with any assured hope of bodily restoration<\/em>. That such was<\/span> his wish is evident from the following passages. It is implied in ch. 3:20\u201322<\/a>, and very positively stated in ch. 6:8<\/a>, 9<\/a>:\u2014<\/p>\n

\u201cO that what I ask might come;<\/p>\n

And that God would grant what I long for!<\/p>\n

Even<\/span> that it would please God to crush me,<\/p>\n

That he would let loose his hand and cut me off.\u201d<\/p>\n

And again very plainly in 14:13<\/a>:\u2014<\/p>\n

\u201cO that thou wouldest secrete me in the grave,<\/p>\n

Wouldest hide me, till thine a<\/span>nger had turned away,<\/p>\n

\u201cWouldest appoint me a set time, and then remember me!\u201d<\/p>\n

If language means anything at all, nothing can be more clear than that Job here desires, and with much earnestness prays, <\/span>that God would speedily take away his life; nay more, he speaks of this as being, not only his request, but also his hope: how impossible then is it to reconcile with such a request and such a hope, the supposition of his entertaining the assurance that God would vindicate his cause, and restore to him, in this life, his<\/span> flesh after it should have been destroyed! But\u2014<\/p>\n

4thly. This last argument rec<\/em><\/span>eives additional force when we consider that Job is at great pains constantly to disclaim any hope of a temporal restitution<\/em>,\u2014a hope which his friends exhorted him to indulge, and which certain schola<\/span>rs, and some good men who follow in their train, are determined to make him express.<\/p>\n

Reference to the following passages will prove that his friends pressed him to indulge the hope of a temporal resti<\/span>tution. (Ch. 5:17\u201326<\/a>; 11:13\u201319<\/a>, particularly verses 16<\/a> and 17<\/a>.)<\/p>\n

How completely he disclaims the entertainment of any such hope\u2014and that, partly on the ground of, what he supposes to be, the impossibil<\/span>ity of a physical restoration,\u2014is obvious from the following extracts. In his first answer to Eliphaz, and in evident allusion to the worldly hope which that friend had just set before him (5:17\u201326<\/a>), <\/span>he replies (6:11\u201313<\/a>):\u2014<\/p>\n

\u201cWhat is my strength, that I should entertain hope?<\/p>\n

And what is my term, that I should prolong my desire?<\/p>\n

Is my strength the strength of stones?<\/p>\n

Is my flesh copper?<\/p>\n

Surely rathe<\/span>r, there is no help for me in myself:<\/p>\n

And substance hath been expelled out of me.\u201d<\/p>\n

See the notes<\/span><\/a> on these verses. Examine also the following passage with the notes upon it\u201417:11\u201316<\/a>:\u2014<\/p>\n

\u201cMy days are pass<\/span>ed away;<\/p>\n

My contrivances are broken\u2014<\/p>\n

The possessions of my heart.<\/p>\n

Yet night put they for day!<\/p>\n

And light near, out of very darkness!<\/p>\n

If I am to hope, the grave is my house;<\/p>\n

I have spread my bed in the <\/span>darkness.<\/p>\n

To corruption, I have cried, Thou art my father;<\/p>\n

To the worm, My mother and my sister.<\/p>\n

Where then now is my hope?<\/p>\n

Ay, my hope! Who is to see it?<\/p>\n

To the cells of the grave shall it descend;<\/p>\n

Y<\/span>ea, together shall we be set down on the dust.\u201d<\/p>\n

The plain sense of all this is,\u2014My former worldly expectations are now at an end, and yet, my friends invert the true order of things; they try to darke<\/span>n my really bright hope, and persuade me to indulge a worldly hope when such is impossible. No; if I am to have hope, it is not with reference to this world. I already regard myself as an inmate of the grave. My true hope, however, is not <\/span>extinct. No! it will go with me into the very grave itself. (But see all this more fully explained in the notes on the passage.) And now, once more, refer to 19:<\/span>10<\/a>:\u2014<\/p>\n

\u201cGod hath ruined me on every side, and I am going;<\/p>\n

And my hope hath he pulled up like a tree.\u201d<\/p>\n

Could Job, I would ask, have spoken more fully, or more forcibly, or more to the point, than he has <\/span>done in these passages just quoted, to make it as evident as possible that he utterly disavowed the entertainment of any expectation of a restoration in the flesh, or of any other such worldly hope as his friends pressed upon his attention? And if so, what must we say to the inconsistency of his so <\/span>suddenly, and in such sublime language, asserting the very contrary, if indeed, the verses before us must bear the meaning which some commentators have determined to give to them? No! Job is consistent throughout. He feels that he cannot, and he will not, cherish any such hope, and he repeatedly says so; but at the same time he nobly proclaims what and where his hope is, even in God, whom, at some future time, and after his body shall have been utterly destroyed, he shall behold as his friend; a<\/span>nd that, in his own flesh, and with his own eyes.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

5thly. I urge as a further argument that,\u2014not only does Job repeatedly disclaim, as we have just seen, a worldly hope, but he has in the fourteenth ch<\/em><\/span>apter, decisively declared his real hope to be,\u2014a hope full of life and immortality<\/em>, and, as I believe, a hope in the resurrection. This latter, however, I do not press. It is sufficient for my purpos<\/span>e to show that he is speaking of a hope after death. I again refer, then, to chap. 14<\/a>. In the thirteenth verse Job prays that God would secrete him in the grave till his anger had turned away; and the<\/span>n the question suddenly suggests itself to Job,\u2014But does man really exist after death? This question he most unhesitatingly answers in the affirmative, and, at the same time, very beautifully and feelingly describes the full assurance of hope which he entertained respecting himself on that important subject. He sa<\/span>ys (ver. 14<\/a>):\u2014<\/p>\n

\u201cBut if a man die, shall he live?<\/p>\n

All the days of my term of soldiersh<\/span>ip will I wait,<\/p>\n

Until my renovation come.<\/p>\n

Thou shalt summon, and I will answer thee;<\/p>\n

After the work of thine hands wilt thou hanker.<\/p>\n

Though now thou numberest my steps,<\/p>\n

Thou wilt not keep watch over m<\/span>y sin;<\/p>\n

Though my transgression is sealed up in a bag,<\/p>\n

Thou wilt smear over mine iniquity.\u201d<\/p>\n

See the Notes on this passage; and see also 17:15<\/a>, 16<\/a>. Why then, should it be thought a thing incredible that<\/span> Job should express a somewhat similar hope in 19:25\u201327<\/a>?<\/p>\n

6thly. And then, after all, the opinion I am here combatting,\u2014that Job here entertains only a hope of temporal restoration, goes very much upon<\/em><\/span> the supposition that he must have been ignorant of a future state of rewards and punishments<\/em>; for if not, why contend so strenuously against the most obvious, and certainly the most literal sense of <\/span>this passage? I cannot, however, see upon what grounds such a supposition can be made to rest. On the contrary, Job\u2019s great piety, his knowledge of God, and, more than probably, his knowledge of the first great <\/span>promise, and of the prophecy of Enoch respecting the future coming of the Lord to judgment; and then the examples and conduct of such men as Abraham, and Isaac, and perhaps Jacob, who decla<\/span>red plainly that they were strangers and pilgrims here, and that they looked for a better country and for the city which hath foundations; and then his own oft-repeated declarations that God did not make any particular distinction between the righteous and the wicked, so far as temporal blessings are concerned (see <\/span>9:22\u201324<\/a>), nay, rather, that often the ungodly prospered most (12:6<\/a>),\u2014all these circ<\/span>umstances put together go far to establish that, so far from Job\u2019s being ignorant of a future state, he must have known that there was such a state\u2014a state in which God would deal with the righteous and the wicked acc<\/span>ording to rules of justice, rewarding or punishing each according as their deeds had been.<\/p>\n

7thly. And then, lastly, we have the fact that a remarkable inscription has been found at Ha<\/span>sn Ghorab in Arabia, carved upon the surface of the solid rock, by that most ancient of Arab tribes, the Adites, the immediate descendants of Aws or Uz; and that that inscription, lately deciphered by Mr. Forster, and supposed by him to be coeval with the time of the sojourning of the Israel<\/span>ites in Egypt, conveys to us the imperishable record of the faith of that very ancient tribe in the resurrec<\/em><\/span>tion of the body and the life everlasting<\/em>. The part of the inscription which contains this confession of the faith of an ancient people is as follows, according to Mr. Forster\u2019s translation:\u2014<\/p>\n

\u201cOver us<\/span> presided kings far removed from baseness,<\/p>\n

And stern chastisers of reprobate and wicked men:<\/p>\n

And they noted down for us, according to the doctrine of Heber, good judgments, written in a book, to be ke<\/span>pt:<\/p>\n

And we believed in miracles, in the resurrection, in the return into the nostrils of the breath of life.\u201d<\/p>\n

On a subject so interesting I trust it may not be out of place to give also another and mo<\/span>re literal translation of Mr. Forster\u2019s of the last line:\u2014<\/p>\n

\u201cAnd we proclaimed our belief in mysteries: in the miracle-mystery, in the resurrection-mystery, in the nostril-mystery.\u201d<\/p>\n

In the original, as<\/span> deciphered by Mr. Forster, it reads thus:\u2014<\/p>\n

\u201cWa ran sharkab oo wa oo darkab oo wa oo mesharkab oo wa oo menarkab.\u201d<\/p>\n

The alliteration of the words and the rhyming of the terminations are too remarkable <\/span>to escape notice. Mr. Forster, whilst struck with the rhyming, was convinced that those singular terminations must have been intended to convey some sense, though they had been left unnoticed in the Arabic translation furnished by Schultens; and accordingly, on turning to Golius, he f<\/span>ound that the \u062e\u0628\u0627<\/span> (khaba<\/span>) signified occultavit, occultatus<\/em>, occultus<\/em> que fuit; latuit<\/em>; and its derivative \u062e\u0628<\/span> (khab<\/span>)<\/span> res occulta et abscondita<\/em>.\u2026; in other words, a mystery<\/em>. I may add, in corroboration of the correctness of this view, that the word has the same meaning in the Hebrew, and Chaldee, and also in the Eth<\/span>iopic, in which particularly it is used to signify mysterium<\/em>, as in 1 Cor. 13:2<\/a>; and not altogether foreign from this is the Syriac meaning, thick darkness<\/em>.<\/p>\n

I am inclined to differ from Mr. Forster in<\/span> his rendering of the word (shark<\/em>), which he translates [our<\/em>] belief<\/em>, and takes from \u0634\u0631\u0649\u0643<\/span> (shrk<\/span>), and which he defines from Golius to be, Socios consortesve addidit Deo;<\/em> afque ita credidit in Deum<\/em> (<\/span>he added fellows to God, and so he believed in God<\/em>); in other words, in the Trinity<\/em>, as Mr. Forster thinks; but he has evidently mistaken the meaning of the word. Castell says of it:\u2014\u201cSocios, consorte<\/em><\/span>s addidit Deo<\/em>; atque ita pervers\u00e8 credidit in Deum<\/em> (hereticus fuit et infidelis<\/em>),\u201d i.e<\/em>., he added fellows to God<\/em>, and so he believed wrongfully concerning God<\/em> (was a heretic and unbeliever<\/em>). The fact <\/span>is, the general sense of the word as given by Castell is:\u2014Socius, consors fuit, consortium inivit, communio, consortium; he was an ally, a consort, went into partnership, communion, fellowship<\/em>. And th<\/span>is I take to be its true meaning in this place:\u2014We proclaimed<\/em> [our<\/em>] fellowship in mysteries<\/em>; in other words, that we were of one communion in the partaking in the hope of certain mysteries\u2014mysteries w<\/span>hich are afterwards explained.<\/p>\n

The word (dark<\/em>) Mr. Forster takes from \u062f\u0631\u0643<\/span> (drk<\/span>) and defines from Golius to be, Reparavit, resarcivit, restauravit<\/em>; and hence \u062f\u0627\u0631\u0643\u0629<\/span> (darkt<\/span>), Comprehensiva potentia<\/em>, wh<\/span>ich he makes to mean miraculous power<\/em>; but Castell gives it, Comprehensiva<\/em> potentia anim\u00e6,\u2014i.e.<\/em>, comprehensive<\/em> (as applied to the power of mind or soul). It appeared to me at first that the more obvio<\/span>us signification, derived from the root, is restoration<\/em> or restitution<\/em>, and that is the meaning which I originally gave it here, referring it to what St. Peter calls \u201cthe restitution of all things<\/em>\u201d\u2014a <\/span>doctrine certainly closely connected with that of the resurrection, and yet sufficiently distinct from it. Further consideration, however, has led me to propose another rendering. In addition to the three<\/span> meanings given above\u2014Reparavit, resarcivit<\/em>, and restauravit<\/em>, Castell adds also comprehendit<\/em> and compensavit<\/em>. Now, put these several ideas together, and we have the general sense of laying hold of<\/em><\/span>, and making condensation, and mending, and restoring<\/em>; in short, as I conceive, all that is included in the doctrine of the Atonement<\/em>; and if so, we have indeed here the \u05d3\u05b6\u05bc\u05e8\u05b6\u05da\u05b0 \u05e2\u05b9\u05dc\u05b8\u05dd<\/span> (derek gnolam<\/span>), <\/span>\u201cthe old way<\/em>.\u201d The translation, then, which I would propose is as follows:\u2014<\/p>\n

\u201cAnd we proclaimed [our] fellowship-in-mysteries: in the amendment-mystery, in the resurrection-mystery, in the nostril-myst<\/span>ery.\u201d<\/p>\n

Here, then, we have the creed, graven with a pen of iron, and carved in the rock for ever, of a people who thus proclaimed it perhaps even before the days of Job himself; and, from this imperish<\/span>able record, we learn that men, whose fathers had conversed with the venerable Noah and the other survivors of the deluge, professed their belief in \u201cthe communion of saints, the forgiveness of sins, <\/em><\/span>the resurrection of the body, and the life everlasting<\/em>.\u201d The depth of their sculpture in the marble at Hasn Ghorab of itself attests the heartiness of their AMEN to these all-important articles of fai<\/span>th. (For further particulars respecting this remarkable record, see the Illustrations<\/a>.)<\/p>\n

I may now bring this long note to a conclusion, by briefly recapitulating the arguments which I have offered, in<\/span> favor of the view that Job in this celebrated passage does express his hope in the future resurrection of his body, and against the view which supposes him to refer simply to a temporal restoration. If the words themselves of Job are to be taken in their literal and grammatical meaning, and if the preface whic<\/span>h ushers them in is to be regarded with that admiration which its grandeur and sublimity demand, and not as a piece of ridiculous and misplaced bombast;\u2014if we are to believe that the Patriarch spoke honestly, and <\/span>was not playing a part of the deepest duplicity, when he frequently declare<\/span>d how welcome death would be, and even prayed that it might speedily come; and when he often positively disclaimed all idea of entertaining any such, as he conceived, preposterous hope as that of a restoration in this life; and when, further, he unequivocally asserted that h<\/span>is hope was beyond the grave;\u2014and if we are to believe further, from the general tenor of his argument throughout, that he could not be ignorant of a future state of rewards and punishments;\u2014and if, moreover, we find that a people, coeval at least with the time of the Patriarch, have transmitted to us, with a pen of iron on the surface of the hard rock, their faith in the resurrection and life everlasting\u2014then, we have in all this, as I think, an amount of cumulative evi<\/span>dence to establish the commonly-received, though stoutly-impugned opinion, that Job had the fullest confidence that, though he should return to dust, yet he should rise again, and in his flesh see One who was at once his Vindicator and his God.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

I mus<\/span>t, in closing, just notice an argument which has been much pressed against the view which I am maintaining, and as it is an argument which some have thought very conclusive against it, it requires a distin<\/span>ct answer. It is,\u2014that if Job is really here referring to the resurrection of the body, it is remarkable that none of the speakers afterwards make any comment upon it, or in any way advert to it<\/em>.<\/span> I briefly reply, that this silence on the part of the speakers afterwards is perfectly natural. Job\u2019s appeal to a period of time indefinitely far off, and to another state of existence, when his chara<\/span>cter would be vindicated and cleared of the aspersions now cast upon it, however comforting to his own mind, could of course be no proof of his innocence, and, as such, could not be accepted as an argument by his adversaries. An appeal of this kind is, in the present day, common enough, especially in cases where persons are unable to adduce any substantial proof to back their assertions of innocenc<\/span>e. What is more common, for instance, than for them, under such, circumstances, to say\u2014\u201cWell, the day of judgment will decide; it will be seen then that I am blameless in this matter\u201d? Now, however consoling such an appeal may be to the individual making it, if it be sincere, yet nobody would think of accepting it as an argument; and in a controversy it would probably be passed over, as here, without notice.<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

