{"id":169,"date":"2017-11-03T16:09:21","date_gmt":"2017-11-03T15:09:21","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/buch.jehovah-shammah.de\/?p=169"},"modified":"2017-11-04T14:24:17","modified_gmt":"2017-11-04T13:24:17","slug":"the-book-of-job-3","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/buch.jehovah-shammah.de\/index.php\/2017\/11\/03\/the-book-of-job-3\/","title":{"rendered":"The Book of Job"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n
\n

JOB 23<\/a><\/p>\n

2<\/a>. \u05de\u05b0\u05e8\u05b4\u05d9<\/span> (meri<\/span>). The ordinary meaning of this word is rebellion<\/em>, from the root \u05de\u05b8\u05e8\u05b8\u05d4<\/span> (marah<\/span>). Some, however, think that, in this instance, the sense requires that we should take \u05de\u05b8\u05e8\u05b8\u05d4<\/span> (marah<\/span>) as equivalent to \u05de\u05b8\u05e8\u05b7\u05e8<\/span> (marar<\/span>), to be bitter<\/em>. There is certainly a similar instance in 2 Kings 14:26<\/a>, where the form is \u05de\u05b9\u05e8\u05b6\u05d4<\/span> (moreh<\/span>), and must mean bitter<\/em>, and not rebellious<\/em>. Also the Vulgate and the Targum give this meaning; but I see no necessity for departing from the general acceptation of the word. Job tells his adversaries that he must still continue guilty of rebelliousness against God, inasmuch as, he felt impatient upon the subject of the vindication of his conduct. Job probably means that he had still ground for complaining, and that that complaining would no doubt, as before, be construed by his friends as an act of rebellion.<\/p>\n

To-day also,\u2014i.e.<\/em>, as well as on that former occasion (chap. 10:1<\/a>), when I said,\u2014I will give way to my plaint. I will speak in the bitterness of my soul.<\/p>\n

My stroke<\/em>,\u2014lit., my hand<\/em>; i.e.<\/em>, the hand that is upon me. Lee endeavours to prove, in a long note, that this must be understood in a literal sense,\u2014that Job\u2019s hand was heavy by reason of his disease. This view, however, is to my mind quite untenable.<\/p>\n

3<\/a>. \u05ea\u05b0\u05bc\u05db\u05d5\u05bc\u05e0\u05b8\u05d4<\/span> (techounah<\/span>), a prepared<\/em>, or fixed seat<\/em>, or throne<\/em>, or chair of state<\/em>, where God might be supposed, as a judge to administer justice, or as a king to give audience. (See the Illustrations<\/a>.)<\/p>\n

4<\/a>. Would draw up\u2014in order<\/em>. \u05e2\u05b8\u05e8\u05b7\u05da\u05b0<\/span> (gnarach<\/span>) has this meaning, first in a military, and then also in a forensic sense. So Psalm 50:21<\/a>.<\/p>\n

The cause<\/em>,\u2014more lit., judgment<\/em>; but here, the cause to be judged<\/em>.<\/p>\n

The meaning of the whole verse is,\u2014I would act like a man who is thoroughly convinced of the righteousness of his cause.<\/p>\n

The force of the paragogic \u05d4<\/span> (h<\/span>) is well expressed by would<\/em>; it indicates determined tendency<\/em> of the mind towards<\/em> an object.<\/p>\n

5<\/a>. Verse<\/em>. Communications from God to men in Old Testament times were usually in verse. See also Note on 4:2<\/span><\/a>.<\/p>\n

Would understand<\/em>. The paragogic \u05d4<\/span> (h<\/span>) shows that would<\/em> is still to be expressed here.<\/p>\n

The meaning of the verse is,\u2014I would then know what explanation God could give of the circumstances in which he has placed me.<\/p>\n

6<\/a>. Job here meets an objection, which might be urged, on the score of the apparent folly of his entering into a controversy with Almighty God. Do not think, however, says Job, that God would take advantage of his omnipotency against me; so far from his doing so, He (being such as He is, \u05d4\u05d5\u05bc\u05d0<\/span> hou<\/span>), would rather give me the power of standing before Him.<\/p>\n

After \u05d9\u05b8\u05e9\u05b4\u05c2\u05dd<\/span> (yasim<\/span>) some understand \u05dc\u05b4\u05d1\u05bc\u05d5\u05b9<\/span> (libbo<\/span>), or some such word, and take \u05d1\u05b4\u05bc\u05d9<\/span> (bi<\/span>) in the sense of \u05e2\u05b8\u05dc\u05b7\u05d9<\/span> (gnalai<\/span>): but I think, with others, that it is better to supply \u05db\u05b9\u05bc\u05d7\u05b7<\/span> (choakh<\/span>) from the previous clause.<\/p>\n

7<\/a>. My <\/em>judger<\/em>. \u05e9\u05b9\u05bd\u05c1\u05e4\u05b0\u05d8\u05b4\u05d9<\/span> (shopheti<\/span>). Man rather than God is here intended. If, however, it be the latter, the meaning is,\u2014God would completely acquit me; if the former,\u2014I should be delivered out of the hands of my friends, and especially of Eliphaz, who has so unwarrantably assumed the right of judging and condemning me.<\/p>\n

8<\/a>, 9<\/a>. East, west, north, south<\/em>,\u2014lit., forward, backward, the left hand, the right ha<\/em>nd<\/em>. The Orientals, in designating the cardinal points, stood with the face towards the sun-rising. As the European idea is rather that of facing the north, it is necessary in the translation to deviate slightly from the exactly literal rendering, else much of the beauty of the passage would be lost. Job intimates, that a man seeking for God would naturally think first of the quarter in which the sun rose, as the most likely for the purpose; he would next turn to the place of its setting; then, if God be not there, the bright northern sky,\u2014the treasure-house also of snow and hail, would lead him in that direction in quest of his object; and, lastly, he would try the south, though it is full of impenetrable difficulties.<\/p>\n

Behold, I go, &c., &c<\/em>.\u2014I desire to know where I may find God (ver. 3<\/a>), and go in search of Him, in every direction where there appears to be a prospect of finding Him; but, although everywhere I see manifestations of his Being, yet I cannot get any glimpse of his Person.<\/p>\n

He veileth the south<\/em>. The south, to the northern Arabian, was the quarter in which were interminable deserts of sand, and from whence came the fiery and pestilential simoom, and beyond which lay the vast expanse of unknown and, to him, perhaps, immeasurable ocean; added to which, the constellations which might be in the neighbourhood of the south pole were never seen, whilst those in the north were. Not unlikely, Job alludes here to this fact.<\/p>\n

Get sight<\/em>. \u05d7\u05b8\u05d6\u05b8\u05d4<\/span> (khazah<\/span>), to see<\/em>, is not improbably cognate with \u05d0\u05b8\u05d7\u05b7\u05d6<\/span> (akhaz<\/span>) to get hold of<\/em>, and if so, this relation is expressed in the translation I have given.<\/p>\n

10<\/a>. However<\/em>. Although I cannot find him.<\/p>\n

My way<\/em>. My temper, disposition, habits, and character in general. The literal expression is,\u2014the way with me<\/em>, and, indeed, this is common English phraseology.<\/p>\n

This verse is expressive of great confidence in himself. God (says Job) knows that I am genuine; He has put me to a severe test by these afflictions, but I can abide the test; and the result will be, that I shall be found true metal.<\/p>\n

It is a mistake to supply when<\/em> in the second clause; the original neither has it nor implies it; hence the true meaning of the verse has been misunderstood. The following verses show how great was Job\u2019s confidence in his own righteousness; not indeed in the sense of any sinless perfection, but of innocence with regard to those crimes, with which he had been specially charged by his friends, such as scepticism, general irreligiousness, injustice, &c., &c.<\/p>\n

11<\/a>. Hath held fast to<\/em>. \u05d0\u05b8\u05d7\u05b7\u05d6<\/span> (akhaz<\/span>), with \u05d1\u05b0\u05bc<\/span> (be<\/span>), gives the notion of firm hold<\/em>. The Oriental foot has a power of grasp and tenacity, because not shackled with shoes from early childhood, of which we can form but little idea. Barnes gives an apt quotation from Roberts\u2019 Oriental Illustrations on this subject.<\/p>\n

\u05d0\u05b8\u05bd\u05d8<\/span> (at<\/span>),\u2014Fut. Apoc. Hiph. from \u05e0\u05b8\u05d8\u05b8\u05d4<\/span> (natah<\/span>); the proper form is \u05d0\u05b7\u05d8<\/span> (at<\/span>), as in Hosea 11:4<\/a>, for \u05d0\u05b7\u05d8\u05b6\u05bc\u05d4<\/span> (atteh<\/span>).<\/p>\n

12<\/a>. There have been many variations in the rendering of this verse. The LXX. and Vulg. probably read \u05d1\u05b0\u05bc\u05d7\u05b5\u05e7\u05b4\u05d9<\/span> (bekheki<\/span>) instead of \u05de\u05b5\u05d7\u05bb\u05e7\u05b4\u05bc\u05d9<\/span> (mekhukki<\/span>), for the first translates it \u1f10\u03bd \u03ba\u03cc\u03bb\u03c0\u1ff3 \u03bc\u03bf\u03c5<\/span>, and the second, in sinu meo<\/em>. Expositors have generally connected \u05de<\/span>\u05b5\u05d7\u05bb\u05e7\u05b4\u05bc\u05d9<\/span> (mekhukki<\/span>) with \u05e6\u05b8\u05e4\u05b7\u05e0\u05b0\u05ea\u05b4\u05bc\u05d9<\/span> (tsaphanti<\/span>), and of these, some render it,\u2014I have treasured up, &c., &c., more than my own purpose<\/em>; others, as A.V., more than my necessary food<\/em>. The most obvious meaning appears to me to divide the verse into three clauses, and understand the two first, as an amplification of the last clause of the previous verse, thus:\u2014I have kept his way, = I have kept the com<\/em>mandment of his lips. And have not turned aside, = and have not gone back from my statute, i.e., from the statute prescribed for me.<\/em> The Syriac has, nec recessi a voluntate ejus<\/em>; they probably read \u05de\u05b5<\/span>\u05d7\u05bb\u05e7\u05b9\u05bc\u05d5<\/span> (mekhukko<\/span>), a reading supported by two of Kennicott\u2019s MSS.; but, as the noun with the pronominal suffix may be taken either actively or passively, it is not material to the sense which reading is adopted.<\/p>\n

13<\/a>. But, &c<\/em>. Notwithstanding that my general walk has been so correct, yet God has some object in view in thus dealing with me; and from that object, no power on earth can of course divert him. Job very properly traces up his afflictions to God\u2019s purpose and sovereign will.<\/p>\n

But he is on one thing, &c<\/em>. When God is set upon accomplishing a particular object, no one can turn him from that purpose.<\/p>\n

14<\/a>. What is appointed me<\/em>,\u2014lit., my appointment<\/em> or decree<\/em>.<\/p>\n

Many such things, &c<\/em>.\u2014Mine is by no means a solitary case; God always does what he wills, and does not always assign reasons for his conduct.<\/p>\n

Are usual with him<\/em>,\u2014lit., are with him<\/em>. But the full meaning is,\u2014are so associated with him, as to constitute part of his nature, or character, or ordinary mode of action.<\/p>\n

15<\/a>. Therefore<\/em>. Because his power is so infinite, and his will so sovereign.<\/p>\n

16<\/a>. Hath unnerved my heart<\/em>. This is Lee\u2019s translation, and it is a good one; literally it is, hath made soft my heart<\/em>, the meaning of which is, hath made me faint-hearted<\/em>; so it is used Isaiah 7:4<\/a>; Jeremiah 51:46<\/a>; and Deut. 20:3<\/a>.<\/p>\n

17<\/a>. What confounds me in considering God\u2019s dealings with me is, that He did not take away my life before these calamities came upon me, and that so, He did not prevent my having to endure them: it is, I know, his will, but it puzzles me.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n

 <\/p>\n

JOB 24<\/a><\/p>\n

1<\/a>. Get foresight<\/em>. The verb \u05d7\u05b8\u05d6\u05b8\u05d4<\/span> (khazah<\/span>) is evidently cognate with \u05d0\u05b8\u05d7\u05b7\u05d6<\/span> (akhaz<\/span>), hence I supply get<\/em>; it is also much used with particular reference to visions and revelations<\/em>, &c., and I thin<\/span>k it is to be understood in some such sense here.<\/p>\n

Times<\/em>,\u2014here mean the events and circumstances, &c., of times; and, his days<\/em> are God\u2019s days of retribution and judgment. The meaning of the verse is,\u2014S<\/span>ince God has a thorough prescience of all events, on what ground is it that he keeps his believing people in ignorance of the days of visitation of the wicked? This is not unlike Habakkuk\u2019s \u201cHow long?\u201d &c. (chap. <\/span>1:2<\/a>, &c.), and the Psalmist\u2019s stumbling-block in Ps. 73<\/a>.<\/p>\n

2<\/a>. Remove<\/em>. I was at first inclined to translate this word encroach upon<\/em>; but upon consideration I think that \u05e0\u05b8\u05e9\u05b7\u05c2\u05d2<\/span> (nasag<\/span>) is her<\/span>e used in the same sense as \u05e0\u05b8\u05e1\u05b7\u05d2<\/span> (nasag<\/span>) which, in the Hiphil, is often employed to express removing<\/em> landmarks.<\/p>\n

They plunder, &c<\/em>. This shows the height of daring crime. Not only do they commit the un<\/span>lawful violence of stealing a flock, but they afterwards shamelessly feed it in their own pastures.<\/p>\n

3<\/a>. Ass, ox<\/em>,\u2014either collectively for asses<\/em> and oxen<\/em>, or more probably, literally, to be understood in<\/span> the singular, as expressive of the poverty of the individuals referred to.<\/p>\n

They drive<\/em>,\u2014not, drive away<\/em>; but having taken it, they drive it, i.e.<\/em>, use it as though it were their own beast, just as, in<\/span> the verse before, they are said to pasture a flock.<\/p>\n

They cord<\/em>. \u05d9\u05b7\u05d7\u05b0\u05d1\u05b0\u05bc\u05dc\u05d5\u05bc<\/span> (yakhbelou<\/span>). This is generally translated \u201cthey pledge<\/em>.\u201d Lee\u2019s note on this word is so good that I take the liberty of transc<\/span>ribing it. \u201c1st. To take any pledge is very far short of the crimes here mentioned. 2d. We have no good grounds for supposing that any law ever existed against this in the East; certainly none is to b<\/span>e found in the Bible. It is forbidden indeed in Deut. 24:17<\/a> to take the widow\u2019s raiment to pledge; but this is a very different thing. The raiment was necessary for the preservation of the health and <\/span>life of the person. Not so the ox any more than other property which was allowed to be pledged. Besides it will be too much to suppose that a code so strict and particular as that of Moses actually existed among the Scenite Arabs at this day. 3d. The word <\/span>\u05d9\u05b7\u05d7\u05b0\u05d1\u05b0\u05bc\u05dc\u05d5\u05bc<\/span> (yakhbelou<\/span>) here used does not necessarily signify they take as a pledge<\/em>, &c. Dr. Bernstein has already remarked (Rosenm\u00fcller in loc.<\/span>) that the verb may here be denominative\u2014that is, formed from the noun \u05d7\u05b6\u05d1\u05b6\u05dc<\/span> (khevel<\/span>), a rope<\/em> or cord<\/em>; \u2026 to pledge<\/em> or take in pledge<\/em> is evidently a secondary sense, implying that the thing so given or<\/span> taken is under a bond.\u2026 If, therefore, we take the verb here in its primary sense, i.e.<\/em>, to bind<\/em> with a cord, reduce to bondage<\/em>, &c., we shall have a sense quite in unison with the context and most s<\/span>uitable perhaps to the times and circumstances here had in view. The Jews appear to have found some difficulty here, as in one of De Rossi\u2019s MSS. \u05d1\u05b6\u05bc\u05d2\u05b6\u05d3<\/span> (beged<\/span>) stands in the place of \u05e9\u05b9\u05c1\u05d5\u05e8<\/span> (shor<\/span>)\u2014an <\/span>evident attempt to make this place square with Deut. 24:17<\/a>, noticed above. The Syriac and Arabic of the Polyglott, too, have this reading, which I take to be a manufactured one, for the reasons just g<\/span>iven.\u201d<\/p>\n

The cording of the ox, here referred to, was probably with the view of taking it away; or it may have been done by these men for the purpose of branding it with their own mark, and so, apparent<\/span>ly, making it their own. There are not wanting illustrations, in ancient paintings, of both these particulars.<\/p>\n

4<\/a>. They turn the needy, &c<\/em>. By their violence and oppression they oblige the needy, who c<\/span>an make no resistance, to get out of their way.<\/p>\n

Must hide themselves<\/em>. This is the force of the Pual here.<\/p>\n

The meek<\/em>. \u05e2\u05b2\u05e0\u05b5\u05d9\u05b4\u05bc\u05d9<\/span> (egnniyei<\/span>) or \u05e2\u05b2\u05e0\u05b4\u05d5\u05b5\u05bc\u05d9<\/span> (egnnivei<\/span>). This is a very expressive word and of fr<\/span>equent occurrence in Scripture. It is used to distinguish that class of persons, who are poor<\/em> both in circumstances and in spirit, subdued<\/em> by oppression and also in their tempers, oppressed<\/em> and yet me<\/em><\/span>ek,\u2014quiet<\/em>, inoffensive, unresisting<\/em> men, and humble minded<\/em> as well as humbled<\/em> in circumstances; and hence, the notion of piety<\/em> is included in the expression. This class is generally spoken of in contr<\/span>ast with that other class who are tyrants, oppressors, godless men, &c. but men who prosper in the world\u2014the rich, the great, the proud, &c. Paley has well delineated these two classes; he says,\u2014\u201cThe truth is, there are two opposite descriptions of character under which man<\/span>kind may generally be classed. The one possesses vigour, firmness, resolution; is daring and active, quick in its sensibilities, jealous of its fame, eager in its attachments, inflexible in its purposes, violent in its resentments. The other, meek, yielding, complying, forgiving; not prompt to act, but willing to suffer; silent and gentle under rudeness and insult, suing for reconciliation where others would demand satisfaction, giving way to the pushes of impudence, co<\/span>nceding and indulgent to the prejudices, the wrong-headedness, the intractability of those with whom it has to deal. The former of these characters is and ever hath been the favorite of the world. It is the character of great men. There is a dignity in it which universally commands respect. The latter is poor-spirited, tame, and abject. Yet so it hath happened that with the founder of <\/span><\/span><\/span>Christianity this latter is the subject of his commendation, his<\/span> precepts, his example; and that the former is so in no part of its composition,\u201d &c., &c.<\/p>\n

5<\/a>. Another set of wild and lawless men, the Bedouin Arabs, are here spoken of. From their untameableness, unf<\/span>ettered freedom, and wilderness life, they are compared to wild asses. Perhaps Job here alludes to what Ishmael was named, \u05e4\u05b6\u05bc\u05e8\u05b6\u05d0 \u05d0\u05b8\u05d3\u05b8\u05dd<\/span> (per\u00e9 adam<\/span>), a wild ass-man<\/em>. Wild asses rejoice in desolate plac<\/em><\/span>es<\/em> (Isa. 32:14<\/a>); are daring<\/em> (Job 11:12<\/a>); delighting in the wilderness, and loving to range far and wide<\/em> (39:5\u20138<\/a>); and self-willed<\/em> (Jer. 2:24<\/a>). Nothing can better describe the character and pursuits of<\/span> the Bedouin Arabs.<\/p>\n

After the prey<\/em>. In search of caravans, that they may plunder them.<\/p>\n

The desert is bread<\/em>. Though in itself sterile, yet it becomes a means of subsistence to these marauders who live <\/span>by their robberies.<\/p>\n

To them<\/em>,\u2014lit., to him<\/em>; i.e.<\/em>, to each one of them.<\/p>\n

There are some expositors who understand this verse, of the meek mentioned in the previous verse, as though they were driven into <\/span>the wilderness to seek their food there, but the comparison to wild asses scarcely suits the character of such men.<\/p>\n

6<\/a>. In fields<\/em>,\u2014lit., in the field<\/em>; i.e.<\/em>, fields in general.<\/p>\n

Not their own<\/em>,\u2014lit., not <\/em><\/span>his own<\/em>; i.e.<\/em>, not belonging to any one of these depredators. The received text is \u05d1\u05b0\u05bc\u05dc\u05b4\u05d9\u05dc\u05b9\u05d5<\/span> (belilo<\/span>), his fodder<\/em>; but this gives an inadequate sense. It is evident that the ancient versions read this<\/span> as two words, \u05d1\u05b0\u05bc\u05dc\u05b4\u05d9\u05be\u05dc\u05b9\u05d5<\/span> (beli lo<\/span>), not his<\/em>; and although not supported by MS. authority, I think this reading so preferable that, after some consideration, I adopt it.<\/p>\n

Do they reap<\/em>,\u2014\u05d9\u05e7\u05e6\u05d9\u05e8\u05d5<\/span> (iktsirw<\/span>)<\/span>. If we follow the Kethib or written text, we must punctuate this word \u05d9\u05b7\u05e7\u05b0\u05e6\u05b4\u05d9\u05e8\u05d5\u05bc<\/span> (yaktsirou<\/span>); or if we adopt the Keri or marginal reading, we must read it \u05d9\u05b4\u05e7\u05b0\u05e6\u05b9\u05d5\u05e8\u05d5\u05bc<\/span> (iktsorou<\/span>). In the former case th<\/span>ere may be a slight change in the meaning,\u2014In fields not theirs they make [others] reap<\/em>, i.e.<\/em>, for them.<\/p>\n

And vineyards<\/em>,\u2014lit., a vineyard<\/em>; but vineyards in general are intended. The word does not signi<\/span>fy vintage<\/em>, a meaning which some attach to it.<\/p>\n

Wickedly<\/em>,\u2014lit., a wicked man<\/em>; here, each wicked one<\/em> of them<\/em>. An adverbial signification, however, may be given to the noun.<\/p>\n

They gather<\/em>. The word \u05d9\u05b0\u05dc\u05b7\u05e7\u05b0\u05bc<\/span><\/span>\u05e9\u05c1\u05d5\u05bc<\/span> (yelakkeshou<\/span>) has been the occasion of some difficulty, as it occurs only in this place, though of course the context decides what its general sense must be; and indeed the cognate \u05dc\u05b8\u05e7\u05b7\u05d8<\/span> (lakat<\/span>) <\/span>would help us to the meaning that is here required. But perhaps the nouns \u05de\u05b7\u05dc\u05b0\u05e7\u05b9\u05bc\u05d5\u05e9\u05c1<\/span> (malkosk<\/span>) latter-rain<\/span>, and \u05dc\u05b6\u05e7\u05b6\u05e9\u05c1<\/span> (lekesh<\/span>), a second and so a late crop of hay<\/em> (Amos 7:1<\/a>), assist us in ascertainin<\/span>g some yet more precise meaning of the verb in question, which may therefore be taken to refer to the ingathering of the later fruits<\/em>, and so, will refer to the vintage, rather than to the harvest.<\/p>\n

Th<\/span>e slothful servant in the parable (Matt. 25:24<\/a>) thought his lord to be somewhat such a character as is here represented:\u2014\u201cLord, I knew thee that thou art an hard man, reaping where thou hast not sown,<\/span> and gathering where thou hast not strawed.\u201d<\/p>\n

The cultivated fields and vineyards which these marauders strip are such as lie on the outskirts of the desert, or they are patches of tolerably fertile la<\/span>nd in the midst of it.<\/p>\n

7<\/a>. There are difficulties connected with this verse, arising from the uncertainty whether \u05d9\u05b8\u05dc\u05b4\u05d9\u05e0\u05d5\u05bc<\/span> (yalinon<\/span>) must be regarded as Kal, or whether it may be considered as Hiphil h<\/span>ere, the form in both cases being the same. Some consider that the sense requires the latter; but then it is doubtful whether another instance occurs in the Bible of its being used as a Hiphil. Jer. 4<\/span>:14<\/a>, Lev. 19:13<\/a>, and Deut. 21:23<\/a> are doubtful. If understood as a Kal (as it undoubtedly generally is), it will have an intransitive signification, and then the rendering will be either (as above), th<\/em><\/span>e naked spend the night without clothing<\/em>, or, naked they spend the night without clothing<\/em>. The first rendering describes the consequences of the lawless depredations of these robbers\u2014that persons stri<\/span>pped by them have not the means of protecting themselves against the inclemency of the weather; and so, the general meaning is after all much the same as if we take the verb in a causative sense, i.e<\/em>.<\/span>, they make the naked spend, &c<\/em>. The second rendering would be descriptive of the wild habits of these robbers, that literally like wild asses they are exposed to every weather, and are wholly unshelt<\/span>ered. The objection to this is, that, so far as we know, it is not true; and moreover, it would be contrary to the general tenor of Job\u2019s argument to describe these men as exposed to great privations.<\/span><\/p>\n

\u05db\u05b0\u05bc\u05e1\u05d5\u05bc\u05ea<\/span> (chesouth<\/span>) probably refers to the covering<\/em> of a tent; and so the clauses in this verse will be parallel with the respective clauses in the next.<\/p>\n

8<\/a>. These unfortunate creatures are probably tr<\/span>avellers whom the wild sons of the desert have plundered of their all.<\/p>\n

9<\/a>. Men pluck<\/em>. Another set of wicked men are here described.<\/p>\n

Tie a cord<\/em>. See the note on ver. 3<\/span><\/a>.<\/p>\n

On the meek<\/em>,\u2014\u05e2\u05b8\u05e0\u05b4\u05d9<\/span> (gnoni<\/span>). See t<\/span>he note on ver. 4<\/span><\/a>.<\/p>\n

\u05e9\u05b9\u05c1\u05d3<\/span> (shod<\/span>), more usually \u05e9\u05b7\u05c1\u05d3<\/span> (shad<\/span>), when signifying the breast<\/em>. It is, however, used with this meaning, and in the same form as in the text, in Isa. 60:16<\/a>.<\/p>\n

Job here gives a graph<\/span>ic description of some of the cruelties attendant upon the slave-trade,\u2014a nefarious transaction by no means modern.<\/p>\n

10<\/a>. In this and the next verse are described the cruel consequences of men being for<\/span>cibly stolen and carried away from their homes. They are made to serve with most relentless rigour. (See the Illustrations<\/a>.)<\/p>\n

\u05e2\u05b8\u05e8\u05b9\u05d5\u05dd<\/span> (gnarom<\/span>) naked<\/em>, being placed first in the sentence, is evidently the<\/span> same person, or class of persons, spoken of in the previous clause as the \u05e2\u05b8\u05e0\u05b4\u05d9<\/span> (gnoni<\/span>) the tame<\/em>.<\/p>\n

Naked do they go, &c<\/em>. Many prefer, with the Chaldee Par., to take \u05d4\u05b4\u05dc\u05b0\u05bc\u05db\u05d5\u05bc<\/span> (hillechou<\/span>) in a transitiv<\/span>e sense\u2014they make them to go<\/em>; but there is nothing to show that the Piel of \u05d4\u05b8\u05dc\u05b7\u05da\u05b0<\/span> (halach<\/span>) can have this signification. Certainly, out of the twenty-three cases of its occurrence in the Bible, there <\/span>is none, except perhaps Prov. 8:20<\/a> and the present passage, that in the slightest degree warrants such a signification being attached to it; and then, even in these two solitary instances, it is by no<\/span> means necessary that it should be so understood. This and the next verse are introduced very similarly to vers. 7<\/a> and 8<\/a>. In both cases certain results are described.<\/p>\n

Naked without clothing,\u2014i.e.<\/em>, sta<\/span>rk naked. No unreal picture of some of the evils of slavery.<\/p>\n

And famishing, &c<\/em>. This exaction of labour without remunerative wages is much condemned. See Lev. 19:13<\/a>; Deut. 24:14<\/a>, 15<\/a>; 25:4<\/a>; Jer. 22:13<\/a>;<\/span> James 5:4<\/a>.<\/p>\n

11<\/a>. Make oil<\/em>. There can be but little doubt that the verb \u05d9\u05b7\u05e6\u05b0\u05d4\u05b4\u05d9\u05e8\u05d5\u05bc<\/span> (yatshirou<\/span>) is a denom. of the noun \u05d9\u05b4\u05e6\u05b0\u05d4\u05b8\u05e8<\/span> (itshar<\/span>) oil<\/em>.<\/p>\n

Their walls<\/em>. The factories or the garden enclosures of these <\/span>cruel slaveholders.<\/p>\n

Tread wine-vats, and they thirst<\/em>. A high refinement of cruelty, though often practised more from thoughtlessness and avarice than from actual pleasure of inflicting suffering. (See<\/span> the Illustrations<\/a>.)<\/p>\n

12<\/a>. Job now proceeds to detail crimes committed in cities. One MS. reads \u05de\u05b5\u05ea\u05b4\u05d9\u05dd<\/span> (methim<\/span>) dead men<\/em>, instead of \u05de\u05b0\u05ea\u05b4\u05d9\u05dd<\/span> (m\u2019thim<\/span>); but the meaning sufficiently refutes that reading. U<\/span>mbreit evades the objection by translating, the dying<\/em>; but this is taking too great a freedom with tense.<\/p>\n

Doth not impute fault<\/em>. God, by allowing the guilty to escape with impunity, seems to take no n<\/span>otice of such crimes. \u05ea\u05b4\u05bc\u05e4\u05b0\u05dc\u05b8\u05d4<\/span> (tiphlah<\/span>) means, in the first instance, something that is insipid, unsavoury<\/em>, &c.; then, in a moral sense, it means defect, fault, delinquency<\/em>, &c., &c. So far from God\u2019<\/span>s regarding such atrocious crimes in the light they deserve, He acts as if He did not impute even slight blame to the perpetrators of these evils. This is the force of the passage, and it is by overlooking this that some have p<\/span>roposed to read \u05ea\u05b0\u05bc\u05e4\u05b4\u05dc\u05b8\u05bc\u05d4<\/span> (tephillah<\/span>) prayer<\/em>, instead of \u05ea\u05b4\u05bc\u05e4\u05b0\u05dc\u05b8\u05d4<\/span> (tiphlah<\/span>); but this is quite unnecessary, and weakens the sense; besides which, it would in that case be ne<\/span>cessary to supply \u05e2\u05b7\u05dc \u05dc\u05b4\u05d1\u05b9\u05bc\u05d5<\/span> (gnal libbo<\/span>) after \u05d9\u05b8\u05e9\u05b4\u05c2\u05d9\u05dd<\/span> (yasim<\/span>). The rendering in that case would be,\u2014Yet God doth not attend to<\/em> [their<\/em>] prayer<\/em>.<\/p>\n