28<\/a>. I had originally translated this verse,\u2014<\/p>\n

\u201cWhen ye shall be saying, How did we persecute him?<\/p>\n

Then the root of the matter shall have been found in me.\u201d<\/p>\n

The expression, \u201cthe root of th<\/em><\/span>e matter<\/em>,\u201d has become so conventional amongst us, that I could not bring myself to view it in any other light than in its ordinary and, I may say, religious acceptation. But, after mature deliberation<\/span>, I adopt the view that the original means rather a ground of controversy<\/em>, or material for adjudication<\/em>, or quarrel<\/em>, or ground of accusation<\/em>, or some such sense; besides which, the evidence is very st<\/span>rong in favour of reading \u05d1\u05bc\u05d5\u05b9<\/span> (bo<\/span>) instead of \u05d1\u05b4\u05bc\u05d9<\/span> (bi<\/span>). It was certainly the reading of the ancient versions, excepting the Syriac, and of nearly sixty MSS., collated by Kennicott, and is adopted by<\/span> many excellent modern scholars; added to which, the parallelism is preserved if, as we may do in that case, we take \u05e0\u05b4\u05de\u05b0\u05e6\u05b8\u05d0<\/span> (nimtsa<\/span>) in the same person and number as the preceeding \u05e0\u05b4\u05e8\u05b0\u05d3\u05b8\u05bc\u05e3<\/span> (nirdaph<\/span>)<\/span>.<\/p>\n

There is an evident connexion between this verse and the 22d, and the intermediate verses come in, as I think, in a sort of parenthesis. In ver. 22<\/a> Job speaks of the persecution which he received at<\/span> the hands of his friends. The thought suddenly flashes upon his mind that he has however a vindicator in heaven who will avenge him, and this leads him to make the noble confession of his faith and hope in verses <\/span>23\u201327<\/a>. Having done this, he again recurs to the subject of the persecution he received at the hands of his friends, and bids them on that account to be afraid of the sword of the avenger<\/span>. Compare this mention of a sword with Rev. 19:15<\/a>, 21<\/a>.<\/p>\n

How shall we persecute him, and find a root of matter in him?<\/em> This shows the studied and systematic manner in which Job\u2019s friends carried on thei<\/span>r virulent attacks upon him, and how determined they were in their endeavours to find something in him, upon which they might lay hold, and which they might urge against him as an evidence of criminality.<\/span><\/p>\n

29<\/a>. Fear for yourselves<\/em>. You have expressed many fears on my account; you would do well, however, to apply them to your own case.<\/p>\n

Sword,\u2014i.e<\/em>., of the Vindicator. See Rev. 19:11\u201321<\/a>.<\/p>\n

\u05db\u05b4\u05bc\u05d9 \u05d7\u05b5\u05de\u05b8\u05d4 \u05e2\u05b2\u05d5<\/span><\/span>\u05b9\u05e0\u05d5\u05b9\u05ea<\/span> (chi khemah gnewonoth<\/span>). I agree with those who consider that this is elliptical for \u05db\u05b4\u05bc\u05d9 \u05d7\u05b5\u05de\u05b8\u05d4 \u05dc\u05b4\u05e2\u05b0\u05d5\u05b9\u05e0\u05d5\u05b9\u05ea<\/span> (chi khemah lagnewonoth<\/span>).<\/p>\n

\u05e9\u05b7\u05c1\u05d3\u05b4\u05bc\u05d9\u05df<\/span> (shaddin<\/span>), for \u05d0\u05b2\u05e9\u05b6\u05c1\u05e8 \u05d3\u05b4\u05bc\u05d9\u05df<\/span> (asher din<\/span>). Rosenm\u00fcller <\/span>gives, as other instances where \u05e9\u05b7\u05c1<\/span> (sha<\/span>) occurs instead of the usual \u05e9\u05b6\u05c1<\/span> (she<\/span>), Jud. 5:7<\/a>, and Cant. 1:7<\/a>.<\/p>\n

In order ye may know,\u2014i.e<\/em>., I have made the remarkable statement, just uttered, respecting my <\/span>hope in an avenging God, in order that you may feel assured that, though God does not now hear my appeal to him for judgment (see ver. 7<\/a>), yet there is to be a judgment.<\/p>\n

\n
\n
\n

Job 20<\/a><\/p>\n

2<\/a>. Therefore<\/em>, in consequence of what you (Job) have just said. An abrupt exordium, and expressive of the hurry which Zophar feels.<\/p>\n

Thoughts<\/em>\u05e9\u05b0\u05c2\u05e2\u05b4\u05e4\u05b4\u05bc\u05d9\u05dd<\/span> (segnippim<\/span>). Ideas which suddenly and variously shoot out of the mind like the ramifications of a tree. The word occurs in chap. 4:13<\/a>.<\/p>\n

Reply for me<\/em>,\u2014suggest to me what to say; lit., shall answer me,\u2014i.e<\/em>., shall teach me how to answer. The meaning of the verse appears to be,\u2014So eager am I to refute what has just fallen from Job\u2019s lips, that I speak at once, and without premeditation, and shall only have to follow the suggestions of my thoughts as fast as they arise.<\/p>\n

We may infer, from this apparently exceptional case, that there was a pause between the different speeches in this controversy.<\/p>\n

3<\/a>. A reprimand disgraceful to me<\/em>,\u2014lit., a re<\/em>primand of my disgrace<\/em>.<\/p>\n

The spirit of, &c<\/em>. \u05de\u05b4\u05df<\/span> (min<\/span>), from<\/em> or out of<\/em>; therefore, the spirit emanating from<\/em>, &c.<\/p>\n

4<\/a>. The supposition, that \u05db\u05b4\u05bc\u05d9<\/span> (chi<\/span>) in the next verse must be necessarily relatively dependant upon \u05d9\u05b8\u05d3\u05b7\u05e2\u05b0\u05ea\u05b8\u05bc\u05d4<\/span> (yadagnetah<\/span>) in this, has been the occasion of considerable difficulty in the rendering of the first of these clauses; and, in fact, I see no way of getting out of the difficulty in that case except, as has been done, by taking \u05d4\u05b2\u05d6\u05b9\u05d0\u05ea<\/span> (hezoth<\/span>) for \u05d4\u05b2\u05dc\u05b9\u05d0 \u05d6\u05b9\u05d0\u05ea<\/span> (helo zoth<\/span>), and so making the question negative; but we need not have recourse to this, for we may take \u05db\u05b4\u05bc\u05d9<\/span> (chi<\/span>) in an adversative sense.<\/p>\n

Thou hast known this<\/em>. Job had just said,\u2014\u201cI know that my Vindicator liveth,\u201d &c., &c. Zophar sarcastically asks him whether he was so ancient as to have obtained this knowledge from the beginning of the world.<\/p>\n

5<\/a>. But<\/em>. \u05db\u05b4\u05bc\u05d9<\/span> (chi<\/span>), here in its adversative sense. You may have such and such hopes in God, but<\/em> let me tell you that you are wrong, for the joyousness of the wicked, &c., &c.<\/p>\n

\u05e8\u05b0\u05e0\u05b8\u05e0\u05b8\u05d4<\/span> (renanah<\/span>), joyousness<\/em>, or not unlike our word merriment<\/em>; gladness of heart accompanied by corresponding sounds of the voice.<\/p>\n

Is but of late<\/em>,\u2014lit., is from near<\/em>.<\/p>\n

Lasts but a moment<\/em>,\u2014lit., is up to a moment<\/em>, and then ends. There is the same idea of continuance in \u05e2\u05b2\u05d3\u05b5\u05d9<\/span> (gnedei<\/span>) as in our word lasts<\/em>. The beauty of the connexion, and, at the same time, contrast of ideas between \u05de\u05b4\u05e7\u05b8\u05bc\u05e8\u05d5<\/span>\u05b9\u05d1<\/span> (mikkarov<\/span>) and \u05e2\u05b2\u05d3\u05b5\u05d9\u05be\u05e8\u05b8\u05bd\u05d2\u05b7\u05e2<\/span> (gnedei ragagn<\/span>), has not, so far as I know, been noticed. The one implies that the happiness alluded to has but just begun; the other, that it is soon or suddenly ended.<\/p>\n

6<\/a>. A similitude, as Rosenm\u00fcller remarks, probably taken from a tree, and, as I think, the palm tree. See Dan. 4:10<\/a>, 11<\/a>. Compare the expression with Horace\u2019s \u201cSublimi feriam sidera vertice.\u201d<\/p>\n

7<\/a>. His ow<\/em>n dung<\/em>. 1 Kings 14:10<\/a>; 2 Kings 9:37<\/a>; Psalm 83:10<\/a>; and Jer. 8:2<\/a>.<\/p>\n

They that saw him<\/em>,\u2014lit., they that see him<\/em>. The meaning being that those that see him now shall at some future time say, &c., &c. All this seems in opposition to what Job had said in 19:25\u201327<\/a>.<\/p>\n

8<\/a>. And not be found<\/em>,\u2014lit., they<\/em> (i.e.<\/em>, persons seeking him) shall not find him<\/em>.<\/p>\n

As a dream shall he fly away<\/em>. Compare Dan. 2:5<\/a>, \u201cThe thing (my dream) is gone from me.\u201d<\/p>\n

9<\/a>. Job had said much the same in 7:8\u201310<\/a>.<\/p>\n

\u05e9\u05b0\u05c1\u05d6\u05b8\u05e4\u05b7\u05ea\u05bc\u05d5\u05bc<\/span> (shezaphattou<\/span>) for \u05e9\u05b0\u05c1\u05d6\u05b8\u05e4\u05b7\u05ea\u05b0\u05d4\u05d5\u05bc<\/span> (shezaphathhou<\/span>). This word occurs only here, and in chap. 28:7<\/a>, and Cant. 1:6<\/a>. We have no very particular means of arriving at the meaning of this word except by judging of the requirements of the context in these three passages. It appears to me that glanced<\/em> is a suitable meaning, as it refers both to vision (the requirement here and in chap. 28<\/a>) and also to the striking of the rays of the sun (the requirement of Cant. 1:6<\/a>.)<\/p>\n

10<\/a>. Shall pacify the impoverished,\u2014i.e<\/em>., they will have to get into the good graces of the impoverished by refunding to them the property of which their father had robbed them, and by which means these persons had been brought into reduced circumstances.<\/p>\n

And h<\/em>is hands<\/em>. Yea, even in his own lifetime he shall have to restore much of his ill-gotten wealth. Of course a compulsory restitution is intended, and such as Providence might in many ways force him to make.<\/p>\n

There are many who either take \u05d9\u05b0\u05e8\u05b7\u05e6\u05bc\u05d5\u05bc<\/span> (yeratstsou<\/span>) for \u05d9\u05b8\u05e8\u05b9\u05e6\u05bc\u05d5\u05bc<\/span> (yarotstsou<\/span>), from \u05e8\u05b8\u05e6\u05b7\u05e5<\/span> (ratsats<\/span>), he broke<\/em>, &c.; or who consider \u05e8\u05b8\u05e6\u05b8\u05d4<\/span> (ratsah<\/span>) as equivalent to \u05e8\u05b8\u05e6\u05b7\u05e5<\/span> (ratsats<\/span>), just as \u05d3\u05b8\u05bc\u05db\u05b8<\/span>\u05d4<\/span> (dachah<\/span>) = \u05d3\u05b8\u05bc\u05db\u05b7\u05da\u05b0<\/span> (dachach<\/span>), \u05d7\u05b8\u05e6\u05b8\u05d4<\/span> (khatsah<\/span>) = \u05d7\u05b8\u05e6\u05b7\u05e5<\/span> khatsats<\/span>, &c., &c. In this case, the translation would be, The impoverished will break his children in pieces<\/em>. The ancient versions favor this opinion.<\/p>\n

There are some also who take \u05d9\u05b8\u05d3\u05b8\u05d9\u05d5<\/span> (yadaiw<\/span>) in a distributive sense, and translate, their hands, i.e<\/em>., the hands of each<\/em> [of his children<\/em>] make restitution of his wealth<\/em>.<\/p>\n

It is difficult to say whether \u05d0\u05d5\u05b9\u05df<\/span> (own<\/em>) can signify wealth<\/em> except by inference. The verb of course infers it, but the word itself more properly means iniquity<\/em>. And so, the sense in that case would be, shall make restit<\/em>ution of his iniquity,\u2014i.e<\/em>., of whatever he acquired by iniquity\u2014in fact, ill-gotten wealth<\/em>.<\/p>\n

11<\/a>. I prefer the opinion of those who take \u05e2\u05b2\u05dc\u05d5\u05bc\u05de\u05b4\u05d9\u05dd<\/span> (gneloumim<\/span>) here (according to the reading of the Keri) as it is used in Ps. 90:8<\/a>, secret things<\/em>, i.e<\/em>., sins<\/em>, and not, as some understand it, things<\/em>, or sins of youth<\/em>. But I see no reason for deviating with the Keri from the text \u05e2\u05b2\u05dc\u05d5\u05bc\u05de\u05d5\u05b9<\/span> (gneloumo<\/span>), his<\/em> secret thing<\/em>, i.e., sin<\/em>.<\/p>\n

\u05ea\u05b4\u05bc\u05e9\u05b0\u05c1\u05db\u05b8\u05bc\u05bd\u05d1<\/span> (tishchav<\/span>), a verb feminine singular in regimen with (if we follow the Keri) a noun plural (this is a common Arabic construction); or, if we follow the text, with a noun masculine, because the feminine noun \u05d7\u05b7\u05d8\u05b8\u05bc\u05d0\u05ea<\/span> (khattath<\/span>) sin<\/em>, is understood. Zophar evidently alludes here to what Job had said in 17:15<\/a>, 16<\/a>, about his hope going down with him into the grave. Zophar insinuates that Job\u2019s bones were full of some particular sin, hidden from the eyes of man, and that this, and not such a hope as he had boasted of, would descend with him into the sepulchre.<\/p>\n

On<\/em> the dust<\/em>. The bodies of the dead were not buried in<\/em> the ground, but merely deposited on<\/em> the ground inside the sepulchral cavern or tomb.<\/p>\n

12<\/a>. From this to verse 16<\/a> we have, as a simile, the case of a man who takes poison into his mouth, and who, deceived by its sweetness, retains it there for a while; then at length swallows it, and soon feels its evil effects in excruciating pains and vomiting. Just so, the sinner may enjoy for a time his wickedness, and especially the fruits of his extortion and avarice; but, sooner or later, he suffers the evil consequences of his folly, and is forced to disgorge the sweet morsel.<\/p>\n

Wickedness<\/em>. \u05e8\u05b8\u05e2\u05b8\u05d4<\/span> (ragnah<\/span>). Especially wickedness which inflicts an injury upon a fellow-man\u2014the indulgence of all such passions as pride, ambition, avarice, envy, malice, revenge, &c.; and which exhibit themselves in acts of injustice, extortion, rapine, violence, murder, &c. Such indulgence may be sweet for a time. Zophar intimates that Job was secretly guilty of this; and indeed, in chap. 22:5\u201310<\/a>, Eliphaz plainly accuses him of it.<\/p>\n

13<\/a>. Though he spare it, &c<\/em>. Careful not to swallow the morsel too soon, that he may have the longer enjoyment of it.<\/p>\n

Hold it back<\/em>. He puts a restraint upon the natural impulse, which would be, to swallow it at once. Zophar insinuates that, though Job might not have been one of those sinners who devour sin greedily, he was a sinner of a more refined character; his misdeeds might not be frequent, but they were secret, and attended with much refined gratification.<\/p>\n

His palate<\/em>. The organ of taste.<\/p>\n

14<\/a>. Shall be turned<\/em>. From sweet to bitter.<\/p>\n

15<\/a>. Wealth<\/em>. Of course unjustly gotten.<\/p>\n

16<\/a>. The tongue of the viper<\/em>. Compare Ps. 140:3<\/a>.<\/p>\n

17<\/a>. He shall not gaze on<\/em>. \u05e8\u05b8\u05d0\u05b8\u05d4<\/span> (raah<\/span>), when followed by \u05d1\u05b0<\/span> (be<\/span>), has frequently the meaning of beholding wi<\/em>th satisfaction<\/em>; as we should say, feasting the eyes<\/em> with an object. So Ps. 22:17<\/a>; 37:34<\/a>; 112:8<\/a>; 118:7<\/a>; and Obad. 12<\/a>. The force of the apocopate here is expressive of an ardent wish on the part of the speaker\u2014a wish amounting to an assurance of certainty:\u2014Let him not feast his eyes<\/em>; or its full force may be, Let him not think that he shall feast his eyes<\/em>.<\/p>\n

Rivulets<\/em>. Streams by which lands were irrigated, and so, made productive in pasturage for cows and in flowers for bees; whence the milk and the honey.<\/p>\n

Rivers of torrents<\/em>. Expressive of great abundance. Compare Ovid\u2019s description of the golden age, as quoted by Rosenm\u00fcller:\u2014<\/p>\n

\u201cFlumina jam lactis, jam flumina nectaris ibant<\/em>.\u201d<\/p>\n

Mahomet describes his paradise much in the same style:\u2014\u201cTherein are rivers of incorruptible water; and rivers of milk, the taste whereof changeth not; and rivers of wine, pleasant to those who drink; and rivers of clarified honey.\u201d<\/p>\n

There is nothing unseemly in the idea here presented of butter flowing down like a river, as butter in Arabia is eaten in a semi-liquid state. Butter and honey are ordinary food of the Arabs. See also Isa. 7:15<\/a>.<\/p>\n

18<\/a>. Here we have the plain meaning of what was figuratively expressed in ver. 15<\/a>.<\/p>\n

\u05d9\u05b8\u05d2\u05b8\u05e2<\/span> (yagagn<\/span>) I take to be, not so much, labour<\/em>, as that which it earns<\/em> or produces<\/em>; and so here, it means either wages<\/em> which had been fraudulently kept back, or such wealth<\/em> as the sinner here spoken of had been at some though iniquitous toil in procuring; but I prefer the former of these senses.<\/p>\n