13<\/a>. So John 3:20<\/a>.<\/p>\n

They,\u2014i.e.<\/em>, men who commit crimes in <\/span>cities. The word is emphatic in Hebrew, meaning these kind of men whom he is about to describe. Such men usually choose night-time as the season most suitable for their deeds of darkness; whereas those, of whom Job had already <\/span>spoken as marauders in the desert, he described as rising early in pursuit of their business. (ver. 5<\/a>.)<\/p>\n

They acknowledge not its ways<\/em>. They do not conform to the practices o<\/span>f men in general, who are wont to transact their business during the day-time, and not at night.<\/p>\n

14<\/a>. \u05dc\u05b8\u05d0\u05b9\u05d5\u05e8<\/span> (laor<\/span>). It is difficult to determine whether this does, or does not mean, at day-break<\/em>, or, <\/span>towards day-light<\/em>; for if such be its meaning, as seems probable, it apparently contradicts the statement in the former verse. I was at first disposed to conjecture that the original reading might hav<\/span>e been \u05dc\u05b9\u05d0 \u05d0\u05b9\u05d5\u05e8<\/span> (lo or<\/span>) [when it is<\/em>] not light<\/em>; but that would involve another difficulty, as the word in question is evidently put in antithesis with \u05dc\u05b8\u05d9\u05b0\u05dc\u05b8\u05d4<\/span> (loyelah<\/span>) night<\/em>. The best solution I can <\/span>propose is, that it sufficiently answers the requirement of ver. 13<\/a> to suppose that the murderer commits his deed of blood, not in the open day, but only at the very early dawn, when few, except those<\/span> who are his victims, are stirring.<\/p>\n

He slayeth the meek<\/em>, &c As to the class of persons here designated \u05e2\u05b8\u05e0\u05b4\u05d9<\/span> (gnoni<\/span>), see the note on ver. 4<\/span><\/a>. These inoffensive and needy persons are probably early abr<\/span>oad to labour for their hard-earned livelihood, and it is difficult to conceive what motive the murderer has for depriving such of their lives.<\/p>\n

He is altogether a thief<\/em>,\u2014lit., he is as the thief<\/em>; but <\/span>this may mean, according to the Hebrew idiom, he is quite the thief<\/em>; much, perhaps, as we might say, he is a regular thief<\/em>. Not professionally such, but such in fact.<\/p>\n

15<\/a>. So Prov. 7:8<\/a>, 9<\/a>. As the murde<\/span>rer selects the early dawn for his nefarious deeds, so the adulterer seems to prefer the evening twilight, that he may then commence his operations for the gratification of his lusts.<\/p>\n

A veil for the f<\/em><\/span>ace<\/em>. Not necessarily a mask<\/em>, as some understand it.<\/p>\n

16<\/a>. He burroweth<\/em>. This is understood by commentators to refer to a thief, but the transition in that case would be rather too abrupt. I refer it to <\/span>the adulterer who thus gets into the secluded houses or apartments where the Orientals, as is the case now, kept their wives. He probably breaks through the sun-dried brick walls of the outer enclosure, and thus gains admission into the apartments, where he is readily received. Compare St. Paul\u2019s expression, \u201c<\/span>who creep into houses<\/em>.\u201d<\/p>\n

They,\u2014i.e.<\/em>, the persons just referred to,\u2014the adulterer and the m<\/span>urderous thief. Compare the statements which follow with ver. 13<\/a>; indeed, the four clauses which follow are an amplification of that verse.<\/p>\n

They know not,\u2014i.e.<\/em>, they have nothing to do with, and they <\/span>hate.<\/p>\n

They keep themselves close<\/em>,\u2014lit., they set a seal upon themselves<\/em>, or, they seal themselves up<\/em>. A seal in early times was used as a lock.<\/p>\n

17<\/a>. For<\/em>,\u2014\u05db\u05b4\u05bc\u05d9<\/span> (chi<\/span>). So far from knowing or caring to ha<\/span>ve any intimacy with light, they dread lest the dawn should surprise them whilst still engaged in their nefarious practices.<\/p>\n

Yea, they recognise<\/em>,\u2014lit., he recogniseth, i.e.<\/em>, each one of them recognise<\/span>th. The meaning is, that the moment they see the first streak of daylight, they regard it in the same point of view as others would regard the darkness and the danger of night.<\/p>\n

18<\/a>. A most obscure vers<\/span>e. I think, however, the allusion is to pirates.<\/p>\n

Swift on the face of the waters<\/em>,\u2014the pirate.<\/p>\n

The portion, &c<\/em>. The pirate utterly despises the habits, &c., of landsmen.<\/p>\n

He turneth not to the way of or<\/em><\/span>chards<\/em>. This is the literal translation of this obscure clause, and the meaning seems to be that the pirate does not have recourse to the ordinary habits of other men, such as agricultural pursuits, &<\/span>c.<\/p>\n

\u05db\u05b0\u05bc\u05e8\u05b8\u05de\u05b4\u05d9\u05dd<\/span> (cheramim<\/span>). The meaning of this word is not to be limited to vineyards<\/em>, its ordinary signification; it rather means gardens, in which, together with vines, both olives, dates, and figs we<\/span>re extensively cultivated, as may be seen in ancient Egyptian paintings.<\/p>\n

I wonder much, that it appears to have escaped the notice of those expositors who have thought that the first clause of this ve<\/span>rse ought to have a meaning of comparison, and who have consequently supplied \u05db\u05b0\u05bc<\/span> (che<\/span>) as<\/em>, and have translated, either, he is as a swift thing on the face of the waters<\/em> or, he is swift as the waters<\/em>,<\/span> that,\u2014by dropping the Makkeph between \u05e2\u05b7\u05dc<\/span> (gnal<\/span>), and \u05e4\u05b0\u05bc\u05e0\u05b5\u05d9<\/span> (penei<\/span>), the rendering might be, he is swifter than the face of the waters<\/em>.<\/p>\n

19<\/a>. All such persons must die in the ordinary course of nature<\/span>; wicked as they are, and prosperous as they may be for a season, yet this cannot always last; as surely as snow-waters become absorbed by heat, so surely death sooner or later removes them from the scene of their sins.<\/span><\/p>\n

20<\/a>. It will be observed that I have disregarded the accents in my rendering of this verse.<\/p>\n

The womb<\/em>,\u2014that either of his mother or his wife.<\/p>\n

\u05de\u05b8\u05ea\u05b7\u05e7<\/span> (mathak<\/span>),\u2014sugere cum deliciis<\/em>.<\/p>\n

The<\/span> meaning of this verse seems to be,\u2014that each one of the wicked persons before described, such as the murderer, adulterer, &c., do, in the ordinary course of things, at last die, like all others; and so,<\/span> share the same fate as others, and are equally forgotten even by those who loved them most: their real worthlessness is soon seen in the fact that they are not remembered; and all their power of doing harm then becomes completely broken.<\/span><\/p>\n

I cannot agree with those who see, in all these expressions, circumstances rather consolatory than otherwise, respecting the deaths of the ungodly. These expo<\/span>sitors make the passage mean, that the wicked are gradually and quietly absorbed by death, and that they are then speedily forgotten, because they did not come to some disgraceful end, such as would have caused them to be remembered with dishonour; and that though they do get broken at last, it is only when they are old and decayed, like some aged and dry <\/span>tree that falls to the ground merely through natural decay.<\/span><\/p>\n

21<\/a>. The anomalous form \u05d9\u05b0\u05d9\u05b5\u05d8\u05b4\u05d9\u05d1<\/span> (yeyetiv<\/span>) has given much trouble to grammarians; it appears to me to be a kind of pielized Hiphil<\/span>, coined perhaps by the speaker at the time, in order<\/span> to give intensity to the idea intended. I have endeavoured to express this intensity by inserting the word over<\/em>. Perhaps the English, he is not the most kindest<\/em>, would express the meaning, though wit<\/span>h a similar anomaly to that in the Hebrew.<\/p>\n

The second of the clauses in this verse, I think, throws light upon and indeed explains the first; and the meaning is, that he to whom the duty of kinsman be<\/span>longs, refuses to marry the widow of the deceased relation: neglect of this duty was accounted a great sin; and the law respecting it was evidently established long prior to the time of Moses, as we find from the case of Judah\u2019s sons recorded in <\/span>Gen. 38<\/a>.<\/p>\n

\u05e8\u05b9\u05e2\u05b6\u05d4<\/span> (rogneh<\/span>) from \u05e8\u05b8\u05e2\u05b8\u05d4<\/span> (ragnah<\/span>) here evidently equivalent to its cognate \u05e8\u05b8\u05e2\u05b7\u05e2<\/span> (ragnagn<\/span>).<\/p>\n

22<\/a>. And another<\/em>. As Job is evidently describing vari<\/span>ous classes of lawless men, it is perhaps necessary in a translation to make the distinction clear by the insertion of some such word as another<\/em>; and accordingly I have done this throughout. The speak<\/span>er would sufficiently mark this distinction by tone of voice. It is in some instances marked in the Hebrew by change of tense.<\/p>\n

Hath drawn, &c<\/em>.,\u2014i.e.<\/em>, by his influence, wealth, power, &c., has obtained<\/span> that ascendancy over even great men, that he can play the cruel despot to any extent he pleases.<\/p>\n

None feeleth sure, &c<\/em>. Not one of the mighty men just alluded to, and over whom he has gained a comple<\/span>te ascendancy, can ever feel for a moment secure of his life. The capriciousness, with which a despot will strike off to-day the head of the man whom he loaded yesterday with his favors, seems to have been as much exercised in the age of Job, as it is at the present moment, wherev<\/span>er man wields unlimited power.<\/p>\n

\u05d7\u05b7\u05d9\u05b4\u05bc\u05d9\u05df<\/span> (khayin<\/span>),\u2014a Chaldee termination; the proper Hebrew termination being \u05dd<\/span>. \u05d7\u05b7\u05d9\u05b8\u05bc\u05d9\u05d5<\/span> <\/span>(khayaiw<\/span>) is the reading in one of Kennicott\u2019s MSS.; this, however, is evidently an emendation on the part of a recensor. The Chaldee plural termination is not uncommon.<\/p>\n

23<\/a>. Nobody else is secure but <\/span>this tyrant, and that by God\u2019s permission.<\/p>\n

\u05d9\u05b4\u05ea\u05b6\u05bc\u05df \u05dc\u05b9\u05d5 \u05dc\u05b8\u05d1\u05b6\u05d8\u05b7\u05d7<\/span> (itten lo lavetakh<\/span>),\u2014lit., some one<\/em> (i.e.<\/em>, God) gives to him<\/em> [whatever tends<\/em>] to security<\/em>.<\/p>\n

But His eyes, &c<\/em>. God seems to stand aloof, and<\/span>, because he does not punish, more or less to countenance iniquity; such however is not really the case, for he does take cognizance of the actions of these men. Job throughout this argument implies, that he for his part sees what <\/span>the prosperity of these men is worth\u2014at best they cannot keep it for ever: it may seem strange that they are allowed to prosper at all, but sooner or later death, that common leveller of all, terminates their earthly felicity: and so far, even without lifting up the veil of the future, it may be seen that God does bring a career of wickedness to an end.<\/span><\/p>\n

24<\/a>. The sense<\/span> will not be so good if, with some MSS., we read \u05d3\u05b9\u05d5\u05de\u05bc\u05d5\u05bc<\/span> (dommou<\/span>) they are silent<\/em>, instead of \u05e8\u05b9\u05de\u05bc\u05d5\u05bc<\/span> (rommou<\/span>) they are exalted<\/em>. This word Hahn takes as for \u05e8\u05b8\u05de\u05b9\u05de\u05d5\u05bc<\/span> (ramomou<\/span>) from \u05e8\u05b8\u05de\u05b9\u05dd<\/span> (ramom<\/span>).<\/p>\n

Are go<\/em><\/span>ne<\/em>,\u2014lit., are not<\/em>, or rather [each one of them], is not<\/em>.<\/p>\n

\u05d4\u05bb\u05de\u05b0\u05bc\u05db\u05d5\u05bc<\/span> (hummechou<\/span>),\u2014this has ordinarily been taken as Hophal of \u05de\u05b8\u05db\u05b7\u05da\u05b0<\/span> (machach<\/span>) for \u05d4\u05d5\u05bc\u05de\u05b7\u05db\u05bc\u05d5\u05bc<\/span> (houmacchou<\/span>); but as it is the regular Pual fo<\/span>rm of \u05d4\u05b8\u05de\u05b7\u05da\u05b0<\/span> (hamach<\/span>), and as there is such a word in the Arabic, and one which gives a suitable sense to the passage before us, I think with Lee we must prefer so to take it. Castell gives as its pri<\/span>mary meaning, instanter ursit<\/em>, and I have adopted Lee\u2019s translation of it.<\/p>\n

They get shut up<\/em>,\u2014\u05e7\u05b8\u05e4\u05b7\u05e5<\/span> (kaphats<\/span>) cramped up, cooped up, &c.<\/em>, and so, the allusion may be either to their being (as we might <\/span>say) boxed up in coffins or shut up in sepulchres.<\/p>\n

And like a topping ear of corn, &c.<\/em>,\u2014lit., and like a head<\/em> or chief of an ear of corn<\/em>. I think Job means, that although such men usually enjoy great <\/span>prosperity during life, yet they are more marked for death than others.<\/p>\n

\n

Job 25<\/a><\/p>\n

1<\/a>. \u201cUltimum hocce classicum (says Schultens), quod a parte triumvirorum sonuit, magis receptui canentis videtur, quam pr\u0153lium renovantis.\u201d<\/p>\n

Bildad, in his lame reply, evidently speaks, only beca<\/span>use he considers that silence would be an acknowledgment of his defeat; he has nothing to urge against the facts just produced by Job, and which prove, that in a general way men of the very worst characters are allowed all their life long to perpetrate t<\/span>heir misdeeds without any mark of God\u2019s displeasure; and that on the other hand meek-spirited men, who are the victims of these miscreants, are suffered to groan and languish throughout their existence without any notice being taken of it by God. Bildad, being unable to refute the argument of Job which is based on such notorious facts, contents himself with a few feeble remarks, in which nothing new is adduced, and which seem principally directed aga<\/span>inst the first part of Job\u2019s discourse,\u2014that part contained in the first twelve verses of ch. <\/span><\/span>23<\/a>, in which he reiterates his desire to bring his case directly before God\u2019s tribunal, and also persists in maintaining his innocency and the general rectitude of his conduct.<\/p>\n

2<\/a>. Dominion and awe, <\/em><\/span>&c<\/em>. God reigns in heaven in awful majesty and imperturbable serenity,\u2014think not then that he will allow his majesty to be invaded by such an one as yourself, or that he will permit the harmony of his <\/span>heavens to be disturbed by your rash clamours against his supposed injustice. Such I take to be Bildad\u2019s meaning; he refers, I think, to what Job had said particularly in ch. 23:3\u20135<\/a>.<\/p>\n

3<\/a>. His battalions<\/em><\/span>,\u2014either his angels, or his innumerable worlds\u2014often called \u201cthe host of heaven\u201d; the next clause seems to intimate that the latter are principally intended. How vain, then, to think of contending wit<\/span>h one whose power is so unlimited.<\/p>\n

His light<\/em>,\u2014probably his sun.<\/p>\n

Upon whom, &c., &c<\/em>. He is therefore cognizant of all that transpires in all parts of his dominions.<\/p>\n

4<\/a>. Compare 4:17<\/a>, 18<\/a>; also 14:4<\/a> (comp<\/span>ared with ver. 1<\/a>), and 15:15<\/a>.<\/p>\n

Bildad again cites this passage (often previously adduced) apparently because Job, in 23:11<\/a>, 12<\/a>, had persisted in maintaining his innocency; but he misinterprets, as inde<\/span>ed the others had done, Job\u2019s protestations of moral uprightness in general, as though they amounted to a declaration of sinless perfection.<\/p>\n

5<\/a>. \u05e2\u05b7\u05d3<\/span> (gnad<\/span>), even<\/em>,\u2014lit., up to<\/em>; the meaning here is, the <\/em><\/span>highest degree<\/em>, as it were, take the most extreme<\/em> case, the most unlikely supposition, &c., &c.; and hence \u05e2\u05b7\u05d3<\/span> (gnad<\/span>) has sometimes the sense of even<\/em>. The force is,\u2014if even a heavenly body be defectiv<\/span>e in brightness, how much more whatever is earthly only.<\/p>\n

It giveth no brightness<\/em>. Either, being in itself an opaque body, and so having only a borrowed light; or, its lustre, bright and silvery as it <\/span>is in the sight of man, is dim in the eyes of God; and so, the words in his sight<\/em> may be supplied from the next clause. The parallelism will not admit of translating \u05d9\u05b7\u05bd\u05d0\u05b2\u05d4\u05b4\u05d9\u05dc<\/span> (yaehil<\/span>) in the sense of<\/span> tabernacling<\/em>, which is its true sense, if taken as a denominative verb. One MS. in Kennicott\u2019s collection reads \u05d9\u05b8\u05d4\u05b5\u05dc<\/span> (yahel<\/span>), which of course gets over the difficulty; and, probably, this is the rea<\/span>son this one MS. has it so. We must suppose that \u05d0\u05b8\u05d4\u05b7\u05dc<\/span> may, in some instances, have had the same meaning as its cognate \u05d4\u05b8\u05dc\u05b7\u05dc<\/span> to shine<\/em>.<\/p>\n

6<\/a>. Take man either in his worst or in his best estate, in either<\/span> case, he is nothing but corruption; and Bildad implies that that corruption is moral as well as physical, the latter, in fact, a type and an argument of the former.<\/p>\n

\n

Job 26<\/a><\/p>\n

2<\/a>. How thou hast holpen, &c<\/em>. This is, of course, addressed to Bildad, the last speaker, and it is full of irony.\u2014What eminent service, to be sure, you have done me! I am a poor, feeble, ignoran<\/span>t creature, but, by your admirable arguments and wisdom, you have imparted to me strength, consolation, and instruction.<\/p>\n

Some understand this as meaning,\u2014What eminent service you, Bildad, have done to<\/span> your friends who stood in great need of this your efficient support! Others, again, suppose that the reference is to God, thus,\u2014How greatly God must be indebted to you, Bildad, for the powerful manne<\/span>r in which you have advocated his weak and tottering cause! It is, perhaps, immaterial which of these senses be adopted, though I rather incline to the first. At all events, either way, it is the language of triumph, on the part of Job, over his anta<\/span>gonist defeated in argument, and all but silenced.<\/p>\n

3<\/a>. \u05ea\u05bc\u05d5\u05bc\u05e9\u05b4\u05c1\u05d9\u05b8\u05bc\u05d4\u05b0<\/span> (toushiyah<\/span>), reality<\/em>. See Note on chap. 5:12<\/span><\/a>.<\/p>\n

4<\/a>. The same sarcasm is apparently con<\/span>tinued; the meaning appears to be,\u2014The person to whom you have delivered your sentiments is no other than poor ignorant Job; and the inspiration under which you have spoken is certainly that of the Almighty.<\/span><\/p>\n

Or, possibly, the meaning may be,\u2014Are you aware that you have advanced your sentiments before that God at whose majesty you ought to tremble, and that the inspiration that has prompted you is <\/span>only that of a mortal man? The former of these meanings, however, is more consonant with the context, for Bildad had not stated anything derogatory to the majesty of God. I am not sure, however, whether the meaning of the first clause may not simply be,\u2014<\/span>for whose behoof and benefit was your speech specially intended<\/em>? A doubtful compliment.<\/p>\n

5<\/a>. The reference to God, in the last clause of the previou<\/span>s verse, at once leads Job to dilate, far more magnificently than Bildad had done, upon his majesty and greatness.<\/p>\n

\u05e8\u05b0\u05e4\u05b8\u05d0\u05b4\u05d9\u05dd<\/span> (rephaim<\/span>) shades of the dead<\/em>. Lee, in an elaborate note, endeavours to prove<\/span> that these Rephaim<\/span> are really the people of that name, and that they were the inhabitants of the great valley in which were situated Sodom and Gomorrah, and which was afterwards converted into the De<\/span>ad or Salt Sea; but the sense he makes out of it is meagre in the extreme:\u2014\u201cCan the Rephaim or their neighbours wound from beneath the waters<\/em>?\u201d<\/p>\n

It is, I think, certain, from the following passages, th<\/span>at this word must mean dead persons<\/em>:\u2014Ps. 88:11<\/a> (Heb. Bible); Prov. 2:18<\/a>; Isa. 14:9<\/a>; 26:14<\/a>, 19<\/a>. In three of these passages the corresponding word in the parallelism is \u05de\u05b5\u05ea\u05b4\u05d9\u05dd<\/span> (methim<\/span>) dead persons<\/em>; and<\/span> in one of them it is \u05de\u05b8\u05d5\u05b6\u05ea<\/span> (maweth<\/span>) death<\/em>; in another of them the locality where these \u05e8\u05b0\u05e4\u05b8\u05d0\u05b4\u05d9\u05dd<\/span> (rephaim<\/span>) are said to be is called \u05e2\u05b4\u05de\u05b0\u05e7\u05b5\u05d9 \u05e9\u05b0\u05c1\u05d0\u05b9\u05d5\u05dc<\/span> (gnimkei sheol<\/span>) the depths of Hades<\/em>, or of the grave<\/em><\/span>; and in another simply \u05e9\u05b0\u05c1\u05d0\u05b9\u05d5\u05dc<\/span> (sheol<\/em>). As \u05e8\u05b9\u05e4\u05b0\u05d0\u05b4\u05d9\u05dd<\/span> (ropheim<\/span>) mean the embalmers<\/em> of dead bodies, so, probably, \u05e8\u05b0\u05e4\u05b8\u05d0\u05b4\u05d9\u05dd<\/span> (rephaim<\/span>) meant in the first instance bodies so embalmed<\/em>, such as we know by th<\/span>e name of mummies<\/em>, and then came to signify any dead person<\/em> indiscriminately. It would seem to apply more generally to the wicked dead; not unlikely Job is referring here to those who perished in the <\/span>deluge, and whom St. Peter calls \u201cthe spirits in prison.\u201d<\/p>\n

Bildad had spoken of God\u2019s dominion in the heavens; Job shows it to be much more extended, even to Hades, Hell, &c., &c. So in Psalm 135:6<\/a>, Go<\/span>d is said to do what he pleases in heaven and in earth, in the sea and in all deep places<\/em>.<\/p>\n

The places beneath the waters,\u2014i.e.<\/em>, probably the place of departed spirits; called by St. Paul \u201cthe lower pa<\/span>rts of the earth.\u201d<\/p>\n

They that dwell there<\/em>,\u2014departed spirits; the wicked dead are especially intended. Job seems to show here, that however much the ungodly may in this life have prospered and sinned wi<\/span>th impunity, yet there is another world where God\u2019s sovereignty is felt and acknowledged, and where beings tremble.<\/p>\n

6<\/a>. \u05e9\u05b0\u05c1\u05d0\u05b9\u05d5\u05dc<\/span> (sheol<\/em>) hell<\/em>. This word, for the most part and primarily, signifies the g<\/em><\/span>rave<\/em>, and then the place of departed spirits<\/em>. Nothing respecting the nature of that latter place is revealed, so far as we know; but it would appear that the ancient patriarchs and the Hebrews formed <\/span>their notions of it very much according to the character of their burial places; hence they usually represent it as a subterranean cavern with chambers, and also with bars and gates, and a place of darkness; there the pious were supposed to lie down in a state of rest and expectation of their future happy renovation (<\/span>Job 14:13\u201315<\/a>; 17:15<\/a>, 16<\/a>); and there the wicked were punished. (Psalm 49:14<\/a>; 9:17<\/a>;<\/span> Prov. 23:14<\/a>.)<\/p>\n

That \u05e9\u05b0\u05c1\u05d0\u05b9\u05d5\u05dc<\/span> (sheol<\/em>) was the place of departed souls<\/em> we learn from Psalm 16:10<\/a>, and Isaiah 14:9\u201311<\/a>; that it was the locality where the \u05e8\u05b0\u05e4\u05b8\u05d0\u05b4\u05d9\u05dd<\/span> (rephaim<\/span>) (shades of the dead<\/em>) and \u05de\u05b5\u05ea\u05b4\u05d9\u05dd<\/span><\/span> (methim<\/span>) (the dead<\/em>) dwelt, we learn from the present context (see note on previous verse) and many other passages. It was at the most extreme distance from heaven (Psalm 139:8<\/a>; Amos 9:2<\/a>); was a prope<\/span>r abode for the wicked (Psalm 55:15<\/a>), and, as such, a place of great misery and darkness, and where God\u2019s wrath was felt (Psalm 88:4\u20137<\/a>); equivalent to destruction (so in the present passage, also in P<\/span>rov. 15:11<\/a>; 27:20<\/a>); represented as the chambers of death (Prov. 7:27<\/a>), and with a yawning mouth (Isaiah, 5:14<\/a>; Prov. 27:20<\/a>); very deep (Job 11:8<\/a>), situated in the nether parts of the earth (Ezek. 31:1<\/span>5\u201317<\/a>); and shut in by gates (Isaiah 38:10<\/a>).<\/p>\n

\u05d0\u05b2\u05d1\u05b7\u05d3\u05b9\u05bc\u05d5\u05df<\/span> (Avaddon<\/span>), perdition<\/em>. See Rev. 9:11<\/a>, \u201cAnd they had a king over them, which is the angel of the bottomless pit, whose name in the Hebrew tongue is <\/span>Abaddon, but in the Greek tongue hath his name Apollyon.\u201d<\/p>\n

7<\/a>. He spreadeth, &c<\/em>. \u05e0\u05b9\u05d8\u05b6\u05d4<\/span> (noteh<\/span>), a word generally applied to the heavens, and so, we may reasonably infer that, by the north<\/em> here, Job mean<\/span>s the northern portion of the heavens, which appears as the centre of the vast canopy, which God has spread like a tent over our heads.<\/p>\n

Over the void<\/em>,\u2014with nothing but his continued power to sustain t<\/span>his canopy. The continuance<\/em> of power is expressed by the present participle; it is not, he hath<\/em> spread, but he spreadeth<\/span>, a continuous act.<\/p>\n

Suspendeth, &c<\/em>. Compare with this the similar views of heath<\/span>en authors many hundreds of years afterwards:\u2014<\/p>\n

\u201cHanc, veteres Grajum docti cecinere po\u00ebt\u00e6<\/p>\n

A\u00ebris in spatio magnam pendere\u2014<\/p>\n

Tellurem, neque posse in terr\u00e2 sistere terram.\u201d<\/p>\n

Lucretius.<\/p>\n

Ovid also:\u2014<\/p>\n

\u201cPonder<\/span>ibus librata suis.\u201d<\/p>\n

\u05d1\u05b0\u05bc\u05dc\u05b4\u05d9\u05de\u05b8\u05d4<\/span> (belimah<\/span>), a compound of \u05d1\u05b0\u05bc\u05dc\u05b4\u05d9<\/span> (beli<\/span>), and \u05de\u05b8\u05d4<\/span> (mah<\/span>), nothing of any kind whatever<\/em>.<\/p>\n

8<\/a>. \u05e6\u05b9\u05bd\u05e8\u05b5\u05e8<\/span> (tsorer<\/span>) tieth up<\/em>, as in a bag or skin-bottle.<\/p>\n

His clouds<\/em>. Emphatically his<\/em><\/span>, he being the creator of them, and making what use of them he pleases.<\/p>\n

And the cloud is not rent, &c<\/em>. A waterspout would, perhaps, be an exception to this general rule.<\/p>\n

9<\/a>. \u05db\u05b4\u05bc\u05e1\u05b5\u05bc\u05d4<\/span> (chisseh<\/span>), or \u05db\u05b4\u05bc\u05e1\u05b5<\/span><\/span>\u05bc\u05d0<\/span> (chisse<\/span>) (so 1 Kings 10:19<\/a>); generally throne<\/em>; but I take canopy<\/em> to have been its original meaning, as the roots \u05db\u05b8\u05bc\u05e1\u05b8\u05d0\u05b5<\/span> (chasah<\/span>). and \u05db\u05b8\u05bc\u05e1\u05b8\u05d4<\/span> (chasa<\/span>), and the sense in which it is used here, imply.<\/span> We have the face of the canopy<\/em>, or the blue ethereal sky, placed here in apposition with the face of the waters in the next verse<\/em>.<\/p>\n

10<\/a>. Up to the confines of, &c<\/em>. The horizon where light and darkness <\/span>appear to meet, all that is above being apparently the region of light, all that is below the region of darkness. Barnes has a good quotation from Milton on this verse:\u2014<\/p>\n

\u201cThen staid the fervid wheels,<\/span> and in his hand<\/p>\n

He took the golden compasses, prepared<\/p>\n

In God\u2019s eternal store, to circumscribe<\/p>\n

This universe, and all created things:<\/p>\n

One foot he centred, and the other turned<\/p>\n

Round through the vast <\/span>profundity obscure;<\/p>\n

And said, Thus far extend thy bounds,<\/p>\n

This be thy just circumference, O world.\u201d<\/p>\n

Paradise Lost<\/em>, Book vii.<\/p>\n

11<\/a>. \u05d9\u05b0\u05e8\u05b9\u05d5\u05e4\u05b0\u05e4\u05d5\u05bc<\/span> (yerophephou<\/span>) vibrate<\/em>. This seems to me the correct meaning <\/span>of the word. As applied to the eyes, in Chaldee it means to wink<\/em> or twinkle<\/em>; and to the wings of birds, to flutter<\/em> (see Buxtorf on \u05e8\u05e4\u05e3<\/span> rphph<\/span>); the latter signification is that in which it is particula<\/span>rly used in Arabic. (See Castell also on \u05e8\u05e4\u05e3<\/span> rphph<\/span>.)<\/p>\n

Pillars of heaven<\/em>. By these, no doubt, are to be understood high mountains rather than clouds. We have a similar passage in Nahum 1:5<\/a>; also in Hab.<\/span> 3:10<\/a>, where mountains are specified. Volcanic action is probably referred to.<\/p>\n

12<\/a>. He stilleth<\/em>. After some consideration I have no hesitation in adopting this meaning for \u05e8\u05b8\u05d2\u05b7\u05e2<\/span> (ragagn<\/span>), and I conside<\/span>r that it should be so translated in Isaiah 51:15<\/a>, and Jer. 31:35<\/a> (it is strange that Rosenm\u00fcller should not have seen that the \u05d5<\/span> (w<\/span>) in these passages may mean when<\/em>, and not necessarily and<\/em>). The LXX<\/span>. here have \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03ad\u03c0\u03b1\u03c5\u03c3\u03b5<\/span>. There is no question that this is invariably the sense of the word in its Hiphil form. The various meanings which have been assigned to it of dividing<\/em> and agitating<\/em> are wanting<\/span> in authority, except by having recourse to the transposition of letters. In the Arabic, the general meaning of the word appears to be bringing back to a former position<\/em>, and in some special instances<\/span> signifies water checked in its flow and becoming stagnant<\/em>. The Ethiopic also gives much the same sense\u2014congealing<\/em>, also coagulating as milk<\/em>.<\/p>\n

\u05de\u05b8\u05d7\u05b7\u05e5<\/span> (makhats<\/span>), ordinarily to strike<\/em>, or smite through<\/em>, b<\/span>ut I take its first meaning to be, from the Arabic, concussit terram pede suo, i.e., stamped<\/em>, and also agitavit lac vel utrem butyri cogendi ergo, i.e., shook about the milk or the skin<\/em> (in which it w<\/span>as) with a view to make butter of it<\/em>. Now I think that a modern Arabic practice throws very considerable light upon this verse, which has been misunderstood. Harmer, in his Illustrations, tells us in <\/span>a passage, the first part of which is quoted from Shaw, that,\u2014\u201cthe Eastern way of churning is done by putting the cream into a goat\u2019s skin turned inside out, which the Arabs suspend in their tents; and then, pressing it to and fro in one uniform direction, quickly occasions a separation of the unctuous from the wheyey part. But there is another way of churning i<\/span>n the Levant, which is, by a man\u2019s t<\/em><\/span>reading upon the skin<\/em>, which answers the same purpose.\u201d I consider that \u05de\u05b8\u05d7\u05b7\u05e5<\/span> (makhats<\/span>) is used in this sense of stamping<\/em>; in Psalm 68:24<\/a> (Heb. Bible), that thou mayest stamp thy foot in <\/em>blood<\/em>, &c., w<\/span>ith which compare Psalm 58:10<\/a>, he shall wash his feet in the blood of the wicked<\/em>; and so, compare Job 29:6<\/a>, when I washed my steps in butter<\/em>, with the present passage.<\/p>\n

I understand both clauses to ref<\/span>er to the same thing\u2014namely, the repression of the sea when it is in a state of agitation; and it will be observed that an elegant parallelism thus exists between the verbs in the two clauses. God is represented here, as bringing th<\/span>e agitated sea into a state of apparent coagulation, by stamping upon its proud waves, with the same ease that a man, by stamping upon a skin of milk, soon reduces the liquid and agitated mass to a state of consistency and actual coagulation.<\/span><\/p>\n

By his knowledge<\/em>. God knows how<\/em> to still the raging sea, just as a man knows how<\/em> to make milk coagulate.<\/p>\n

13<\/a>. He brighteneth, <\/em><\/span>&c.,\u2014i.e.<\/em>, by his wind He clears the heavens of clouds and mist, just as in the verse before God is described as lulling tempests at sea. \u05e9\u05b4\u05c1\u05e4\u05b0\u05e8\u05b8\u05d4<\/span> (shipherah<\/span>) has many difficulties, but the most reaso<\/span>nable supposition is, that the word is third pers. pret. Pihel, without the dagesh, as \u05e9\u05b4\u05c1\u05dc\u05b0\u05d7\u05b8\u05d4<\/span> (shilekhah<\/span>) in Ezek. 17:7<\/a>, and 31:4<\/a>; and that \u05d4<\/span> (h<\/span>) is paragogic. If we take it as a feminine, and make <\/span>\u05e8\u05d5\u05bc\u05d7\u05b7<\/span> (rouakh<\/span>), or \u05d9\u05b8\u05d3\u05b9\u05d5<\/span> in the next clause, the nominative, then the construction becomes clumsy; or if \u05e9\u05b4\u05c1\u05e4\u05b0\u05e8\u05b8\u05d4<\/span> (shipherah<\/span>) be construed as a noun, the parallelism is destroyed.<\/p>\n

His hand woundeth th<\/em><\/span>e fleeing serpent<\/em>. The serpent<\/em> is evidently the constellation of that name; and the meaning of the clause is,\u2014God has fixed that constellation in the heavens<\/em>. This is elegantly and poetically expresse<\/span>d in the passage before us, by the supposition that this gliding serpent in the heavens is endeavouring to make its escape, but that God wounds it, and so arrests it in its flight; and that although it is constantly gliding round the axis, yet<\/span> it cannot get beyond the bounds where God has transfixed it. There is, without doubt, I think, allusion here to the occurrence in Gen. 3:14<\/a>, 15<\/a>, where God d<\/span>ooms the serpent, and did probably then and there literally wound him, so striking him, as to cause him from that day forward to crawl on his belly. It may be, further, that this serpent was endeavouring to make h<\/span>is escape when he was thus suddenly arrested in his flight. We may certainly trace, in that occurrence, the origin of the fables of the Greeks and Latins respecting this remarkable constellation. They supposed it to be the famous dragon which guarded the apples in the garden of the Hesperides, and which, having been slain by Hercules, was placed amongst the heavenly constellations by Juno, who, to prevent the <\/span>daughters of Atlas from gathering the apples of gold which grew on a tree which she had planted in the said garden, had herself appointed this dragon as the guardian of the fruit. The constellation Hercules represents that hero engaged in conflict with the dragon: resting on his left knee, he wields a formidable club, and his right foot rests immediately on the head of the writhing monster. (See the <\/span><\/span><\/span>Illustrations<\/a>.) The correspondence of the fable with the fact from which it was originally derived is sufficiently obvious. The garden of the Hesperides is the garden of E<\/span>den; the tree with golden apples, planted by the Goddess Juno in the garden, is the tree of the knowledge of good and evil planted by God in the midst of the garden of Eden; the daughters of Atlas who plucked the fruit are Eve; the dragon is the serpent, Satan\u2019s agent in the temptation; and Hercules <\/span>is the Divine Person who passed and executed sentence on the serpent. This remarkable constellation<\/span>,\u2014the Serpent<\/em>, is variously called by the Arabs, Tinnin, Al Haya, Taaban, Aben, Taben<\/span>, and Etabin<\/span>; by the Hebrews, Tannim<\/span>, and Etanim<\/span>; by the Greeks, Ophis<\/span> and Drac\u00f4n<\/span>; and by the Latins, Anguis, Serpe<\/em><\/span>ns<\/em>, and Draco<\/em>.<\/p>\n

14<\/a>. Outlines<\/em>.\u2014\u05e7\u05b0\u05e6\u05b9\u05d5\u05ea<\/span> (ketsoth<\/span>), lit., extremities, limits, boundaries<\/em>, &c., has probably here the meaning above.<\/p>\n

I think that thunder<\/em> must here be understood figuratively, just as whisp<\/em><\/span>er<\/em> is in the former clause. If what we do see and know of God may be compared to merely a faint sound which just reaches our ears and our perception, how loud and how incomprehensible would be the ful<\/span>l display of his greatness!<\/p>\n

\n

Job 27<\/a><\/p>\n

1<\/a>. Job probably paused at the close of the last chapter, in expectation of a reply from Zophar (whose turn it was to speak) or, at least, from one or the other of his friends; but on finding th<\/span>em silent, he resumed his discourse.<\/p>\n

Again took up<\/em>,\u2014lit., added to take up<\/em>.<\/p>\n

His verse<\/em>,\u2014\u05de\u05b0\u05e9\u05b8\u05c1\u05dc\u05b9\u05d5<\/span> (meshalo<\/span>), his sentence<\/em>, or sententious discourse<\/em>. A poetic discourse, abounding in apophthegms and illu<\/span>strations.<\/p>\n

2<\/a>. As God liveth<\/em>. The usual formula of an oath. The meaning is, I swear by the living God, that, &c., &c.<\/p>\n

Put aside my right<\/em>. By refusing to adjudicate upon my case, as was due to me.<\/p>\n

Embit<\/em><\/span>tered my soul<\/em>. By leaving me lie under the suspicion of guilt, when I am really innocent.<\/p>\n

3<\/a>. All the while, &c<\/em>. As long as I live. In this verse there is evident reference to the first creation of man<\/span>.<\/p>\n

God\u2019s spirit,\u2014i.e.<\/em>, the spirit or breath originally breathed into my nostrils by God.<\/p>\n

4<\/a>. This means either, I will not admit that I have been guilty of iniquity or deceit, or, I will not deal so wic<\/span>kedly and falsely as to confess sins of which I am not guilty.<\/p>\n

5<\/a>. Judge you right<\/em>. Admit that you are right in the charges which you bring against me.<\/p>\n

I will not part with my integrity<\/em>. I will not cea<\/span>se maintaining my innocence.<\/p>\n

6<\/a>. I stick to the fact that I am a righteous man, and nothing will induce me to disown this: my conscience does not reproach me, and so shall not accuse me, of having been<\/span> guilty of an ill action any day of my life. Compare St. Paul\u2019s\u2014\u201cI have lived in all good conscience before God unto this day.\u201d<\/p>\n

7<\/a>. It is, &c<\/em>. \u05d9\u05b0\u05d4\u05b4\u05d9<\/span> (yehi<\/span>) has not so much the force of an optative here<\/span> as of a kind of imperative potential\u2014i.e.<\/em>, not so much, let it be so<\/em>, as, it must be so<\/em>, though in reality both ideas enter into the expression here; and the reason of this is, that it indicates the <\/span>necessary alternative of a position just assumed as true. Thus,\u2014If I am really innocent, as I certainly am, then I admit that it follows as a consequence that those who have falsely accused me with so much <\/span>hostility of feeling, and in so unprovoked a manner, are<\/em> really the guilty party. This, I admit, is the necessary conclusion. Well, be it so; it must be so<\/em>; I see no other alternative; I can com<\/span>e to no other conclusion.<\/p>\n

\u05e8\u05b8\u05e9\u05b8\u05c1\u05e2<\/span> (rashagn<\/span>), in a forensic sense, is one who is found guilty<\/em>. The force of \u05db\u05b0\u05bc\u05a3<\/span> (che<\/span>) in both these clauses is, altogether, quite<\/em>, &c.; lit., as<\/em>; but it often denotes co<\/span>mpleteness of comparison, i.e.<\/em>, completely as<\/em>. I render it by really<\/em>.<\/p>\n

Both \u05d0\u05b9\u05d9\u05b5\u05d1<\/span> (oyev<\/span>) and \u05de\u05b4\u05ea\u05b0\u05e7\u05b9\u05d5\u05de\u05b5\u05dd<\/span> (mithkomem<\/span>) are evidently to be understood here in a forensic sense, as opponent, adversary<\/em>, &c. <\/span>The idea conveyed in the first word is hostility of feeling<\/em>; in the second, hostility of action<\/em>, and that initiative<\/em>. It is, to some extent, expressive of unprovoked assault.<\/p>\n

8<\/a>. This verse has been va<\/span>riously translated, though with much the same general sense. Some have taken \u05d9\u05b4\u05d1\u05b0\u05e6\u05b8\u05bd\u05e2<\/span> (ivtsagn<\/span>) in its more usual sense of getting gain<\/em>, whilst others prefer understanding it here in the sense of cutt<\/em><\/span>ing off<\/em>, of which there are not wanting instances. In this latter case \u05d0\u05b6\u05bd\u05dc\u05b9\u05d5\u05d4\u05b7\u05bc<\/span> (eloah<\/span>) must be supplied from the second clause, and this seems to me preferable to the other alternative of reading, \u05d9<\/span><\/span>\u05b4\u05d1\u05b8\u05bc\u05e6\u05b7\u05e2<\/span> (ibbatsagn<\/span>) he shall be cut off<\/em>, instead of the received \u05d9\u05b4\u05d1\u05b0\u05e6\u05b7\u05e2<\/span> (ivtsagn<\/span>).<\/p>\n

\u05d9\u05b5\u05e9\u05b6\u05c1\u05dc<\/span> (yeshel<\/span>) has been variously referred to the roots \u05e0\u05b8\u05e9\u05b7\u05c1\u05dc<\/span> (nashal<\/span>) to draw out<\/em>, \u05e9\u05b8\u05c1\u05d0\u05b7\u05dc<\/span> (shaal<\/span>) to ask<\/em> or requi<\/em><\/span>re<\/em>, and \u05e9\u05b8\u05c1\u05dc\u05b8\u05d4<\/span> (shalah<\/span>) in the sense of being secure<\/em>. If the first of these words be the root, the reading should be \u05d9\u05b4\u05e9\u05b7\u05bc\u05c1\u05dc<\/span> (ishshal<\/span>); if the second (which is the ingenious conjecture of Schnurrer, a<\/span>nd would agree well with the New Testament expression, \u201cthy soul shall be required<\/em>\u201d), we should expect to read \u05d9\u05b5\u05e9\u05b7\u05c1\u05dc<\/span> (yeshal<\/span>), contracted from \u05d9\u05b4\u05e9\u05b0\u05c1\u05d0\u05b7\u05dc<\/span> (ishal<\/span>). The form \u05d9\u05b5\u05e9\u05b6\u05c1\u05dc<\/span> (yeshel<\/span>) is correctly <\/span>derived from \u05e9\u05b8\u05c1\u05dc\u05b8\u05d4<\/span> (shalah<\/span>); but then, if we take that root in the sense of being secure<\/em>, the passage will be without meaning, unless we give the word a Hiphil or causative signification, in which ca<\/span>se we must be driven to read \u05d9\u05b7\u05e9\u05b6\u05c1\u05dc<\/span> (yashel<\/span>) the Fut. Apoc. of Hiphil; and this is the view taken by Lee. But I decidedly prefer the opinion of Rosenm\u00fcller, Gesenius, &c. (notwithstanding Lee\u2019s sneers<\/span>), that \u05e9\u05b8\u05c1\u05dc\u05b8\u05d4<\/span> (shalah<\/span>) is here equivalent in meaning to \u05e9\u05b8\u05c1\u05dc\u05b7\u05dc<\/span> (shalal<\/span>), to draw out<\/em>, as a sword out of a scabbard. See Gesenius on \u05e0\u05b4\u05d3\u05b0\u05e0\u05b6\u05d4<\/span> (nideneh<\/span>) the sheath<\/em> of a sword, used in Dan. 7:15<\/a> to signi<\/span>fy the body<\/em>. He gives quotations from ancient authors in support of this sort of phraseology; particularly one, which is very appropriate, and is said to have been uttered by a certain philosopher who<\/span>se ugliness was despised by Alexander the Great:\u2014\u201cThe body of a man is nothing but the sheath of a sword, in which the soul is hidden as in a sheath<\/em>.\u201d<\/p>\n

9<\/a>. God certainly will not hear him, because his p<\/span>rayer is not the language of sincerity and faith. (Prov. 1:24<\/a>, &c.) \u05e6\u05b0\u05e2\u05b8\u05e7\u05b8\u05d4<\/span> (tseagnkah<\/span>) is a cry<\/em>, not of supplication, but one which is extorted by anguish or by a dread of coming evil.<\/p>\n

10<\/a>. At all tim<\/em><\/span>es<\/em>. Will he have confidence to do so, when in trouble?<\/p>\n

11<\/a>. Of the hand of God<\/em>. It is doubtful whether of<\/em> here means concerning, i.e., about<\/em> the method of God\u2019s dealings; or by means of, i.e., by means<\/em><\/span> of<\/em> God\u2019s dealings, and by judging from past providences.<\/p>\n

What is usual with, &c<\/em>. This is the force of the word \u05e2\u05b4\u05dd<\/span> (gnim<\/span>). It implies the ordinary character, habits, and actions of a person. Job\u2019s me<\/span>aning is,\u2014So far am I from wishing to cast in my lot, or in any way to side with the ungodly, that I beg to inform you\u2014and which, indeed, you already know\u2014that though God may for a while allow such to<\/span> prosper, yet past experience of God\u2019s ordinary dealings shows what the real end of all such prosperity is.<\/p>\n

I will not keep back<\/em>. Like an offensive truth.<\/p>\n

12<\/a>. I need not go far; I may appeal to your o<\/span>wn knowledge of the ways of God.<\/p>\n

Why then do ye trifle in vain<\/em>? This is quite literal. The meaning is,\u2014It is matter of common observation, and such as cannot have escaped your notice, that God, though<\/span> He prospers the wicked for a while, yet reserves them for punishment; why, then, do you so vainly and absurdly attempt to argue that afflictions are proofs of wickedness?<\/p>\n

13<\/a>. With God<\/em>,\u2014\u05e2\u05b4\u05dd<\/span> (gnim<\/span>), i.<\/em><\/span>e.<\/em>, which God, according to his usual way of acting<\/em>, allots to him. See note on ver. 11<\/span><\/a>.<\/p>\n

Tyrants<\/em>, \u05e2\u05b8\u05e8\u05b4\u05d9\u05e6\u05b4\u05d9\u05dd<\/span> (gnaritsim<\/span>),\u2014quite literally, terrorists<\/em>.<\/p>\n

Zophar had expressed much the same sentiment in 20<\/span>:29<\/a>. Job does not always deny the premises of his friends, but he objected to the conclusions they drew from them. The sentiments expressed by Job in this and the following verses, being similar to ma<\/span>ny of those already advanced by his friends, have presented a difficulty to the minds of most commentators. This difficulty Kennicott has ingeniously endeavoured to remove by the conjecture that, as we naturally expect that Zophar should speak three times (his two friends having done so), and as the subject of this verse accords with that with which he had finished his last discourse, so, not u<\/span>nlikely the words from ver. <\/span>13<\/a> to 23<\/a> are the words, not of Job but of Zophar. But there are strong objections to this plausible view\u2014such as the authority of all the ancient versions and of all the manus<\/span>cripts, which is against it; and also the impossibility of the supposition that the formula, \u201cand Zophar answered and spake,\u201d could have so disappeared from the text, if it had ever existed, as to be altogether unnoticed by the most ancient versions. Some have supposed, that Job is here forestalling what he considered Zophar might have said in his third reply; and <\/span>others, again, that in these verses he is quoting the sentiments of his friends, with the view of expressing his dissent from them. It strikes me, however, that the most natural way of getting over the difficulty adverted to is, as I have above stated, to remember, that Job does not always deny the truth of all that his friends advanced, but simply the uncharitable application which they made of their views.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

This is, &c<\/em>. Job mean<\/span>s,\u2014Zophar is quite right in what he has stated on this subject; but then, as I have just said, I wish to put the matter in its right point of view. (\u201cI will teach you of the hand of God.\u201d)<\/p>\n

14<\/a>. Job fir<\/span>st details, the family<\/em> and then the personal<\/em> troubles that befall an ungodly man.<\/p>\n

It is merely for the sword<\/em>,\u2014\u05dc\u05b0\u05de\u05b9\u05d5\u05be\u05d7\u05b8\u05bd\u05e8\u05b6\u05d1<\/span> (lemo-kharev<\/span>). This, I think, is the force of \u05dc\u05b0\u05de\u05b9\u05d5<\/span> (lemo<\/span>), the original idea<\/span> being probably interrogative, for what<\/em>? Thus,\u2014If his children be multiplied, it is\u2014for what? For the sword, and for nothing more nor less<\/em>. Much fulness of meaning is lost, by not attending to these l<\/span>ittle niceties of language.<\/p>\n

Shall not have enough of bread<\/em>. The Authorized Version,\u2014shall not be satisfied with bread<\/em>, conveys the wrong impression, that they might have sufficiency of bread, but woul<\/span>d not be content with it.<\/p>\n

15<\/a>. His residue,\u2014i.e.<\/em>, his children and issue just spoken of.<\/p>\n

Shall be sepulchred by death<\/em>. This is literal, and a bold figure, by which is signified, that they should have n<\/span>o other burial, than such as Death should give them on the open field, where they had fallen, either by sword or by famine. This, I think, is preferable to the view taken by some, who understand \u05de\u05b8\u05d5\u05b6\u05ea<\/span><\/span> (maweth<\/span>) here in the sense of pestilence<\/em>; and who mean by it, that those of his family who might escape sword and famine would, nevertheless, be untimely cut off by pestilence.<\/p>\n

Their widows shall not<\/em><\/span> weep<\/em>,\u2014lit., his widows<\/em>; i.e.<\/em>, the widows of each that so dies. Either there would be none left to make lamentation, or, more probably, these men were so detested when alive, that they are not mourned<\/span> over when dead, even by those who were the nearest to them in relationship. Compare Jer. 22:18<\/a>, 19<\/a>, and Ps. 78:64<\/a>. Or, not unlikely, the expression may mean simply, that they should have no funeral, <\/span>it being the custom for wailing widows and other women to join in the procession on such occasions.<\/p>\n

16<\/a>. We have a like idea in Zech. 9:3<\/a>, though with a slight variation in the latter clause. The expre<\/span>ssion was probably proverbial.<\/p>\n

As clay,\u2014i.e.<\/em>, in great quantities. As \u05d7\u05b9\u05de\u05b6\u05e8<\/span> (khomer<\/span>) signifies also a mound<\/em>, the idea may be intended here, and will correspond well, with the heaping up<\/em> in the previou<\/span>s clause. Our Lord evidently alludes to the Eastern practice of hoarding up enormous stores of raiment, where He says, \u201cLay not up for yourselves treasures upon earth, where moth and rust doth corrupt,\u201d &c. (<\/span>Matt. 6:19<\/a>.) It was, amongst other things, the sight of a \u201cgoodly Babylonish garment\u201d that ensnared Achan. (Josh. 7:21<\/a>.)<\/p>\n

18<\/a>. He hath built his house as a moth<\/em>. And therefore it is only a tempo<\/span>rary abode. He must soon leave it. The common cloth-moth is, no doubt, intended. (See the Illustrations<\/a>.)<\/p>\n

Like a shed, &c<\/em>. And therefore, again, it is merely temporary. Compare Isa. 1:8<\/a>. He is soon re<\/span>moved from it. (See the Illustrations<\/a>.)<\/p>\n

19<\/a>. But shall not be gathered<\/em>,\u2014\u05d5\u05b0\u05dc\u05b9\u05d0 \u05d9\u05b5\u05bd\u05d0\u05b8\u05e1\u05b5\u05e3<\/span> (velo yeasaph<\/span>). This word is of frequent occurrence in Scripture. Usually there is added with it, when used as her<\/span>e with reference to death, the phrase, \u201cunto his fathers<\/em>,\u201d or, \u201cunto his people<\/em>.\u201d (See Gen. 49:29<\/a>, and Judg. 2:10<\/a>.) In Numb. 20:26<\/a> we have, as here, the simple word, the additional phrase being obviou<\/span>sly understood, and accordingly inserted in our version. The expression is evidently something quite distinct from burial. (See Gen. 25:8<\/a>, 9<\/a>; 35:29<\/a>; and 2 Kings 22:20<\/a>.) I lay great stress upon the fir<\/span>st of these instances, that of Abraham, in whose case burial could not be called a being \u201cgathered unto his people,\u201d as he was buried with Sarah only, and in a land of strangers. I feel convinced, therefore, that the expression, where<\/span>ver used in Scripture, refers to the gathering of the soul of the defunct person into the region of the departed, and particularly, if not universally, into that of the blessed. If so, to say of anyone that he should <\/span>not be gathered<\/em>, was, in effect, to say that he should be excluded from paradise; and this is the meaning which I attach to it here. The rich man her<\/span>e spoken of may be sumptuously buried, but his soul is not gathered amongst the righteous.<\/p>\n

He openeth his eyes, and he is not<\/em>. Compare Luke 16:23<\/a>, where a rich man is also spoken of. No sooner are his<\/span> eyes closed in death than, like a person waking from a dream, he opens them, and discovers in another state the awful fact that he is lost. (\u05d0\u05b5\u05d9\u05e0\u05b6\u05e0\u05bc\u05d5\u05bc<\/span> (eynennou<\/span>) he is not<\/em>.) In the latter instance, t<\/span>he wretched man is further described as seeing the happy abode of the blessed, into which he has not been gathered, and about which he is informed, that between his own place and it, is an impassable gulf.<\/span><\/p>\n

20<\/a>. In this and the following verses, Job describes the hurried manner in which the ungodly rich man is taken out of the world, the terrors he feels in the moment of dissolution, and the impossi<\/span>bility of his escaping from it.<\/p>\n

As waters<\/em>. Like an advancing flood from which it is impossible to run.<\/p>\n

21<\/a>. A blast<\/em>\u2014\u05e7\u05b8\u05d3\u05b4\u05d9\u05dd<\/span> (kadim<\/span>), lit., the east wind<\/em>, but, as that wind is in Arabia the most violent,<\/span> and scorching, and pestilent, I have thought it best to translate as I have done.<\/p>\n

It shall sweep him<\/em>\u2014\u05d9\u05b4\u05e9\u05b7\u05bd\u05c2\u05e2\u05b2\u05e8\u05b5\u05d4\u05d5\u05bc<\/span> (isagnerchou<\/span>), lit., shall sweep him as with a storm<\/em>.<\/p>\n

22<\/a>. I see no good reason for s<\/span>upplying \u05d0\u05b1\u05dc\u05b9\u05d4\u05b4\u05d9\u05dd<\/span> (elohim<\/span>) here, as is generally done.<\/p>\n

Though he scud<\/em>\u2014\u05d1\u05b8\u05bc\u05e8\u05b9\u05d5\u05d7\u05b7 \u05d9\u05b4\u05d1\u05b0\u05e8\u05b8\u05bd\u05d7<\/span> (baroakh iverakh<\/span>). Intensitive, implying flight with precipitation.<\/p>\n

From its stroke<\/em>, lit., from its hand<\/em>.<\/p>\n

23<\/a>. I <\/span>had at first translated according to the view ordinarily taken:\u2014<\/p>\n

\u201cEvery one shall clap his hands at him<\/em>,<\/p>\n

And shall hiss at him out of his place<\/em>,\u201d<\/p>\n

but, after consideration, I have rendered the passage <\/span>as above. The wind is described by a bold figure, as exhibiting a sort of malicious joy at the destruction of the ungodly. (See the Illustrations<\/a>.)<\/p>\n

It shall clap its hands<\/em>. This is expressive at once <\/span>of the violence of its gusts, and of the exultation it is supposed to feel in being itself instrumental in the destruction of the wicked.<\/p>\n

And whistle at him, &c<\/em>.,\u2014in derision.<\/p>\n

Its hands<\/em>,\u2014lit., their h<\/em><\/span>ands<\/em>, i.e.<\/em>, the hands of the two winds specified\u2014the \u05e1\u05d5\u05bc\u05e4\u05b8\u05d4<\/span> (souphah<\/span>) and the \u05e7\u05b8\u05d3\u05b4\u05d9\u05dd<\/span> (kadim<\/span>).<\/p>\n

At him<\/em>,\u2014lit., at them, i.e.<\/em>, at all such persons.<\/p>\n

Job, in giving this description of the fearful end and c<\/span>onsequences of ungodliness, I think, would have his friends to understand by it, not merely, that he knew from personal observation as much as they did on the subject, and that so, their pressing it so much upon him as they had done was mere trifling, and <\/span>not argument (v. 11<\/a>, 12<\/a>), but also, that knowing this, as he did, he certainly could have no inducement to act such a part himself\u2014no inducement<\/span> to practise ungodliness, and at the same time profess to have hope in God (v. 8<\/a>, &c.).<\/p>\n

\n
\n
\n

Job 28<\/a><\/p>\n

The scope of this chapter has sorely perplexed interpreters, and confessedly there are difficulties in the way of arriving at a right understanding of it. The general meaning of it seems to be,\u2014Man has done much in the way of investigating God\u2019s works, but, after all, this science, however utilitarian, does not lead him to the discovery of the truest wisdom: that exists in God only, who displays it in the nice adjustment of all his works and providences, but it is secret to man; man\u2019s wisdom consists, therefore, not in prying into things which he cannot comprehend, [as Job\u2019s friends had done in assuming that God cannot do otherwise than punish the wicked and reward the righteous in this life,] but in submitting himself to the fear of God.<\/p>\n

1<\/a>. There is indeed, &c<\/em>.\u2014\u05db\u05b4\u05bc\u05d9<\/span> (chi<\/span>). The antithesis is at verse 12<\/a>. There are, indeed, particular localities where the valuable minerals of the earth are deposited, and man, by science<\/em>, knows where to look for them and find them, but<\/em> wisdom! where is wisdom<\/em> to be found?<\/p>\n

An outlet<\/em>\u2014\u05de\u05b9\u05d5\u05e6\u05b8\u05d0<\/span> (motsa<\/span>) a going out<\/em>, or place of egress<\/em>. It might be rendered exit, adit<\/em>, and perhaps may mean vein<\/em> or mine<\/em>; but I think Job is speaking at present, not of man\u2019s ingenuity in the process either of bringing silver out of the mine, or of extracting it from the ore, but of the simple fact, that there are particular places where naturally silver is to be found. I do not think it necessary to adopt the ingenious conjecture of Michaelis, that we should read \u05de\u05b9\u05d5\u05e6\u05b5\u05d0<\/span> (mots\u00e9<\/span>), a finding<\/em>, instead of \u05de\u05b9\u05d5\u05e6\u05b8\u05d0<\/span> (motsa<\/span>).<\/p>\n

A place for the gold, &c<\/em>. Its own native bed. Supply here \u05d0\u05b2\u05e9\u05b6\u05c1\u05e8<\/span> (asher<\/span>) which<\/em>, and not \u05d0\u05b2\u05e9\u05b6\u05c1\u05e8 \u05e9\u05b8\u05c1\u05dd<\/span> (asher sham<\/span>) where<\/em>, as in the auth. vers., and which destroys the general sense.<\/p>\n

2<\/a>. Iron and copper, no less than silver and gold, have their<\/em> places where they may be found<\/em>. Let the reader keep in mind that the antithesis throughout is in v. 12<\/a>,\u2014but where is wisdom to be found? Where is its<\/em> place?<\/p>\n

Earth<\/em>\u2014\u05e2\u05b8\u05e4\u05b8\u05e8<\/span> (gnaphar<\/span>). Often used for the substance in general of which the earth\u2019s crust is composed.<\/p>\n

Stone<\/em>. Here, of course, copper ore<\/em>. \u05d0\u05b6\u05d1\u05b6\u05df<\/span> (even<\/span>) is masculine in 1 Sam. 17:40<\/a>, and therefore \u05d9\u05b8\u05e6\u05d5\u05bc\u05e7<\/span> (yatsouk<\/span>) can agree with it, and so may be regarded as a pass. part. of \u05d9\u05b8\u05e6\u05b7\u05e7<\/span> (yatsak<\/span>); and as to \u05e0\u05b0\u05d7\u05d5\u05bc\u05e9\u05b8\u05c1\u05d4<\/span> (nekhoushah<\/span>), although Rosenm\u00fcller objects to considering it here as a noun, yet he admits that it is so used in this same book in ch. 40:18<\/a>, and 41:19<\/a> (Heb. Bible).<\/p>\n

Stone is molten into copper<\/em>. Pliny, Hist. Nat. xxxiv. 1, and xxxvi. 27, has a similar expression, as quoted by Rosenm\u00fcller,\u2014\u201cFit ex lapide \u00e6roso, quem vocant Cadmiam; et igne lapides in \u0153s solvuntur<\/em>\u201d (stone is melted into copper). (See the Illustrations<\/a>.)<\/p>\n