Swallow it,\u2014i.e<\/em>., permanently, and so as to retain or enjoy it.<\/p>\n

To the full amount of its va<\/em>lue<\/em>,\u2014lit., according to the power of its exchange<\/em>. There are those who understand it,\u2014according to<\/em> [his<\/em>] means<\/em>, [so<\/em>] shall his restitution be<\/em>. The objection to this is, that \u05d7\u05b5\u05d9\u05dc<\/span> (kheil<\/span>) is in construct state, and \u05ea\u05b0\u05bc\u05de\u05d5\u05bc\u05e8\u05b8\u05d4<\/span> (temourah<\/span>) can hardly be made to signify restitution<\/em>.<\/p>\n

19<\/a>. The \u05e2\u05b7\u05dc\u05be\u05db\u05b5\u05bc\u05df<\/span> (gnal chen<\/span>) in ver. 21<\/a> sufficiently shows us, as I think, how far we are to carry on the power of the causal particle \u05db\u05b4\u05bc\u05d9<\/span> (chi<\/span>). Rosenm\u00fcller anticipates the illative \u05e2\u05b7\u05dc\u05be\u05db\u05b5\u05bc\u05df<\/span> (gnal chen<\/span>) in the next verse, but for this I can see no reason.<\/p>\n

The destitute<\/em>,\u2014or the impoverished<\/em>. \u05d3\u05b7\u05bc\u05dc\u05b4\u05bc\u05d9\u05dd<\/span> (dallim<\/span>) may signify either. If the former, it implies a condition so exhausted as to be helpless; if the latter, that that condition has been produced by some agency. The agency here would be the wicked tyrant\u2019s avarice and violence.<\/p>\n

20<\/a>. He never felt rest in his belly<\/em>. Was a man of gluttonous habits, and never knew what it was to be satisfied with eating.<\/p>\n

\u05dc\u05d0<\/span> (lo<\/span>) may here be translated never<\/em> rather than not<\/em>, because the action is continued, so far at least as the past is concerned.<\/p>\n

In his appetite, &c<\/em>.,\u2014or in his ardent desire<\/em>; or it may mean, in his self-gratification<\/em>. He devoured all that he could lay hands on.<\/p>\n

21<\/a>. Not a scrap<\/em>, &c<\/em>. This is not simply a repetition of the former clause; that stated that the greedy man procured everything in the way of food that his appetite desired\u2014this, that after he had eaten, nothing remained.<\/p>\n

Remained<\/em>. I in some measure supply this word, but have not inserted it in brackets, for the sense of it is contained in the previous word \u05e9\u05b8\u05c2\u05e8\u05b4\u05d9\u05d3<\/span> (sarid<\/span>) a remnant<\/em>.<\/p>\n

22<\/a>. The ha<\/em>nd of every wretch<\/em>,\u2014lit., every hand of a wretch<\/em>; or perhaps it might be translated, every stroke of wretchedness<\/em>. I prefer the former, however. Every wretch<\/em>,\u2014those whom he has made wretched by his spoliations.<\/p>\n

23<\/a>. There shall be, &c<\/em>. This greedy glutton shall indeed have plenty to fill his belly with, but not of such kind as he would desire, as is explained in the next clauses. There is a sort of imprecation implied in \u05d9\u05b0\u05d4\u05b4\u05d9<\/span> (yehi<\/span>), and it might be rendered, let there be<\/em>.<\/p>\n

By a kind of just retaliation, as this man had devoured wealth, &c., so now he shall have to eat \u201csnares, fire, and brimstone,\u201d and such other things as God shall pour down upon him; just as in Ps. 11:6<\/a>, the wicked are said to drink these things (\u201cthis shall be the portion of their cup\u201d), so here, the glutton shall have them for food.<\/p>\n

Upon him<\/em>,\u2014lit., upon them; i.e<\/em>., upon all such.<\/p>\n

What he shall eat<\/em>. This agrees well with the statement in the first clause.<\/p>\n

24<\/a>. He shall flee<\/em>, &c.,\u2014i.e<\/em>., putting the case that he does escape out of one danger, it is only to fall into another.<\/p>\n

A bow of copper<\/em>. The more difficult, therefore, to pull, and so the more likely to overtake the fugitive. (See, however, the next note.)<\/p>\n

Shall<\/em> slip through him,\u2014i.e<\/em>., probably the arrow from the bow. This word \u05ea\u05b7\u05bc\u05d7\u05b0\u05dc\u05b0\u05e4\u05b5\u05d4\u05d5\u05bc<\/span> (takhlephehou<\/span>) implies also the notion of passing by<\/em> him; i.e<\/em>., he thinks to escape, but it overtakes him, and indeed goes beyond him; first, however, passing through him. I am not sure whether the expression,\u2014a bow of copper shall slip through<\/em>, or over him<\/em>, may not mean that it shall be slipped over his head by his enemy, so as to take him. (See the Illustrations<\/a>.)<\/p>\n

25<\/a>. It is drawn<\/em>,\u2014lit., he, i.e., some one draws<\/em>; and so, the verb may be rendered passively,\u2014the \u201ciron weapon<\/em>\u201d from which the man flees is drawn<\/em>. Nothing can be more graphic and vivid than the description in this and the preceding verse. The frightened wretch here spoken of runs away from the sword of his enemy, dreading a hand-to-hand encounter; but his flight is suddenly arrested by an arrow from the powerful bow (or he is noosed by the bow itself) of his antagonist, who soon comes up, draws his flashing sword, rapidly thrusts it into the vitals of his fallen victim, and as rapidly draws it back out of his body. The expiring wretch feels that life is ebbing fast, and is overwhelmed with terrors.<\/p>\n

The flashing sword<\/em>. \u05d1\u05b8\u05bc\u05e8\u05b8\u05e7<\/span> (barak<\/span>) is properly lightning<\/em>; but it is very frequently applied to the glittering of the blade of a drawn sword; and so also, in Arabic, as Rosenm\u00fcller observes, \u05d1\u05d0\u05e8\u05e7<\/span> (bark<\/span>) is used to signify a sword<\/em>.<\/p>\n

26<\/a>. Shall be <\/em>his treasure<\/em>,\u2014lit., shall be for his treasures<\/em>. As just now it was said that his greedy appetite should be well filled with judgments rained down upon him from heaven, so here it is intimated that, in laying up earthly treasures, he has only been treasuring up for himself wrath against the day of wrath; and now that he is dead, he shall have the enjoyment of every species of horrible misery. Compare James 5:1\u20135<\/a>; also Romans 2:5<\/a>. There is an allusion here to treasures being kept in dark places.<\/p>\n

A fire not blown<\/em>,\u2014and therefore supernatural; like that in Isa. 30:33<\/a>, and of which we have a more circumstantial account in Rev. 19:20<\/a>; 20:10<\/a>, 14<\/a>, 15<\/a>. That the doctrine of future rewards and punishments was not promulgated for the first time in our Lord\u2019s-day is, I think, sufficiently evidenced by the parable of the rich man and Lazarus, wherein our Lord shows that it was not necessary for one to rise from the dead in order to testify about hell torments, as there was a sufficient revelation already made in \u201cMoses and the prophets.\u201d<\/p>\n

Shall fare ill<\/em>,\u2014\u05d9\u05b5\u05e8\u05b7\u05e2<\/span> (yeragn<\/span>), Fut. Kal, from \u05d9\u05b8\u05e8\u05b7\u05e2<\/span> (yaragn<\/span>); it can scarcely be a Niphal form from \u05e8\u05b8\u05e2\u05b7\u05e2<\/span> (ragnagn<\/span>), as some take it. By his wickedness, not only, has he brought upon himself a miserable death and eternal torment, but also, he has involved in temporal misfortunes those who belonged to him.<\/p>\n

The two first clauses in this verse are apparently intended to strike a blow at the hope which Job had so particularly expressed in 19:25\u201327<\/a>.<\/p>\n

27<\/a>, 28<\/a>. These verses explain in what way the survivor in his tent shall fare ill. God, by judgments and other providential means, shall so bring his secret sins to light that everybody, exasperated at his conduct, will be taking up arms against him; and even, when he himself is despatched, the property that he had amassed shall be carried off, and dispersed in various directions, in the day that wrath falls upon him; and so, his family, household, &c., will be involved in the calamity occasioned by his sins.<\/p>\n

Unveil<\/em>. This appears to be the primary meaning of \u05d2\u05b8\u05bc\u05dc\u05b8\u05d4<\/span> (galah<\/span>).<\/p>\n

Shall be rising up<\/em>. The continuance of action expressed by the participle has, I believe, been hitherto overlooked. The meaning seems to be, that everybody will be still in arms against him even after he is gone. (ver. 25<\/a>.)<\/p>\n

The stores of his house. The produce<\/em>, or revenue<\/em>, or income<\/em>; any kind of wealth, in short, that had been br<\/em>ought into<\/em> his house. The word itself, \u05d9\u05b0\u05d1\u05d5\u05bc\u05dc<\/span> (yevoul<\/span>), is in the singular; but the following \u05e0\u05b4\u05d2\u05b8\u05bc\u05e8\u05d5\u05b9\u05ea<\/span> (niggaroth<\/span>) shows that a plural idea is intended, and I have so translated it.<\/p>\n

In the day of his<\/em> wrath<\/em>. I do not see, with others, that this must necessarily mean in the day of God\u2019s wrath<\/em>, except, of course, in an implied sense. I understand it to mean\u2014in the day that wrath comes upon him<\/em>.<\/p>\n

29<\/a>. And his heritage, &c<\/em>.,\u2014lit., and the heritage of his word<\/em>, or command<\/em>, or sentence, &c<\/em>., from God<\/em>. The conclusion of this discourse is not unlike that of Bildad\u2019s in 18:21<\/a>.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n
\n

Job 21<\/a><\/p>\n

2<\/a>. My verse<\/em>. See Note on 4:2<\/span><\/a>.<\/p>\n

And let this be your condolence<\/em>. You have come here with the avowed purpose of condoling with me. Let your way of expressing condolence be, not by loquacity on your part, but by a fair and attentive consideration of what I say.<\/p>\n

3<\/a>. Thou shalt mock<\/em>. This is probably pointedly addressed to the last speaker.<\/p>\n

4<\/a>. Is my complaint, &c<\/em>. Job had already said, in 13:3<\/a>, that he referred his case not to man, but to God; by these present questions, therefore, he hints that he altogether declines the interference of his friends\u2014that, in fact, they had no business to speak, and that he certainly had grounds for being impatient of any such interference.<\/p>\n

Why then should I not be impatient?<\/em>\u2014lit., Why should not my spirit be short?<\/em>\u2014The ordinary Hebrew phrase for impatience<\/em>.<\/p>\n

And why then<\/em>. \u05d5\u05b0\u05d0\u05b4\u05dd \u05de\u05b7\u05d3\u05bc\u05d5\u05bc\u05e2\u05b7<\/span> (weim maddouagn<\/span>), and if such be the case<\/em>, as it is, that I have referred the matter, not to you, but to God, why<\/em>, &c.<\/p>\n

5<\/a>. If you consider my case with the attention it merits, you will be so astounded at my strange sufferings as to be unable to do otherwise than keep silence. The action of laying the hand upon the mouth was a token of silence. (See the Illustrations<\/a>.) \u05d4\u05b8\u05e9\u05b7\u05c1\u05de\u05bc\u05d5\u05bc<\/span> (hashammou<\/span>) Imp. Hiph. for \u05d4\u05b8\u05e9\u05b5\u05c1\u05de\u05bc\u05d5\u05bc<\/span> (hashemmou<\/span>).<\/p>\n

6<\/a>. When I call, &c<\/em>.,\u2014or, if I have called to mind<\/em>; i.e<\/em>., if at any time I have done so, then, &c., &c.<\/p>\n

I consider that this verse is connected both with what goes before, and with what immediately follows. Job\u2019s meaning seems to be,\u2014Whenever I, who am an innocent man, reflect upon the subject of my sufferings, and the prosperity of the ungodly, I am horrified at the thought of the awful punishment which awaits them hereafter. The idea intended is not unlike that phrase, \u201cIf these things be done in the green tree, what shall be done <\/em>in the dry?<\/em>\u201d<\/p>\n

Shuddereth<\/em>,\u2014lit., taketh hold of terrors<\/em>.<\/p>\n

7<\/a>. Wherefore, &c.?<\/em> A question frequently asked by good men. See Ps. 73<\/a> and Jer. 12:1<\/a>, &c.<\/p>\n

Live,\u2014i.e., have enjoyment of life<\/em>.<\/p>\n

They last<\/em>. This I take to be the exact meaning of \u05e2\u05b8\u05ea\u05b7\u05e7<\/span> (gnathak<\/span>) here.<\/p>\n

Get mighty in wealth<\/em>. Thus Job denies Zophar\u2019s position in 20:5<\/a>.<\/p>\n

8<\/a>. Their seed, &c<\/em>., become permanent, and settle near them. This is contrary to what Bildad had said in 18:19<\/a>, and to what Zophar had affirmed in 20:10<\/a>, 26<\/a>.<\/p>\n

\u05e6\u05b6\u05bd\u05d0\u05b1\u05e6\u05b8\u05d0\u05b4\u05d9\u05dd<\/span> (tseetsaim<\/span>) is exactly expressed by our word issue<\/em>, though perhaps the reduplication rather implies issue\u2019s issue<\/em>.<\/p>\n

9<\/a>. Are securely peaceful<\/em>,\u2014lit., are peace from<\/em> (i.e., free from<\/em>) fear<\/em>. Compare this verse with Ps. 73:5<\/a>.<\/p>\n

10<\/a>. Their bull<\/em>,\u2014lit., his bull, i.e<\/em>., the bull of each one of these persons. \u05e9\u05c1\u05d5\u05b9\u05e8\u05d5\u05b9<\/span> (shoro<\/span>) being masculine or feminine (though rarely the latter), the LXX., the Vulgate, Bochart, Schultens, Lee, &c., prefer to translate his cow<\/em>; and so, make \u05e2\u05b4\u05d1\u05b7\u05bc\u05e8<\/span> (gnibbar<\/span>) to mean conceiveth<\/em>; but this is a strained meaning of the word, though there is some authority for it in the Chaldee usage; at all events, we should scarcely expect to. find, in such a case as the present, masculine verbs with a noun intended to be regarded as feminine. I follow therefore the A. V., Rosenm\u00fcller, Dathe, &c.<\/p>\n

\u05e2\u05b4\u05d1\u05b7\u05bc\u05e8<\/span> (gnibbar<\/span>). Transire facit, init<\/em>.<\/p>\n

Refuseth not<\/em>. Perhaps more literally, loatheth not<\/em>.<\/p>\n

Calveth<\/em>,\u2014lit., is delivered<\/em>.<\/p>\n

11<\/a>. Frisk<\/em>\u2014like young lambs. How sad that sin should spoil so exquisite a picture! Not unlike this is Ps. 107:41<\/a>.<\/p>\n

12<\/a>. They lift up<\/em>,\u2014supply \u05e7\u05d5\u05b9\u05dc\u05b8\u05dd<\/span> (kolam<\/span>) after \u05d9\u05b4\u05e9\u05b0\u05c2\u05d0\u05d5\u05bc<\/span> (iseou<\/span>). So Numb. 14:1<\/a>, and Isaiah 42:11<\/a>. The three musical instruments here mentioned are certainly the most ancient, and are naturally the most simple, and indeed may be regarded as the originals of every species of musical instrument that has since been invented, all which may be reduced to three kinds\u2014string instruments, wind instruments, and instruments of percussion; and the \u05db\u05b4\u05bc\u05e0\u05bc\u05d5\u05b9\u05e8<\/span> (chinnor<\/span>) harp<\/em>, the \u05e2\u05d5\u05bc\u05d2\u05b8<\/span>\u05d1<\/span> (gnougav<\/span>) pipe<\/em>, and the \u05ea\u05b9\u05bc\u05e3<\/span> (toph<\/span>) tabor<\/span>, may be considered as the first representatives of each of these species respectively. The harp<\/em> and pipe<\/em> are the earliest upon record, being mentioned so early as in Gen. 4:21<\/a>; and in Gen. 31:27<\/a> the tabor<\/span> is mentioned in connexion with the harp<\/em>. But, for more of this, see the Illustrations<\/a>.<\/p>\n

13<\/a>. They wear out<\/em>\u2014as one wears out a garment. The exact meaning of \u05d1\u05b8\u05bc\u05dc\u05b8\u05d4<\/span> (balah<\/span>), and a sense, as I think, preferable to that of the Keri\u2014\u05d9\u05b0\u05db\u05b7\u05dc\u05bc\u05d5\u05bc<\/span> (yechallou<\/span>) they consume<\/em>.<\/p>\n

And in a moment<\/em>, &c., &c. This is intended to present another circumstance of their worldl<\/em>y<\/em> happiness, that their death is easy and sudden. So also Psalm 73:4<\/a>, \u201cThere are no bands in their death<\/em> (they do not suffer the pangs of disease), but their strength is firm<\/em>\u201d Of this kind was the death of Moses, Deut. 34:7<\/a>.<\/p>\n