3<\/a>. This language is of course to some extent hyperbolical; but then, even admitting that man does all this, still, with all his researches the most extensive, he has not succeeded in discovering, by his own powers, the place where wisdom is found.<\/p>\n

Man<\/em>. The whole context shows that this word is to be supplied here.<\/p>\n

Hath set an end to darkness<\/em>,\u2014by bringing torches, or other artificial light, into the deep recesses of the earth, whilst he penetrates it, in carrying out his mining operations.<\/p>\n

And unto the utmost l<\/em>imit, &c., &c<\/em>. Man digs as far as possible into the bowels of the earth, in search of ores, which had previously been hidden and buried in the very thickest darkness.<\/p>\n

Searcheth he<\/em>. \u05d7\u05b8\u05e7\u05b7\u05e8<\/span> (khakar<\/span>) is primarily to search by digging. \u05d4\u05d5\u05bc\u05d0<\/span> (hou<\/span>) is emphatic.<\/p>\n

4<\/a>. Of all the interpretations given to this most obscure of all obscure passages of Scripture, this seems the best. It would be endless and useless to set before the reader the many and diverse renderings which have been made of this verse, so I shall content myself with a few remarks upon that which is here given.<\/p>\n

\u05e4\u05b8\u05bc\u05e8\u05b7\u05e5<\/span> (parats<\/span>) to break int<\/em>o<\/em>, or break through, &c<\/em>., is used transitively in Ps. 60:3<\/a> (Heb. Bible), and as \u201cman<\/em>,\u201d supplied from the preceding \u05d4\u05d5\u05bc\u05d0<\/span> (hou<\/span>), is most naturally the nominative case, it must be so used here. Then as \u05e0<\/span>\u05b7\u05d7\u05b7\u05dc<\/span> (nakhal<\/span>) means a watercourse, channel, gully<\/em>, and the like, and as mining operations are evidently the subject of discourse, we may very well understand by it either, what miners call, an adit<\/em> ora shaft<\/em>; most probably the latter, as there follows an allusion to the hoisting up and down of the miners, or to their pendulous position when at work. \u05de\u05b5\u05e2\u05b4\u05dd\u05be\u05d2\u05b8\u05bc\u05e8<\/span> (megnim gar<\/span>), quite literally, from <\/em>with he dwelleth, i.e., away from the place where he dwelleth<\/em>, the meaning of which is, away from the surface of the ground, which is the proper abode of man<\/em>. And in this way it forms a parallel with \u05de\u05b5\u05bd\u05d0\u05b1\u05e0\u05b9\u05d5\u05e9\u05c1<\/span> (meenosh<\/span>) away from humankind<\/em>, in the next clause but one. \u05d4\u05b7\u05e0\u05b4\u05bc\u05e9\u05b0\u05c1\u05db\u05b8\u05bc\u05d7\u05b4\u05d9\u05dd \u05de\u05b4\u05e0\u05b4\u05bc\u05d9\u05be\u05e8\u05b8\u05bd\u05d2\u05b6\u05dc<\/span> (hannishchakhim minni ragel<\/span>) forgotten of the foot<\/em>,\u2014a bold figure to signify that these men are unsustained by their feet. Their feet, as it were, forget and forsake their office of giving support. Compare the expression in Ps. 137:5<\/a>, let my right hand forget<\/em>, i.e.<\/em>, let it refuse or be disabled from performing its ordinary offices. A passage from Pliny, L. xxxiii., cap. 4, \u00a7 21, which has been quoted by Schultens and Rosenm\u00fcller, is so apposite that I give it. The parts which I have marked in italics are particularly striking. Speaking of mining operations, he says, \u201cAlibi rupes invi\u00e6 c\u00e6duntur, sedemque trabibus cavat\u00e6 pr\u00e6bere coguntur. Is qui c\u00e6dit, funibus pendet<\/em>, ut procul intuentibus species nefaria [al<\/span>. ne ferarum] quidem, sed alitum fiat. Pendentes majore ex parte librant<\/em>, et lineas itineri pr\u00e6figunt. Itur qua, insistentis vestigiis hominis locus non est<\/em>.\u201d I translate it for the benefit of the English reader,\u2014\u201cIn other places the impassable rocks are cut, and when hollowed are made to furnish a rest for beams. The man who cuts, is suspended by ropes<\/em>, so as to appear to persons looking from a distance a kind, not exactly of wild beast, but of bird. The men who are suspended, for the most part, swing<\/em>, and fasten up cords for the course to be taken. The course taken is where t<\/em>here is no footing for man<\/em>.\u201d On referring to the original passage and its context in Pliny, I find that he is speaking here of making channels for the conveyance of water for the purpose of washing the ore.<\/p>\n

5<\/a>. Whilst<\/em>. \u05d5\u05b0<\/span> (we<\/span>) in the next clause is evidently the apodosis, and it is more suitable to the translation to render it here. This verse may be intended either to express the avarice and ingratitude of man, that, so far from being contented with the bountiful produce which earth yields upon her surface, he must needs burrow into her entrails in quest of further wealth; or to point out how full she is of riches.<\/p>\n

As it were fire<\/em>\u2014\u05db\u05b0\u05bc\u05de\u05b9\u05d5\u05be\u05d0\u05b5\u05e9\u05c1<\/span> (chemo esh<\/span>), either because of the sparkling ores, jewels, &c., which are so turned up, or because of the quantities of sulphuric substances contained in the belly of the earth. So Bacon says, as quoted in Johnson\u2019s Dictionary, \u201cIn subterranies, as the fathers of their tribes, are brimstone and mercury<\/em>.\u201d I do not agree with Rosenm\u00fcller, who translates \u201cquasi igne<\/em>\u201d (as though it were by fire<\/em>), understanding \u05d1\u05bc<\/span> (b<\/span>) before \u05d0\u05b5\u05e9\u05c1<\/span> (esh<\/span>), for although Pliny speaks of blasting rock\u2014\u201cigne et aceto,\u201d\u2014yet, if it were so, \u05db\u05b0\u05bc\u05de\u05b9\u05d5<\/span> (chemo<\/span>) would be pleonastic; though perhaps \u05d1\u05b0\u05bc\u05de\u05b9\u05d5<\/span> (bemo<\/span>) may have been the original reading, which would obviate the difficulty. I see no reason, however, for departing from the received reading.<\/p>\n

Both Schultens and Rosenm\u00fcller have an apposite passage from the beginning of Pliny\u2019s 33d Book,\u2014\u201cPersequimur omnes ejus (telluris) fibras, vivimusque super excavatam.\u2026 Imus in viscera ejus, et in sede manium opes qu\u00e6rimus, tanquam parum benigna fertilique, quaqua calcatur\u201d (other copies read \u201csecatur<\/em>\u201d). \u201cWe follow out all the veins of the earth, and we live over the excavations we make in her.\u2026 We go into her entrails and search for wealth in the abode of the departed, just as though, tread where you will, she were too little bountiful and fruitful.\u201d<\/p>\n

6<\/a>. Lumps<\/em>. Probably what we call nuggets<\/em>, and which the Spaniards, as Pliny tells us, anciently called strigiles<\/em>,\u2014\u201cHispania strigiles vocat auri parvulas massas.\u201d Others, however, conceive that \u05e2\u05b7\u05e4\u05b0\u05e8\u05b9\u05d5\u05ea<\/span> (gnaphroth<\/span>) must mean dust<\/em>, in which case \u05dc\u05b9\u05d5<\/span> (lo<\/span>) is referred to \u05e1\u05b7\u05e4\u05b4<\/span>\u05bc\u05d9\u05e8<\/span> (sappir<\/span>), and the translation becomes:\u2014<\/p>\n

\u201cHer stones are the place of the sapphire<\/em>,<\/p>\n

Wherein is dust of gold<\/em>,\u201d<\/p>\n

alluding to a secondary sort of sapphire, and one which is more properly called lapis l<\/span>azuli<\/span>, and is opaque, but has spots of gold. Rosenm\u00fcller\u2019s objection to this view is however, I think, good. He says:\u2014\u201cSed auratilis ille sapphiri pulvisculus peculiari mentione vix dignus fuerit.\u201d<\/p>\n

Fo<\/em>r man<\/em>, lit., for him<\/em>.<\/p>\n

7<\/a>. It is a path,\u2014i.e.<\/em>, the subterranean passages which are hollowed out and traversed by man in his search for precious minerals.<\/p>\n

\u05e2\u05b7\u05d9\u05b4\u05d8<\/span> (gnait<\/span>), probably the eagle<\/em> tribe;\u2014compare the Greek \u1f00\u03b5\u03c4\u03cc\u03c2<\/span>. This bird, as also the vulture, is proverbial for the acuteness of its sight. See Illustrations<\/a>.<\/p>\n

8<\/a>. As in the former verse, so here, genera<\/em> are mentioned in the first clause, and in the second species.<\/p>\n

\u05d1\u05b0\u05bc\u05e0\u05b5\u05d9 \u05e9\u05b8\u05bd\u05c1\u05d7\u05b7\u05e5<\/span> (benei shakhats<\/span>),\u2014lit., sons of ferocity<\/em>.<\/p>\n

Passeth upon<\/em>. This sense of \u05e2\u05b8\u05d3\u05b8\u05d4<\/span> (gnadah<\/span>), though uncommon in Hebrew, is common enough in Arabic and Chaldee.<\/p>\n

9<\/a>. Schultens, Rosenm\u00fcller, Umbreit, &c., have quoted from Pliny, Lib. xxxiii. 21, an excellent illustration of this verse. I take my quotation, however, from the Delphin edition, as I think it the more correct:\u2014\u201cCuneis eam<\/em> [<\/span>i.e., silicem<\/em>] <\/span>ferreis aggrediuntur, et iisdem malleis<\/em>: nihilque durius putant, nisi quod inter omnia auri fames durissima est. Peracto opere, cervices fornicum ab ultimo c\u00e6dunt. Dat signum ruina, camque solus intelligit in cacumine montis ejus pervigil. Hic voce ictuve [al.<\/span> nutuve] evocari jubet operes [al.<\/span> operarios], pariterque ipse devolat. Mons fractus cadit ab sese longe, frago<\/em>re qui concipi humana mente non possit, et flatu incredibili<\/em>. Spectant victores ruinam natur\u00e6<\/em>.\u201d I offer the following translation:\u2014\u201cThey attack the silex<\/em> (flint) with iron wedges and the same hammers <\/em>[as before mentioned:]<\/em> and think nothing so hard except it be that the hunger for gold is hardest of all. This job done, they cut the neck of the archings from the end one. The downfall gives premonitory notice which a man on the watch for it on the top of the mountain alone perceives. He, either by voice or signal, orders the miners to be called out, and at the same time himself hurries off. The <\/em>mountain fractured falls off at a great distance, with a crash <\/em>which is beyond all human conception, and with an incredible blast. The victors gaze upon Nature\u2019s downfall<\/em>.\u201d<\/p>\n

\u05d7\u05b7\u05dc\u05b8\u05bc\u05de\u05b4\u05d9\u05e9\u05c1<\/span> (khalamish<\/span>),\u2014Fli<\/em>nt<\/em> or silex<\/span>, evidently the same word as the Arabic \u062d\u064e\u0644\u0652\u0646\u064e\u0628\u0648\u064f\u0633\u064c<\/span> (khanabouson<\/span>) which Castell gives as Pyrites, silex quo extunditur ignis<\/em>. The Greek word \u03c7\u03ac\u03bb\u03b9\u03be<\/span> (silex<\/span>) is evidently derived from the Hebrew.<\/p>\n

10<\/a>. Cutteth rivers in the rocks<\/em>,\u2014not so much for the purpose of draining off the waters which would otherwise hinder the miner, as of conveying water in order to wash the gold ore, after it has been detached in large masses in the way described in the former verse. Pliny, in the same place to which we have just referred, speaks of these rivers to wash the fallen masses of mountain (\u201cflumina ad lavandam hanc ruinam, &c.\u201d), and speaks of the task of conveying (\u201cducere\u201d) them, as being as great a labour and more expensive (\u201calius par labor, ac vel majoris impendii\u201d) than the detaching the masses as before described; he says that those rivers were called \u201ccorrugi,\u201d as he supposes, from the word \u201ccorrivatio,\u201d and states that the solid rock is often cut<\/em> for their conveyance\u2014(\u201cAlibi rupes invi\u00e6 c\u00e6duntur.\u201d)<\/p>\n

11<\/a>. Bindeth floods that they weep not<\/em>,\u2014lit., from weeping<\/em>. One of the great difficulties with which the miner has to contend, in carrying on his operations, is that of preventing the continual oozing of the water between the different strata through which he works, and which, if not stopped, would flood the mine: this difficulty, however, was overcome even in the days of Job.<\/p>\n

And b<\/em>ringeth forth, &c<\/em>.,\u2014a consequence of his being able to conquer the difficulty just alluded to.<\/p>\n

12<\/a>. The antithesis to all that has gone before. Precious metals indeed<\/em>, and minerals of every kind have t<\/em>heir<\/em> place, and have been found by man\u2019s ingenuity; but this, after all, is not true wisdom\u2014where, then, is its place, where is that wisdom to be found\u2014that wisdom whose price is far above all the treasures that earth can furnish, &c., &c.?<\/p>\n

13<\/a>. The notion of \u05e2\u05b5\u05e8\u05b6\u05da\u05b0<\/span> (gnerech<\/span>) is arranging things together in a row, thus putting them in competition, one with the other, for the purpose of determining their comparative value. This clause has puzzled commentators because they have not been able to discover in what way it answers (as the parallelism seems to require) to the first clause in the previous verse, and hence a variety of renderings have been given to \u05e2\u05b5\u05e8\u05b6\u05da\u05b0<\/span> (gnerech<\/span>). It strikes me, however, that Job is here laying down two distinct theses on which he afterwards enlarges; first, that man is ignorant of the real value of wisdom, and secondly, that it is not to be found either on the surface or in the depths of the earth. In the first thesis he intimates that man does not care to search for wisdom; in the second, that he does not know where to find it. Having laid down these two theses, he proceeds to expatiate on the first, by stating that it is incomparably more valuable than all those treasures which man is at such pains in seeking.<\/p>\n

The land of the living<\/em>,\u2014here means, the surface of the earth<\/em>.<\/p>\n

14<\/a>. Saith<\/em>,\u2014in reply, as it were, to bold man entering into their secret depths for the purpose of searching,\u2014\u201cYou may enrich yourself with all that is costly here; you may gather precious minerals here, and pearls and corals there; but you cannot find wisdom in either of these places?\u201d<\/p>\n

The abyss<\/em>,\u2014the subterraneous recesses of the earth where minerals are usually found.<\/p>\n

The sea<\/em>,\u2014in which are found pearls, corals, &c., and which are afterwards mentioned.<\/p>\n

15<\/a>. \u05e1\u05b0\u05d2\u05b9\u05d5\u05e8<\/span> (segor<\/span>), an unknown word. That it means gold<\/em>, however, or at least has some reference to it, is, in the first place, probable, as \u05db\u05b6\u05bc\u05e1\u05b6\u05e3<\/span> (cheseph<\/span>) silver<\/em>, is the corresponding word in the parallelism, and then, is almost certain, as we find \u05e1\u05b8\u05d2\u05d5\u05bc\u05e8<\/span> (sagour<\/span>) used in connexion with \u05d6\u05b8\u05d4\u05b8\u05d1<\/span> (zahav<\/span>), gold<\/em>, in the following passages:\u20141 Kings 6:20<\/a>, 21<\/a>; 7:49<\/a>, 50<\/a>; 10:21<\/a>; 2 Chron. 4:20<\/a>, 22<\/a>; 9:20<\/a>. Interpreters are divided as to the quality<\/em> of gold which, as they suppose, \u05e1\u05b0\u05d2\u05b9\u05d5\u05e8<\/span> (segor<\/span>) or \u05e1\u05b8\u05d2\u05d5\u05bc\u05e8<\/span> (sagour<\/span>) is intended to specify. Some try to find a meaning in the Arabic \u05e1\u05d2\u05e8<\/span> (sgr<\/span>) accenso igne fervefecit clibanum<\/em>, and hence understand, the most refined<\/em> gold. Others prefer adhering to the Hebrew meaning of \u05e1\u05b8\u05d2\u05b7\u05e8<\/span> (sagar<\/span>), which has always the sense of shutting<\/em> or shutting up<\/em>, and imagine that they see in this idea gold which is so valuable as to be shut up<\/em> or treasured. But all this is very vague, and indeed Barnes is of opinion that, probably, gold was called \u05e1\u05b0\u05d2\u05b9\u05d5\u05e8<\/span> (segor<\/span>) for some reason now unknown. If I may hazard a conjecture, it seems to me possible, that gold may have been called Segor<\/span> for the very same reason that it was sometimes called Ophir<\/em>, and which was, that it came from a place so named, either because it was the natural product of that place, or because that place was an emporium to which it was brought from regions beyond. Now it does not appear to me at all clear, from anything I have yet seen, that Ophir which I have already supposed to be in Southern Arabia (see note on 22:24<\/span><\/a>), could have supplied the gold which was fetched thence, had it not been brought there from the yet further East; and so, I am inclined to think that somewhere on the coast of Arabia there was some other emporium called Segor<\/span> to which the riches of the Indies (and amongst other things, gold) were carried, and thence distributed over Arabia and adjacent countries. The question then is, do we find any where on the coast of Arabia, either in ancient or modern times, a place of the same or at least similar name? and further, does such place appear to have been celebrated as an emporium for the riches of the East? I turn to Forster\u2019s, and to Walker\u2019s, and to other maps, and there, on the southern coast of Arabia and along that coast for some three or four hundred miles, I find so many traces of the name in question, as at once proves it to have been celebrated on some account at least. The first thing that strikes the eye is a large district ranging along the shore, to the extent of at least one-fourth of the southern coast, called Seger<\/span>, which Forster, by the bye, also calls Sagur, and which Walker calls El Sheher<\/span>; then there is the town itself of Seger<\/span>, also called Shaher<\/span>; on the coast, and northward, are the bay of Saukirah<\/span>, and the promontory Ras Saugra<\/span>; then to the south-west we come upon the headland called Ras al Sair<\/span>, or Sejar<\/span> or Seger<\/span>; and then, pursuing still a south-westerly direction, we arrive at the celebrated Suagros<\/span> Promontory (the same name in a Greek form), no doubt the modern Cape Fartark (and not Ras al Had as Danville makes it), for Pliny has most accurately fixed its distance from Dioscorides Ins., or Socotra, as 280 Roman miles. And then, just doubling Suagros, we enter the port of Sugger<\/span>. Here, then, are abundant traces of the name of which we are in quest. The question now arises whether any of these ports so named, or situated on this part of the coast so named, were famous as emporiums into which were imported the rich products of other and far countries. I turn to Forster and I read where (vol. I. 113), speaking of the people of Hadrama\u00fbt\u2014an extensive region which included the coast just referred to, he says,\u2014\u201cTheir numerous ports along the coast of the Arabian Sea, including Cane Emporium, and the Syagrian Promontory, the two most important sta<\/em>tions of ancient commerce, placed at their command, if not under their exclusive control, the rich resources, at the same time, of Africa and of India<\/em>. So great, indeed, are the natural advantages, in a commercial view, of this province, that notwithstanding the general decay of Arabian commerce, consequent on the discoveries and conquests of the Portuguese, the Arabs of Hadrama\u00fbt still preserve t<\/em>he hereditary spirit of naval enterprise; and continue in our time, as in the age of Pliny, the chief conductors of the remaining intercourse between Arabia and Hindostan<\/em>.\u201d And then, a little further on, Forster gives a quotation from Burckhardt, in which that traveller, speaking of these Arabs of Hadrama\u00fbt going to India to serve as soldiers under the then native princes, says,\u2014\u201cThey generally embark at Shaher<\/span>,\u201d (i.e., <\/em>Seger<\/span> or Sag\u00fbr<\/span>) \u201cin Hadrama\u00fbt; and their chief destination, at present, is Guzerat and Cutch.\u201d<\/p>\n

I conclude then, from these different facts, that a place called Shaher<\/span>, or Seger<\/span>, or Sag\u00fbr<\/span>, &c., &c., was one of the most important ports of Arabia in its palmiest days, and was famous as an emporium for the rich resources of India and of Africa; and, as such, was no doubt an emporium amongst other things for gold; and so, it appears to me no very impossible supposition that \u05e1\u05b0\u05d2\u05b9\u05d5\u05e8<\/span> (segor<\/span>) or \u05e1\u05b8\u05d2\u05d5\u05bc\u05e8<\/span> (sagour<\/span>) may mean gold of Segor<\/em>, just as \u05d0\u05b9\u05d5\u05e4\u05b4\u05d9\u05e8<\/span> (ophir<\/span>) means gold of Ophir<\/em>, both being gold brought from these emporiums. Compare the note on ch. 22:24<\/span><\/a>, where I have supposed Ophir to have been at no great distance on the same coast: they may have been rival ports, Segor being at first the least considerable of the two, though afterwards rising into more eminence than its rival.<\/p>\n

From this to the 19th verse seems to be an amplification of the statement just made, \u201cMortal-<\/em>man knoweth not its value<\/em>,\u201d just as in v. 20<\/a> to 22<\/a> we have a slight amplification of the statement in the clauses immediately following that, \u201cNor is it to be found in the land of the living, &c<\/em>.\u201d (See the Illustrations<\/a>.)<\/p>\n

16<\/a>. \u05db\u05b6\u05bc\u05ea\u05b6\u05dd<\/span> (chethem<\/span>). An unknown word, though generally supposed to signify gold<\/em> of some particular quality, and this mainly, as it appears, because of its being usually connected with Ophir<\/em>. It must be remembered, however, that many other valuable articles besides gold were obtained from Ophir; such as probably silver, ivory, apes<\/em>, and peacocks<\/em> (1 Kings 10:22<\/a>), and certainlyalmug trees<\/em> and precious stones<\/em>. (10:11<\/a>) And further, gold does not altogether suit the text and context either here or in ver. 19<\/a>, where it again occurs; the parallelism in both places requiring that it should be some species of precious stone<\/em>. Besides which, if we suppose it to be gold<\/em>, the mention of that metal would certainly be very unnecessarily frequent here. Now, I have concluded, among other reasons, from the articles above referred to as brought from Ophir, that that place must have been a port and also an emporium, and that an extensive trade with India was carried on there: and then we find that \u05db\u05b6\u05bc\u05ea\u05b6\u05dd<\/span> (chethem<\/span>) is used once in connexion with Uphaz<\/span> in Dan. 10:5<\/a>, which may have been as celebrated for gems<\/em> as for gold<\/em> (Jer. 10:9<\/a>), and which, perhaps, is the same as the river Hyp<\/em>hasis<\/em>. We learn from Pliny xxxvii. that almost all, and certainly the most valuable, of the precious stones came from India. Of Beryls<\/em> he says, \u201cIndia eos gignit, raro alibi repertos;\u201d of opals<\/em>, \u201cIndia sola et horum est mater;\u201d of Sardonyx<\/em>, \u201cTales esse Indicas, tradunt, Ismenias, Demostratus, &c.\u201d; of Sandaresus<\/span>, \u201cNascitur in Indi\u00e2;\u201d of Jacinth<\/em> and Chrysolite<\/em>, \u201c\u00c6thiopia mittit;\u201d but then he adds, \u201cpr\u00e6feruntur iis Indic\u00e6; \u201cof Melichrysus<\/em> (a sort of Topaz), \u201cHas India mittit;\u201d of the P\u00e6deros<\/em> (a sort of Opal), \u201cLaudatissima est in Indis, apud quos Sagenon vocatur;\u201d and of a sparkling gem called A<\/em>strios<\/em>, \u201cIn India nascens;\u201d he speaks also of diamonds<\/em> and emeralds<\/em> and many other precious stones as being found in India, and then concludes his mention of the whole subject with the statement,\u2014\u201cGemmiferi amnes sunt Acesines et Ganges: terrarum autem omnium maxime India.\u201d Of all countries in the world he selects India as most abounding in gems, and of all rivers he notes two, the Acesines and the Ganges. It is not a little remarkable that the Hyphasis<\/em> (Uphaz<\/span>?) is a tributary of the Acesines<\/em>; at least, according to Arrien, at all events they both fall into the Indus. There is reason for believing that, even before the invasion of the Punjaub by the Macedonians, the commerce on the Indus was immense. Alexander\u2019s fleet consisted of 800 vessels, all of them, with the exception of 30 ships of war, the ordinary merchant-ships of that river. The historian of Timur speaks of 40,000 ships employed in the commerce of the Indus.<\/p>\n

Upon the whole I am inclined to think that \u05db\u05b6\u05bc\u05ea\u05b6\u05dd<\/span> (chethem<\/span>) is cognate with \u05d7\u05b8\u05ea\u05b7\u05dd<\/span> (khatham<\/span>) to seal<\/em>, whence \u05d7\u05d5\u05b9\u05ea\u05b8\u05dd<\/span> (khotham<\/span>), a seal, a seal-ring<\/em>. Tradition certainly assigns the earliest use of gems to their being enclosed in metal in the form of rings. Pliny notices it; and Isidorus, as quoted in the notes of the Delphin edition of Pliny, says, \u201cPrimordia gemmarum a rupe Caucasi fabul\u00e6 ferunt, Prometheum primum fragmentum saxi ejusdem inclusisse ferro, ac digito circumdedisse: iisque initiis c\u00e6pisse annulum atque gemmam.\u201d In the same sense I would understand \u05e0\u05b4\u05db\u05b0\u05ea\u05b8\u05bc\u05dd<\/span> (nichtam<\/span>) in Jer. 2:22<\/a>, \u201cThine iniquity is marked<\/em> or sealed<\/em> before me.\u201d<\/p>\n

\u05ea\u05b0\u05e1\u05bb\u05dc\u05b6\u05bc\u05d4<\/span> (thesulle<\/span>h<\/span>), weighed<\/em>. The value and genuineness of precious stones was judged of anciently, as now, by their weight<\/em>; so Pliny, xxxvii. 76, speaking of the means of detecting true from counterfeit stones (which were well imitated in the earliest ages), \u201cExperimenta pluribus modis constant. Primum pondere<\/em> si graviores sentiuntur.\u201d<\/p>\n

\u05e9\u05b9\u05c1\u05d4\u05b7\u05dd<\/span> (shoham<\/span>). There are differences of opinion as to what precious stone this represents. The Vulgate calls it sardonyx<\/em>; the LXX., onyx<\/em>; the Chaldee, beryl<\/em>; and the Syriac and Arabic, crystal<\/em>. It is probably either the onyx<\/em> or the beryl<\/em>. Pliny, xxxvii. 24, informs us, on the authority of Zenothemis, that there were many varieties of the Indian onyx, \u201cIndicam onychem plures habere varietates.\u201d And Isidorus speaks of a marked difference between those of India and Arabia,\u2014\u201cHane (onychem) India et Arabia gignit: distant autem invicem. Nam Indica igniculos habet albis cingentibus zonis: Arabica autem nigra est cum candidis zonis.\u201d Respecting the beryl<\/em>, we learn from Pliny, xxxvii. 20, that (in his time) it was almost exclusively a native of India, that it was cut in an hexagonal form, that form being found the best to bring out its brightness, and the best were those of a sea-green colour.<\/p>\n

\u05e1\u05b7\u05e4\u05b4\u05bc\u05d9\u05e8<\/span> (sappir<\/span>). There is no doubt, I think, that this is the Greek \u03c3\u03ac\u03c0\u03c6\u03b5\u03b9\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2<\/span>, but it is not clear whether this is what is now called the sapphire<\/em>. Pliny\u2019s description does not accord with our notions of it. The true sapphire<\/em> is, together with the ruby, amethyst<\/em>, and topaz<\/em>, a species of corundum<\/em>. \u201cCorundum<\/em>, when of a pink colour, is called the Oriental ruby<\/em>; when violet, O<\/em>riental amethyst<\/em>; when yellow, Oriental topaz<\/em>; when blue, it is called a sapphire<\/em>.\u201d (Tennant\u2019s lecture on gems and precious stones.) It seems to me strange if Job in this list of precious stones should omit the diamond<\/em>. Perhaps \u05db\u05b6\u05bc\u05d7\u05b6\u05dd<\/span> (chethem<\/span>), which I have translated generically gem<\/em>, is the diamond<\/em>. I can scarcely think that \u05d9\u05b7\u05d4\u05b2\u05dc\u05b9\u05dd<\/span> (yahelom<\/span>) in the description of the High Priest\u2019s breastplate in Exod. 28<\/a> can be diamond<\/em>, as I question whether in that case it could have been engraved with a signet. The heavenly messenger whom Daniel saw in vision (Dan. 10:5<\/a>) was girded with the \u05db\u05b6\u05bc\u05ea\u05b6\u05dd<\/span> (chethe<\/span>m<\/span>) of Uphaz<\/em>. If we suppose this to have been a diamond of the Hyphasis<\/em> we are led, I believe, to the very birth-place of the Koh-i-nor<\/span> diamond\u2014the Hyphasis being one of the rivers traversing the Punjaub. (See the Illustrations<\/a>.)<\/p>\n

17<\/a>. Job having spoken of wisdom as being more valuable than the precious metals, and the most precious stones, now speaks of its superiority over the most greatly prized works of art.<\/p>\n

\u05d6\u05b0\u05db\u05d5\u05bc\u05db\u05b4\u05d9\u05ea<\/span> (zechouchith<\/span>). There can be little question but that this word signifies glass<\/em>; in the Targum it is rendered by \u05d6\u05b0\u05d2\u05d5\u05bc\u05d2\u05b4\u05d9\u05ea\u05b8\u05d0<\/span> (zegougitha<\/span>), a word used by the Talmudists to signify glass<\/em>; \u05d6\u05d5\u05bc\u05d2\u05b4\u05d9\u05ea\u05b8\u05d0<\/span> (zougitha<\/span>) is also another Chaldee word for glass<\/em>; and \u05d6\u05b7\u05d2\u05b8\u05bc\u05d2<\/span> (zaggag<\/span>) is a glass-maker<\/em> and vendor<\/em>. (Is our word slag<\/em>\u2014the glass of metals\u2014derived from this?) Then further, in Syriac we have \u0710\u0730\u0713\u0718\u073d\u0713\u071d\u073b\u072c\u0733\u0710<\/span> (zagugitho<\/span>) glass<\/em>. And in Arabic \u0632\u064f\u062c\u064e\u0627\u062c\u064c<\/span> (zugagon<\/span>) also glass<\/em>. I take the construction \u05d6\u05b8\u05d4\u05b8\u05d1 \u05d5\u05bc\u05d6\u05b0\u05db\u05d5\u05bc\u05db\u05b4\u05d9\u05ea<\/span> (zahav ouzechouchith<\/span>) to be a Hendiadys, and so I translate it golden glas<\/em>s<\/em>. Compare the description of the new Jerusalem in Rev. 21:21<\/a>, \u201cpure gold like unto clear glass.\u201d The ancient Egyptians carried the manufacture of glass to the highest degree of perfection\u2014a perfection, perhaps, exceeding that of modern days. For a fuller account of this see the Illustrations<\/a>.<\/p>\n

The phrase \u05d6\u05b8\u05d4\u05b8\u05d1 \u05d5\u05bc\u05d6\u05b0\u05db\u05d5\u05bc\u05db\u05b4\u05d9\u05ea<\/span> (zahav ouzechouchith<\/span>) might also be translated glassy gold<\/em>, in which case I suppose it would mean gold enamelled<\/em>. As to how far this was practised by the ancients I refer the reader to the Illustrations<\/a>.<\/p>\n

A vessel of fine gold<\/em>. On the excellence of the ancient Egyptian vases see the Illustrations<\/a>.<\/p>\n

18<\/a>. We are thoroughly in the dark about the meaning of \u05e8\u05b8\u05d0\u05de\u05d5\u05b9\u05ea<\/span> (ramoth<\/span>), \u05d2\u05b8\u05bc\u05d1\u05b4\u05d9\u05e9\u05c1<\/span> (gavish<\/span>), and \u05e4\u05b0\u05bc\u05e0\u05b4\u05d9\u05e0\u05b4\u05d9\u05dd<\/span> (peninim<\/span>). The old Jewish interpreters have rendered \u05e8\u05b8\u05d0\u05de\u05d5\u05b9\u05ea<\/span> (ramoth<\/span>) by coral<\/em>, but upon what authority it is now difficult, perhaps impossible, to say. Niebuhr was told by a Jew in Arabia that this was the meaning of the word, but this of course is no great authority. The Arabic for red coral<\/em> is quite a different word, \u0645\u064e\u0631\u0652\u062c\u064e\u0627\u0646\u064c<\/span> (marganon<\/span>), which Castell calls also a small pearl<\/em>. Whatever \u05e8\u05b8\u05d0\u05de\u05d5\u05b9\u05ea<\/span> (ramoth<\/span>) means, it was an article of merchandise in the time of Ezekiel, who mentions it in chap, 27:16<\/a> amongst other precious things. I do not think, as some do, that the passage there decides that it must have been a production of Syria; it may have been purchased at a distance by the Syrian merchants, and then by them carried to Tyre. If it mean coral<\/em> I am disposed to think its derivation must be, not as generally taken, from \u05e8\u05d5\u05bc\u05dd<\/span> (roum<\/span>) to exalt<\/em>, &c., but from the branching horns<\/em> of the \u05e8\u05b0\u05d0\u05b5\u05dd<\/span> (reem<\/span>) the wild ox<\/em>.<\/p>\n

Coral is most abundant in the Red Sea. Pliny speaks at large of these submarine forests, and mentions the Red Sea as being particularly full \u201crefert<\/em>us<\/em>\u201d of them. Since writing the above, the following passage in Pliny, xiii. 51, has caught my eye; it to some extent confirms the derivation I have just suggested of \u05e8\u05b8\u05d0\u05de\u05d5\u05b9\u05ea<\/span> (ramoth<\/span>), on the supposition of its being coral. Speaking of submarine plants in the Indian Ocean, he says,\u2014\u201c[Tradidere] juneos quoque lapideos perquam similes veris per littora: et in alto quasdam arbusculas colore bubuli cor<\/em>nus ramosas<\/em>, et cacuminibus rubentes: eum tractarentur, vitri modo fragiles, in igne autem ut ferrum inardescentes, restinctis colore suo redeunte.\u201d \u201cThey relate that along the coast there are also stony reeds as like as possible to real reeds; and that in the deep water there are certain branching shrubs, like the horns of oxen in colour<\/em>, and reddish at the tips: they are brittle as glass to the touch, but get red-hot as iron in the fire, and recover their natural colour when cooled.\u201d<\/p>\n

\u05d2\u05b8\u05bc\u05d1\u05b4\u05d9\u05e9\u05c1<\/span> (gavish<\/span>). I give up all hope of discovering the meaning of this word for the present at least. The reasons generally assigned for supposing it to be crystal<\/em> are very inconclusive. It is argued that as \u05d0\u05b7\u05d1\u05b0\u05e0\u05b5\u05d9 \u05d0\u05b6\u05dc\u05b0\u05d2\u05b8\u05bc\u05d1\u05b4\u05d9\u05e9\u05c1<\/span> (avenei elgavish<\/span>) in Ezek. 13:11<\/a>, must mean hailstones<\/em>, and as crystal resembles hail, therefore the word here may be crystal<\/em>; but hailstones might quite as appropriately, and more so, be compared to pearls: so the two words in Ezekiel may be stones of mother-of-pearl, i.e., pe<\/em>arls, i.e.<\/em>, poetically hailstones<\/em>. Perhaps Schultens has done right in not translating it at all. My chief reason for rendering it mother-of-pearl<\/em> is because, as I think, there is some ground for understanding the two other words in the verse to mean coral<\/em> and pearls<\/em>; so it would appear that Job is speaking in this verse of marine substances, and, in fact, is dilating upon what he had said in ver.14<\/a>: \u201cThe sea saith, It is not with me.\u201d It might be objected that neither coral<\/em> nor mother-of-pearl<\/em> are articles of very great value, nor do they appear to have been exceedingly prized by the ancients; but I think that the very expression of Job implies that much,\u2014they are not to be mentioned, i.e.<\/em>, they are objects so very inferior as not to be even worth talking about in comparison with wisdom.<\/p>\n

Or might \u05d2\u05b8\u05bc\u05d1\u05b4\u05d9\u05e9\u05c1<\/span> (gavish<\/span>) be one of those species of the shell-fish known to the Romans as the purpura<\/em>, or the murex<\/em>, and celebrated for their dye? Is \u05d2\u05b8\u05bc\u05d1\u05b4\u05d9\u05e9\u05c1<\/span> (gavish<\/span>) a Ph\u0153nician word?<\/p>\n

\u05e4\u05b0\u05bc\u05e0\u05b4\u05d9\u05e0\u05b4\u05d9\u05dd<\/span>(peninim<\/span>) pearls<\/em>. This is the signification given by the Rabbies and some men of note, amongst whom Bochart. The Greek word \u03c0\u03af\u03bd\u03bd\u03b1<\/span>, meaning a fish which yields an inferior sort of pearl, gives some countenance to the rendering. It suits well the different passages in which it occurs in Proverbs 3:15<\/a>; 8:11<\/a>; 20:15<\/a>; and 31:10<\/a>; in most of which, the comparison, as here, is between it and wisdom, and reminds us of our Lord\u2019s parable of the \u201cmerchantman seeking goodly pearls, and finding one pearl of great price.\u201d It must be confessed that the passage in Lam. 4:7<\/a> presents a prim\u00e2 facie<\/em> objection to this rendering, nor can I get over the difficulty by supposing, with Bochart, that \u05d0\u05b8\u05bd\u05d3\u05b0\u05de\u05d5\u05bc<\/span> (ademou<\/span>) may there mean shining<\/em> or glossy<\/em>; it must, I think, mean, as usually translated, ruddy<\/em>. At the same time it does not appear to me a complimentary distinction to speak of a person\u2019s body as being more ruddy than rubies<\/em> or than coral<\/em> (as others take it): such excessive redness would surely be no mark of beauty. But when I find that there are some pearls of a slightly reddish tinge, then I can understand and appreciate the comparison. Also, Pliny has the following remark, which does not ill accord with the passage in Lamentations. He says, speaking of pearls, ix. 54,\u2014\u201cMiror.\u2026 sole rubescere candoremque perdere, ut corpus humanum<\/em>.\u201d \u201cI wonder that they redden in the sun and lose their whiteness,<\/em> like the human body<\/em>.\u201d<\/p>\n

\u05de\u05b6\u05e9\u05b6\u05c1\u05da\u05b0<\/span> (meschech<\/span>) the procuring<\/em>,\u2014more literally, the drawing out<\/em>. There is probable allusion made here to the mode of obtaining pearls, whether by diving or dredging. (See the Illustrations<\/a>.)<\/p>\n

Whilst coral<\/em> and mother-of-pearl<\/em> do not appear to have been very highly valued by the ancients, and so, as Job says, not worth mentioning\u2014pearls<\/em> were held in the highest possible estimation. In one place Pliny tells us, that of all articles they command the highest price (ix. 54); and in another place (xxxvii. 16), that they rank next in value to diamonds. Job implies that, great as the difficulties and dangers (these dangers are rather magnified by Pliny, who was certainly over credulous about the enormity of the sea monsters that infest the Indian seas) might be in procuring pearls, it was worth incurring far more toil and risk in order to get possession of wisdom.<\/p>\n

19<\/a>. \u05e4\u05b4\u05bc\u05d8\u05b0\u05d3\u05b8\u05d4<\/span> (pitedah<\/span>) is generally taken to be, and probably is, the topaz<\/em>; a slight transposition of the word, and which is common enough in derivation, assimilates it both to the Greek and English,\u2014\u05d8\u05e4\u05d3<\/span> (tpd<\/span>), the d<\/span> and z<\/span> sound are of course analogous. Cush<\/em> may mean either of the countries on either side of the Arabian gulph, i.e.<\/em>, either Arabia or Ethiopia. Pliny informs us that near Berenice, on the western coast of the Arabian gulph, was an island called Topazos<\/span>, and at the very entrance of the gulph, was another island called Cytis<\/em>, both celebrated for their topazes (xxxvii. 32). His derivation of the word appears far-fetched. (See the Illustrations<\/a>.)<\/p>\n

With the clear gem<\/em>. (See the note on ver. 16<\/span><\/a>; see also the Illustrations<\/a>.)<\/p>\n

20<\/a>. Where, then, is this most precious article to be procured?<\/p>\n

\u05d0\u05b5\u05d9 \u05d6\u05b6\u05d4<\/span> (ei zeh<\/span>) where<\/em>,\u2014but very emphatic; almost equivalent to our common expression where in the world<\/em>?\u2014point out the place if you can.<\/p>\n

21<\/a>. I agree with Umbreit in considering that the \u05d5<\/span> (w<\/span>) before \u05e0\u05b6\u05bd\u05e2\u05b6\u05dc\u05b0\u05de\u05b8\u05d4<\/span> (negnelemah<\/span>) is not translatable here.<\/p>\n

And is concealed from the fowl, &c<\/em>. I think Job means no more than that, however high they soar, yet they do not attain to the birth-place of wisdom. It is not in the heights of heaven, neither (as he goes on in the next verse to say) is it in the depths of hell. Umbreit has a note in which he speaks of the extraordinary gift of divination assigned by Orientals to birds; but I do not attach any importance to the remark if it be intended as an illustration of the passage before us.<\/p>\n

22<\/a>. Perdition<\/em> and death<\/em>. A poetical personification. The meaning of course is,\u2014the place of perdition and of death, has said<\/em>, &c.<\/p>\n

23<\/a>. Hath knowledge of<\/em>. \u05d4\u05b5\u05d1\u05b4\u05d9\u05df<\/span> (hevin<\/span>). There are not many instances of this word having a causative sense, although Hiphil; and the parallelism is better preserved by its having here, as it often has, the Kal signification.<\/p>\n

Its way,\u2014i.e.<\/em>, the way that leads to it.<\/p>\n

The meaning and connexion of this verse appears to be,\u2014Man by his most extensive investigations cannot discover where true wisdom is, or get possession of it; and indeed no living creature knows the secret. There is one, however, who does\u2014God\u2014and he can, if he pleases, and he has revealed to man how wisdom is to be obtained.<\/p>\n

24<\/a>. All places and things are before him.<\/p>\n

25<\/a>. A weight for the wind<\/em>,\u2014so as to regulate its force. The word weight<\/em> is perhaps the most philosophical word that could have been selected to express this meaning. (See the Illustrations<\/a>.)<\/p>\n

Adjusted the <\/em>waters in a measure<\/em>. It is a philosophical fact that the force or \u201cweight\u201d of winds, whether periodical or otherwise, is graduated, amongst other circumstances, proportionally to the volume of water in different parts of the earth\u2019s surface. Though Job may not have understood the law of storms, he recognizes the fact that there is such a law, and that, the effect, not of chance, but of divine wisdom.<\/p>\n

27<\/a>. The laws of nature prove that, at the time of their appointment at least, God must have had thorough insight into wisdom;\u2014(this, of course, is to a certain extent speaking after the manner of men; for God is himself the source of all wisdom.)<\/p>\n

He declared it,\u2014i.e.<\/em>, in his works of creation he exhibited wisdom.<\/p>\n

He had knowledge of it<\/em>,\u2014the received reading is \u05d4\u05b1\u05db\u05b4\u05d9\u05e0\u05b8\u05d4\u05bc<\/span> (hechinah<\/span>), which would mean he adjusted it<\/em>; but I have adopted Doederline\u2019s conjecture that the reading ought to be \u05d4\u05b1\u05d1\u05b4\u05d9\u05e0\u05b8\u05d4\u05bc<\/span> (hevinah<\/span>), as in verse 23<\/a>; it corresponds better with \u05e8\u05b8\u05d0\u05b8\u05d4<\/span> (raah<\/span>) he saw<\/em>, in the previous clause, and it has the support of some MSS.<\/p>\n

Yea, and searched it out<\/em> (this is again speaking after the manner of men),\u2014such was God\u2019s acquaintance with Wisdom, that it was as though he had derived his knowledge through the process of minute and thorough investigation.<\/p>\n

28<\/a>. Unto the man<\/em>,\u2014probably unto Adam.<\/p>\n

The Lord<\/em>,\u2014\u05d0\u05b2\u05d3\u05b9\u05e0\u05b8\u05d9<\/span> (adonai<\/span>). God is here spoken of, in reference to a transaction in Eden, not as J<\/em>ehovah<\/em>, or the Eternal<\/em>, for that belongs to a subsequent revelation (see Exod. 6:3<\/a>), but as supreme Lord<\/em> of creation.<\/p>\n

The divine precept contained in this verse was probably delivered before the fall, and it is the object of the Gospel to establish its sanction.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n
\n

JOB 29<\/a><\/p>\n

1<\/a>. Job probably paused to give his friends the opportunity of reply; observing their silence, he resumes his discourse.<\/p>\n

His verse<\/em>. See note on 27:1<\/span><\/a>.<\/p>\n

2<\/a>. \u05db\u05b4\u05bc\u05d9\u05de\u05b5\u05d9<\/span> (chimei<\/span>),\u2014is in state of construction, the two following words being taken as one idea; as though the sentence ran: As in the days of<\/em> God\u2019s-guarding-me.<\/p>\n

3<\/a>. It is difficult to determine whether \u05d1\u05b0\u05bc\u05d4\u05b4\u05dc\u05bc\u05d5\u05b9<\/span> (behillo<\/span>) is a Hiphil for \u05d1\u05b7\u05bc\u05d4<\/span>\u05b2\u05d4\u05b4\u05dc\u05bc\u05d5\u05b9<\/span> (bahehillo<\/span>), and so, has the meaning, when he<\/em> (i.e., God<\/em>) caused to shine<\/em>; or whether it is a Kal Inf. with a redundant suffix, and so has the meaning, when it<\/em> (i.e., God\u2019s lamp<\/em>) shined, &c<\/em>.; nor is it material to determine, as, in either case, the general sense remains the same.<\/p>\n

Shined over my head<\/em>,\u2014probably alluding to the custom of suspending lamps in rooms or tents over the head. The language of this verse is of course figurative, and implies prosperity and the divine favor.<\/p>\n

4<\/a>. In the days of my prime<\/em>,\u2014lit., in the days of my autumn<\/em>, but as we understand by the Autumn, decline<\/em>, this would not express the Hebrew idea, which is, that as Autumn is the season of maturity<\/em>, so it may be taken to signify figuratively that time of a man\u2019s life when he is in his fullest vigour,\u2014in fact much what we mean by the prime of life<\/em>.<\/p>\n

When God was a visitor at my tent<\/em>,\u2014lit., in the seat or cushion of God being at my tent, i.e.<\/em>, when God was on such terms of familiar intercourse with me that he had, as it were, his accustomed seat at my tent. Guests and their host probably sat outside, not inside the tent: the host at<\/em> or by<\/em> the opening or door of it; comp. Gen. 18:1<\/a>, 2<\/a>.<\/p>\n

5<\/a>. My young men<\/em>,\u2014perhaps not so much his retainers and ordinary domestics, such as those mentioned in ch. 1:15<\/a>, 17<\/a>, as his children.<\/p>\n

6<\/a>. Washed my steps in butter<\/em>. The butter of the Arabs is to a great extent liquid. In plain prose the meaning of the whole verse may be,\u2014I walked through my fields abounding in cattle, and as I passed through my domain I saw everywhere the crags of the rocks producing olive trees in the greatest abundance.<\/p>\n

\u05e2\u05b4\u05de\u05b8\u05bc\u05d3\u05b4\u05d9<\/span> (gnimmadi<\/span>),\u2014lit., along with me, i.e., as I went along<\/em>.<\/p>\n

\u05e6\u05d5\u05bc\u05e8<\/span> (tsour<\/span>) is singular, but here it means rock<\/em>, or rocks<\/em> in general.<\/p>\n

\u05d7\u05b5\u05de\u05b8\u05d4<\/span> (khemah<\/span>), as it stands, means anger<\/em>, a sense of course inadmissible here; it is therefore put for \u05d7\u05b6\u05de\u05b0\u05d0\u05b8\u05d4<\/span> (khemeah<\/span>).<\/p>\n

7<\/a>. I think Lee is right; \u05e7\u05b8\u05e8\u05b6\u05ea<\/span> (kareth<\/span>) ought not to be taken, as is usually done, in the sense of \u05e7\u05b4\u05e8\u05b0\u05d9\u05b8\u05d4<\/span> (kiryah<\/span>) a c<\/em>ity<\/em>. He translates it pulpit<\/em>, but I prefer the word bench<\/em> or platform<\/em>, at least here. I transcribe his note on the subject. \u201cThis passage appears to me to have been entirely misunderstood. \u05de\u05b0\u05e7\u05b8\u05e8\u05b6\u05d4<\/span> (me<\/span>karch<\/span>) signifies \u2018contignatio, contignatum<\/em>,\u2019 &c. \u05e7\u05d5\u05b9\u05e8\u05b8\u05d4<\/span> (korah<\/span>), tignus, trabs<\/em>. Sam. porta<\/em>: also \u05e7\u05b5\u05e8\u05b8\u05d4<\/span> (kerah<\/span>) contignavit<\/em>. Our \u05e7\u05b8\u05e8\u05b6\u05ea<\/span> (kareth<\/span>) or \u05e7\u05b6\u05e8\u05b6\u05ea<\/span> (kereth<\/span>), therefore, I take as exhibiting only a different form of \u05e7\u05b5\u05e8\u05b8\u05d4<\/span> (kerah<\/span>), as \u05e4\u05b9\u05bc\u05e7\u05b6\u05d3\u05b6\u05ea<\/span> (pokedeth<\/span>) does of \u05e4\u05b9\u05bc\u05e7\u05b5\u05d3\u05b8\u05d4<\/span> (pokedah<\/span>). If so, it must also signify contignatio<\/em>, or something very like it. Now, we read in Neh. 8:4<\/a>, that when Ezra read the book of the law to the people, he stood<\/em>, \u05d9\u05b7\u05bd\u05e2\u05b2\u05de\u05b9\u05d3 \u2026 \u05e2\u05b7\u05dc\u05be\u05de\u05b4\u05d2\u05b0\u05d3\u05b7\u05bc\u05dc\u05be\u05e2\u05b5\u05e5<\/span> (yagnemod<\/span>.\u2026 gnal migdal gnets<\/span>), upon a tower<\/em>, or pulpit, of wood<\/em>. This, I presume, might also be termed \u05e7\u05b8\u05e8\u05b6\u05ea<\/span> (kareth<\/span>) contignat<\/em>io, i.e., a wooden frame<\/em> or scaffold<\/em>; and as it was placed, \u05dc\u05b4\u05e4\u05b0\u05e0\u05b5\u05d9 \u05d4\u05b8\u05bd\u05e8\u05b0\u05d7\u05d5\u05b9\u05d1<\/span> (liphnei harekhov<\/span>), in the front of the square or broad open place<\/em>, and also in front of one of the gates, \u05dc\u05b4\u05e4\u05b0\u05e0\u05b5\u05d9 \u05e9\u05b7\u05bd\u05c1\u05e2\u05b7\u05e8<\/span> \u05d4\u05b7\u05de\u05b7\u05bc\u05d9\u05b4\u05dd<\/span> (liphnei shagnar hammaim<\/span>) (ib., v. 3<\/a>), it seems very probable that this was a place and machine not unlike that in which Job also set up his seat. Again, in 2 Kings 11:14<\/a>, we are told that the king stood upon the pillar according to the custom<\/em>, \u05e2\u05b9\u05de\u05b5\u05d3 \u05e2\u05b7\u05dc\u05be\u05d4\u05b8\u05bd\u05e2\u05b7\u05de\u05bc\u05d5\u05bc\u05d3 \u05db\u05b7\u05bc\u05de\u05b4\u05bc\u05e9\u05b0\u05c1\u05e4\u05b8\u05bc\u05d8<\/span> (gnomed gnal hagnammoud chammishpat<\/span>). This was therefore a customary place of authority. Again, in 2 Chron. 6:13<\/a>, Solomon is said to have made \u05db\u05b4\u05bc\u05d9\u05bc\u05d5\u05b9\u05e8 \u05e0\u05b0\u05d7\u05e9\u05b6\u05c1\u05ea<\/span> (chiyor nekhosheth<\/span>), Auth. Vers., \u2018a brazen scaffold<\/em>\u2019; but it is certain that \u05db\u05b4\u05bc\u05d9\u05bc\u05d5\u05b9\u05e8<\/span> (chiyor<\/span>) must mean something like a bason<\/em>, or perhaps tub<\/em>: a name ironically applied to a pulpit. Upon this he stood (\u05d9\u05b7\u05bd\u05e2\u05b2\u05de\u05b9\u05d3 \u05e2\u05b8\u05dc\u05b8\u05d9\u05d5<\/span> yagnemod gnalaiv<\/span>) and delivered his dedicatory prayer. Comp. Prov. 8:1\u20134<\/a>; 9:3<\/a>, 14<\/a>; 11:11<\/a>; in all which the term \u05e7\u05b8\u05e8\u05b6\u05ea<\/span> (kareth<\/span>) occurs, and in all, I think, in this sense. In the first, it is said to be near the gates: in the second, wisdom<\/em> is said to cry<\/em> or preach<\/em>, \u05e2\u05b7\u05dc \u05d2\u05b7\u05bc\u05e4\u05b5\u05bc\u05d9 \u05de\u05b0\u05e8\u05b9\u05de\u05b5\u05d9 \u05e7\u05b8\u05e8\u05b6\u05ea<\/span> (gnal gappei meromei kareth<\/span>). In the third, \u05e2\u05b7\u05dc\u05be\u05db\u05b4\u05bc\u05e1\u05b5\u05bc\u05d0 \u05d5\u05d2\u05d5\u05f4<\/span> (gnal chisse<\/span>, &c.), which is just the \u05de\u05d5\u05b9\u05e9\u05b8\u05c1\u05d1<\/span> (moshav<\/span>) of Job. Compare Homer\u2019s account of Telemachus proceeding to address the Greeks, Odyss., \u03b2<\/span>. 1, 10, et seq.:\u2014\u0392\u1fc6 \u1fe5\u02bc \u1f34\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2<\/span> \u1f00\u03b3\u03bf\u03c1\u1f74\u03bd\u2014\u1f1b\u03b6\u03b5\u03c4\u03bf \u03b4\u02bc \u1f10\u03bd \u03c0\u03b1\u03c4\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u03b8\u03ce\u03ba\u1ff3 \u03b5\u1f36\u03be\u03b1\u03bd \u03b4\u1f72 \u03b3\u03ad\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2<\/span>. \u2018Perrexit ire ad concionem<\/em>\u2014<\/em>Sedebat autem in patris sell\u00e2, cesserunt vero<\/em> (ei<\/em>) senes<\/em>.\u2019 The \u0645\u0650\u0646\u0652\u0628\u064e\u0631\u064c<\/span> (minbaron<\/span>) or pulpit<\/em>, of the Mohammedans at the present day is, I believe, precisely the same thing; and it is used for precisely the same purposes as those just noticed, i.e.<\/em>, on public occasions, whether political or religious. The use of the term \u05e7\u05b8\u05e8\u05b6\u05ea<\/span> (kareth<\/span>) in Solomon may perhaps be accounted for on the ground of his being a manifest imitator of the language of Job. From the context it is evident, that Job here speaks of his reception in public, and upon the occasion of his addressing the people.\u201d<\/p>\n

I would just remark in addition, that the bench<\/em> or platform<\/em> in question was probably generally about from seven to eight feet square, and with sides which partially covered the speaker, much as in our pulpits; we may gather that much, from the description of the \u05db\u05b4\u05bc\u05d9\u05bc\u05d5\u05b9\u05e8<\/span> (chiyor<\/span>), just referred to in 2 Chron. 6:13<\/a>, where it is spoken of as being five cubits long and five cubits wide. It was furnished with a seat<\/em>, \u05de\u05d5\u05b9\u05e9\u05b8\u05c1\u05d1<\/span> (moshav<\/span>), as here, or a throne<\/em>, \u05db\u05b4\u05bc\u05e1\u05b5\u05bc\u05d0<\/span> (chisse<\/span>), Prov. 9:14<\/a>, and was very elevated; hence called \u05de\u05b0\u05e8\u05b9\u05de\u05b5\u05d9 \u05e7\u05b8\u05e8\u05b6\u05ea<\/span> (meromei kareth<\/span>) the heights of the platform<\/em>, or the high platform<\/em>; and the word \u05db\u05b4\u05bc\u05d9\u05d5\u05b9\u05e8<\/span> (chiyor<\/span>) would convey the notion of hollowness. I think that the employment of the ordinary word \u05e7\u05b4\u05e8\u05b0\u05d9\u05b8\u05d4<\/span> (kiryah<\/span>) in the book of Proverbs to signify city<\/em> is some evidence that \u05e7\u05b8\u05e8\u05b6\u05ea<\/span> (kareth<\/span>) is not used in that book in that sense. Both words occur in two consecutive verses, viz., in chap. 11:10<\/a>, 11<\/a>, surely not in the same sense. The second verse I take to be, \u201cBy the blessing of the upright, the place of public speaking (\u05e7\u05b8\u05e8\u05b6\u05ea<\/span>) (kareth<\/span>) is exalted; but it is overthrown by the mouth of the wicked;\u201d and the meaning of this to be,\u2014that the harangues of a good man prove a blessing and dignify the chair, whilst those of a bad man only tend to subvert it by bringing it into disrepute.<\/p>\n

From the <\/em>gate, &c<\/em>. The place where the magistrates probably robed themselves in their official dresses, and from whence they proceeded in state to the chair of justice, placed on an elevated bench or platform, and situated in the broadway<\/em> or square at the entrance of the city, and at no great distance from the gate. See 1 Kings 22:10<\/a>.<\/p>\n

8<\/a>. Hid themselves,\u2014i.e.<\/em>, retired out of my sight.<\/p>\n

This verse shows in how great esteem and respect Job was held. The incursions of neighbouring tribes had probably considerably crippled his authority.<\/p>\n

9<\/a>. So when \u00c6neas was about to speak,\u2014\u201cConticuere<\/span> omnes, intentique ora <\/em>tenebant<\/em>.\u201d (Virgil.)<\/p>\n

Refrained from haranguing<\/em>,\u2014lit., put a check upon verse<\/em>. I take the meaning to be, that these princes were engaged in council or in public debate, and that the one who was speaking instantly broke off in the midst of his harangue on the approach of Job. Both the mode of expression and the sense of the passage require, that something more than cessation from mere private conversation is to be understood here.<\/p>\n

10<\/a>. Was suppressed<\/em>, lit., was hid, i.e., ceased being seen<\/em>, or rather being heard<\/em>\u2014one verb of sense being put for another: this verb is plural, because the voice of no<\/em>bles<\/em> is in reality the voices of nobles<\/em>.<\/p>\n

Their tongue cleaved, &c<\/em>. This expresses the awe they felt, and also the suddenness and completeness of their silence. Job means by all this, that the greatest deference was paid to him by old and young, and high as well as low; and that his opinions delivered from the chair of justice were listened to with breathless attention.<\/p>\n

11<\/a>. Job now describes the effects produced by his magisterial harangues and decisions.<\/p>\n

It bare witness, &c<\/em>., by the gladness of its look.<\/p>\n

12<\/a>. Job here assigns a reason why his decisions were hailed with so much satisfaction by many. They were always just, and without respect of persons. It was his habit (the tense has, I think, that force here) to deliver, out of the hand of the oppressor, those who were too poor to have patrons or advocates for themselves.<\/p>\n

The \u05d5\u05b0<\/span> (we<\/span>) in \u05d5\u05b0\u05dc\u05b9\u05d0<\/span> (welo<\/span>) is explanatory, i.e.<\/em>, it assigns a reason, making the sentence which follows it causal, and so, the force of it is, inasmuch as<\/em> he had no helper. Or it is used to point out an additional calamity in the lot of the individual referred to: he was fatherless, and also<\/em> had no helper.<\/p>\n

14<\/a>. I put on, &c<\/em>., lit., I clothed me with justice and it<\/em> clothed me<\/em>. As a Judge, Job did not belie his official costume. His robes of office were, in his case, true exponents of moral qualifications for office, and hence, the deference and respect which he received was attributable rather to his strict probity than to his external garb. (See Note on the word \u05de\u05b0\u05e2\u05b4\u05d9\u05dc<\/span> (megnil<\/span>) robe<\/em>, 1:20<\/span><\/a>.)<\/p>\n

15<\/a>. I supplied, as exactly as possible, and which my position enabled me to do, the need of others. Under the figures of blindness and lameness, mental defects, or disabilities of circumstance, are probably intended here, rather than literal bodily infirmities.<\/p>\n

16<\/a>. And I searched into the cause of him that I knew not<\/em>. I quite agree with Rosenm\u00fcller, Dathe, Umbreit, and others in preferring this sense to that which the Vulg. and many after it have adopted, the ca<\/em>use which I knew not I searched out<\/em>. Job in the previous context is speaking of various classes of persons, and not of things: we should expect the same therefore in this clause; added to which, Job evinces here the superior character of his justice, not so much in the fact that he was at the pains of investigating causes which were unknown to him, for he would have been but an ill-qualified judge had he not done this, but that he did this for persons who were entire strangers, and of whose antecedents, it may be, he knew nothing, and who therefore probably had, according to the then current opinion and practice, but little or no claim upon the exercise of his magisterial authority.<\/p>\n