\u05d9\u05b5\u05d7\u05b7\u05ea\u05bc\u05d5\u05bc<\/span> (yekhattou<\/span>) for \u05d9\u05b5\u05d7\u05b8\u05ea\u05d5\u05bc<\/span> (yekhathou<\/span>), with dagesh euphonic, from \u05e0\u05b8\u05d7\u05b5\u05ea<\/span> (nakhath<\/span>).<\/p>\n

14<\/a>. They used to say<\/em>. This appears to me the force here of what is usually called the vaw conversive.<\/p>\n

15<\/a>. What is the Almighty, &c<\/em>. So Exod. 5:2<\/a>; Prov. 30:9<\/a>; and Mal. 3:14<\/a>.<\/p>\n

That we should meet him<\/em>. \u05e4\u05b8\u05bc\u05d2\u05b7\u05e2<\/span> (pagagn<\/span>) means to meet either with hostile or with friendly intentions. The latter sense, of course, is intended here. Perhaps the closest approximation to the original, and, indeed, its exact rendering, would be, that we should come in contact with him<\/em>. I take the general meaning here to be, that we should be on terms with him<\/em>. This, of course, in reference to God, would involve the notion of the performance of all religious duties; in short, the practical answer to the question of the why?<\/em> and the where?<\/em> and the how?<\/em> God is to be met.<\/p>\n

16<\/a>. Lo, their prosperity<\/em>, &c<\/em>. How foolish of them, therefore, to be so atheistical! Job afterwards shows that God does make it manifest that the prosperity of such men is not, after all, in their own power, and that God does frequently prove this by plunging them into adversity. Rosenm\u00fcller wonders that no translator before Schultens had discovered that this first clause is to be understood as spoken ironically; and so, he and indeed the German school in general, take the meaning to be,\u2014Lo<\/span>, (according to your ideas, my friends,) th<\/em>eir prosperity is not in their hand<\/em>! (but I have shown you otherwise). According to this interpretation the force here of \u05d4\u05b5\u05df<\/span> (hen<\/span>) would be much that of our\u2014and yet<\/em>. The object of these interpreters is obvious; they wish to get over the difficulty of making Job appear inconsistent, in first painting a picture of the worldly prosperity of the wicked, and then conceding to his friends that often however the reverse is true. The difficulty, it must be allowed, is a considerable one; but, in order to make good their position, these commentators are obliged in the following verses frequently to do violence, as I think, to the plain structure of the language; whereas the business of a translator is, not first to determine what the sense must<\/em> be and then translate accordingly; but rather, he must translate fairly, even though the sense should not be precisely what he might have presumed it should be. Of course such a rule as this is only a general principle, and is not without some particular modifications. I think, however, that in the present instance, and in the subsequent verses, it has been too much transgressed in the attempt to make Job maintain throughout, in opposition to the assertion of his friends, that the wicked are uninterruptedly and universally prosperous in the world.<\/p>\n

The counsel of the wicked<\/em>. Their contempt of religion, or their avowed principle that they see nothing of an utilitarian character about it (vers. 14<\/a>, 15<\/a>.) Be the principle correct or not as to its results, let me have nothing to do with such abominable reasoning.<\/p>\n

\u05e8\u05b8\u05d7\u05b2\u05e7\u05b8\u05d4<\/span> (rakhekah<\/span>). The preterite has the force here of a strong imperative, as though it were rendered must be far, i.e., it is far, and must be so<\/em>.<\/p>\n

17<\/a>. How oft<\/em>. \u05db\u05b7\u05bc\u05de\u05b8\u05bc\u05d4<\/span> chammah<\/span>. The German school just now referred to, and for reasons just stated, make this signify how seldom<\/em>. To this I should see no objection (as how oft<\/em> may certainly be the question of one doubting) were it not for difficulties which come afterwards. Job means,\u2014notwithstanding the prosperity of the wicked in general, yet it must be admitted that it does often come to a very awful termination. I think Job\u2019s inference is, that such exceptional cases of the wicked being visited in this life, do not set aside the general rule that they live a life of uninterrupted prosperity; while, at the same time, such cases serve to show that there must be a retributive justice, if not in this world, at least in the next. Job trembles (ver. 6<\/a>) when he reflects that, generally speaking, the ungodly are not punished in this life; and the more so, because many instances of terrible judgments, inflicted on some, prove to him beyond all doubt that a just God must punish the prosperous ungodly after death. So far then, Job agrees with what Bildad had said (18:5<\/a>, and elsewhere), and with what his other friends had said; but then his inference is very different from theirs. Their position was,\u2014God always punishes wicked men in this life<\/em>, and their inference, though illogical, was,\u2014Job is punished, and, therefore, he is wicked<\/em>. Job\u2019s position was,\u2014God sometimes does punish the wicked in this life, but generally not<\/em>; his inference is,\u2014they are therefore reserved f<\/em>or future punishment<\/em>; and such being the method of God\u2019s dealings, it is impossible for you to argue, from the adverse or prosperous circumstances in which a man may be placed, what his moral characte<\/em>r must be<\/em>.<\/p>\n

18<\/a>. So Ps. 1:4<\/a>. Stealeth<\/span>\u2014snatches up, and suddenly carries off.<\/p>\n

19<\/a>. Storeth up<\/em>\u2014like treasure. \u05d0\u05d5\u05b9\u05df<\/span> (own<\/em>), may mean wealth<\/em> as well as iniquity<\/em>. The meaning of the whole is,\u2014the riches which the children of the wicked shall have for their portion \u201cwill be, by God\u2019s providence, not actual wealth, but the bitter fruits of the sins of their father. This is something like that statement in the Second Commandment,\u2014\u201cI the Lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me.\u201d Job, be it remembered, is speaking here of exceptional instances; his argument is,\u2014this may be often, but is by no means always the case. Those, who maintain that Job does not admit of any exceptional cases at all, forget that they make him contend for a positive untruth, and one which his friends might easily have refuted by an appeal to every-day experience.<\/p>\n

And he knoweth it,\u2014i.e<\/em>., feels the pressure of his punishment, and fully knows that it is an act of retribution on God\u2019s part for his sins.<\/p>\n

20<\/a>. His own eyes<\/em>, &c<\/em>. It is not usual for man or beast to fall into the trap which he sees beforehand. Job intimates, however, that not unfrequently the case is different with a wicked man. He clearly foresees, with as much certainty as ocular demonstration itself could give, that the course he is pursuing must end in destruction; he sees the trap, and knows that it is prepared for him, and yet, he cannot avoid it; and this very knowledge is already to some extent a punishment of his sin, for it necessarily is a source of misery; and so, even now, \u201che drinketh of the wrath of the Almighty<\/em>.\u201d<\/p>\n

Entrapment<\/em>. This very well suits the Arabic \u05db\u05d9\u05d3<\/span> (chid<\/span>), to which we must have recourse for the meaning of the Hebrew \u05db\u05b4\u05bc\u05d9\u05d3<\/span> (chid<\/span>), that word occurring nowhere else in the Bible.<\/p>\n

\u05d7\u05b5\u05de\u05b8\u05d4<\/span> (khemah<\/span>), means poison<\/em>, as well as wrath<\/em>.<\/p>\n

21<\/a>. Another ingredient, in the bitter cup of wrath which some wicked men have to drink even here, is derived from the reflection that they must go, and must leave behind them all that constitutes their happiness here. His house<\/em>,\u2014that is, wife, children, possessions, &c. Compare those touching lines of Horace:\u2014<\/p>\n

\u201cLinquenda tellus, et domus, et placens<\/em><\/p>\n

Uxor; neque harum, quas colis, arborum<\/em><\/p>\n

Te, pr\u00e6ter invisas cupressos<\/em>,<\/p>\n

Ulla brevem dominum sequetur<\/em>.\u201d<\/p>\n

22<\/a>. Shall any<\/em>, &c<\/em>. Job here rebukes the presumption of his friends, who, by maintaining that the wicked must<\/em> invariably meet with the reward of their deeds in this life, in effect dictated what God ought<\/em> or ought not<\/em> to do in the moral government of the world. Such dictation on the part of any man argued the highest arrogance, seeing that God is sovereign; and so, might do what seemed to Him good, without having his course of action prescribed by human views of right and wrong. Job goes on to show that, by God\u2019s sovereign will, the circumstances of men in this life are exceedingly different\u2014one being prosperous to the end of his days (vers. 23<\/a>, 24<\/a>), and another never knowing what it is to be prosperous at all. (ver. 25<\/a>.) His inference is that this is unaccountable, and quite beyond the ken of men, and that consequently, it is impossible to argue, from the temporal condition of any man, what his moral state may really be.<\/p>\n

He governeth<\/em>. \u05e9\u05b8\u05c1\u05e4\u05b7\u05d8<\/span> (shaphat<\/span>), does not always mean simply to judge, but also to exercise the office of magist<\/em>rate<\/em>, or ruler<\/em>, or king<\/em>, &c.<\/p>\n

\u05e8\u05b8\u05de\u05b4\u05d9\u05dd<\/span> (ramim<\/span>),\u2014lit., high things, or persons<\/em>. No doubt, the latter is here meant. Whether it refers to angels<\/em> or to men in the highest earthly stations<\/em> is not easy to determine, though probably it refers to both. Our word\u2014dignities<\/em>\u2014will sufficiently express either or both of these meanings. The general sense, of course, is, that God is sovereign.<\/p>\n

23<\/a>. This man<\/em>, \u05d6\u05b6\u05d4<\/span> (ze<\/span>h<\/span>), opposed to the other \u05d6\u05b6\u05d4<\/span> (zeh<\/span>) in ver. 25<\/a>, which, therefore, means that man<\/em>. Job is contrasting the very different worldly condition of two supposed cases of every day occurrence, and infers that nothing can be determined from their circumstances as to what their moral condition may be.<\/p>\n

In the acme of his happiness<\/em>. This is a free translation, but it expresses the meaning of the original. \u05ea\u05b9\u05bc\u05dd<\/span> (tom<\/span>), is perfectness<\/em> of anything, whether of character<\/em>, or of number<\/em>, or of fortune, prosperity<\/em>, &c. I think from the context that the latter is here intended, and \u05e2\u05b6\u05e6\u05b6\u05dd<\/span> (gnetsem<\/span>), lit., bone<\/em>, is employed by the Hebrews much in the same sense as we use aeme<\/span>.<\/p>\n

\u05e9\u05c1\u05dc\u05b0\u05d0\u05b2\u05e0\u05b8\u05df<\/span> (shalenan<\/span>) is, evidently from the context, the same in sense as \u05e9\u05b7\u05bd\u05c1\u05d0\u05b2\u05e0\u05b8\u05df<\/span> (shaenan<\/span>) (12:5<\/a>). This introduction of a liquid letter is not altogether anomalous; thus we meet with \u05d6\u05b7\u05dc\u05b0\u05e2\u05b8\u05e4\u05b8\u05d4<\/span> (zalgnaphah<\/span>), violent heat<\/em>, from \u05d6\u05b8\u05e2\u05b7\u05e3<\/span> (zagnaph<\/span>), to be hot<\/em>\u2014so \u05d2\u05b7\u05bc\u05dc\u05b0\u05de\u05d5\u05bc\u05d3<\/span> (galmoud<\/span>) from the Arabic \u05d2\u05de\u05d3<\/span> (gmd<\/span>). A \u05e8<\/span> (r<\/span>) is not unfrequently similarly inserted. I think that this is a preferable way of accounting for the formation of the word in question, than supposing it to be compounded of \u05e9\u05b8\u05c1\u05dc\u05b8\u05d4<\/span> (shalah<\/span>) and \u05e9\u05b7\u05bd\u05c1\u05d0\u05b2\u05e0\u05b8\u05df<\/span> (shaenan<\/span>).<\/p>\n

24<\/a>. \u05e2\u05b2\u05d8\u05b4\u05d9\u05e0\u05b8<\/span>\u05d9\u05d5<\/span> (gnetinaiw<\/span>). As this word occurs nowhere else, and is unknown, it has been variously rendered. Jerome translates it viscera ejus<\/em> (his bowels<\/em>), and the LXX. have similarly \u03c4\u03ac \u1f14\u03b3\u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6<\/span>; their reading therefore was probably \u05d1\u05b8\u05bc\u05d8\u05b4\u05d9\u05e0\u05b8\u05d9\u05d5<\/span> (batinaiw<\/span>): the Syriac renders it his flanks<\/em>, as though the word were \u05e2\u05b2\u05d8\u05b4\u05d9\u05de\u05b8\u05d9\u05d5<\/span> (gnetimaiw<\/span>), in which ease it might be supposed to be the same as the Chaldee \u05e2\u05b4\u05d8\u05b0\u05de\u05b8\u05d0<\/span> (gnitma<\/span>) or \u05d0\u05b4\u05d8\u05b0\u05de\u05b8\u05d0<\/span> (itma<\/span>), a side<\/em>. If either of these meanings be adopted, it is necessary to read the last word of the clause \u05d4\u05b5\u05dc\u05b6\u05d1<\/span> (khelev<\/span>) fat<\/em>, instead of \u05d7\u05b8\u05dc\u05b8\u05d1<\/span> (khalav<\/span>) milk<\/em>, which is the received reading. The translators of the A. V. have, in the text, adopted the meaning given by the Chaldee Paraphrast, but, in the margin, they have, with others, rendered \u05e2\u05b2\u05d8\u05b4\u05d9\u05e0\u05b8\u05d9\u05d5<\/span> (gnetinaiw<\/span>) his<\/em> milkpails<\/em>, which gives undoubtedly a good sense, but I know not from whence derived, unless it be for the Chaldee \u05de\u05b7\u05e2\u05b2\u05d8\u05b8\u05df<\/span> (magnetan<\/span>), an olive jar<\/em>; but if so, the meaning imposed is too far-fetched to be relied upon. Rosenm\u00fcller, Dathe, and others render it loca pecorosa<\/em>, and stationes pecoris<\/em> (places for flocks<\/em>); this meaning they get from the Arabic \u05e2\u05d8\u05df<\/span> (gntn<\/span>) and \u05de\u05e2\u05d8\u05df<\/span> (mgntn<\/span>), which certainly do mean a watering-place for cattle where they lie down and drink;<\/em> but to say that such places<\/em> were full of milk because the cattle with their distenta ubera were there, would be, I think, hyper-poetical. Hahn thinks that because \u05e2\u05b8\u05d8\u05b7\u05df<\/span> (gnatan<\/span>) may be cognate with \u05d0\u05b8\u05d8\u05b7\u05df<\/span> (atan<\/span>), to bind, &c<\/em>., whence \u05d0\u05b5\u05d8\u05d5\u05bc\u05df<\/span> (etoun<\/span>), thread, yarn, &c<\/em>., therefore \u05e2\u05b8\u05d8\u05b4\u05d9\u05df<\/span> (gnatin<\/span>), may<\/em> mean a sinew<\/em>. This, however, is too conjectural. Of all others, I think Lee\u2019s conjecture is the best; he conceives that as the Arabic \u05e2\u05d8\u05df<\/span> (gntn<\/span>) signifies, besides the meaning given above, \u201cmaceravit pellem<\/em>\u201d (he soaked a skin<\/em>), and as\u05e2\u05d8\u05d9\u05df<\/span> (gntin<\/span>), in that language, signifies a skin<\/em>, so, the word here means a bottle<\/em>, because these utensils are, in the East, made of skins. Lee might have added that the word in Arabic means also, co<\/em>ncinnavit pellem<\/em> (he dressed a skin<\/em>), and also pellis f\u00e6tens<\/em> (a stinking skin<\/em>). I agree with Lee in thinking that bottles are here intended, so far at least as the sense is concerned; but I do not agree with him in supposing that the word should be translated bottles<\/em>, but rather skins<\/em>, or hides<\/em>; and that it signifies skins in the process of being converted into bottles, skins soaked<\/em> that they may be softened and the hair may come off,\u2014being dressed<\/em> and still stinking<\/em>, but not yet sufficiently prepared to be actually considered \u05d0\u05d5\u05b9\u05d1\u05d5\u05b9\u05ea<\/span> (ovoth<\/span>) or \u05e0\u05b9\u05d0\u05d3\u05d5\u05b9\u05ea<\/span> (nodoth<\/span>) or \u05e0\u05b0\u05d1\u05b8\u05dc\u05b4\u05d9\u05dd<\/span> (nevalim<\/span>); and hence, neither of these words is here used: I conceive then, the idea here intended to be, that so great is the abundance of milk, furnished by his flock, to the prosperous individual here described, that he is obliged to make use of and to fill his skins<\/em> with it, before they have undergone the whole of the necessary dressing. By the translation I have given, the parallelism is also to some extent preserved, as there is a connexion of ideas between skins<\/em> and bones<\/em>. The second hemistich is a consequence of the former\u2014the man has abundance of good things, his half-dressed skins are full of milk<\/em>, and consequently in his bodily health he is vigorous and strong, the marrow of his bones gets soaked<\/em>. Milk, it is well known, is one of the very principal articles of diet among the Arabs. (See Harmer\u2019s Illustrations on this subject, and also upon that of skin bottles).<\/p>\n

25<\/a>. And that man, &c<\/em>. Whilst the life of one man is so prosperous throughout, the life of another is one of privation and sorrow even to his death.<\/p>\n