17<\/a>. I take the \u05d5<\/span> (w<\/span>) in \u05d5\u05b8\u05d0\u05b2\u05e9\u05b7\u05c1\u05d1\u05b0\u05bc\u05e8\u05b8\u05d4<\/span> (waeshabberah<\/span>) to be consequential, and therefore render it by so<\/em>.<\/p>\n

Tus<\/em>ks, &c.; prey, &c<\/em>. Wicked oppressors are here compared to wild beasts.<\/p>\n

18<\/a>. \u05d7\u05d5\u05b9\u05dc<\/span> (khol<\/span>). Hebrew interpreters, some of whom read \u05d7\u05d5\u05bc\u05dc<\/span> (khoul<\/span>), to distinguish the word from \u05d7\u05d5\u05b9\u05dc<\/span> (khol<\/span>) sand<\/em>, understand this as being the Ph\u0153nix<\/em>, well known as a fabulous bird, said by some to live 500, and by others 1,000 years, and then to die in its nest<\/em>. The origin of the fable is most probably to be found in some ancient astronomical cycle of years. The Hebrew interpretation just referred to, however ingenious and suitable to the preceding clause, appears to be merely conjectural, and therefore is not to be entertained, especially as the known meaning of \u05d7\u05d5\u05b9\u05dc<\/span> (khol<\/span>) sand<\/em>, gives an excellent sense here.<\/p>\n

The Sept. and Vulg. make it also Ph\u0153nix<\/em>, not, however, as the bird of that name, but the Palm tree<\/em>, undoubtedly a long-lived tree. This would agree well with what follows in the text, but this meaning also appears merely conjectural. The Chald., Syr., and Arab. translate the word by sand<\/em>.<\/p>\n

In my nest<\/em>\u2014\u05e2\u05b4\u05dd<\/span> (gnim<\/span>), lit., with, i.e, with my nest all around me<\/em>. Apart from metaphor, the meaning is,\u2014I shall die surrounded with every domestic comfort<\/em>.<\/p>\n

The sentiment contained in this and the following verses is apt to be the language of even pious men when in prosperity. See Ps. 30:6<\/a>, 7<\/a>.<\/p>\n

19<\/a>. Root, crop, &c<\/em>. The allusion is probably to the palm-tree<\/em>. Compare this verse with 14:9<\/a>.<\/p>\n

Job here states what reasons he used to assign to himself in his soliloquies for supposing that his prosperity would be permanent.<\/p>\n

20<\/a>. My glory is new as I go on<\/em>\u2014it continues ever fresh. As to this use of \u05e2\u05b4\u05de\u05b8\u05bc\u05d3\u05b4\u05d9<\/span> (gnimmadi<\/span>), see above, 5:6<\/span><\/a>.<\/p>\n

And my bow, &c<\/em>. My power, and the means by which I maintain it, so far from decaying, appear as full of vigour as ever.<\/p>\n

Job compares both his glory<\/em>, and also his bow<\/em>, by which he secured the former, to a tree (no doubt the palm-tree) which constantly renews itself. Compare 14:7<\/a>.<\/p>\n

21<\/a>. And wait<\/em>. Or, as we might say, they are on the tip-toe of expectation.<\/p>\n

Merely<\/em>. This is the force of \u05dc\u05b0<\/span>\u05de\u05d5\u05b9<\/span> (lemo<\/span>), the very thing itself<\/em>, and nothing else.<\/p>\n

All this is quite true to nature. It is just the tone of a person drawing from circumstances conclusions favorable to himself, as to his future prospects, in a kind of mental calculation.<\/p>\n

22<\/a>. After I have spoken<\/em>, lit., after my word<\/em>, or speech<\/em>.<\/p>\n

They speak not again<\/em>,\u2014neither to oppose my sentiments, nor to add anything to my arguments. My opinion is regarded as decisive.<\/p>\n

Falleth in drops upon them<\/em>. Compare Deut. 32:2<\/a>.<\/p>\n

23<\/a>. Showers of Spring<\/em>\u2014\u05de\u05b7\u05dc\u05b0\u05e7\u05d5\u05b9\u05e9\u05c1<\/span> (malkosh<\/span>), usually rendered latter rain<\/em>, a rain most important to the husbandman, as it fell in March or April, and swelled the grain of the crops, and the berries of the fruit, a little previously to their ripening for the harvest and vintage. The other periodical rain, called \u05de\u05d5\u05b9\u05e8\u05b6\u05d4<\/span> (moreh<\/span>), fell in autumn at seed-time. St. James refers to these two rains, and to the eager expectation with which they were usually looked for (ch. 5:7<\/a>):\u2014\u201cBehold, the husbandman waiteth<\/span> for the precious fruit of the earth, and hath long patience for it, until he receive the early and the latter rain<\/em>.\u201d<\/p>\n

24<\/a>. This verse is difficult, and so, many renderings have been given; but none are quite satisfactory. I take \u05d9\u05b7\u05bd\u05d0\u05b2\u05de\u05b4\u05d9\u05e0\u05d5\u05bc<\/span> (yaeminou<\/span>), lit., they trust<\/em>, or they depend upon<\/em>, in the sense of presuming<\/em>, a sense which the second clause, if taken in connexion with it, gives it, and then understand the passage to mean,\u2014They do not so rely upon my favors as to become careless of provoking my anger<\/em>. Perhaps Prov. 16:15<\/a> throws a little light upon the subject:\u2014\u201cIn the light of the king\u2019s countenance is life, and his favor is as a cloud of the latter rain.\u201d This is contrasted with the former, the 14th verse, \u201cThe wrath of a king is as messengers of death.\u201d Job, I think, implies that he was held in great awe, for though his manner was one of ordinary kindness, yet none were the less careful on that account to offend him.<\/p>\n

Many MSS. read \u05d5\u05b0\u05dc\u05b9\u05d0<\/span> (welo<\/span>) instead of \u05dc\u05b9\u05d0<\/span> (lo<\/span>) in the first clause; this would furnish the but<\/em> which I have supplied.<\/p>\n

25<\/a>. Their laws<\/em>. \u05d3\u05b7\u05bc\u05e8\u05db\u05b8\u05bc\u05dd<\/span> (darcham<\/span>),\u2014lit., their way<\/em>, or usage<\/em>, or custom<\/em>, or institute<\/em>, or mode of life<\/em>, &c.<\/p>\n

The king<\/em>. \u05db\u05b0\u05bc\u05de\u05b6\u05dc\u05b6\u05da\u05b0<\/span> (chemelech<\/span>). \u05db\u05b0\u05bc<\/span> (che<\/span>) has frequently the force, not merely of comparison, but of reality and intensity, and so may be expressed here and in the next clause by an emphatic the<\/em>. In the field I am, not merely, as in the council, chief, but I am really the king<\/em>. Job, I think, implies that in the one case he was looked up to by other chieftains as a kind of primus inter pares<\/em>, but that in the battle-field his power was absolute; just so, while the Greeks were besieging Troy, Agamemnon was the acknowledged head of the several otherwise independent states, and so, is styled in Homer, \u03b1\u03bd\u03b1\u03be \u03b1\u03bd\u03b4\u03c1\u03c9\u03bd<\/span>. Job further states that, whether in the council or in the field, he showed himself to be, in either position, the redresser of wrongs. This passage has been, I think, much misunderstood, principally from overlooking the intensive power of \u05db\u05b0\u05bc<\/span> (che<\/span>).<\/p>\n

I am the comforter, &c.<\/em>,\u2014lit., I am the one who comforteth, &c<\/em>.<\/p>\n

The whole of Job\u2019s soliloquy, made in happier times, and recorded by himself, amounts to this,\u2014I may satisfactorily conclude that my glory and prosperity will last to the very termination of a long life, and my reasons for arriving at such a conclusion are\u2014that God\u2019s favor is manifestly on me; my glory and power never seem to suffer the slightest diminution; it cannot escape my observation with what silence my counsels are attended to; my eloquence is unquestionably commanding; none contradict me, and all thirst for, and drink in, my words; I am decidedly popular, and at the same time held in high reverence; in the council I am chief among chieftains, in war I am absolute, and in all positions I wield my power for the good of mankind.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n

Job 30<\/a><\/p>\n

1<\/a>. And now, &c<\/em>. Times are so changed with me that, whereas even great men used to stand in awe even when I laughed to them<\/em> (29:24<\/a>), now, those who are my juniors, and in every way considerably <\/span>my inferiors, laugh at me<\/em>. Job evidently intends a contrast between the \u05e9\u05b8\u05c2\u05d7\u05b7\u05e7 \u05d0\u05b6\u05dc<\/span> (sakhak el<\/span>) in 29:24<\/a> and the \u05e9\u05b8\u05c2\u05d7\u05b7\u05e7 \u05e2\u05b7\u05dc<\/span> (sakhak gnal<\/span>) in this verse.<\/p>\n

Whose fathers, &c., &c<\/em>. As persons so ignoble, a<\/span>nd of so vile a character, as to be less worthy of confidence than the very dogs that tend the flock. The inference is, as Rosenm\u00fcller has it, \u201cSi patres tarn viles quid de filiis sentiendum!\u201d Barnes remarks:\u2014\u201cThe Orientals ha<\/span>d no language that would express greater contempt of anyone than to call him a dog. Compare Deut. 23:18<\/a>; 1 Sam. 17:43<\/a>; 24:14<\/a>; 2 Sam. 3:8<\/a>; 9:8<\/a>; 16:9<\/a>; 2 Kings 8:13<\/a>.\u201d<\/p>\n

As there i<\/span>s reason to believe that Job\u2019s friends were, with the exception of Elihu, at least his contemporaries, if not his seniors, we are not to suppose that in this verse he is alluding to them. He is speaki<\/span>ng rather of the disrespect which was now shown him by the very dregs of the people. This change in the manner of the lower classes towards him cannot be explained upon the supposition merely of his personal afflictions. It is evident that Job in some way must have lost the political power and standing which he once possessed. The <\/span>successful incursions of neighbouring tribes, recorded in chap. 1<\/a>, <\/span>may perhaps, in some measure, account for this loss of authority.<\/p>\n

Layard, in his work on Nineveh, vol. i., p. 49, incidentally mentions an instance, in which we see how soon an Oriental ruler may be s<\/span>tripped of his power, and how instantaneously, when that is gone, all deference for him ceases. Layard is speaking of the circumstance of Mohammed Pasha having been superseded in the government of Mosul by Ismail Pasha in 1845. He says:\u2014\u201cOn the following morning a change had taken place at the Serai, and Mohammed Pasha with his foll<\/span>owers were reduced to extremities. The dragoman of the Consulate, who had business to transact with him, found the late Governor sitting in a dilapidated chamber, through which the rain penetrated without hindrance. \u2018Thus it is,\u2019 said he, \u2018with God\u2019s creatures. <\/span>Yest<\/em><\/span>erday all those dogs were kissing my feet; to-day everyone and everything falls on me<\/em>, even the rain.\u2019\u00a0\u201d<\/p>\n

But what, perhaps, is yet more to the point, Layard, in vol. i., pp. 93\u2013114, gives an interesti<\/span>ng history of Sofuk, a once wealthy and potent Arab Sheik of the Shammar tribe, who, from various causes, was gradually deserted by his tribe, reduced to great poverty<\/em>, and at length assassinated. On <\/span>this eventful tale Layard remarks in conclusion:\u2014\u201cSuch was the end of one whose name will long be remembered in the wilds of Arabia; who, from his power and wealth, enjoyed the title of \u2018the King of the Desert,\u2019 and led the great tri<\/span>be of Shammar from the banks of Khabour to the ruins of Babylon. The tale of the Arab will turn, for many years to come, on the exploits and magnificence of Sophuk.\u201d<\/p>\n

2<\/a><\/span>. What cared I?<\/em>\u2014lit., what<\/em> [was<\/em>] it to me<\/em>?<\/p>\n

The vigor of manhood<\/em>,\u2014\u05db\u05b6\u05bc\u05dc\u05b7\u05d7<\/span> (chelakh<\/span>). This word has proved very perplexing to commentators, and has led to a great variety of renderings of the whole verse<\/span>; it appears to me that it exactly corresponds with the Greek word \u1f00\u03ba\u03bc\u1f74<\/span>, the full prime of life<\/em>, whence also our word acme<\/em>.<\/p>\n

Was gone<\/em>.\u2014This very suitably expresses the meaning of \u05d0\u05b8\u05d1\u05b7\u05d3<\/span> (avad<\/span>) it had <\/em><\/span>perished<\/em>, in the sense of passing away<\/em>. Job\u2019s meaning is, that that race of men (the fathers of the young men mentioned in ver. 1<\/a>) were, by their mode of living (which he just afterwards describes), s<\/span>o devoid of all manly vigor, that, had he employed them in any manual labour in his service, they would have been wholly useless to him. He could not have had the same confidence in their faithfulness as in the dogs of his flock (ver. <\/span>1<\/a>); and even in the matter of mere strength, he would have found them utterly unserviceable.<\/p>\n

3<\/a>. This verse has given endless trouble to commentators, chiefly on acco<\/span>unt of the supposed connexion of \u05d0\u05b6\u05de\u05b6\u05e9\u05c1<\/span> (emesh<\/span>) with the words \u05e9\u05c1\u05d5\u05b9\u05d0\u05b8\u05d4 \u05d5\u05bc\u05de\u05b0\u05e9\u05b9\u05c1\u05d0\u05b8\u05d4<\/span> (shoah oumeshoah<\/span>), and certainly in that connexion no sense can be got out of it. But, after all, is that connexion ne<\/span>cessary? I think not. The only ground I can see for retaining it would be, that certainly the alliteration would in that case be more marked; but this is of small consequence compared with sense. I co<\/span>nsider, then, that \u05d1\u05b0\u05bc\u05d7\u05b6\u05e1\u05b6\u05e8 \u05d5\u05bc\u05d1\u05b0\u05db\u05b8\u05e4\u05b8\u05df \u05d2\u05b7\u05bc\u05dc\u05b0\u05de\u05d5\u05bc\u05d3<\/span> (bekheser ouvechaphan galmoud<\/span>) is explanatory of, and in fact in some measure parallel with, the last clause of the previous verse; and that \u05d4\u05b8\u05e2\u05b9\u05bd\u05e8\u05b0\u05e7\u05b4\u05d9\u05dd<\/span><\/span> (hagnorekim<\/span>) begins a new sentence, as I think it should do, and, as its apposite and parallel word \u05d7\u05b7\u05e7\u05b9\u05bc\u05bd\u05d8\u05b0\u05e4\u05b4\u05d9\u05dd<\/span> (kakkotephim<\/span>) does, in the next verse.<\/p>\n

Stark<\/em>,\u2014\u05d2\u05b7\u05bc\u05dc\u05b0\u05de\u05d5\u05bc\u05d3<\/span> (galmoud<\/span>). This word is, in Ar<\/span>abic, a hard, dry, bare rock<\/em>; hence it may mean anything sterile, bare, &c<\/em>.<\/p>\n

But yesterday<\/em>. \u05d0\u05b6\u05de\u05b6\u05e9\u05c1<\/span> (emesh<\/span>) can never mean some long while ago<\/em>, a sense which some commentators have endeavoured to impose<\/span> upon it in order to get rid of a difficulty noticed above; on the contrary, it means quite lately<\/em>.<\/p>\n

Were gnawing<\/em>. The Arabic meaning of \u05e2\u05b8\u05e8\u05b7\u05e7<\/span> (gnarak<\/span>) is both to gnaw<\/em> (as one gnaws flesh clean off bon<\/span>es), and to flee<\/em>. As the former of these senses best suits the context, in the absence of any better reason to the contrary, it is preferable to take it so. Perhaps there may be much the same connexio<\/span>n between these two ideas as in our word to scour<\/em>, which means both to rub clean<\/em> and to run with great velocity<\/em>. \u05e2\u05b8\u05e8\u05b7\u05e7<\/span> (gnarak<\/span>) may, perhaps, to some extent, be considered as cognate with \u05de\u05b8\u05e8\u05b7\u05e7<\/span> (marak<\/span><\/span>), to scour<\/em>. I observe from Castell that \u05e2\u05e8\u05e7<\/span> (gnrk<\/span>) in Arabic also signifies to pull up roots from the earth<\/em>, which certainly would give a very excellent sense here. (See the Illustrations<\/a>.)<\/p>\n

The waste<\/em><\/span> and the wasteness<\/em>. A place where everything seems in a state of chaos. \u05e9\u05c1\u05d5\u05b9\u05d0\u05b8\u05d4 \u05d5\u05bc\u05de\u05b0\u05e9\u05b9\u05c1\u05d0\u05b8\u05d4<\/span> (shoak oumeshoah<\/span>) would not be badly expressed by Milton\u2019s \u201cruin upon ruin<\/em>,\u201d or by his \u201cconfusion worse confo<\/em><\/span>unded<\/em>,\u201d though he applies these expressions in a sense different to that of the text.<\/p>\n

4<\/a>. Purslain<\/em>, \u05de\u05b7\u05dc\u05bc\u05d5\u05bc\u05d7\u05b7<\/span> (mallouakh<\/span>), the same as the Syriac \u05de\u05b7\u05dc\u05d5\u05bc\u05d7\u05b8\u05d0<\/span> (maloukha<\/span>), a salt plant<\/em>, as the root \u05de\u05b6\u05dc\u05b7\u05d7<\/span> (me<\/span><\/span>lakh<\/span>) salt<\/em>, shows. Aben Beitar, a celebrated Arabian physician and botanist, states, as cited by Bochart and Rosenm\u00fcller, that this plant is that which by the Greeks is called \u1f05\u03bb\u03b9\u03bc\u03bf\u03bd<\/span> (evidently from<\/span> \u1f05\u03bb\u03c2<\/span>, salt<\/em>); that it is a shrub of which hedges are formed; that it is like the rhamn (a white bramble), but has no thorns; that its leaf is similar to that of the olive, but wider; that it grows ne<\/span>ar the sea coast and about hedges; and that the tops of it are eaten when young<\/em>. This last circumstance exactly explains the expression in the text, \u201ccropping purslain on<\/em> the shrub.\u201d Pliny\u2019s descripti<\/span>on of the plant (xxii. 33) agrees well with that of Aben Beitar. He calls it Halimou<\/span>, and says that it is a thick shrub, white, and without thorns, with the leaves of the olive, but softer, and that t<\/span>hese are cooked for food. Rosenm\u00fcller gives a citation from Athen\u00e6us, by which it would appear that it was a food collected and eaten particularly by the poor, for he describes the poor Pythagor\u00e6ans as <\/span>\u1f05\u03bb\u03b9\u03bc\u03b1 \u03c4\u03c1\u03ce\u03b3\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03ba\u03b1\u03ba\u1f70 \u03c4\u03bf\u03b9\u03b1\u1fe6\u03c4\u03b1 \u03c3\u03c5\u03bb\u03bb\u03ad\u03b3\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2<\/span>, eating purslain, and gathering such like bad things<\/em>.<\/p>\n

The broom<\/em>. \u05e8\u05b9\u05ea\u05b6\u05dd<\/span> (rothem<\/span>) is the genista<\/span>, called \u05e8\u05b7\u05ea\u05b7\u05dd<\/span> (ratham<\/span>) by the Arabs. It abounds in<\/span> the deserts and sandy places of Egypt and Arabia, and is of sufficient height to afford shelter to a person sitting down. It was that under which Elijah sat when fleeing from Jezebel, 1 Kings 19:4<\/a>, 5<\/a><\/span> (translated juniper<\/em> tree). The roots are bitter, and are considered by the Arabs to make the best charcoal; hence we have in Ps. 120:4<\/a> coals of<\/em> \u05e8\u05b0\u05ea\u05b8\u05de\u05b4\u05d9\u05dd<\/span> (rethamim<\/span>), i.e., broom<\/em>. (See the Illustration<\/span>s<\/a>.)<\/p>\n

5<\/a>. Out of society<\/em>, \u05de\u05b4\u05df\u05be\u05d2\u05b5\u05bc\u05d5<\/span> (min gev<\/span>),\u2014lit., out of the midst<\/em>. So Cicero has, as Rosenm\u00fcller remarks, pellere e medio; driven<\/em>, as we should say, from within the pale of society<\/em>.<\/p>\n

Men hallooed them<\/em>,<\/span>\u2014or, as we might also express it, hooted at them<\/em>, or raised a hue and cry after them<\/em>. Job means that these men, whose children now made him their sport, were held in such contempt and detestation that<\/span> they were not suffered to remain in the usual haunts of mankind; and that, if ever they made their appearance there, they were chased away with a great hue and cry.<\/p>\n

6<\/a>. They had to dwell<\/em>, \u05dc\u05b4\u05e9\u05b0\u05c1\u05db\u05b9\u05bc\u05df<\/span> (l<\/span><\/span>ishchon<\/span>),\u2014i.e<\/em>., they were driven out, &c., &c., so as to dwell<\/em>. In other words, they were compelled to dwell.<\/p>\n

In horrible glens<\/em>,\u2014lit., in the horror of glens<\/em>. The \u05e0\u05b0\u05d7\u05b8\u05dc\u05b4\u05d9\u05dd<\/span> (nekhalim<\/span>), or wadys<\/span> of Arab<\/span>ia, are, in many cases, very much what we call glens<\/em>.<\/p>\n

7<\/a>. So little were they removed from brutes, either in intellect or civilization. Is our word rude, i.e<\/em>., Latin rudis<\/em>, derived from rudo<\/em>, to bray?<\/p>\n

<\/span>The nettles<\/em>. It is not certain that \u05d7\u05b8\u05e8\u05d5\u05bc\u05dc<\/span> (kharoul<\/span>) has this signification. This sense seems to have been given to it from the burning<\/em> sensation which that plant produces, and on the supposition that<\/span> \u05d7\u05b8\u05e8\u05b7\u05dc<\/span> (kharal<\/span>) = \u05d7\u05b8\u05e8\u05b7\u05e8<\/span> (kharar<\/span>). Certainly the Latin urtica<\/em> is not improbably derived from uro<\/span>. Or, as there is some similarity of sound, might \u05d7\u05b8\u05e8\u05d5\u05bc\u05dc<\/span> (kharoul<\/span>) be the Latin carduus, the thistle, art<\/em><\/span>ichoke<\/em>, and all that class of plants?<\/p>\n

8<\/a>. A tribe of profligates; nay, a nameless tribe<\/em>. I think the inference to be drawn from this and the preceding clause is, that these people lived promiscuously t<\/span>ogether, and thus literally they were \u05d1\u05b0\u05bc\u05e0\u05b5\u05d9<\/span> (benei<\/span>) children<\/em> or a tribe<\/em>, \u05d1\u05b0\u05bc\u05dc\u05b4\u05d9 \u05e9\u05b5\u05c1\u05dd<\/span> (beli shem<\/span>) without a name<\/em>.<\/p>\n

The land<\/em> here means habitable country, in contradistinction to those endlessly desolat<\/span>e deserts and frightful precipices and caverns to which the miserable rabble, of whom Job is speaking, were forced by civilized men to betake themselves.<\/p>\n

Were beaten out of the land<\/em>. Compare with this<\/span> the Hasn Ghorab inscriptions as deciphered by Forster:\u2014\u201cOver us presided kings far removed from baseness, and stern chastisers of reprobate and wicked men<\/em>.\u201d (See the Illustrations<\/a>.)<\/p>\n

\u05e0\u05b8\u05db\u05b8\u05d0<\/span> (nacha<\/span>) is <\/span>a root of uncertain meaning, but is probably i.q.<\/em> \u05e0\u05b8\u05db\u05b8\u05d4<\/span> (nachah<\/span>).<\/p>\n

9<\/a>. So, 17:6<\/a>; Lam. 3:14<\/a>; and Ps. 69:12<\/a>.<\/p>\n

10<\/a>. And even to my face, &c., &c<\/em>. The greatest possible insult. The Vulgate and Rosenm\u00fcller und<\/span>erstand the phrase as meaning,\u2014they forbear not to spit in my face<\/em>; but it is unnecessary to suppose that the indignity of which Job complains was carried to so outrageous an extent as this. I conside<\/span>r that the phrase is literally, They do not forbear spitting on account of my face<\/em>, or presence<\/em>, = they do not on account of my presence forbear, &c.; i.e., my presence does not restrain them from, &c<\/em><\/span>.<\/p>\n

This force of \u05de\u05b4\u05d9\u05df<\/span> (min<\/span>) I have endeavoured to express by \u201ceven to<\/em> my face.\u201d<\/p>\n

11<\/a>. Yea<\/em>. \u05db\u05b4\u05bc\u05d9<\/span> (chi<\/span>), has an explanatory force here.<\/p>\n

They have every one loosed<\/em>. In the Hebrew the word is singular, and s<\/span>o the meaning is each one of them has loosed<\/em>; this I have expressed by inserting the words every one<\/em>.<\/p>\n

His cord<\/em>. I prefer the reading \u05d9\u05ea\u05e8\u05d5<\/span> (ithro<\/span>), i.e<\/em>., \u05d9\u05b4\u05ea\u05b0\u05e8\u05d5\u05b9<\/span> (ithro<\/span>), to the Masoretic alteration \u05d9\u05b4<\/span><\/span>\u05ea\u05b0\u05e8\u05b4\u05d9<\/span> (ithri<\/span>), as the parallelism is thus better preserved. I do not consider that \u05d9\u05b6\u05ea\u05b6\u05e8<\/span> (yether<\/span>) is to be taken here in the sense either of tent rope<\/em> or of bow-string<\/em>, but as signifying either tether<\/em><\/span>, or halter<\/em>, or lasso<\/em>; and, in that case, \u05e4\u05b4\u05bc\u05ea\u05b7\u05bc\u05d7<\/span> (pittakh<\/span>) will mean to loose<\/em> in the sense of opening<\/em> something that was fastened before, such as a knot or noose.<\/p>\n

The general sense of the passage is <\/span>obvious,\u2014these persons, one and all without exception, have now cast off all restraint, and subject me to the humiliation of seeing them act with the most unbridled disrespect towards me.<\/p>\n

Even to my f<\/em><\/span>ace<\/em>, \u05de\u05b4\u05e4\u05b8\u05bc\u05e0\u05b7\u05d9<\/span> (mippanai<\/span>),\u2014lit., because of my face, i.e., because I am present<\/em>.<\/p>\n

12<\/a>. A brood of youngsters<\/em>, \u05e4\u05b4\u05bc\u05e8\u05b0\u05d7\u05b8\u05d7<\/span> (pirekhakh<\/span>). This word is not elsewhere used; the root \u05e4\u05b8\u05bc\u05e8\u05b7\u05d7<\/span> (parakh<\/span>) is to germina<\/em><\/span>te<\/em>, &c., and so \u05e4\u05b4\u05bc\u05e8\u05b0\u05d7\u05b8\u05d7<\/span> (pirekhakh<\/span>), as applied to a plant, would mean a set of young twigs<\/em>; but in the \u00c6thiopic and Arabic, we find it applied to the young of birds<\/em> in general (compare also the Hebr<\/span>ew \u05d0\u05b6\u05e4\u05b0\u05e8\u05b9\u05d7\u05b7<\/span> (ephroakh<\/span>) and of fowls<\/em> in particular, I suppose from the notion of still germinating<\/em> as to their feathers. Job uses it here in a contemptuous sense\u2014much as we should say an unfledged broo<\/em><\/span>d<\/em>, or mere chicks<\/em>.<\/p>\n

They thrust aside my feet<\/em>,\u2014they rudely jostle me.<\/p>\n

And they throw up, &c.<\/em>,\u2014and try to upset me. The language of this last clause is wholly metaphorical, and is borrowed from the mili<\/span>tary operations of besiegers. \u05d0\u05b8\u05e8\u05b0\u05d7\u05d5\u05b9\u05ea<\/span> (orekhoth<\/span>), from \u05d0\u05b8\u05e8\u05b7\u05d7<\/span> (arakh<\/span>) to go, to go forward on a journey<\/em>, generally signifies ways, paths<\/em>, &c.; but I think that both the meaning of the root and the ver<\/span>b \u05e1\u05b8\u05dc\u05b7\u05dc<\/span> (sallal<\/span>) throw up<\/em>, admit of the use here of the more specific term advances<\/em>; I have, however, rendered the word by roads<\/em>.<\/p>\n

Their destructive roads<\/em>,\u2014lit., the roads of their destruction,\u2014i.e<\/em>., t<\/span>he advances by which they intend to destroy me.<\/p>\n

13<\/a>. They have torn up my path<\/em>. The language is still borrowed from military operations.<\/p>\n

They have none to assist them<\/em>. This is ambiguous. It may mean ei<\/span>ther, they promote my destruction without the aid of others; or, they are so bad a set that nobody will support or countenance them; or indeed both these ideas may be intended.<\/p>\n

\u05e0\u05b8\u05ea\u05b7\u05e1<\/span> (nathas<\/span>) does not<\/span> elsewhere occur; but both the sense required and also the analogy of cognates in general show that it must have a meaning similar to that of \u05e0\u05b8\u05ea\u05b7\u05e5<\/span> (nathats<\/span>) and \u05e0\u05b8\u05ea\u05b7\u05e9\u05c2<\/span> (nathas<\/span>), to \u05e2\u05b8\u05dc\u05b7\u05e1<\/span> (gnalas<\/span>) and<\/span> \u05e2\u05b8\u05dc\u05b7\u05e5<\/span> (gnalats<\/span>).<\/p>\n

14<\/a>. The language is still metaphorical, and taken from the assault of a city by storm. So soon as a breach is made in the wall, the assailants pour in tumultuously, and accomplish th<\/span>eir purpose.<\/p>\n

15<\/a>. \u05d4\u05b8\u05d4\u05b0\u05e4\u05b7\u05bc\u05da\u05b0<\/span> (hahepakh<\/span>) and \u05ea\u05b4\u05e8\u05b0\u05d3\u05b9\u05bc\u05e3<\/span> (tiredoph<\/span>) are two verbs in the singular number; the one is masculine and the other feminine, and they both appear to be dependant on the feminine pl<\/span>ural noun \u05d1\u05b7\u05bc\u05dc\u05b8\u05bc\u05d4\u05d5\u05b9\u05ea<\/span> (ballahoth<\/span>). This difficulty, however, is explicable, and a full sense is obtained, which must be conveyed by a paraphrase rather than by a translation. My view is, that \u05d4\u05b8\u05d4\u05b0\u05e4\u05b7\u05bc\u05da\u05b0<\/span><\/span> (hahepakh<\/span>) agrees with \u05d1\u05b7\u05bc\u05dc\u05b8\u05bc\u05d4\u05d5\u05b9\u05ea<\/span> (ballahoth<\/span>) in its aggregate idea of a multitude of terrors<\/em>, whilst \u05ea\u05b4\u05bc\u05e8\u05b0\u05d3\u05b9\u05e3<\/span> (tiredoph<\/span>) agrees with it in its individual idea of each separate terror<\/em>; hence the full<\/span> sense of the passage is,\u2014a multitude of terrors is turned upon me, every one of which chases<\/em>, &c.<\/p>\n