26<\/a>. God\u2019s treatment of these two men had been very different during their life time, but he puts no distinction whatever between them in their death, at least so far as human observation goes; both of them, both the man who had been prosperous all his days, and the man who had never known what prosperity was, are similarly dealt with in death, both lie on the dust in the sepulchre, and both become the food of worms. Supposing, then, that the one who had been prosperous had been ungodly, whilst the other had been pious (and Job has intimated that this in general is the case), then it follows that God, who is just, must deal with these two men in another world in the way of rewards and punishments, as he certainly did not do so in this: and, as the requital of the deeds done in the body is thus shown to be future, rather than present, it follows that it is unsafe, or rather impossible, to argue unfavorably of any individual because he is afflicted, or favorably of those, who may happen to be in circumstances of great worldly prosperity.<\/p>\n

Worms<\/em>, lit., the worm<\/em>, but taken of course in a collective sense.<\/p>\n

27<\/a>. Your designs to wrong me violently<\/em>, lit., the designs against m<\/em>e you wrong violently, i.e<\/em>. [whereby<\/em>] you wrong violently<\/em>. I am quite aware of your malicious intentions and plot against me, to make me seem criminal, when I am not so, by urging that God necessarily afflicts the wicked, and that I must be wicked because I am afflicted.<\/p>\n

28<\/a>. For<\/em>,\u2014\u05db\u05b4\u05bc\u05d9<\/span> (chi<\/span>), or it may be rendered that<\/em>, supplying \u05d9\u05b8\u05d3\u05b7\u05e2\u05b0\u05ea\u05b4\u05bc\u05d9<\/span> (yadagneti<\/span>) I know<\/em>, from the preceding verse,\u2014I know that <\/em>you are saying to yourselves, &c<\/em>. The former rendering however, is, I think, preferable, and the sense then is,\u2014I Know what you are devising against me, for you tauntingly ask the question, What has b<\/em>ecome of the great man\u2019s house, &c., &c.<\/em>?<\/p>\n

Of the prince,\u2014i.e.<\/em>, of Job.<\/p>\n

Dwellings<\/em>,\u2014the different compartments of the tent which, in a large eastern household, might be exceedingly numerous.<\/p>\n

29<\/a>. Have ye<\/em> not asked, &c.?<\/em> The question implies a negative answer;\u2014You have not taken the trouble to inquire into the opinions of men of other countries respecting the subject we are discussing, and you ought to have done so.<\/p>\n

For ye would not have misunderstood their signs<\/em>. Had you been at the pains of enquiring of travellers, however foreign in their habits and language, you would at least have understood their signs (just as one traveller may point out to another the way he should take, even though they may not be able to comprehend each other\u2019s language), \u05ea\u05b0\u05bc\u05e0\u05b7\u05db\u05b0\u05bc\u05e8\u05d5\u05bc<\/span>. (tenacherou<\/span>),\u2014the full force of this word is,\u2014misunderstanding a thing as being foreign<\/em>.<\/p>\n

\u05d0\u05b9\u05ea\u05d5\u05b9\u05ea<\/span> (othoth<\/span>), signs<\/em>, such as persons would use who do not understand one another\u2019s speech.<\/p>\n

\u05e9\u05b0\u05c1\u05d0\u05b6\u05dc\u05b0\u05ea\u05b6\u05bc\u05dd<\/span> (sheeltem<\/span>),\u2014the proper form would be \u05e9\u05b0\u05c1\u05d0\u05b7\u05dc\u05b0\u05ea\u05b6\u05bc\u05dd<\/span> (shealtem<\/span>); this anomalous form, however, occurs in 1 Sam. 12:13<\/a>, and 25:5<\/a>.<\/p>\n

30<\/a>. If you had consulted the general experience and opinions of mankind instead of your own crude notions, you would have learnt that wicked men are spared the calamities of this life in order that they may be reserved for the day of destruction, and if their life is one continued, pomp, it is the pomp of a funeral procession. (See the Note on next verse.)<\/p>\n

Great wrath<\/em>,\u2014lit., wraths<\/em>. The whole of Job\u2019s argument proves beyond question that he believed in a future state of rewards and punishments, and this becomes additional evidence in support of the view which I have taken of his celebrated words in 19:25\u201327<\/a>.<\/p>\n

31<\/a>. None ever dare make the wicked tyrant amenable to human laws; he goes on in his course of triumph unreproved, uncontrolled, and unpunished by men, because they are afraid of him,\u2014another ingredient in his cup of earthly prosperity, though in point of fact a great misfortune to him. If any do venture to speak of his misdeeds behind his back, at all events none do so to his face<\/em>.<\/p>\n

Job is comparing the uninterrupted course of a wicked man\u2019s prosperity to the pomp of a grand funeral procession; and I think that in this verse he makes evident allusion to a custom that prevailed amongst the ancient Egyptians, whose law allowed any one to bring an accusation against a deceased person previously to his interment (and even kings themselves were not exempted from this death-judgment); if the accusation was fully proved, and the deceased was convicted of having led a bad life, he was obliged to be placed in his own house, and was debarred the customary rites of interment, even though the tomb had been prepared for him; in short, no procession was allowed to take place. Job\u2019s meaning in apparent allusion to this practice is,\u2014A wicked man\u2019s life is one uninterrupted course of pomp and grandeur, because nobody dares stop this magnificent career by charging him with his crimes, but after all (Job implies) such a course of life, however splendid and gratifying at the time, is no better than a funeral procession; just as that leads to the grave, so a life of prosperity is only conducting him to the place where he will be dealt with for all his sins. (See the Illustrations<\/a>.)<\/p>\n

32<\/a>, 33<\/a>. These verses may be intended to describe the funeral ceremony of the wicked tyrant himself, and if so, the irony is sufficiently severe; he plays the farce of his greatness to the very end of the last act, and is represented as taking pleasure in his pompous obsequies as though he were conscious of them. But I think it will be more consistent with the preceding context, and the irony will be the very severest, if we understand all this in the way of comparison. Job has just spoken of the whole course of a wicked man\u2019s life as being nothing better than the parade of a splendid funeral, he now enlarges upon this idea by fuller description. Just as a deceased person, having successfully undergone the ordcal alluded to in the last verse (see the note), is permitted the rites of interment, and is accordingly borne in procession to the grave; so, the wicked man in question is allowed to continue his course of magnificent greatness, not because his character has stood the test of scrutiny, but simply because nobody has dared to speak of his crimes (v. 31<\/a>), and so attempt to check him in his career; and just as a deceased person (supposing that his body were conscious) might be supposed to be anxious to be laid in the magnificent sepulchre, which perhaps he had been at great pains in preparing for himself, and so, might look upon the place of his sepulture as a pleasant spot, and might also take delight in observing how large was his funeral cortege; so, the things which a worldly prosperous man finds pleasure in,\u2014the things upon which his hopes are set, his comforts, and the objects of his ambition,\u2014such as his palace, his domain, his retinue, these, however grand, are after all no more than his tomb, his cemetery, and the attendants of his funeral; for, throughout the whole of his prosperous life, he is being led forth to the day of wrath.<\/p>\n

Catacombs<\/em> or graves<\/em>, i.e.<\/em>, the vaults or chambers in sepulchral caverns or tombs in which the dead were laid.<\/p>\n

The tomb<\/em>. \u05d2\u05b8\u05bc\u05d3\u05b4\u05d9\u05e9\u05c1<\/span> (gadish<\/span>), a sepulchral heap<\/em>, or mound<\/em>, a meaning derived from the heaping up of corn, hence applied to some kind of pyramidal tomb. Indeed, a heap of corn may originally have suggested the idea of a pyramid.<\/p>\n

The clods of the valley<\/em>. \u05e8\u05b0\u05d2\u05b8\u05d1\u05b4\u05d9\u05dd<\/span> (regavim<\/span>) probably means clods<\/em>, or rubble;<\/em> and \u05e0\u05b7\u05d7\u05b7\u05dc<\/span> (nakhal<\/span>) is a brook<\/em>, or torrent<\/em>, or the valley<\/em> in which such brook or torrent, whether perennial or otherwise, runs. Such vallies were generally chosen as sites for interment.<\/p>\n

And he draweth everybody, &c<\/em>. His funeral is numerously attended. (See the Illustrations<\/a>.)<\/p>\n

34<\/a>. Your answers remain fallacies<\/em>, lit., your answers, as a whole<\/em> (hence the verb is singular), remain<\/em> (i.e.<\/em>, I have proved them to be so) a fal<\/em>lacy<\/em>. It strikes me that, as the true meaning of \u05de\u05b7\u05e2\u05b7\u05dc<\/span> (magnal<\/span>) is anything false hidden under a cloak of speciousness<\/em>, logically speaking, it must signify a fallacy;<\/em> and this I take to be the sense in which Job here uses it.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n

 <\/p>\n

Job 22<\/a><\/p>\n

2<\/a>. A man<\/em>. \u05d2\u05b6\u05bc\u05d1\u05b6\u05e8<\/span> (gever<\/span>), a great man, a hero<\/em>, and so forth,\u2014man in short considered in his best estate. Can such an one confer obligations on God, because, if he is wise, he does by his pruden<\/span>t and virtuous conduct benefit himself? Eliphaz, for the moment, supposes Job to be what he represented himself and professed to be\u2014an innocent and a pious man, and, in effect, asks him how he could presume to think that, even in that case, God could be under any obligation to him? Not that Job had ever said so, in so many words, but then, he had<\/span> spoken so much of his righteousness before God, and had so constantly appealed to God for justice to be done him, that Eliphaz, by giving an exaggerated sense to his words, had some slight ground for imputing to him what he did not actually express.<\/span><\/p>\n

B<\/em><\/span>e of service<\/em>. \u05e1\u05b8\u05db\u05b7\u05df<\/span> (sachan<\/span>) first signifies to dwell<\/em>, and then to dwell together<\/em>; then comes the idea of acting as domestic<\/em>, and then that of being of service<\/em>, and then from the notion of requiring s<\/span>ervice, or perhaps of being obliged to go out (as we say) into service, comes the idea of being poor<\/em>, a sense which this word often has.<\/p>\n

To himself<\/em>, lit., to themselves<\/em>. \u05de\u05b7\u05e9\u05b0\u05c2\u05db\u05b4\u05bc\u05d9\u05dc<\/span> (maschil<\/span>) therefore<\/span> is intended to include the whole class of the wise and prudent;<\/em> but it is probably used here in the singular number, that the application to Job may be the more pointed.<\/p>\n

3<\/a>. Even on the supposition of<\/span> your being the innocent and upright man which you endeavour to make out that you are, can it be that this could add ought to the happiness of, or be in any way an advantage to, that God who is almighty and all-sufficient\u2014<\/span>\u05e9\u05b7\u05c1\u05d3\u05b7\u05bc\u05d9<\/span> (shaddai<\/span>).<\/p>\n

4<\/a>. Will God, through fear of your arraigning his justice, condescend to argue with you on the subject of his dealings with you, and so far forget his dignity, <\/span>as Supreme Judge, as to have your cause with him submitted to the decision of arbitration, [as one man might do with another, and as you have presumptuously desired (9:32<\/a>, 33<\/a>; and 13:3<\/a>, 20<\/a>, &c., &c.)]<\/span>.<\/p>\n

Through fear of thee<\/em>. This may mean also through thy fear, i.e.<\/em>, through thy religiousness. Compare the ambiguous Latin phrase, \u201cmetus hostium<\/em>\u201d (fear of the enemy<\/em>), cited by Gesenius.<\/p>\n

5<\/a>. How can you<\/span> think that God can so condescend, when, so far from being innocent, your wickedness is in reality great? This is the first instance of Job\u2019s friends directly charging him with guilt: they had repeatedly indirectl<\/span>y done so before.<\/p>\n

Thine iniquities are not ended<\/em>, lit., there is no end<\/em> (\u05d0\u05b5\u05d9\u05df\u05be\u05e7\u05b5\u05e5<\/span>, ain kets<\/span>) to thine iniquities<\/em>. But this does not mean that they are so innumerable as not to be counted,<\/span> or infinite<\/em>, as the A. V. has it, but that they are not terminated; and so, I have endeavoured, in my translation, to avoid the ambiguity which a literal rendering would occasion. Eliphaz means that <\/span>Job, by his impenitency and presumption in proclaiming his innocence and appealing to justice, was just as great a sinner as ever.<\/p>\n

6<\/a>. Eliphaz had no other foundation for this, and his other charges ag<\/span>ainst Job, except the supposition, so often already urged, that those who are afflicted must be wicked.<\/p>\n

Though takest a pledge<\/em> (or bond<\/em>) of thy brethren<\/em>. That the pledge was taken of his brethren<\/em>, not<\/span> of strangers, is one aggravation of the sin; and, that it was taken without cause<\/em> (i.e.<\/em>, either because the debt was paid, or the pledge taken exceeded the debt in value, or, Job being rich, needed n<\/span>ot to have insisted upon his rights in the matter,) is another aggravation of it.<\/p>\n

The naked, i.e.<\/em>, those who are so destitute of clothing that they have nothing but their outer garment to cover them, <\/span>or who are made naked by the spoliation here alluded to.<\/p>\n

7<\/a>. The weary<\/em>\u2014\u05e2\u05b8\u05d9\u05b5\u05e3<\/span> (gnayeph<\/span>). Perhaps we have no word to express this exactly, because, in our climate, we seldom experience the sensation it d<\/span>escribes\u2014that of being done up by fatigue and thirst<\/em>. Bruce, in the desert of Nubia, describes it well. He says, \u201cI call it extreme hot, when the strength fails, a disposition to faint comes on, a str<\/span>aitness is found in the temples, as if a small cord was drawn tight around the head, the voice impaired, the skin dry, and the head seems more than ordinary large and light.\u201d<\/p>\n

Thou withholdest<\/em>. This ex<\/span>pression implies that the famished have a kind of claim to be fed by those who have it in their power to feed them.<\/p>\n

8<\/a>. Eliphaz means here, either that Job, by might and not by right, and by mere influ<\/span>ence and interest, had succeeded in displacing others and possessing himself of their property, or else, that whilst Job treated the defenceless with cruelty and injustice, he connived at the violence of others, and instead of repressing it by his authority, rather abetted them, and<\/span> that, because they were persons of rank and influence. I am inclined to prefer the first of these meanings.<\/p>\n

The man <\/em><\/span>of favored person<\/em>, lit., the elevated<\/em>, or the accepted of face<\/em>. The man who, by intrigue, or winning address, or influence of any kind, always succeeds in securing the favor and the interest of those <\/span>whose rank is higher than his own.<\/p>\n

9<\/a>. Widows, &c<\/em>. Your position and office required you to be the defender of such, instead of which, you abused your power and betrayed your trust, by denying them com<\/span>mon justice; and the consequence is, that fatherless children have been deprived of their rights, and have been reduced to a state of defenceless ruin.<\/p>\n

Empty<\/em>. Not having fulfilled their just requests;<\/span> as a judge you have most iniquitously non-suited them.<\/p>\n

And the arms of the fatherless are broken<\/em>. The verb \u05d9\u05b0\u05d3\u05bb\u05db\u05b8\u05bc\u05d0<\/span> (yeduccha<\/span>) is in the singular number, and is also masculine, but both the Hebrew, a<\/span>nd especially the Arabic, admit of verbs of that number and gender being joined to nouns plural and feminine (such as \u05d6\u05b0\u05e8\u05b9\u05e2\u05d5\u05b9\u05ea<\/span>, zerognoth<\/span>, here). If the original reading had been \u05ea\u05b0\u05bc\u05d3\u05b7\u05db\u05b5\u05bc\u05d0<\/span> (tedacch\u00e9<\/span>),<\/span> thou breakest<\/em>, the parallelism might have been better preserved; and all the ancient versions, the Targum, the LXX., the Vulgate, the Syriac, and the Arabic, agree in rendering the word in the second<\/span> person. As, however, there is no MS. authority for this reading, we may not entertain it.<\/p>\n

10<\/a>. Therefore, i.e.<\/em>, on account of<\/em> those crimes of yours which I have just specified. They, whatever you may <\/span>think, are the true cause of your inextricable calamities and dismay.<\/p>\n

All around thee<\/em>, lit., thy encompassings<\/em>.<\/p>\n

Confoundeth thee<\/em>. Throws you into such confusion that you lose all presence of mind.<\/p>\n

Job<\/span>\u2019s friends had before only inferred the probability of his wickedness from his afflictions; Eliphaz now goes beyond this: he positively states, what he assumes to be, Job\u2019s crimes, and then, argues that <\/span>they were the cause of his affliction.<\/p>\n

11<\/a>. Or darkness<\/em>. Understand from the former verse \u05e1\u05b0\u05d1\u05b4\u05bd\u05d9\u05d1\u05d5\u05b9\u05ea\u05b6\u05d9\u05da\u05b8<\/span> (sevivotheicha<\/span>), and so, the meaning is, Or<\/em> [all around thee<\/em>] is darkness<\/em>. Job had acknowledg<\/span>ed that he was beset with darkness (19:8<\/a>). Eliphaz tells him that it was in consequence of his sins.<\/p>\n

And abundance of waters, &c<\/em>. Troubles have come upon you like a deluge.<\/p>\n