My bravery<\/em>. \u05e0\u05b0\u05d3\u05b4\u05d9\u05d1\u05b8\u05d4<\/span> (nedivah<\/span>) signifies nobleness of nature<\/em> and of birth, generosity, willingness to<\/em><\/span> make self-sacrifice, magnanimity<\/em>, and the like.<\/p>\n

The meaning of this verse seems to be,\u2014all hope and courage have now completely failed me<\/em>. I think that from the 12th to this verse, Job hints at the w<\/span>ay in which he had lost his authority. There had been some systematic plot formed against him, chiefly, as it appears to me, by the young men of the tribe or tribes over which he ruled; they had gradually disconcerted his plans\u2014they had mined and countermined, a<\/span>nd at length, as by a violent assault, they had succeeded in their purpose, and had, at least to all intents and purposes, if not entirely, deposed him. As a commentary upon this, I would again refer to the history of an Arab sheik by Layard, adverted to in the Note on ver. <\/span>1<\/span><\/a>.<\/p>\n

16<\/a>. Poureth itself out,\u2014i.e<\/em>., in tears.<\/p>\n

17<\/a>. The night picket<\/em><\/span>h my bones, &c<\/em>. Strong poetical language, by which is meant, that even at night, the ordinary season of repose, Job\u2019s bones were in such agonies that the sensation was as if they were being picked out<\/span> of him, or that the flesh was being picked off them.<\/p>\n

And the things that gnaw me, &c<\/em>. This clause is explanatory of the former. \u05e2\u05b9\u05e8\u05b0\u05e7\u05b7\u05d9<\/span> (gnorekai<\/span>), lit., my gnawers<\/em>, and the Arabic use of the word se<\/span>ems particularly to apply to the gnawing of flesh off a bone<\/em>, which well suits the passage here.<\/p>\n

18<\/a>. All commentators and lexicographers, having determined that the \u05d7\u05b8\u05e4\u05b7\u05e9\u05c2<\/span> (khaphas<\/span>), of which the \u05d9\u05b4\u05ea\u05b0<\/span><\/span>\u05d7\u05b7\u05e4\u05b5\u05bc\u05e9\u05c2<\/span> (ithkhappes<\/span>) here is the Hithpahel, must have the same signification as the Chaldee \u05d7\u05b2\u05e4\u05b7\u05e1<\/span> (khephas<\/span>) to search for<\/em>, &c.; and so, that the Hithpahel itself must mean here, as it does in three ot<\/span>her passages (1 Samuel 28:8<\/a>; 1 Kings 20:38<\/a>; 22:30<\/a>), to change<\/em> or disguise oneself<\/em>, have been able to extract no kind of suitable sense out of the first clause of this verse, except by an unwarranted i<\/span>nsertion of other words; and even then, the sense thus obtained has not been satisfactory. Lee, indeed, has conjectured\u2014but without giving any really solid grounds for the conjecture, except the requirements of the parallelism\u2014that <\/span>\u05d9\u05b4\u05ea\u05b0\u05d7\u05b7\u05e4\u05b5\u05bc\u05e9\u05c2<\/span> (ithkhappes<\/span>) here must mean, it becomes binding, pressing, confining<\/em>. I feel persuaded that \u05d7\u05b8\u05e4\u05b7\u05e9\u05c2<\/span> (khaphas<\/span>) here is equivalent to the Chaldee, \u05d7\u05b2\u05e4\u05b7\u05ea<\/span> (kheph<\/span><\/span>ath<\/span>), which, as a noun, signifies the hem of a garment<\/em>, and as a verb, to be hemmed<\/em> (applied to a garment<\/em>), and that \u05d7\u05b8\u05d1\u05b7\u05e9\u05c1<\/span> (khavash<\/span>) to bind<\/em> is a cognate word. The Hithpahel then would have the sense<\/span> of making a hem of oneself, i.e<\/em>., of hemming in<\/em>, or round<\/em>, or about<\/em>. This view makes the parallelism perfect, as the allusion to the hem<\/span> of the clothing in the first clause exactly corresponds with t<\/span>he mention of the collar<\/em> of the vest, and also with the notion of girding<\/em> in the second.<\/p>\n

The collar<\/em>,\u2014or \u05e4\u05b4\u05bc\u05d9<\/span> (pi<\/span>) mouth<\/em> of the vest was a hole in the vest just large enough to pass the head through, a<\/span>nd which fitted pretty closely round the neck, much as in the jerseys of the present day. Maimonides says that it had a strong binding round it to prevent its being rent in putting it on and off. \u05e4\u05b4\u05bc\u05d9<\/span><\/span> \u05de\u05b4\u05d3\u05bc\u05d5\u05b9\u05ea\u05b8\u05d9\u05d5<\/span> (pi middothaiw<\/span>) in Psalm 133:2<\/a> is evidently a mistranslation; it should be rendered the collar<\/em>, and not \u201cthe skirts<\/em>\u201d of his garments<\/em>. The precious oil there described as being poured on Aa<\/span>ron\u2019s head and trickling down his beard, descended as far as the collar where his garments fitted round his neck, but not over his clothes and down to the very hem of them. (See Jennings\u2019 \u201cJewish Antiquities,\u201d p. 136; and, for the sort of collar and its ti<\/span>ght fit, see the Illustrations<\/a>.)<\/p>\n

The meaning of the verse is,\u2014The whole of my clothing presses me as tightly as the collar of my vest. This pres<\/span>sure of his clothes arose probably either from his being swelled to an unnatural size by his disease, or from his being so covered with ulcers that his raiment stuck to him. I think the first of these reasons is the most probable.<\/span><\/p>\n

19<\/a>. God hath cast me down, &c<\/em>. The name of God is not expressed in the original. This is often the case in this book. The next verse shows, however, that it was probably<\/span> running in the mind of the speaker at the time, and it would no doubt be sufficiently indicated by emphasis of tone.<\/p>\n

Hath cast me down to the mire<\/em>, \u05dc\u05b7\u05d7\u05b9\u05de\u05b6\u05e8<\/span> (lakhomer<\/span>), not into<\/em> the mire, which would <\/span>be \u05d1\u05b7\u05bc\u05d7\u05b9\u05de\u05b6\u05e8<\/span> (bakhomer<\/span>). The meaning is,\u2014God has reduced me to a level with the very mire of the streets; he has cast me down so low that I am in a position like it. This, it will be observed, correspo<\/span>nds with the comparison instituted in the next clause.<\/p>\n

20<\/a>. I stand,\u2014i.e<\/em>., I stand praying.<\/p>\n

Thou dost not notice me<\/em>,\u2014supply the negative from the former clause.<\/p>\n

But I do not feel certain whether the la<\/span>tter clause ought not to be translated,\u2014Had I ceased, then hadst thou noticed me<\/em>.<\/p>\n

21<\/a>. Of course such language as this on the part of Job towards God cannot be vindicated.<\/p>\n

22<\/a>. Terrifying<\/em>,\u2014lit., thou te<\/em><\/span>rrifiest<\/em>. The word thus translated is in the unpointed text \u05ea\u05e9\u05d5\u05d4<\/span> (thswh<\/span>); the Masoretic interpretation of this word is \u05ea\u05bb\u05bc\u05e9\u05c1\u05d5\u05b8\u05bc\u05d4<\/span> (tushwah<\/span>) = \u05ea\u05bb\u05bc\u05e9\u05b4\u05c1\u05d9\u05b8\u05bc\u05d4<\/span> (tushiyah<\/span>) = \u05ea\u05bc\u05d5\u05bc\u05e9\u05b4\u05c1\u05d9\u05b8\u05bc\u05d4<\/span> (toushiyah<\/span>), reality, s<\/em><\/span>ubstance, completeness<\/em>, &c.; or, as it might be taken here adverbially, really, substantially, completely<\/em>, or the like. But this is clumsy pointing, and the parallelism is more perfect if \u05ea\u05e9\u05d5\u05d4<\/span> (thswh<\/span>)<\/span> be taken as a verb: in this ease the pointing would be \u05ea\u05b0\u05bc\u05e9\u05b7\u05c1\u05d5\u05b6\u05bc\u05d4<\/span> (teshavweh<\/span>), from the root \u05e9\u05b8\u05c2\u05d5\u05b8\u05d4<\/span> (shawah<\/span>), either in the sense of \u05e9\u05b8\u05c1\u05d5\u05b0\u05d0<\/span> (shaw<\/span>) vanity<\/em>, (and so the meaning would be, thou bringest <\/em><\/span>to nothing<\/em>), or, in the sense of the Chaldee, \u05e9\u05b0\u05c1\u05d5\u05b5\u05d9<\/span> (shewei<\/span>) to be astounded<\/em>, in the Ithpael \u05d0\u05b4\u05e9\u05b0\u05c1\u05ea\u05b0\u05bc\u05d5\u05b5\u05d9<\/span> (ishtewei<\/span>) to fear<\/em>; and so, the meaning here would be thou terrifiest<\/em>, and this appears to me <\/span>to be the most correct view to take of it.<\/p>\n

The absence of the conjunction \u05d5<\/span> (w<\/span>) between the two verbs in each clause is, I think, not so much for the purpose of marking rapidity of action as of expres<\/span>sing the connexion between cause and effect\u2014a connexion too natural to need the aid of the conjunction; and so, I take the meaning to be equivalent to this:\u2014<\/p>\n

Thou makest me to ride on the wind, by tak<\/em><\/span>ing me up into it<\/em>;<\/p>\n

And then, by terrifying, thou meltest me<\/em>.<\/p>\n

I have endeavoured to express this by rendering \u05ea\u05b4\u05bc\u05e9\u05b8\u05bc\u05c2\u05d0\u05b5\u05e0\u05b4\u05d9<\/span> (tissaeni<\/span>) and \u05ea\u05b0\u05bc\u05e9\u05b7\u05c1\u05d5\u05b6\u05bc\u05d4<\/span> (teshavweh<\/span>) as participles.<\/p>\n

The metaphor is evidentl<\/span>y borrowed from the idea of a cloud being carried up and careering for a while on the storm, and then being dissolved by the very agitation to which it is subjected.<\/p>\n

The notion of melting with fear<\/em> is<\/span> sufficiently common.<\/p>\n

23<\/a>. Thou art bringing me back, &c.<\/em>,\u2014or, thou art making me to return<\/em>, according to the original sentence, \u201cDust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return.\u201d (Gen. 3:19<\/a>.) Job does <\/span>not mean that God would thus bring him back to death at some future time (such a sentiment would be an absurd truism), but that God was actually doing it then\u2014another proof that he had no hope of rest<\/span>oration as far as this world was concerned.<\/p>\n

24<\/a>. There has been much difference of opinion about the meaning of this verse, and that, chiefly on account of the word \u05d1\u05b0\u05bc\u05e2\u05b4\u05d9<\/span> (begni<\/span>), which some take (as <\/span>compounded of the preposition \u05d1\u05b0\u05bc<\/span> (be<\/span>) and the noun \u05e2\u05b4\u05d9<\/span> (gni<\/span>) a heap<\/em>, in the sense either, according to some, of a heap of ruins<\/em>, and applicable here to human remains<\/em> after death; or, according to oth<\/span>ers, of the heap of the grave<\/em>. I prefer, however, the view of those who regard \u05d1\u05b0\u05bc\u05e2\u05b4\u05d9<\/span> (begni<\/span>) as a noun from \u05d1\u05b8\u05bc\u05e2\u05b8\u05d4<\/span> (bagnah<\/span>) = the very common Chaldee word \u05d1\u05b0\u05bc\u05e2\u05b8\u05d0<\/span> (begna<\/span>) to seek, request, ask, deprec<\/em><\/span>ate<\/em>, and the like; and in this way it will correspond with \u05e9\u05c1\u05d5\u05bc\u05e2\u05b7<\/span> (shouagn<\/span>) in the next clause; but I see no necessity for supplying the word when<\/em> before \u05d9\u05b4\u05e9\u05b0\u05c1\u05dc\u05b7\u05d7<\/span> (ishlakh<\/span>). The literal rendering woul<\/span>d be,\u2014There is no deprecation, he puts forth his hand, i.e<\/em>., there is no deprecating his doing so.<\/p>\n

\u05dc\u05b8\u05d4\u05b6\u05df<\/span> (lahen<\/span>) is feminine, perhaps to convey the notion of womanly fears in those who cry out when de<\/span>ath is coming upon them. So in 2 Sam. 4:6<\/a>, Rechab and Baanah, when about to assassinate Ishbosheth, are spoken of as \u05d4\u05b5\u05e0\u05b8\u05bc\u05d4<\/span> (hennah<\/span>) they<\/em> (fem<\/em>.), perhaps to express that the action they were about to <\/span>perpetrate was a cowardly one. Some MSS. read \u05dc\u05b8\u05d4\u05b6\u05dd<\/span> (lahem<\/span>), but this smacks of emendation. Doederlein\u2019s conjectural reading, \u05dc\u05b8\u05d7\u05b5\u05df<\/span> (lakhen<\/span>) for grace<\/em>, of which Dathe approves, is no improvement to th<\/span>e sense.<\/p>\n

When he destroyeth<\/em>,\u2014lit., in his destruction, i.e., in his destroying<\/em>.<\/p>\n

25<\/a>. For, &c<\/em>. The force of \u05d0\u05b4\u05dd\u05be\u05dc\u05b9\u05d0<\/span> (im lo<\/span>) here is were it otherwise, i.e<\/em>., if it were not as I state, that there is no b<\/span>egging off, &c., &c., I certainly have had the opportunity of putting the matter to the test, for I have wept and cried as much as any in like circumstances could do, and the result shows that my assertion is correct.<\/span><\/p>\n

As, &c<\/em>. The force of \u05dc\u05b0<\/span> (le<\/span>) in both these clauses is according to the condition of<\/em>.<\/p>\n

Hath\u2014been sad<\/em>. There is no question but that \u05e2\u05b8\u05d2\u05b7\u05dd<\/span> (gnagam<\/span>) is the same in meaning as \u05d0\u05d2\u05dd<\/span> (agam<\/span>) <\/span>in the Chaldee and Arabic.<\/p>\n

26<\/a>. Job here gives the result of his experience:\u2014I have cried for deliverance, and expected it, but in vain; therefore it is evident that there is no such thing as deprecati<\/span>ng God\u2019s anger when once He has put forth his hand to strike.<\/p>\n

I was waiting<\/em>. The paragogic \u05d4<\/span> (h<\/span>) here, I think, expresses tendency, or habit.<\/p>\n

27<\/a>. The first clause of this verse seems to correspond wit<\/span>h, and is a further amplification of, ver. 25<\/a>; whilst the second clause corresponds with ver. 26<\/a>.<\/p>\n

My bowels, &c., &c.,\u2014i.e<\/em>., my feelings have been greatly stirred up, and have expressed themselves.<\/p>\n

28<\/a><\/span>. I have gone on blackening<\/em>. This is the exactly literal rendering of \u05e7\u05b9\u05d3\u05b5\u05e8 \u05d4\u05b4\u05dc\u05b7\u05bc\u05db\u05b0\u05ea\u05b4\u05bc\u05d9<\/span> (koder hillachti<\/span>). The meaning is,\u2014My skin has become darker and darker; that, however, not by such natural caus<\/span>e as exposure to the rays of the sun, but by an internal heat, owing to my disease and the excitement of my feelings. This clause is amplified in ver. 30<\/a>.<\/p>\n

I have stood up, &c., &c<\/em>. I have publicly exp<\/span>ressed my grief and the state of my irritated feelings. This crying out in the assembly on the part of Job must, I think, have had reference not to his disease, or to the domestic calamities with whic<\/span>h God had visited him, but rather to his political fall, and the change which he observed in the feelings both of chiefs and people towards him, and of which he complains in the commencement of this chapter. The gist of Job\u2019s argument seems to be,\u2014If crying out and uttering complaints c<\/span>ould be of any avail, they certainly would have been so in my case, for I have mourned and cried both to God and man.<\/span><\/p>\n

29<\/a>. My cries and lamentations have been so prolonged, and so doleful, that I may class myself with creatures whose well-known habits are those of uttering the most dreadful yells and lamentable n<\/span>oises.<\/p>\n

Jackals<\/em>. See Gesenius on the word \u05ea\u05b7\u05bc\u05df<\/span> (tan<\/span>) or \u05ea\u05b8\u05bc\u05df<\/span> (tan<\/span>), the singular of what is here the plural, and which must not be confounded with another \u05ea\u05b7\u05bc\u05e0\u05b4\u05bc\u05d9\u05dd<\/span> (tannim<\/span>), a word in the singular numb<\/span>er.<\/p>\n

I have been brother, &c<\/em>. This might be expressed in common English by\u2014I have been next of kin to, &c.<\/em>, meaning I have been just like, &c<\/em>. See Micah 1:8<\/a>. The word there translated dragons<\/em> is the sa<\/span>me as in this passage.<\/p>\n

In Maunder\u2019s \u201cTreasury of Natural History,\u201d the jackal is described as having \u201ca voice peculiarly hideous, consisting of an indistinct bark and a piteous howl.\u2026 Jackals frequent<\/span>ly go in great troops to hunt their prey, and by their dreadful yellings alarm and put to flight deer, antelopes, and other timid quadrupeds.\u201d<\/p>\n

Shaw, in his \u201cTravels in Barbary,\u201d vol. ii., p. 348, give<\/span>s the following account of the remarkable noises made by the ostrich:\u2014\u201cWhilst they (ostriches) are engaged in these combats and assaults, they sometimes make a fierce, angry, and hissing noise, with their throats inflated and their mouths open; at other tim<\/span>es, when less resistance is made, they have a chuckling or cackling voice, as in the poultry kind, and thereby seem to rejoice and laugh, as it were, at the timorousness of their adversary. But during the lonesome part of the night (as if their organs of voice had then attained a quite different tone), they often made a very doleful and hideous noise, which would sometimes be like the roaring of a lion; at other times it would bear a nearer resemblance <\/span>to the hoarser voices of other quadrupeds, particularly of the bull and the ox. I have often heard them groan, as if they were in the greatest agonies.\u201d<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

30<\/a>. My skin peeling off me<\/em>,\u2014lit., my skin from off me<\/em>; a pregnant construction for my skin which has come off me; i.e<\/em>., which has fro<\/span>m time to time peeled off.<\/p>\n

Has been black<\/em>. A proof of the intensity of my sufferings, and the inward heat that has been consuming me (as the next clause explains). Compare this verse with 28<\/a>.<\/p>\n

31<\/a>. My h<\/span>arp and pipe, instead of giving forth, as formerly, music of merriment and joy, now emit only the most lugubrious strains. We speak in common parlance of changing one\u2019s pipes. (See the Illustrations on <\/span>21:12<\/a>.)<\/p>\n

\n

 <\/p>\n

Job 31<\/a><\/p>\n

1<\/a>. Job now closes his discourses by a solemn vindication of his character, which had been attacked by his friends. In doing this, he draws an interesting picture both of his public and private <\/span>virtues. On these he expatiates with probably too much of self-satisfaction, and too much implication of injustice on the part of God; at the same time, his motive was rather to prove his innocence, t<\/span>han to make any ostentatious boast. He commences by a protestation on the subject of his chastity, which had been so inviolate that, neither in look nor in thought had he been guilty in that respect; he had kept himself clear from this sin by the exercise of an habitual self-restraint, which he compares to the obligation of a formal covenant engagement.<\/span><\/p>\n

Lee\u2019s idea, that Job\u2019s wife was dead, and th<\/span>at his friends were now persuading him to marry again, is thoroughly out of place here; besides which, ver. 10<\/a> is a refutation of it.<\/p>\n

With mine eyes<\/em>,\u2014more lit., for<\/em>, or to, mine eyes<\/em>. This implies tha<\/span>t Job, as it were, himself prescribed the terms of the covenant to<\/em> his eyes.<\/p>\n

How then should I think upon?<\/em> Of course with lustful imagination.<\/p>\n

2<\/a>. An additional argument\u2014the consideration of punishment<\/span>.<\/p>\n

\u05d7\u05b5\u05dc\u05b6\u05e7<\/span> (khelek<\/span>) and \u05e0\u05b7\u05bd\u05d7\u05b2\u05dc\u05b8\u05d4<\/span> (nakhelah<\/span>) are here to be taken in the sense of evil portion<\/em>, and evil inheritance<\/em>, as in 20:29<\/a>, and 27:13<\/a>.<\/p>\n

3<\/a>. An amplification of the former verse. Job here states what <\/span>sort of portion and inheritance he knew he must receive at God\u2019s hands, had he been guilty of the particular sin about which he speaks in ver. 1<\/a>.<\/p>\n

Strange punishment<\/em>. \u05e0\u05b6\u05db\u05b6\u05e8<\/span> (necher<\/span>), according to the l<\/span>iteral Hebrew, would simply mean strangeness<\/em>, or perhaps in a particular application, as in the present instance, something mysterious<\/em>. One of its meanings in Arabic is misfortune, calamity<\/em>, and the l<\/span>ike; and in the \u00c6thiopic, it is commonly employed to signify a miracle, prodigy, something portentous<\/em>, and the like. \u0646\u064f\u0643\u0652\u0631\u064c<\/span> (nochron<\/span>) in the Koran is frequently used in the sense of terrible punishmen<\/em><\/span>t<\/em>. Some have taken \u05e0\u05b6\u05db\u05b6\u05e8<\/span> (necher<\/span>) here in the sense of alienation<\/em>, and have referred it to the word inheritance in the former verse. The reading \u05e0\u05b6\u05db\u05b6\u05d3<\/span> (neched<\/span>) is found in some MSS., the sense of whic<\/span>h, according to the Arabic, would be, a calamitous life<\/em>.<\/p>\n

4<\/a>. This may mean,\u2014God can certainly testify as an eye-witness to my integrity. But I take it rather as another argument that weighed with Job i<\/span>n deterring him from sin\u2014the argument of God\u2019s omniscience.<\/p>\n

5<\/a>. Falsehood<\/em>. \u05e9\u05b8\u05bd\u05c1\u05d5\u05b0\u05d0<\/span> (shaw<\/span>) has other meanings, but the parallel word in the next clause shows that this is the particular meaning here int<\/span>ended.<\/p>\n

Walked with falsehood<\/em>. Acted upon dishonest principles.<\/p>\n

Hasted<\/em>. This denotes progress in the course of sin here alluded to. \u05ea\u05b7\u05bc\u05d7\u05b7\u05e9\u05c1<\/span> (takhash<\/span>), from \u05d7\u05b8\u05e9\u05b8\u05c1\u05d4<\/span> (khashah<\/span>), = \u05d7\u05d5\u05bc\u05e9\u05c1<\/span> (khoush<\/span>).<\/p>\n

I think t<\/span>he context shows that this verse has special reference to the deceit that is usually practised in attempts at seduction.<\/p>\n

6<\/a>. An abrupt parenthesis, marking great earnestness and consciousness of rectit<\/span>ude on the part of the speaker.<\/p>\n

An even balance<\/em>,\u2014lit., scales of justice<\/em>. See Lev. 19:36<\/a>, where the expression is used, and evidently in the sense here given in the translation. (See the Illustrations<\/a><\/span>.)<\/p>\n

My integrity<\/em>. This word is used in evident opposition to the falsehood and deceit which Job disclaims in the preceding verse; and if, as I believe from the context, it has reference to innocence<\/em> wi<\/span>th respect to the subject mentioned in ver. 1<\/a>, then it is used here just in the sense in which it is applied to Abimelech in Gen. 20:5<\/a>, 6<\/a>.<\/p>\n

7<\/a>. From the way<\/em>. From the way of chastity, as the context req<\/span>uires.<\/p>\n

And mine heart<\/em>, &c<\/em>. If I have broken the covenant with my eyes (alluded to in ver. 1<\/a>), and have allowed my heart to be led astray by them.<\/p>\n

And a blot<\/em>, &c<\/em>. By my being guilty of that particular <\/span>sin. \u05de\u05d0\u05d5\u05bc\u05dd<\/span> (moum<\/span>) a blot<\/em>,\u2014as \u05de\u05d5\u05bc\u05dd<\/span> (moum<\/span>). Some, however, adopt a different punctuation from the Masoretic, and read the word \u05de\u05b0\u05d0\u05d5\u05bc\u05dd<\/span> (meoum<\/span>), understanding it in the sense of \u05de\u05b0\u05d0\u05d5\u05bc\u05de\u05b8\u05d4<\/span> (meoumah<\/span>) anythin<\/em><\/span>g whatever<\/em>.<\/p>\n

8<\/a>. The imprecation dependant upon the foregoing conditions. As respects the punishment here specified, compare Lev. 26:16<\/a>, and Deut. 28:30<\/a>, 38<\/a>.<\/p>\n

My produce<\/em>. \u05e6\u05b6\u05bd\u05d0\u05b1\u05e6\u05b8\u05d0\u05b7\u05d9<\/span> (tseetsaai<\/span>) might be <\/span>translated my issue<\/em>, as in 27:14<\/a>; but the parallelism here requires that it should mean issue of the ground<\/em>, such as crops, &c., and in that sense it is used in Isa. 34:1<\/a>, and 42:5<\/a>.<\/p>\n

9<\/a>. A woman<\/em>, \u05d0\u05b4\u05e9\u05b8\u05bc\u05c1<\/span><\/span>\u05d4<\/span> (isshah<\/span>),\u2014especially a married woman<\/em>. Job, in the first eight verses, declares his innocence of the sins of seduction and fornication; he here protests his innocence of the sin of adultery. Compare <\/span>Prov. 7<\/a>.<\/p>\n

10<\/a>. Let my own wife, &c<\/em>. Let her become the property of another man, and, as such, have to fill the most menial occupations, as well as being his concubine. Grinding at the mill seems to have<\/span> been the lowest drudgery in an Oriental household. (Exod. 6:5<\/a>; Isa. 47:1<\/a>, 2<\/a>.) I do not accept the expression grinding<\/em> in that sense which many have here attributed to it, making it equivalent in mean<\/span>ing to the second clause. It is true that the Latin molere<\/em> is so used, but only of a man, not of a woman.<\/p>\n

11<\/a> \u05e2\u05b8\u05d5\u05b9\u05df \u05e4\u05b4\u05bc\u05dc\u05b4\u05d9\u05dc\u05b4\u05d9\u05dd<\/span> (gnawon pelilim<\/span>). The ellipsis here is either \u05e2\u05b8\u05d5\u05b9\u05df \u05dc\u05b4\u05e4\u05b0\u05bc\u05dc\u05b4\u05d9\u05dc\u05b4\u05d9\u05dd<\/span> (gnawon l<\/span><\/span>ipelilim<\/span>) an iniquity for judges, i.e<\/em>., for judges to decide upon, or \u05e2\u05b8\u05d5\u05b9\u05df \u05e2\u05b2\u05d5\u05b9\u05df \u05e4\u05b0\u05bc\u05dc\u05b4\u05d9\u05dc\u05b4\u05d9\u05dd<\/span> (gnawon gnewon pelilim<\/span>) an iniquity\u2014an iniquity of judges<\/em>. The sense is the same in either case; a judicial<\/em><\/span> crime<\/em>\u2014a crime which of necessity comes under judicial cognizance.<\/p>\n

12<\/a>. Yea, it is a fire, &c<\/em>. It is difficult to determine whether Job mentions this, as the natural consequence of the sin in question,<\/span> that, both physically and morally, its tendency is to destroy him who is guilty of it, or whether he refers to the judicial sentence passed by the judge on the convicted criminal. It would appear that burning was the punishment with which the crime was visited at about that period. See <\/span>Gen. 38:24<\/a>.<\/p>\n

It would eat up unto perdition,\u2014i.e.<\/em>, it would utterly destroy.<\/p>\n

The \u05d1\u05b0\u05bc<\/span> (be<\/span>) in \u05d5\u05bc\u05d1\u05b0\u05db\u05b9\u05dc<\/span> (ouvechol<\/span>) i<\/span>s evidently pleonastic. Fourteen MSS. cited by Kennicott, and many by De Rossi, read \u05d5\u05db\u05dc<\/span> (wechol<\/span>).<\/p>\n

13<\/a>. Job now turns to other matters of righteousness which he declares he was in the habit of fulfilli<\/span>ng.<\/p>\n

If I should despise<\/em>. If ever I have done so, or should do so. Such is the force of the tense used here and in the following verses. Despise<\/em>, i.e<\/em>., think lightly of it, and trifle with it as a matt<\/span>er of no moment, and set it aside because I have the power of doing so.<\/p>\n

In their dispute with me<\/em>. When they have some matter of complaint against me as to my treatment of them, &c.<\/p>\n

14<\/a>. When God ariset<\/em><\/span>h<\/em>,\u2014to judgment.<\/p>\n

When He visiteth<\/em>,\u2014as an inspector.<\/p>\n

15<\/a>. Myself and my bondsman have one common origin. We do not belong to two distinct classes of God\u2019s creatures, but are of one and the same race of b<\/span>eings by creation.<\/p>\n

Was it not in the belly, &c<\/em>. This is the most literal and obvious translation, and I wonder it should have been overlooked. The parallelism is preserved, without resorting to the ra<\/span>ther clumsy necessity of making \u05d0\u05b6\u05d7\u05b8\u05d3<\/span> (ekhad<\/span>) in the next clause refer to one God<\/em>.<\/p>\n

One womb<\/em>. Not one and the same womb, this would be \u05e8\u05b6\u05d7\u05b6\u05dd \u05d4\u05b8\u05d0\u05b6\u05d7\u05b8\u05d3<\/span> (rekhem haekhad<\/span>); but one and the same sort of womb.<\/span><\/p>\n

17<\/a>. Had not eaten<\/em>. This past tense, I think, implies not only that the fatherless shared in Job\u2019s portion, but that he had the first share allotted to him. This would, I imagine, be consonant with th<\/span>e law of Oriental hospitality.<\/p>\n

18<\/a>. The sense requires that this verse should be regarded as a parenthesis. The force of \u05db\u05b4\u05bc\u05d9<\/span> (chi<\/span>) here is, So far from<\/em> being guilty of, &c., &c., I have, on the contra<\/em><\/span>ry<\/em>, done, &c., &c.<\/p>\n