12\u201314<\/a>. Eliphaz had accused <\/span>Job of rapacity, injustice, and cruelty; he now charges him with impiety, not that Job had denied God\u2019s greatness, but that he had spoken sceptically of his providential government of sublunary things. The meaning of Eliph<\/span>az appears to be,\u2014You admit the immensity, &c., of God, but then, what use have you made of this knowledge? You have made his very immensity the ground of your practical Atheism. You have said in your heart,\u2014God is so high that he does not concern himself about mundane affairs. Job of course had not really said this, but Eliphaz wickedly implies that he must have done so, because he had argued that God did not punish o<\/span>r reward men in this world according to their respective characters. We have similar specimens of this atheistic sort of theology (thus unjustly charged upon Job) in <\/span><\/span>Ezekiel 8:12<\/a>; 9:9<\/a>; Ps. 10:11<\/a>; 73:11<\/a>; 94:7<\/a>; and Isa. 29:15<\/a>. Heathen authors abound in it, and Barnes on this passage has given a very apt quotation from Milton, who puts the very sentiment he<\/span>re expressed into the mouth of Eve, after she had eaten the forbidden fruit:\u2014<\/p>\n

\u201cAnd I, perhaps, am secret: heaven is high,<\/p>\n

High and remote from thence to see distinct<\/p>\n

Each thing on earth; and other car<\/span>e, perhaps,<\/p>\n

May have diverted from continual watch<\/p>\n

Our great Forbidder, safe with all his spies about him.\u201d<\/p>\n

(Par. Lost, B. IX.)<\/p>\n

15<\/a>. \u05d0\u05b9\u05e8\u05b7\u05d7<\/span> (orakh<\/span>), like \u05d3\u05b6\u05bc\u05e8\u05b6\u05da\u05b0<\/span>) (derech<\/span>), often means way of living<\/em>, wh<\/span>ether bad or good; here, of course the former, as the second clause plainly shows.<\/p>\n

Men of iniquity<\/em>, or fellows in iniquity<\/em>\u2014\u05de\u05b0\u05ea\u05b5\u05d9<\/span> (methei<\/span>), men associated together<\/em>. Probably those who lived before the <\/span>flood, and of whom mention is made in Gen. 6:1\u20135<\/a>.<\/p>\n

16<\/a>. Who got tied up<\/em>. For the meaning of this word \u05e7\u05b8\u05de\u05b7\u05d8<\/span> (kamat<\/span>), see Note on 16:8<\/span><\/a>. From its Arabic use it evidently has the sense of tying up preparat<\/em><\/span>ory to slaughter<\/em>\u2014a sense which very well suits the present passage. The deluge surprised those men of iniquity; and the waters rushing in upon them and surrounding them, so tied them up that escape wa<\/span>s impossible, and their destruction became certain.<\/p>\n

Untimely<\/em>. Most of those destroyed by the deluge were of course cut down before they had attained to whatever was the then ordinary measure of life.<\/p>\n

<\/span>A stream<\/em>, or river<\/em>\u2014\u05e0\u05b8\u05d4\u05b8\u05e8<\/span> (nahar<\/span>). Lee objects to the application of this to the deluge, and supposes that allusion is intended to some overflowing of the Euphrates. He does not, however, give any vali<\/span>d reason for his objection. I suppose he considers the mention of a stream<\/em> or river<\/em> as too inconsiderable to express so great an inundation as the deluge; and yet in all probability it began by the su<\/span>dden swelling of old rivers, and the rapid formation of new ones, occasioned by the heavy rain and the breaking up of the fountains of the great deep; besides which, stream<\/em> or river<\/em> is not inapplicabl<\/span>e even to so large a body of water as the sea: so in Homer we read of \u03c9\u03ba\u03b5\u03b1\u03bd\u03bf\u03c5 \u03c1\u03b5\u03b5\u03b8\u03c1\u03b1<\/span> (Il. <\/a>\u03be\u02bc<\/span><\/a>, 245<\/a>); and so also we speak of \u201cthe Gulph stream,\u201d and modern science has quite confirmed the accuracy of s<\/span>uch language.<\/p>\n

An asterisk has been placed before this verse in the Hebrew Bible by the Jews, who, being curious in such things, have thereby marked the middle of this book, there being 537 verses befo<\/span>re, and the same number after this mark.<\/p>\n

17<\/a>. Who were saying, &c<\/em>. Eliphaz puts into the mouths of these antediluvian sinners almost the very words which Job had ascribed in 21:14<\/a>, 15<\/a>, to the wicked in<\/span> general. Eliphaz no doubt intends this as a direct contradiction to Job\u2019s statement. The Patriarch had asserted that men of these atheistical principles were happy all their lives. Eliphaz says,\u2014No, these are the very<\/span> sort of men who were visited by the judgment of the deluge, and you are just as bad as they, for you are treading in their steps (v. 15<\/a>).<\/p>\n

Who were saying<\/em>. Using this language up to <\/span>the very time that Divine justice overtook them. This practical Atheism is well depicted by our Lord, in referring to the same event, in Luke 17:26<\/a>, 27<\/a>.<\/p>\n

18<\/a>. But the counsel of the wicked, &c<\/em>. Eliphaz <\/span>again quotes the words of Job, from 21:16<\/a>. You Job profess to repudiate the principles upon which wicked men act, and yet you keep to the old way which men of iniquity trod (v. 15<\/a>). I, therefore, and <\/span>not you, have the right of disclaiming having any connexion whatever with such principles. The \u05d5\u05b0<\/span> (we<\/span>), but<\/em>, in this verse is evidently closely connected with v. 15<\/a>; and much of the supposed difficult<\/span>y of this second clause has arisen from not observing that fact. I have consequently marked the intermediate passage as a parenthesis.<\/p>\n

19<\/a>. See<\/em>. Either see what is coming upon the wicked, or see the ju<\/span>dgment when it actually falls on them. Compare Psalm 37:13<\/a>, 34<\/a>; and still more to the point, 52:5<\/a>, 6<\/a>; also 58:10<\/a>, 11<\/a>; 107:42<\/a>; 91:8<\/a>.<\/p>\n

And rejoice<\/em>. Eliphaz perhaps intimates, that this was the joy, which<\/span> he and his companions now experienced, at the afflictions with which Job was visited.<\/p>\n

20<\/a>. \u05e7\u05b4\u05d5\u05de\u05b8\u05e0\u05d5\u05bc<\/span> (kimanou<\/span>) is a word of some difficulty, though probably it is a participial noun from \u05e7\u05d5\u05bc\u05dd<\/span> (koum<\/span>); a<\/span>nd so, literally its meaning would be, our riser up, i.e.<\/em>, he that rose up against us<\/em>. Dathe, who follows a conjecture of Doederlein\u2019s, opposes this on the ground that the form of \u05e7\u05b4\u05d9\u05dd<\/span> (kim<\/span>), and the <\/span>absence of \u05e2\u05b7\u05dc<\/span> (gnal<\/span>) in the construction, and the laws of parallelism, will not admit of it. But, as respects the first objection, we meet with many forms similar to \u05e7\u05b4\u05d9\u05dd<\/span> (kim<\/span>),\u2014such as \u05e9\u05b4\u05c1\u05d9\u05e8<\/span> (shir<\/span>),<\/span> and \u05e6\u05b4\u05d9\u05e8<\/span> (tsir<\/span>); then, secondly, there are not wanting instances of the particle \u05e7\u05b8\u05dd<\/span> (kam<\/span>) being employed with simple suffixes to signify rising against<\/em> the person designated by the suffix. So Psalm <\/span>18:40<\/a>, \u05e7\u05b8\u05de\u05b7\u05d9<\/span> (kamai<\/span>), those that rise against me<\/em>; and Deut. 33:11<\/a>, \u05e7\u05b8\u05de\u05b8\u05d9\u05d5<\/span> (kamaiw<\/span>), those that rise against him<\/em>; and then, lastly, the laws of parallelism certainly do not require the very exact agree<\/span>ment which Dathe would impose in this place. The conjecture just alluded to is that the reading should be \u05e7\u05b4\u05d9\u05de\u05b8\u05dd<\/span> (kimam<\/span>), instead of \u05e7\u05b4\u05de\u05b8\u05e0\u05d5\u05bc<\/span> (kimanou<\/span>); and I must admit (though I am not aware that the<\/span> supposition has been noticed) that the substitution by a transcriber, by a very natural mistake, of a medial \u05de<\/span> (m<\/span>) for a final \u05dd<\/span> (m<\/span>) in the last letter of the word, might easily lead to the error of <\/span>reading \u05e0\u05d5<\/span> (nou<\/span>) for \u05de<\/span> (m<\/span>); and the more so, as the reader would not be prepared to find a medial in the place of a final letter. It is urged in favor of the conjecture that \u05e7\u05b4\u05d9\u05de\u05b8\u05dd<\/span> (kimam<\/span>) exactly cor<\/span>responds with the parallel word \u05d9\u05b4\u05ea\u05b0\u05e8\u05b8\u05dd<\/span> (ithram<\/span>), their excellence<\/em>, in the next hemistich. This however, is true only on the arbitrary assumption that \u05e7\u05b4\u05d9\u05dd<\/span> (kim<\/span>) is the same in meaning as \u05d9\u05b0\u05e7\u05d5\u05bc\u05dd<\/span> (yeko<\/span><\/span>um<\/span>) substance<\/em> (Gen. 7:4<\/a>, 23<\/a>). The translation in that case would be, Is not their substance gone<\/em>? On the whole, however, I do not consider that there is sufficient reason for departing from the receiv<\/span>ed reading.<\/p>\n

Gone<\/em>. \u05e0\u05b4\u05db\u05b0\u05d7\u05b7\u05d3<\/span> (nichckhad<\/span>), been cut off, vanished, disappeared<\/em>, or some such meaning. Perhaps the word I have given expresses all this as well as any other.<\/p>\n

Hath not the fire eaten up, &c<\/em>.<\/span> Probably alluding to the destruction of some of Job\u2019s property by fire.<\/p>\n

Their excellence,\u2014i.e.<\/em>, all those things that rendered them superior to other persons, such as wealth, power<\/em>, &c., &c. This ver<\/span>se is evidently intended as the exclamation of triumph, uttered by the righteous, at the downfall of wicked tyrants. Some think that allusion is here made to the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah by fire, but it is scar<\/span>cely supposable that either Abraham or Lot would have uttered any such song of triumph as this on the occasion. Such songs of rejoicing, however, on the part of God\u2019s people on the occasion of great deliverances, <\/span>by the signal destruction of some powerful enemy, are not uncommon. See Exod. 15:1\u201321<\/a>; Isaiah 25<\/a>, and 26:1\u20136<\/a>; also 14:3\u201317<\/a>; and Psalm 118<\/a>; and then all these are only t<\/span>ypically prophetic of that great occasion and that great day recorded in Rev. 19:1\u20136<\/a>.<\/p>\n

21<\/a>. The advice in this and in the following verses is admirable, but it is evident that the tongue of the speaker <\/span>is full of bitterness. The very exhortation,\u2014Get acquainted with God and be at peace<\/em>, implies that Job was as yet afar off<\/em> and a stranger<\/em> to God, and in a state of hostility towards him<\/em>; and the promi<\/span>se of prosperity which Eliphaz makes to Job, on the condition of compliance with the duties urged, is little better than a sly though determined maintenance of the old argument, which Job had so vigorously endeavour<\/span>ed to combat,\u2014that the wicked are dealt with in this life according to their misdeeds, and that the good are rewarded with prosperity.<\/p>\n

Get acquainted<\/em>. \u05d4\u05b7\u05e1\u05b0\u05db\u05b5\u05bc\u05df<\/span> (hasechen<\/span>) denotes that f<\/em><\/span>amiliar acquaintance which persons acquire by dwelling together in the same house<\/em>.<\/p>\n

And be at peace<\/em>. \u05d5\u05bc\u05e9\u05b0\u05c1\u05dc\u05b8\u05bd\u05dd<\/span> (oushelam<\/span>). I do not consider this second imperative to be promissive, as some take it; th<\/span>at is,\u2014Get acquainted with God, and so you shall enjoy his friendship<\/em>; the promise, rather, is contained, as is more natural, in the second hemistich. I take the imperative here then in a jussive and <\/span>at the same time a consequential sense; jussive\u2014and so the meaning is, be reconciled to God, be no longer in a state of war with Him<\/em>; and consequential, thus, Get acquainted with God<\/em>, and then the res<\/span>ult of that acquaintance will be, that you will also lay down the arms of rebellion, and will make peace with Him<\/em>\u2014if you really knew God, you would cease to count Him an enemy. This advice, I need not<\/span> say, is theologically correct; and I may just add this remark\u2014How often men are enemies together because they do not know one another! Enemies have before now, by living together, become fast friends; and it is, I think, to some such occurrence that Eliphaz is alluding in the text. His<\/span> meaning seems to be,\u2014You, Job, are full of hostility toward God; get that acquaintance with Him which one man gets with another by dwelling with him, and that hostility will cease.<\/span><\/p>\n

By these things,\u2014i.e.<\/em>, by acquaintance and reconciliation with God.<\/p>\n

Shall come unto thee<\/em>. \u05ea\u05b0\u05bc\u05d1\u05d5\u05b9\u05d0\u05b8\u05bd\u05ea\u05b0\u05da\u05b8<\/span> (tcvoathecha<\/span>). Some underst<\/span>and this as a noun, and translate it thy revenue<\/em>; in support of this it is urged that it is so treated in the ancient versions, and, moreover, has the authority of nineteen MSS. collated by De Rossi, <\/span>in which the reading is \u05ea\u05b0\u05bc\u05d1\u05d5\u05bc\u05d0\u05b7\u05ea\u05b0\u05da\u05b8<\/span> (tevouathcha<\/span>). There is, however, no reason for departing from the received reading, as there are not wanting instances (as has been shown by Rosenm\u00fcller and other<\/span>s) of a similar use of the paragogic \u05d4<\/span> (h<\/span>) in the third Pers. Fut. So Deut. 33:16<\/a>.<\/p>\n

22<\/a>. Receive, I pray thee, &c<\/em>. Of course implying that Job had done nothing of all this.<\/p>\n

Law<\/em>,\u2014as a guide to your princ<\/span>iples and conduct.<\/p>\n

23<\/a>. Unto<\/em>. \u201c\u05e2\u05b7\u05d3<\/span> (gnad<\/span>), pro \u05d0\u05b6\u05dc<\/span> (el<\/span>),\u201d says Rosenm\u00fcller; but I think not, else a beauty in the expression is lost; \u05d0\u05b6\u05dc<\/span> (el<\/span>) signifies direction towards<\/em> an object, whereas \u05e2\u05b7\u05d3<\/span> (gnad<\/span>) <\/span>means that the object is reached; quite up to<\/em> is, perhaps, the nearest sense we can give. This little word, therefore, implies that the return unto the Almighty which is here recommended must be no pa<\/span>rtial, but a thorough and sincere repentance; not one that would stop half way, but a return quite to God<\/em>.<\/p>\n

Thou shalt put away iniquity<\/em>. This is a second duty consequent on the performance of the form<\/span>er duty of repentance, and so far may be regarded in the light of a promise. The meaning is,\u2014If you truly repent, then you will also avoid all iniquity. Forsaking sin is ever a fruit of true repentance. This appears to me the genuine view of the text, and I do not <\/span>see the necessity of supplying \u05d0\u05b4\u05dd<\/span> (im<\/span>) from the first clause in the second.<\/p>\n

24<\/a>. The meaning of \u05d1\u05b6\u05bc\u05e6\u05b6\u05e8<\/span> (betser<\/span>), which I have translate<\/span>d balsam<\/em>, has been a grand difficulty, and at best can be only conjectural. I think, however, that I can bring more evidence in support of the rendering I have given to it than has been adduced in fav<\/span>or of any other hitherto proposed. Almost all translators and commentators are agreed that, as \u05d0\u05d5\u05b9\u05e4\u05b4\u05d9\u05e8<\/span> (ophir<\/span>) the corresponding word in the next hemistich signifies Ophir<\/span>, and so, poetically, gold of<\/em><\/span> Ophir<\/em>, therefore the meaning of \u05d1\u05b6\u05bc\u05e6\u05b6\u05e8<\/span> (betser<\/span>) must have some kind of reference to wealth<\/em>\u2014a meaning which is also very suitable to the only two other passages in which the word occurs, viz., the nex<\/span>t verse and ch. 36:19<\/a>. So far so good. But then most translators have jumped at the conclusion that the particular kind of wealth adverted to must be some precious metal, and the greater number of the<\/span>m seem to have determined that it must be gold<\/em>, though others are in favor of silver<\/em>; and all these have sought to extract these meanings from the root \u05d1\u05b8\u05bc\u05e6\u05b7\u05e8<\/span> (batsar<\/span>), which, as it means cutting out<\/em>,<\/span> they suppose may signify the cutting out of metals<\/em> from the earth. But this is manifestly unsatisfactory. Lee thinks that, as the root also refers to the gathering in of a vintage<\/em>, so it may have the<\/span> meaning of wealth<\/em> in general. But neither is this account of it so satisfactory as could be wished.<\/p>\n

I think there can be no question but that the word does mean wealth<\/em> of some sort or other. Both the<\/span> context, and the parallelism, and the two other passages in which the word occurs, require that it should have some such sense. But then it remains undetermined what species of wealth the word represents. It struck me, after some c<\/span>onsideration, that, as in the next hemistich, the corresponding word is the name of a place (Ophir<\/span>), and is poetically used here to signify an article of commerce for w<\/span>hich that place was celebrated, namely, gold<\/em>; so the word \u05d1\u05b6\u05bc\u05e6\u05b6\u05e8<\/span> (betser<\/span>) must also be the name of a place that was celebrated for some article of commerce, which formed an important staple of wealth;<\/em><\/span> and, indeed, if not actually a precious metal, yet at least of sufficient value to be classed with the precious metals; and that such article of commerce must be the meaning here intended<\/em>. It further<\/span> struck me that, as the scene of this book lies wholly in Arabia, and as I felt tolerably satisfied that Ophir<\/span> is in that country (see the Note on that word), not improbably \u05d1\u05b6\u05bc\u05e6\u05b6\u05e8<\/span> (Betser<\/span>) also must <\/span>be a town in Arabia. That there is a town of that name in Arabia I next learnt from Niebuhr, Forster, Bruce, Castell, &c.; and further, that it is the place most celebrated in all Arabia, and, indeed, in all the <\/span>world, for the production of the balsam shrub<\/em>. The name is generally written Beder<\/span> (\u0628\u062f\u0631<\/span>); but I must observe here, for the sake of the English reader, that \u05d3<\/span> (d<\/span>), \u05e6<\/span> (ts<\/span>), and \u05ea<\/span> (th<\/span>) being <\/span>cognate and interchangeable letters, Beder<\/span>, or Betser<\/span>, or Bether<\/span> are one and the same word. Beder<\/span> is situated a little inland on the coast of the Red Sea, not far from the port of Ianbo, and in the ne<\/span>ighbourhood of Medina and Tsafra. Niebuhr says of this locality, \u201cLa Montagne Safra est \u00e0 23\u00b0 27\u2019. On me parla aussi d\u2019une ville de ce nom, qu\u2019on disait \u00e0 deux ou trois journe\u00e9s du Golphe Arabique. J\u2019<\/em><\/span>appris en <\/em>Yemen, que le baume de la Mekke se recueille dans cette contre\u00e9<\/em>. Le Schcrif Eddr\u00ees nomme Tsafra<\/em> une rivi\u00e8re et un port. \u0628\u062f\u0631<\/span> Bedr<\/span>, ville avant dans les terres.\u201d Still more to the point, thoug<\/span>h without any reference to the present question, Mr. Forster (Geog. Arabia, i. 152) quotes the following from Burckhardt:\u2014\u201cSzafra and Beder are the only<\/em> places in the Hedjaz where the balsam of Mekka,<\/span> or balesan, can be procured in a pure state. The tree from which it is collected grows in the neighbouring mountains, but principally upon Djebel Sobh, and is called by the Arabs Beshem<\/span>. The Bedouins<\/span>, who bring it here, usually demand two or three dollars per pound for it when quite pure; and the Szafra Arabs resell it, to the Hadjys of the great caravan, at between eight and twelve dollars per pound, in an ad<\/span>ulterated state.\u201d<\/p>\n

The Hebrews call it \u05d1\u05b6\u05bc\u05e9\u05b6\u05c2\u05dd<\/span> (besem<\/span>), which identifies it with the beshem<\/em> of the Arabs. It was brought, in large quantities and of the best description, (not \u201cadulterate<\/span>d,\u201d as above,) by the Queen of Sheba or \u201cof the south\u201d (i.e.<\/em>, Yemen<\/span>), to King Solomon; and Josephus, in speaking of the circumstance, adds, \u201cThey say also that we possess the root of that balsam, whic<\/span>h our country still bears, by that woman\u2019s gift.\u201d (Joseph. Ant. viii. 6, 6<\/a>.) Some have thrown discredit on this remark of Josephus on the ground that Gilead was famous for its \u201cbalm\u201d long prior to thi<\/span>s period (Gen. 37:25<\/a>, and 43:11<\/a>); but the balm \u05e6\u05b3\u05e8\u05b4\u05d9<\/span> (tsori<\/span>) there spoken of, a species of turpentine<\/em>, must not be confounded with the \u05d1\u05b6\u05bc\u05e9\u05b6\u05c2\u05dd<\/span> (besem<\/span>) balsam:<\/span> the account of Josephus is, therefore, pr<\/span>obably correct. Pliny, as cited by Calmet, mentions its great value after it had become naturalized in Jud\u00e6a, \u201cit was so dear that it sold for double its weight in silver<\/em>.\u201d But the great value of this<\/span> article is sufficiently attested by the notice taken of it in the inspired narrative of the Queen of Sheba\u2019s visit. \u201cShe gave the king\u201d (we are told 1 Kings 10:10<\/a>) \u201can hundred and twenty talents of g<\/span>old, and of spices<\/em> (balsams<\/span>) very great store, and precious stones: there came no more such abundance of spices<\/em> (balsams<\/span>) as these which the Queen of Sheba gave to King Solomon.\u201d And in 2 Chron. 9:9<\/a>, <\/span>referring to the same event, we read, \u201cNeither was there any such spice<\/em> (balsam<\/span>) as the Queen of Sheba gave King Solomon.\u201d We further learn, that it was one of the most important articles of commerce <\/span>with Tyre, and that it was carried there by the merchants of Sheba<\/span> and of the neighbouring country of Raamah (see the map<\/a>) (Ezek. 27:22<\/a>): \u201cThe merchants of <\/em>Sheba<\/span> and Raamah they were thy merchants: th<\/em><\/span>ey occupied in thy fairs with chief of all spices<\/em> (balsams<\/span>), and with all precious stones, and gold.\u201d Now the Queen of Sheba and also those merchants of Sheba, would necessarily (in their journey from<\/span> El Yemen<\/span>, or \u201cthe south<\/em>\u201d of Arabia), pass through the mountain territory of Beder<\/span>, celebrated for its balsams; and there probably, they purchased this article, and added it to their other valuable co<\/span>mmodities of \u201cgold and precious stones,\u201d which they had already obtained from the more southern districts, and from Ophir and Segor. And further, that balsams were accounted so precious as to be laid <\/em><\/span>up in store with the most valuable treasures<\/em> is evident from 2 Chron. 32:27<\/a>: \u201cAnd Hezekiah had exceeding much riches and honour: and he made himself treasuries for silver, and for gold, and for precio<\/span>us stones, and for spices<\/em> (balsams<\/span>), and for shields, and for all manner of pleasant jewels.\u201d And again, from 2 Kings 20:13<\/a>, we learn that amongst the articles laid up by Hezekiah in \u201chis house of pre<\/span>cious things\u201d and amongst \u201chis treasures\u201d were \u201cspices\u201d (balsams<\/span>).<\/p>\n

But I have yet one more proof corroborative of the opinion I have advanced, that the Betser<\/span> of the text is the name of some place rem<\/span>arkable for some very valuable article of commerce, and that Beder<\/em>, a town and territory in Arabia famous as the<\/em> locality in all Arabia for the production of that celebrated and most precious article <\/span>of commerce\u2014balsam<\/span>, is the place which, of all others, supplies the desideratum. That place is, if I mistake not, mentioned in Scripture, and in very evident connexion with the balsams for which it is<\/span> so celebrated. The name Bether<\/span> occurs in Solomon\u2019s Song 2:17<\/a>:\u2014\u201cUntil the day break, and the shadows flee away, turn, my beloved, and be thou like a roe or young hart upon the mountains of Bether<\/em>.\u201d I <\/span>wish the reader to mark the words which are printed in italics, because they occur only once again in this Song, and there, with just the one little difference that explains the object of our search. In <\/span>8:14<\/a>, we read,\u2014\u201cMake haste, my beloved, and be thou like to a roe or to a young hart upon the mountains of spices<\/em> (balsams<\/span>).\u201d I think nothing can be more clear than the identity of the two places m<\/span>entioned in these verses; that, in fact, \u201cthe mountains of Bether<\/em>\u201d are \u201cthe mountains of balsams<\/em>.\u201d<\/p>\n

This discovery has led me to examine with some care the whole of the Song of Solomon, and I feel pers<\/span>uaded that both it and Psalm 45<\/a> refer to the Queen of Sheba\u2019s visit to Solomon\u2014an event spoken of as a most important one in his history, and very significantly alluded to by our Lord; and that, in th<\/span>at case, the Queen is a type of the Gentile Church. It would be too great a digression to advance here all the proofs which I see before me in favor of that opinion. I would just point to one or two of a general character. In both these Divine songs, and very repeatedly and strikingly so in the former, allusion is made to every species of precious aromatic plant, all<\/span> which are the productions of Arabia, and so, would point to one at least of the principal persons celebrated in those songs as being an Arabian. In the Psalm, \u201cthe Queen\u201d is represented as \u201cstanding in <\/span>gold of Ophir<\/em>,\u201d a place in A<\/span>rabia, and, as I think, in the neighbourhood of the Queen of Sheba\u2019s dominions. \u201cThe Queen\u201d is further described there as having \u201cher clothing of wrought gold,\u201d and as being \u201cbrought unto the King in raiment of need<\/span>lework.\u201d Now, compare this with a part of an inscription found in the very country of Sheba, and deciphered by Mr. Forster. It refers to the dress of the people who inhabited that region. \u201cWe walked, with slow, proud gait, in <\/span>needle-worked<\/em> many-coloured silk vestments, in whole silks, in grass-green chequered robes.\u201d In Solomon\u2019s Song, the heroine (if I may call her such) compares h<\/span>er swarthy<\/em> complexion to the tents of Kedar<\/span>. Now, Forster places Kedar near Beder<\/span>, (and indeed the old name is still preserved in the modern town of Khedheyre<\/span>, or (according to Walker\u2019s map) Kadireh<\/span>),<\/span> in fact, in the midst of the mountains around Bether, and in a position not far at least from the route, which the Queen of Sheba necessarily took, on her way to Jerusalem. But I forbear to lengthen th<\/span>ese remarks, as they are leading me too far from my main subject, to which I now return. I conclude, then,\u2014that, from the references and statements given above, we have abundant evidence to show that <\/span>balsam<\/span> was a most valuable article of commerce; and that it was counted sufficiently precious to be laid up by kings amongst their treasures, along with gold and precious stones; and also,\u2014that ther<\/span>e is one particular locality<\/em> in Arabia which, more than any other place (so far as we know) in the world, is renowned for the production of this shrub;\u2014that that place is called by the Arabs Beder<\/span>, or<\/span>, according to their pronunciation, Bether;<\/span>\u2014that in the Song of Solomon \u201cthe mountains of Bether<\/em>\u201d are evidently identical with \u201cthe mountains of balsams;\u201d and then,\u2014as we infer that the hitherto unkno<\/span>wn word in the text, Betser<\/span>, must be the name of some place famous for some valuable article of commerce, because the word Ophir<\/span>, which is parallel to it in the other hemistich, is the name of a place<\/span> famous for a valuable article of commerce; and yet further,\u2014as the letters \u05d3<\/span> (d<\/span>), \u05ea<\/span> (th<\/span>), and \u05e6<\/span> (ts<\/span>) are cognate and interchangeable, &c., so Beder<\/span>, Bether<\/span>, and Betser<\/span> are one and the same place,\u2014it <\/span>therefore follows, with no slight degree of probability, that the Betser<\/span> in the text is the market in Arabia, of that name, so celebrated for its balsams.<\/p>\n

Ay<\/span>, set, &c., on the dust,\u2014i.e.<\/em>, value these <\/span>things as little as the dust.<\/p>\n

Count, &c., as the rocks of torrents<\/em>,\u2014lit., put gold with; i.e.<\/em>, reckon it as with<\/em>, = esteem it as<\/em>. The verb \u05e9\u05b4\u05c1\u05d9\u05ea<\/span> (shith<\/span>), put<\/em>, or place<\/em>, occurs only in the first clause<\/span>; but as it has to be construed with a different preposition in both clauses, and as this slightly changes its meaning, I have translated it in the second, as well as in the first clause.<\/p>\n

This is an e<\/span>xhortation to Job to put aside that spirit of covetousness, with which Eliphaz thus tacitly charges him. Job disclaims this, probably alluding to this passage, in 31:24<\/a>.<\/p>\n

Ophir<\/span>. The name, but not the g<\/span>eographical position, of this place is well known; indeed, few places so famous have formed the subject of so much inquiry as to position as this. As a step towards its possible discovery, it may, with some certainty, be infe<\/span>rred that the locality bearing that name was originally settled by Ophir, one of the sons of Joktan, and the only individual mentioned in Scripture as bearing that name. Our first business, then, is to endeavour to ascertain in what country, and if it be a large one, more particularly in what part of that country, Ophir located himself. Now, as to the country of his residence, if we can find some particular country on the<\/span> face of the globe in which, almost unquestionably, his father and his twelve brothers were situated, we may determine, with almost an equal amount of certainty, that that also was the country of his adoption, if not of his birth. (See <\/span><\/span>Gen. 10:26\u201330<\/a>.)<\/p>\n

That his father Joktan settled in Arabia appears to be beyond all dispute. It is a fact universall<\/span>y acknowledged in the traditions of the Arabs, and traces of the name are abundantly observable both in the classical and modern nomenclature of tribes and districts in that country. Thus we have, in classical geography, in the south-western portion of the Peninsula, the Kata<\/span>beni, i.e.<\/em>, by transposition, the Beni Katan, or Beni Jaktan; and in the same locality, to this day, is the district of Kata<\/span>ba, i.e.<\/em>, Katabeni, by elision of the last syllable, and in about the same neighbourhood are found the Beni Kahtan tribe, and at no great distance from these is the town of Beishe, called also Beisath<\/span> Jektan.<\/p>\n

Almodad, the eldest son of Joktan, was probably the progenitor of the Almod\u00e6i or Allum\u00e6ot\u00e6 of Ptolemy, a people situated somewhat inland to the south of Bahrein on the Persian Gulf. The name <\/span>is, perhaps, still traceable in the Core Alladeid, and the Jibbel Alladeid, marked in Walker\u2019s map on that coast. The name of Sheleph, the next son of Joktan, is evidently traceable in the Salapeni, i<\/em><\/span>.e.<\/em>, Beni Salaph. These Bochart has placed somewhere midway between Bahrein and Mecca, but their exact locality cannot be determined. The next of Joktan\u2019s sons on the list in the Bible is Hazarmaveth,<\/span> or, as it might be pronounced, Hatsarmauth, or Hatharmauth, or Hadarmauth\u2014a name preserved most unquestionably in the Chatramot\u00e6, and Atramit\u00e6, and Adramit\u00e6 of classical geography, and in the Hadramau<\/span>t of the present day, an important and extensive territory on the southern coast of Arabia. The next in order of the Joktanites is Jerah, or, more properly, Jerakh\u2014a name retained in the Insula Jerac<\/span>h\u00e6orum of Ptolemy, and traceable in its modern name Serrane, in Serrain on the coast, and in the district Wady Shahran, a little in the interior, the addition of the n<\/span> at the end of the word being sim<\/span>ply the nunnation of Arabic pronunciation. Jerah appears to have moved, eventually, further to the southward into Yemen, whence he is called by the Arabs Abou Yemen, i.e<\/em>., Father of Yemen; his name is<\/span> traceable in the Beni Jerh\u00e4 or Serh\u00e4, and in Jerim, the capital of the district, as also in Hodsjerie, laid down both in Niebuhr\u2019s and in Walker\u2019s maps. Hadoram, the fifth son of Joktan, appears to h<\/span>ave fixed his residence at the eastern extremity of the Peninsula; his name is undoubtedly preserved in the Corodamum Promontorium of classical geography, which, by the elision of the Greek and Latin termination, becomes Corodam, and, by t<\/span>he transposition (which is so common) of two letters, r<\/span> and d<\/span>, becomes Codoram, and again, by the reduction of the hard initial sound into a softer sound (which <\/span>also is sufficiently common), becomes Hodoram. The first syllable of the name is retained in the name by which the promontory is at this day called\u2014Ras Had, whilst the rest of the word, doram<\/span>, is pres<\/span>erved in the name of a small bay immediately on the northern side of the Ras, and which is called Kore Djuram, or Cove of Doram. In looking for the settlements of Uzal, another of the sons of Joktan, <\/span>we must return to the southern extremity of the great Peninsula, and there, we recover the name, in the Ocelis of Ptolemy, an emporium situated immediately on the Straits, and still called Cella; and most particularly is it retained <\/span>in Ozal or Uzal, the ancient name of Sanaa. Diklah, another son of Joktan, has, perhaps, transmitted his name in the Dulkhelait\u00e6 (pronounced Duklaeit\u00e6), a people situa<\/span>ted between Sanaa and Mareb. The name of Obal, the next in order of the sons of Joktan, is discoverable in the Avalit\u00e6 of Ptolemy, or, as Pliny calls them, the Abalit\u00e6, a people who located themselves<\/span> immediately opposite some of their brethren, on the Ethiopian side of the Straits of Bab-el-Mandev; the people, perhaps, who now constitute the widespread Galla tribes. Abimael, another son of Joktan<\/span>, and whose name signifies \u201cFather of Mael,\u201d was evidently the father of a people called by Theophrastus the Mali, and by Ptolemy the Malich\u00e6. This latter appellation is manifestly still preserved in the name of the town wh<\/span>ich is called indifferently Malai or Kheyf; by uniting the two names, Malaikheyf, we recover the Malich\u00e6 of Ptolemy, with its additional syllable appended to the Mali of Theophrastus. <\/span>Sheba, another of the sons of Joktan, was unquestionably the founder of that kingdom in Yemen, or \u201cthe south,\u201d which was afterwards governed by the celebrated Queen of Sheba. His name was trans<\/span>mitted to the Sab\u00e6i of classical geography, and also preserved in the name of the capital city, which was, and is now, indifferently called Mareb or Saba. Passing by Ophir for the moment, we come to the consideration of the settlement of the next of his brothers, <\/span>Havilah, or more correctly, Khavilah, or Khawilah. We recover this name in the district near Sanaa marked as Kholan in Walker\u2019s map, and<\/span> called Chaulan by Niebuhr, also in the Kholan tribe, who are found much in that locality, and in the district of Khaulan, somewhat further to the north. The last son of Joktan was Jobab. Forster find<\/span>s, correctly enough, the descendants of this Patriarch in the Beni Jobub marked in Niebuhr\u2019s map of Yemen; but I cannot understand how he can, at the same time, agree with Bochart in identifying the Jobabites with <\/span>the Jobarites of Ptolemy, a people towards the Sachalites Sinus, and who are probably the Yabari of the present day.<\/p>\n

It might have been expected that the statement, Gen. 10:30<\/a> (\u201cand thei<\/span>r dwelling was from Mesha, as thou goest unto Sephar, a mount of the east\u201d), would have thrown some light upon the settlements of Joktan and his sons; but the position of these places is involved in much obscuri<\/span>ty. I cannot agree with Forster in his location of Mesha, nor with Bochart in the position he has assigned to Mount Sephar. The latter may, perhaps, be correct in supposing that Mesha is the ancient celebrated port of Musa, near the modern Mocha. (See also Niebuhr, vol. iii., p. 251.) And if so, I should be inclined to look for Mount Sephar somewhere at the eastern extremity of the Peninsula; and accordingly<\/span> we there find, as laid down in Niebuhr\u2019s map of Oman, the mountainous territory which terminates at Ras Mussendom, called Seer or Dsjulfar; the first name approximating in sound to Sephar, and the second appearing to be an abbreviation of Jibbel Sephar or Mount Sephar. The name may also still be traceable in Sohar, a town on the coast, and in Dooat Huffar and Jibbel Huffar, also on the coast, and in Chefari, which is inland in that same territory. This allocation of Mesha and of Mount Sephar respectively is what we might expect, if the settlements of Joktan and of his several sons were where we have sup<\/span>posed them to be. As that, however, is all that we can say about those two localities, of course they throw no additional light upon our subject; at the same time, we may, I think, be satisfied with the general correctness of the positions that have been assigned to the Joktanites; and if so, we find them located along the circumference of a circle, which stretches across the centre of Arabia from east to west, then extends along the whole of the coasts southward of that central line, and encloses within its circumference the vast desert of Al Akkaf.<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

Now if the<\/span>se several positions be the true locations of the father and brothers of Ophir, then certainly we may conclude that his place of settlement is to be looked for in the neighbourhood of one or the other<\/span> of theirs. On this ground, both Bochart and Forster are agreed that, at all events, the land called Ophir is to be looked for in Arabia. The former places it, without any authority, except that deduced from a most insufficient derivation, near Mount Gazuan; and the latter supposes it to have been in the northern part of<\/span> Oman, chiefly, because there is a place there called Ofor, and because, on the testimony of Pliny, there is gold on that coast. My objections to all this are,\u20141st. That the name Ofor is of very questionable authority; it may, or may not, be the Obri of Wellsted, and if it be the Afi of Niebuhr, this is a very considerable and unlikely deviation from the name. 2dly. That if it be thought necessary, that the site fixed upon as the position of the ancient Ophir must be a place abounding in gold (and this is very much t<\/span>he <\/span><\/span>ground upon which Forster looks for it in Oman), the same necessity demands that other products also, such as almug trees and precious stones, and all th<\/span>is in great abundance (1 Kings 10:11<\/a>), should be found there; and yet there is no evidence to show that Oman could furnish either the one or the other of these. 3dly. That if it be urged (and in which<\/span> I agree), that Ophir may have been an emporium on the Arabian coast, to which the articles above specified were brought from some other part of the world, then, the Ofor laid down in D\u2019Anville\u2019s map, in Oman, is too far inland to have been the ancient Ophir, his Ofor being at least a degree and a-half from the coast.<\/span><\/p>\n

Fairly, then, I think that it is open to us to look to some other part of the Ar<\/span>abian coast for Ophir. I say coast, because,\u2014unless we can find some inland district in Arabia abounding in gold, in almug trees (or at least in some wood sufficiently precious to be an article of merchandise, and that, to so distant a country as Palestine), and in precious stone<\/span>s,\u2014we must conclude that Ophir was a port and emporium, to which the riches of other parts of the world were conveyed, and from which they were transmitted, into and through Arabia, to other countries. The part of Arabia which would certainly, as far as we can conceive, be most favorable for commerce with the lands lying to the South and the further East, would be its southern coast, and we should therefore first look for Ophir in that direction. Now, about midway along the r<\/span>ange of that extensive coast we meet with the modern district and port of <\/span><\/span>Dofar<\/em>, which is almost precisely one of the names which the LXX. have put for Ophir\u2014\u03a3\u03c9\u03c6\u03b1\u03c1\u03ac<\/span> (Sophara<\/span>), the Arabic D often approaching, in its th<\/em> sound, to the sibilan<\/span>t sound of S. This part of Arabia was certainly famous in ancient times for its extensive trade with India. Curiously enough, Niebuhr, who arrived at the conclusion that Ophir was most probably a port somewhere between Ade<\/span>n and Dafar (as he spells it), and who surmises that probably some name resembling it might be found along that coast, if it were explored, does not appear to have thought of the resemblance, or, I might say, identity of form, existing between Dafar (more properly Dofar) and the <\/span>\u03a3\u03c9\u03c6\u03b1\u03c1\u03ac<\/span> of the LXX. He says (Vol. III., 253), \u201cJe n\u2019ai point trouv\u00e9 de nom ressemblant \u00e0 celui d\u2019O<\/span><\/span>phir<\/span>; mais je ne doute pas, que si quelqu\u2019un avait occasion de parcourir le pays depuis Aden<\/em> jusques \u00e0 Dafar<\/em>, comme j\u2019ai parcouru celui de l\u2019Im\u00e2m, il ne le trouve quelquepart. Ophir \u00e9tait vraisembleme<\/span>nt le principal port du Royaume des Sab\u00e9ens<\/em>, ct il \u00e9tait sans doute situ\u00e9 entrc Aden<\/em> et Dafar<\/em>, peut-\u00eatre meme \u00e9tait-ce le port que les Grecs appellent Cana<\/em>.\u201d His notion that the Mount Sephar of Genesi<\/span>s was not improbably situated at the port Dafar (Sephar \u00e9tait done suivant les apparences, le port Dafar, sur les bords de l\u2019oc\u00e9an), was perhaps the reason of his overlooking Dofar as being not improbably the site of the ancient Ophir.<\/span><\/p>\n

I consider it quite supposable, and indeed probable, that the descendants of Ophir, in the first instance settling at that part of the Arabian coast which I have sp<\/span>ecified, commenced their trade, with other and distant countries, by planting colonies of their own in those countries, and if, as is likely, they called these respective places by the name of their progenitor, then, there may have been other places, bearing the name of Ophir, besides that in Arabia. And one of these more distant ports may have been afterwards t<\/span>he destination of King Solomon\u2019s fleet, which sailed, on its three-year voyage, from Eziongeber <\/span>on the Elanitic branch of the Red Sea. Whether that Ophir was the region of the modern Sophala<\/em>, and Mount Fura<\/em>, near the Mozambique Channel,<\/span> in Africa; and whether Africa<\/em> itself may have derived its name from Ophir; or whether King Solomon\u2019s Ophir was in the Malacca\u2014the Aurea Chersonesus of the Greeks; or in Ceylon (so Bochart); or rather<\/span> (as I agree in thinking) in India, I cannot now stay to inquire; my object, in this note, having been to prove that the original settlement of Ophir, and probably the Ophir of which Job speaks, was situated in Arabia, and in the southern part of the Peninsula.<\/span><\/p>\n

25<\/a>. You shall have the true riches, even God as your portion; and his favor and lovingkindness will be to you better than all wealth.<\/p>\n

Heap<\/em><\/span>s<\/em>. This may, or may not be the meaning of \u05ea\u05bc\u05bd\u05d5\u05b9\u05e2\u05b8\u05e4\u05d5\u05b9\u05ea<\/span> (tognaphoth<\/span>); we may suppose, from Ps. 95:4<\/a>, where \u05ea\u05bc\u05bd\u05d5\u05b9\u05e2\u05b2\u05e4\u05d5\u05b9\u05ea \u05d4\u05b8\u05e8\u05b4\u05d9\u05dd<\/span> (tognephoth harim<\/span>) is opposed to \u05de\u05b6\u05d7\u05b0\u05e7\u05b0\u05e8\u05b5\u05d9 \u05d0\u05b6\u05e8\u05b6\u05e5<\/span> (mekhekerei erets<\/span>), that it<\/span> must have some such meaning as heights, piles, heaps, &c<\/em>., the root \u05d9\u05b8\u05e2\u05b7\u05e3<\/span> (yagnaph<\/span>), which furnishes the notion of fatigue, laboriousness, &c<\/em>., countenances this sense: others, however, extract the n<\/span>otion of wealth<\/em> out of the idea of labour<\/em>. Hahn takes the root \u05d9\u05b8\u05e2\u05b7\u05e3<\/span> (yagnaph<\/span>) as equivalent here to \u05d9\u05b8\u05e4\u05b7\u05e2<\/span> (yaphagn<\/span>), and so, translates the word strahlend<\/span> (shining<\/em>), and makes the passage, in Ps. 95:<\/span>4<\/a>, mean the shining peaks<\/em> (die Glanzpunkte<\/em>) of the mountains. On the whole, however, I prefer the first meaning.<\/p>\n

26<\/a>. A reason why God will be more valuable to you than all riches is because you will t<\/span>hen find your highest delight in him, &c. Compare Ps. 37:4<\/a>, and Isa. 58:14<\/a>.<\/p>\n

And shalt lift up thy face, &c<\/em>. With consciousness of rectitude, and so, with confidence. Compare 2 Sam. 2:22<\/a>, and Horace, \u201c<\/span>Nil conscire nefas, null\u00e2 pallescere culp\u00e2.\u201d<\/p>\n

27<\/a>. Entreat him<\/em>,\u2014more lit., petition him with incense<\/em>.<\/p>\n

And thou shalt pay thy vows,\u2014i.e., so that thou shalt pay, &c<\/em>. This is not so much an exhortation to<\/span> do so, as an intimation that he would be successful in obtaining his requests, and would thus be put under an obligation to the performance of what he had conditionally vowed. Compare Gen. 28:20\u201322<\/a>; <\/span>Ps. 50:14<\/a>, 15<\/a>; 56:12<\/a>, 13<\/a>; 116:12\u201314<\/a>; and Jonah 2:9<\/a>.<\/p>\n

28<\/a>. Thou shalt decide, and command<\/em>,\u2014lit., thou shalt decide a command; i.e<\/em>., thou shalt determine upon something, and then bid it be done; and it sh<\/span>all stand to thee, i.e<\/em>., it shall be done at thy bidding. This probably refers to the power which Job would be allowed, under the conditions specified, to exercise in prayer with God\u2014he would only hav<\/span>e to wish and speak, and his fiat would become fate. This is only a strong way of expressing how effectual is a righteous man\u2019s prayer, and perhaps is scarcely stronger than some of the promises made by our Lord on the subject. See <\/span>Matt. 18:18<\/a>, 19<\/a>; and John 14:13<\/a>.<\/p>\n

And light shall shine upon thy ways<\/em>;\u2014to direct, and also to prosper you in your undertakings. Your wishes will be according to God\u2019s wi<\/span>ll, and so, you shall have God\u2019s favor in the fulfilment of them. Job had complained of the contrary in 19:8<\/a>.<\/p>\n

29<\/a>. Eliphaz here supposes a case in point, in which Job might, under the circumstances all<\/span>uded to, command God in prayer, and that, with success. Not only would Job be enabled to pray effectually for himself, but he might successfully assume the higher and more noble office of acting as an<\/span> intercessor for others. When he saw men prostrate through adversity, it would be his pleasing task to petition God on their behalf; and that petition would not be in vain; the dejected would, at his request, become exalted.<\/span><\/p>\n

Command<\/em>. I take \u05d5\u05b7\u05ea\u05b9\u05bc\u05d0\u05de\u05b6\u05e8<\/span> (wattomer<\/span>) here in the same sense as \u05d0\u05b9\u05de\u05b6\u05e8<\/span> (omer<\/em>) in the previous verse.<\/p>\n

Exaltation<\/em>. \u05d2\u05b5\u05bc\u05d5\u05b8\u05d4<\/span> (gewah<\/span>), from the root \u05d2\u05b8\u05bc\u05d0\u05b8\u05d4<\/span> (gaah<\/span>), and therefore contr<\/span>acted from \u05d2\u05b7\u05bc\u05d0\u05b2\u05d5\u05b8\u05d4<\/span> (gaewah<\/span>).<\/p>\n

And God will save,\u2014i.e<\/em>., in answer to your prayers.<\/p>\n

The dejected<\/em>,\u2014lit., the downcast of eyes<\/em>.<\/p>\n

30<\/a>. Such will be the efficacy of your intercessions that God will, out of re<\/span>spect to your righteousness, deliver, even the unrighteous, from temporal calamities. This theology is certainly recognised in many parts of Scripture. Thus, the intercessions of a good man would have prevailed with God to spare Sodom, had only ten righteous persons been fo<\/span>und in it. (Gen. 18:23\u201332<\/a>.) Thus, also, Abraham interceded for Abimelech. (Gen. 20:7<\/a>, 17<\/a>.) So, again, at the end of this book,<\/span> we find Job interceding successfully for his friends, (42:7\u20139<\/a>.) Also, in Ezekiel, Job is alluded to as one who was a powerful intercessor. (14:14<\/a>.) Compare likewise Jer. 15:1<\/a>; James 5:14\u201316<\/a>; and 1 Jo<\/span>hn 5:16<\/a>.<\/p>\n

The word \u05d0\u05b4\u05d9<\/span> (i<\/span>) has been the occasion of much difficulty in this verse. Its usual meaning is island<\/em>, or, it might be, territory<\/em> in general. The objection, to taking it here in this sense, is<\/span>, that it would be inconsistent with the context, and also unmeaning; as, in that case, it would state no more than that, God is pleased to deliver the property of one innocent man, through the intercessions of another innocent man; whereas the point is, that an <\/span>innocent man may plead successfully for one who, not being so, is unable to plead for himself. Apart from this objection, there is ground for believing that <\/span>\u05d0\u05b4\u05d9<\/span> (i<\/span>) may be regarded as a negative, probably contracted from \u05d0\u05b5\u05d9\u05df<\/span> (sic in const. state) (ain<\/span>) not<\/em>. It is evidently so used in 1 Sam. 4:21<\/a>, where \u05d0\u05b4\u05d9\u05be\u05db\u05b8\u05bc\u05d1\u05d5\u05b9\u05d3<\/span> (i<\/span>–chavod<\/span>) means ing<\/em><\/span>lorious<\/em>. Its occurrence in this sense is frequent in the Ethiopic. The Chaldee paraphrase also takes this view of it; and the Rabbinic writers have frequently adopted this kind of use of it. Lee\u2019s ide<\/span>a, that the word here may mean quicunque<\/em>, usually pointed \u05d0\u05b7\u05d9<\/span> (ai<\/span>) and \u05d0\u05b5\u05d9<\/span> (ei<\/span>), and Dathe\u2019s conjecture, that the reading should be \u05d0\u05b4\u05d9\u05e9\u05c1<\/span> (ish<\/span>), are untenable; amongst other reasons, on account of the<\/span> objection stated at the commencement of this note.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\n

23 – 42<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

job 1 1. The land of Uz. (See Preliminary Dissertations, No. III.) His name was Job, \u05d0\u05b4\u05d9\u05b9\u05bc\u05d5\u05d1 (iyov); probably treated with enmity; from \u05d0\u05b8\u05d9\u05b7\u05d1 (ayav), to hate, to treat as an enemy, &c. Others understand it as meaning repenting, from the Arabic \u0627\u0627\u0628\u064e to turn back, whence \u0623\u064e\u0648\u0627\u064e\u0651\u0628\u064c may mean one who returns to God. … <\/p>\n

\u201eThe Book of Job\u201c <\/span>weiterlesen<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-162","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-allgemein"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/buch.jehovah-shammah.de\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/162","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"http:\/\/buch.jehovah-shammah.de\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"http:\/\/buch.jehovah-shammah.de\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/buch.jehovah-shammah.de\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/buch.jehovah-shammah.de\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=162"}],"version-history":[{"count":5,"href":"http:\/\/buch.jehovah-shammah.de\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/162\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":171,"href":"http:\/\/buch.jehovah-shammah.de\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/162\/revisions\/171"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/buch.jehovah-shammah.de\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=162"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/buch.jehovah-shammah.de\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=162"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/buch.jehovah-shammah.de\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=162"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}