Him<\/em>,\u2014the fatherless spoken of in the previous verse.<\/p>\n

Her<\/em>,\u2014the widow mentioned in verse 16<\/a>.<\/p>\n

I have brought him up<\/em>, \u05d2\u05b4\u05bc\u05d3\u05b5\u05dc\u05b7\u05e0\u05b4\u05d9<\/span> (gedelani<\/span>),\u2014lit., he grew up to me, i.e<\/em>., under my foste<\/span>ring care. Whatever preposition is understood before the pronominal suffix in this word, must of course be understood also before its apposite \u05db\u05b0\u05bc\u05d0\u05b8\u05d1<\/span> (cheav<\/span>), i.e<\/em>., as<\/em> [to<\/em>] a father<\/em>.<\/p>\n

From my mother\u2019s <\/em><\/span>womb<\/em>. Job means by this, either that he had so acted at all times, or that the disposition to do so had been always natural to him,\u2014that he had been born with that disposition. Compare Ps. 58:3<\/a>.<\/p>\n

20<\/a>. I<\/em><\/span>f his loins did not bless me<\/em>,\u2014because covered with garments with which I furnished him.<\/p>\n

\u05db\u05b0\u05bc\u05d1\u05b8\u05e9\u05b4\u05c2\u05d9\u05dd<\/span> (chevasim<\/span>) are young sheep<\/em>; hence Job did not put the poor off with refuse wool.<\/p>\n

21<\/a>. Shaken my hand a<\/em><\/span>t<\/em>,\u2014a gesture of menacing.<\/p>\n

I had support in the gate<\/em>,\u2014lit., my help was in the gate<\/em>, i.e<\/em>., I had influence to back me in the court of justice.<\/p>\n

22<\/a>. The punishment here imprecated is evidently particular<\/span>ly connected with the sin mentioned in the former verse, that of shaking the hand at, &c<\/em>.<\/p>\n

There is the authority of the Vulgate (but not of the Chald. Par., as its Latin translation would lead one to <\/span>suppose), and partially of the Syriac, and that of several MSS. also, for reading \u05e9\u05b4\u05c1\u05db\u05b0\u05de\u05b8\u05d4<\/span> (shichemah<\/span>) and \u05e7\u05b8\u05e0\u05b8\u05d4<\/span> (kanah<\/span>) with a Mappik, in which case the translation would be, its shoulder-blade<\/em>, and <\/span>its elbow<\/em>.<\/p>\n

My arm<\/em>,\u2014\u05d0\u05b6\u05d6\u05b0\u05e8\u05b9\u05e2\u05b4\u05d9<\/span> (ezrogni<\/span>), that part of the arm which extends from the elbow to the wrist,\u2014the ulna<\/em>.<\/p>\n

\u05e7\u05b8\u05e0\u05b8\u05d4<\/span> (kanah<\/span>), the elbow<\/em>, lit., a reed<\/em>, but here that bone of the arm which is between<\/span> the shoulder and the elbow,\u2014the os humeri<\/span>.<\/p>\n

23<\/a>. But<\/em>,\u2014\u05db\u05b4\u05bc\u05d9<\/span> (chi<\/span>), but<\/em> such is not the case, I have not done these things, for<\/em> I feared God.<\/p>\n

Job here declares that one great principle that proved to him<\/span> a preservative from sin, was not so much the cognizance of a human judge as the fear of Almighty wrath.<\/p>\n

I was incapable<\/em>,\u2014i.e., of committing the sins just alluded to.<\/p>\n

24<\/a>. Job now disclaims the sin of<\/span> avarice, a sin which he clearly connects with idolatry. He says this probably in allusion to the remarks of Eliphaz, 22:24<\/a>.<\/p>\n

Diamond<\/em>,\u2014\u05db\u05b6\u05bc\u05ea\u05b6\u05dd<\/span> (chethem<\/span>). (See note on 28:16<\/span><\/a>.)<\/p>\n

Or have called<\/em>,\u2014as if it we<\/span>re a God.<\/p>\n

26<\/a>. \u05d0\u05d5\u05b9\u05e8<\/span> (or<\/span>), light<\/em>, here used poetically for the sun<\/em>; so in 37:21<\/a>; Isa. 38:4<\/a>; and Hab. 3:4<\/a>.<\/p>\n

When it shineth<\/em>,\u2014probably at its rising. On the subject of this early species of idolatry, see D<\/span>eut. 4:19<\/a>; 2 Kings 23:5<\/a>, 11<\/a>; Ezek. 8:16<\/a>.<\/p>\n

Walking splendidly<\/em>,\u2014probably when full moon.<\/p>\n

27<\/a>. My hand should kiss my mouth<\/em>. This not unlikely was the earliest gesture of adoration. Some readers may not pe<\/span>rhaps be aware that the very meaning of the word adoration<\/em> imports putting the hand to the mouth.<\/p>\n

28<\/a>. An iniquity, &c<\/em>. See note on verse 11<\/span><\/a>.<\/p>\n

Most high<\/em>,\u2014lit., from above<\/em>: above all the heavenly bodies <\/span>and things.<\/p>\n

29<\/a>, 30<\/a>. Job\u2019s meaning in these two verses is,\u2014I never triumph over the misfortunes of an enemy, even though my conscience does not tax me with having ever wished that such misfortunes shou<\/span>ld befall him. How truly Job speaks to human nature! How many there are who have that measure of religion, that they would feel it wrong to wish evil to an enemy, but who are really filled with a secret joy, when evil does come upon him. Job had more of the gospel spirit about him\u2014the spirit of true charity.<\/span><\/p>\n

The roof of my mouth<\/em>,\u2014perhaps the ordinary form of cursing was principally articulated by <\/span>the palate.<\/p>\n

By imprecating, &c.<\/em>,\u2014lit., by asking that his soul might be in or under a curse<\/em>.<\/p>\n

31<\/a>. This solution of the verse, whether correct or otherwise, is said to be due to Ikenius, and has been ad<\/span>opted by Schultens, Rosenm\u00fcller, Dathe, Umbreit, and a host of others. The meaning is, that so generous was Job, that it had become a sort of common remark amongst his household, that not a single person could be pointed out who had not partaken of his hospitality. If, however, it were not that the next <\/span>verse would be left in too isolated and somewhat unnatural position, I think I should prefer connecting this verse with the preceding and translating it thus,\u2014<\/span><\/p>\n

\u201cNo, not when the men of my tabernacle have said<\/em>,<\/p>\n

Oh that we had of his flesh<\/em> [else<\/em>] we shall not be satisfied<\/em>;\u201d<\/p>\n

that is, I never for a<\/span> moment imprecated evil on an enemy, not even when my household were urging me to it by exhibiting their own revengeful feelings towards him, declaring that those feelings could not be satisfied, unless they had him to tea<\/span>r in pieces. (See the Illustrations<\/a>.)<\/p>\n

The Hebrew most thoroughly admits of either of these translations.<\/p>\n

32<\/a>. The traveller<\/em>,\u2014\u05d0\u05b9\u05e8\u05b7\u05d7<\/span> (orakh<\/span>), lit., a way<\/em>; it may, however, be poetic<\/span>ally used for one who traverses a way, a way-farer<\/em>, so in 6:19<\/a>; or \u05d0\u05b4\u05d9\u05e9\u05c1<\/span> (ish<\/span>) may be understood before it; or the punctuation might be \u05d0\u05b9\u05e8\u05b5\u05d7\u05b7<\/span> (oreakh<\/span>). The parallel word \u05d2\u05b5\u05bc\u05e8<\/span> (ger<\/span>) sufficiently deter<\/span>mines what meaning must be attached to it here.<\/p>\n

33<\/a>. As Adam<\/em>,\u2014or the Hebrew might be (and many commentators prefer it), as man<\/em>, but the objection to that is, that Job would hardly have ventured to spea<\/span>k of himself as an excellent exception to a general rule. (See Gen. 3:8<\/a>.)<\/p>\n

\u05d7\u05b9\u05d1<\/span> (khov<\/span>) is Aramaic rather than Hebrew.<\/p>\n

34<\/a>. There is, I think, little doubt but that \u05db\u05b4\u05bc\u05d9<\/span> (chi<\/span>) is here used as the apodosis<\/span> to \u05d0\u05b4\u05dd<\/span> (im<\/span>) in the former verse, and so, the force of the expression is, if<\/em> so and so, then<\/em> so and so. This agrees well with all that has gone before, and moreover v. 33<\/a> requires some such apodosis a<\/span>s this. Job\u2019s meaning is,\u2014If in anything which I have now stated about my innocence of life, &c., I have concealed from you any sin of which I know myself to be guilty, then let me be afraid of exposure before the populace as a vi<\/span>le hypocrite, and be confounded at incurring the contempt of the tribes, to such a degree as never to be able to open my mouth any more, nor venture again into public. Job evidently refers here to some tumult which had been raised against him, and some kind of revolutionary movement amongst the tribes he governed, by which he had lost his authority, and had, in point of fact, been deposed: there are hints of this scattered in <\/span>the book. Job here imprecates upon himself, that this circumstance of his deposition and disgrace might be a subject of terror to him, and ever hereafter silence him, if, in the description which he had just given of his own character, he had been guilty of concealing any iniquity of which he was conscious. I again refer to the note on <\/span><\/span>30<\/span>:1<\/span><\/a>, and its reference to an extract from Layard\u2019s \u201cNineveh.\u201d See also Burckhardt\u2019s \u201cBedouins, &c.,\u201d vol. ii., 284. The Hebrew would admit of another translation thus,\u2014<\/p>\n

\u201cIf I have covered my transgress<\/em><\/span>ions, &c., &c<\/em>.\u2014<\/p>\n

Because I was afraid of the great multitude<\/em>,<\/p>\n

And the contempt of the tribes dismayed me<\/em>,<\/p>\n

And<\/em> [so<\/em>] was dumb, and went not forth from the door<\/em>.\u201d<\/p>\n

The objection, however, to this translati<\/span>on, which Rosenm\u00fcller favors, is that there is no apodosis, unless it be intended that the reader should supply one in his own mind, as is frequently the case in the use of \u05d0\u05b4\u05dd<\/span> (im<\/span>), but here, this wo<\/span>uld violate the analogy of the rest of the chapter.<\/p>\n

35<\/a>. One to hear me<\/em>,\u2014one who might act as an umpire or arbitrator in this suit that is pending between God and me. Comp. 9:32<\/a>.<\/p>\n

Behold my authentic st<\/em><\/span>atement<\/em>,\u2014\u05d4\u05b6\u05df \u05ea\u05b8\u05bc\u05d5\u05b4\u05d9<\/span> (hen tawi<\/span>), lit., behold my sign<\/em>, or mark<\/em>, or signature<\/em>, or sign-manual<\/em>; Job no doubt alludes to the defence in writing made by the accused party in ancient courts of law, and duly<\/span> attested by his mark or signature. He means that he, for his part, was prepared for the trial; he had just said all that he had to say on the subject of his innocence\u2014he vouched for its accuracy, and it was for his opponent now to disprove that statement if he could; \u201c<\/span>let the Almighty answer me<\/em>,\u201d if I have said anything that is false, let him now contradict it.<\/p>\n

O that my adversary had written, &c<\/em><\/span>., &c<\/em>. How much I wish that God had distinctly specified what charges he has against me. (See the Illustrations<\/a>.)<\/p>\n

36<\/a>. So conscious am I of my innocence, that if there were an indictment drawn up again<\/span>st me, I would parade it in triumph, and regard it as an ornament.<\/p>\n

In coronets<\/em>. Job would wind the scroll on which the indictment was written round his head, and use it as his princely head-dress. Com<\/span>pare Prov. 6:21<\/a>, and Deut. 6:8<\/a>.<\/p>\n

37<\/a>. So far from shrinking from a bill of indictment being made out against me, I would volunteer to assist my opponent in drawing up any such bill, and would openly tel<\/span>l him of all my ways and doings; and that, as boldly as one who feels his power, and knows that he has nothing to fear.<\/p>\n

38<\/a>. If we judge of this poem by strict laws of criticism, there is no doubt but <\/span>that the sentiment expressed from this verse to the end of the chapter, would have been better placed anywhere before v. 33<\/a>, so that the portion between that verse and the present might have formed th<\/span>e conclusion of Job\u2019s speech. Many commentators have consequently made the transfer; but for this, there is neither the authority of MSS. nor of ancient versions. Let us rather suppose that Job spoke just as it is written; and that the idea striking him of an omission he had m<\/span>ade in the catalogue of his virtues, he preferred rectifying the omission, though it might be out of place, and after his catalogue was apparently finished. If the introduction of the sentiment here seems unnatural in one sense, it is perfectly natural in the other\u2014as natural as St. Paul\u2019s mention of his \u201ccloke\u201d in the midst of speaking of other matters.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

If my soil should cry out against me<\/em>, &c.<\/em>, &c.<\/em>,\u2014because of my injustice towards its proprietors. For similar instances of this beautiful personification see Gen. 4:10<\/a><\/span>, and Hab. 2:11<\/a>.<\/p>\n

39<\/a>. If I have eaten its strength without silver<\/em>. Having appropriated it to myself (as the next clause shows) by oppression, embezzling the property without making compensation to thos<\/span>e to whom it belongs.<\/p>\n

And have made the soul of its lords to expire<\/em>. In order to take possession of their lands.<\/p>\n

\u05e0\u05b6\u05e4\u05b6\u05e9\u05c1 \u05d4\u05b4\u05e4\u05b7\u05bc\u05d7\u05b0\u05ea\u05b4\u05bc\u05d9<\/span> (nephesh hippakheti<\/span>). (See Note on 11:20<\/span><\/a>.)<\/p>\n

40<\/a>. Weeds<\/em>. Nothing defini<\/span>te is known as to what sort of noxious plant<\/em> is intended by \u05d1\u05b8\u05bc\u05d0\u05b0\u05e9\u05b8\u05c1\u05d4<\/span> (boshah<\/span>).<\/p>\n

The words of Job are ended,\u2014i.e<\/em>., so far as concerns his argument and his defence of himself. Possibly Job may have utte<\/span>red this himself, and if so, meant by it,\u2014I have now stated all that I have to say upon the subject of God\u2019s treatment of me, and the innocence of my character; I have nothing to add to my statements, nor do I intend attempting to do so.<\/p>\n

\n

Job 32<\/a><\/p>\n

1<\/a>. He was righteous in his own eyes<\/em>,\u2014and they had given up all hope of convincing him to the contrary.<\/p>\n

Elihu the son of Barachel<\/em>. The meanings of these names probably indicate the piety of Elih<\/span>u\u2019s parents and ancestors, the first signifying My God is He<\/em>, the second, God hath blessed<\/em>.<\/p>\n

The Buzite<\/em>. The descendant probably of Buz<\/em>, the second son of Nahor, the brother of Abraham, Gen. 22:21<\/a>, and<\/span> whose race is mentioned by Jeremiah, apparently as inhabiting some part of the Arabian desert (Jer. 25:23<\/a>, 24<\/a>).<\/p>\n

Of the tribe of Ram<\/em>. Of this person and tribe we know nothing certain.<\/p>\n

Because of his h<\/em><\/span>aving justified his own self rather than God<\/em>. Because he had been more concerned to prove his own innocence than to vindicate God\u2019s justice, and in endeavouring to make good the former, he had cast re<\/span>flections upon the latter.<\/p>\n

3<\/a>. Had found no answer, &c., &c.<\/em> They had not been able to refute Job\u2019s protestations of his innocence, and yet had condemned him as one who was really guilty.<\/p>\n

\u05d5\u05b7\u05d9\u05b7\u05bc\u05e8\u05b0\u05e9\u05b4\u05c1\u05d9\u05e2\u05d5<\/span><\/span>\u05bc \u05d0\u05b6\u05ea\u05be\u05d0\u05b4\u05d9\u05d5\u05b9\u05d1<\/span> (wayarshignou eth iyov<\/span>) they had condemned Job<\/em>. There is a foolish conceit of the Jews, that before the making of eighteen emendations of the Scriptures by the hands of Ezra, this passage<\/span> stood \u05d5\u05b7\u05d9\u05b7\u05bc\u05e8\u05b0\u05e9\u05b4\u05c1\u05d9\u05e2\u05d5\u05bc \u05d0\u05b6\u05ea\u05be\u05d9\u05b0\u05d4\u05b9\u05d5\u05b8\u05d4<\/span> (wayarshignou eth yehowah<\/span>) they had condemned Jehovah<\/em>.<\/p>\n

4<\/a>. Had waited till Job had spoken<\/em>,\u2014and consequently for his three friends also, who had spoken first. Lit., he <\/em><\/span>had waited for Job in words<\/em>.<\/p>\n

6<\/a>. I did slink<\/em>. This exactly expresses \u05d6\u05b7\u05d7\u05b7\u05dc\u05b0\u05ea\u05b4\u05bc\u05d9<\/span> (zakhalti<\/span>) which means both to creep<\/em>, or crawl<\/em>, as a reptile, and also to be afraid<\/em>. Our word to slink<\/em> is derived from th<\/span>e Saxon slingan<\/em> (to creep<\/em>). Its exact meaning may be seen in the following passage of Milton, where the poet, speaking of the serpent, says:\u2014<\/p>\n

\u201cHe, after Eve seduced, unminded slunk<\/em><\/p>\n

Into the wood fast <\/em><\/span>by<\/em>.\u201d\u2014(Par. Lost.)<\/p>\n

Young<\/em>, lit., small<\/em>.<\/p>\n

8<\/a>. A spirit<\/em>. A divine spirit, as the parallel expression in the next clause shows. Elihu means,\u2014But perhaps I am mistaken in having expected so much wisdom from m<\/span>en of years, and, as I had supposed, experience; for, after all, wisdom is not so much a thing that can be acquired, as a gift from God. It is God\u2019s Spirit within, and not age, that gives perception and intuition to one man more than to another.<\/span><\/p>\n

It<\/em>\u2014\u05d4\u05b4\u05d9\u05d0<\/span> (hi<\/span>) is emphatic, and implies that whatever understanding a man may have, it is not of himself, but is only of that Spirit of God which is in him.<\/span><\/p>\n

9<\/a>. Elihu means,\u2014From the specimens of wisdom I have had before me in these recent discourses, I find that I must modify my original idea\u2014that days ought to speak, and multitude of years to show wisdo<\/span>m; I now see that this is not necessarily the case, that it does not necessarily follow, that because a man is old, he is therefore, wise.<\/p>\n

\u05e8\u05b7\u05d1\u05b4\u05bc\u05d9\u05dd<\/span> (rabbim<\/span>), the great<\/em>, either in authority<\/em>, or learning<\/em><\/span>, or wealth<\/em>, or age<\/em>. Both the context and the parallelism restrict the meaning to the latter sense.<\/p>\n

Understand judgment<\/em>. Take a right view of subjects in general.<\/p>\n

10<\/a>. Hearken unto me<\/em>. This is addresse<\/span>d to Job alone. There is some MS. authority and of ancient versions for reading \u05e9\u05b4\u05c1\u05de\u05b0\u05e2\u05d5\u05bc<\/span> (shimgnou<\/span>) hearken ye<\/em>, instead of \u05e9\u05b4\u05c1\u05de\u05b0\u05e2\u05b8\u05d4<\/span> (shimgnah<\/span>) hearken thou<\/em>. But this savours of emendation, to get rid <\/span>of a supposed difficulty, which lies in the fact that Elihu addresses the friends in the next verse.<\/p>\n

11<\/a>. To the utmost of<\/em>. This is the force of \u05e2\u05b7\u05d3<\/span> (gnad<\/span>).<\/p>\n

\u05ea\u05b0\u05bc\u05d1\u05d5\u05bc\u05e0\u05d5\u05b9\u05ea\u05b5\u05d9\u05db\u05b6\u05dd<\/span> (tevounotheichem<\/span>), your unde<\/em><\/span>rstandings<\/em>, or reasoning faculties<\/em>. I listened to you whilst you went as far as your understandings could carry you.<\/p>\n

Your searching out for verse<\/em>, whereby to refute and silence Job. (See note on 4:2<\/span><\/a>.)<\/span><\/p>\n

\u05d0\u05b8\u05d6\u05b4\u05d9\u05df<\/span> (azin<\/span>) is for \u05d0\u05b7\u05bd\u05d0\u05b2\u05d6\u05b4\u05d9\u05df<\/span> (aazin<\/span>). So also, some MSS.<\/p>\n

12<\/a>. To the utmost of you, i.e., to the full extent of you<\/em>. The Syriac translates this, I gave attention to your testimonies<\/em>. Those translato<\/span>rs must consequently have understood the word as \u05d5\u05b0\u05e2\u05b5\u05bd\u05d3\u05b5\u05d9\u05db\u05b6\u05dd<\/span> (wegnedeichem<\/span>) instead of \u05d5\u05b0\u05e2\u05b8\u05bd\u05d3\u05b5\u05d9\u05db\u05b6\u05dd<\/span> (wegnadeichem<\/span>); one MS. has a similar reading.<\/p>\n

13<\/a>. God shall vanquish him, not man<\/em>. This was literall<\/span>y the case.<\/p>\n

\u05d9\u05b4\u05d3\u05b0\u05bc\u05e4\u05b6\u05e0\u05bc\u05d5\u05bc<\/span> (idphennou<\/span>), shall vanquish him, lit<\/em>., shall drive him away, i.e., shall drive him away from his position<\/em>, and so, shall conquer him<\/em>.<\/p>\n

14<\/a>. As you, and not I, were the objects of<\/span> Job\u2019s attack, I may be supposed to enter into this field of discussion entirely free from that passion and prejudice which betrayed you into the unwarrantable expressions and opinions you have advanced in your replies to him.<\/span><\/p>\n

15<\/a>. From this verse to the end of the chapter appears to be a soliloquy. Elihu seems to be addressing himself in a sort of rhapsodical spirit.<\/p>\n

They have put away, &c<\/em>. Elihu <\/span>sarcastically describes their being at a loss for new arguments, as though it were their own voluntary act, rather than their misfortune.<\/p>\n

They are routed<\/em>\u2014\u05d7\u05b7\u05ea\u05bc\u05d5\u05bc<\/span> (khattou<\/span>), utterly thrown into confusio<\/em><\/span>n<\/em>, like an army on the battle-field, by the arguments which Job has set in array (\u05e2\u05b8\u05e8\u05b7\u05da\u05b0<\/span>, gnarach<\/span>) against them.<\/p>\n

17<\/a>. \u05d0\u05b7\u05bd\u05e2\u05b2\u05e0\u05b6\u05d4<\/span> (agneneh<\/span>) is evidently for \u05d0\u05b6\u05bd\u05e2\u05b1\u05e0\u05b6\u05d4<\/span> (egneneh<\/span>).<\/p>\n

18<\/a>. Elihu had before shown <\/span>upon what grounds he might be permitted to speak. He now shows why he must<\/em> speak. He could no longer exercise such control over himself as to remain silent.<\/p>\n

\u05de\u05b8\u05dc\u05b5\u05ea\u05b4\u05d9<\/span> (malethi<\/span>) is of course for \u05de\u05b8\u05dc\u05b5\u05d0\u05ea\u05b4\u05d9<\/span><\/span> (malethi<\/span>).<\/p>\n

The spirit of my belly, i.e<\/em>., the spirit that is within me.<\/p>\n

Belly<\/em>. The Hebrew word \u05d1\u05b6\u05bc\u05d8\u05b6\u05df<\/span> (beten<\/span>) includes the whole inside part of the body from the neck to the lower part of the belly. T<\/span>he voice may be said to come from the breast, and more particularly so in the case of Oriental nations.<\/p>\n

Compresseth me<\/em>. Makes me feel inwardly too small to hold it.<\/p>\n

19<\/a>. As wine, i.e<\/em>., as the bottles o<\/span>r skins which contain the wine, as the next clause shows, and the sense requires.<\/p>\n

New wine-skins<\/em>. The inference is that it is new wine which is put into new skins, and hence their liability to burst, <\/span>the new wine being in a state of fermentation. (See the Illustrations<\/a>.)<\/p>\n

21<\/a>. The distinction between \u05d0\u05b7\u05dc<\/span> (al<\/span>) and \u05dc\u05b9\u05d0<\/span> (lo<\/span>) ought to be observed here. The first implies the earnest desire not to do, &c<\/em>.<\/span>, the second the firm determination not to do<\/em>, &c., &c<\/em>.<\/p>\n

The desire expressed in the first clause is addressed, not to others, but to himself. He beseeches himself (\u05d0\u05b7\u05dc\u05be\u05e0\u05b8\u05d0<\/span>, al na<\/span>) not to show partiali<\/span>ty: as to using fawning language to man, that he utterly repudiates in the second clause.<\/p>\n

Or God<\/em>\u2014\u05d5\u05d0\u05dc<\/span> (wal<\/span>). I prefer to punctuate this \u05d5\u05b0\u05d0\u05b5\u05dc<\/span> (weel<\/span>) rather than \u05d5\u05b0\u05d0\u05b6\u05dc<\/span> (weel<\/span>). The Masorites chose the la<\/span>tter, probably because they deemed the sentiment, which the former would convey, disrespectful to God. Elihu\u2019s meaning, as I take it, is,\u2014that in the opinion he is about to pronounce, he deprecates being biassed by any desire of <\/span>showing favor either to man or to God. Job had already accused his friends of a pretentious attempt to show God favor in the part they took in the controversy, as though God would be pleased at it; and he had warned them that thereby they were rather provoking his displeasure (ch. <\/span>13:7\u201310<\/a>). Elihu professes his hope that he may not be guilty of this, and at the same tim<\/span>e that he may not be guilty of siding with man against God. In short, he professes strict honesty of purpose, in the opinion which he is about to pass on the subjects in question\u2014he will neither go on the one side, as far as Job\u2019s friends <\/span>had gone, as though thereby he were vindicating God\u2019s cause, nor, on the other side, will he seek to please and justify Job at God\u2019s expense. \u05d0\u05b4\u05d9\u05e9\u05c1<\/span> (ish<\/span>) man<\/em> is <\/span>the word that is very properly placed here in opposition to God<\/em>, as it is in many other parts of Scripture.<\/p>\n

Man<\/em>. In the second clause the Hebrew word for man is \u05d0\u05b8\u05d3\u05b8\u05dd<\/span> (adam<\/span>), and it is contrasted with<\/span> \u05d0\u05b4\u05d9\u05e9\u05c1<\/span> (ish<\/span>) in the first clause, \u05d0\u05d3\u05dd<\/span> (adam<\/span>) signifying man<\/em> in his lowest condition, common man<\/em>; and Elihu means,\u2014how can I think of showing deference to such an one by appellations of distinction?<\/p>\n

22<\/a><\/span>. Or God<\/em>. This I think is to be understood, from the first clause of the former verse, the two intermediate clauses referring to man<\/em>, who is the first-mentioned in that first clause, and this clause r<\/span>eferring to God<\/em>. Elihu\u2019s meaning is,\u2014I have said that I cannot show undue partiality for man, neither can I do so for God; if I did so, then, &c., &c.<\/p>\n

In very small respect would my maker hold me<\/em>. Not<\/span>, as it is usually rendered, My maker would soon take me away<\/em>, which scarcely makes sense, or, at least, that sense contains a hardly conceivable idea\u2014the expectation of the punishment of death for th<\/span>e offence of showing partiality in the expression of an opinion in a controversy. The \u05d9\u05b4\u05e9\u05b8\u05bc\u05c2\u05d0\u05b5\u05e0\u05b4\u05d9<\/span> (issaeni<\/span>) in the second clause is evidently to be taken in the same meaning as the \u05d0\u05b6\u05e9\u05b8\u05bc\u05c2\u05d0<\/span> (essa<\/span>) in t<\/span>he first clause of the previous verse, and \u05e4\u05b8\u05bc\u05e0\u05b8\u05d9<\/span> (panai<\/span>) may perhaps be understood, and thus the inverted parallelism is complete, the sense of the two verses being,\u2014Let me be careful, in advancing m<\/span>y opinion, that I do not, from self-interested motives, show favor either to man or to God. As to showing it to man, that I cannot do, for it is contrary to my nature to flatter; and if I show it to God, I am aware that thereby I shall be but forfeiting <\/span>his<\/em> favor.<\/p>\n

\n
\n
\n

Job 33<\/a><\/p>\n

1<\/a>. Howbeit<\/em>. By way of coming to the point; or, Notwithstanding that I do not mean to flatter you.<\/p>\n

My verse<\/em>. See Note on 4:2<\/span><\/a>.<\/p>\n

2<\/a>. See, I have now actually committed myself to speak.<\/p>\n

3<\/a>. My words<\/em>, &c<\/em>. I will speak in an honest and straightforward way, and just as I feel upon the subject.<\/p>\n

My lips shall verse, &c., &c<\/em>.,\u2014without disguise, or subterfuge, or any false ornaments of language, or admixtures of sentiments foreign to the subject. See Note on chap. 4:2<\/span><\/a>.<\/p>\n

Knowledge<\/em>. \u05d3\u05b7\u05e2\u05b7\u05ea<\/span> (dagnath<\/span>) means here, what I know<\/em>.<\/p>\n

4<\/a>. You need not fear that I shall overawe you by any displays of majesty, for I am but a creature as thyself.<\/p>\n

5<\/a>. Elihu means,\u2014Do not be afraid to do all this; reply to me without fear of being overwhelmed with that majesty which might indeed deter you if God himself were addressing you. You need be under no alarm in entering into contest with such as I am\u2014a fellow-creature.<\/p>\n

There ought to be a comma after \u201ccanst<\/em>\u201d in the Authorized Version.<\/p>\n

6<\/a>. Behold, I am unto God just as thys<\/em>elf, &c<\/em>. \u05d4\u05b5\u05df\u05be\u05d0\u05b2\u05e0\u05b4\u05d9 \u05db\u05b0\u05e4\u05b4\u05d9\u05da\u05b8<\/span> (hen ani chephicha<\/span>). Many translate this,\u2014Behold, I am according to thy mouth<\/em> (i.e., according to the <\/em>wish thou hast expressed<\/em>) in the stead of God<\/em>; but although the Hebrew might admit of this rendering, yet it is unsuitable to the context and destroys the parallelism.<\/p>\n

The phrase \u05d0\u05b2\u05e0\u05b4\u05d9 \u05db\u05b0\u05e4\u05b4\u05d9\u05da\u05b8<\/span> (ani chephicha<\/span>) corresponds pretty closely to our common expression, I am just<\/em> your cut<\/em>. For instances of a similar use of \u05db\u05b0\u05bc\u05e4\u05b4\u05d9<\/span> (chephi<\/span>) see Gesenius.<\/p>\n

I was extracted<\/em>. \u05e7\u05b9\u05e8\u05b7\u05e6\u05b0\u05ea\u05b4\u05bc\u05d9<\/span> (koratsti<\/span>). The allusion is to a potter, who with his hand squeezes and breaks off, or cuts off<\/em>, a piece of clay from the larger lump in order to model it into some form. Elihu of course means,\u2014You, Job, and myself have one common extraction.<\/p>\n

7<\/a>. Elihu evidently alludes to the wish which Job had expressed in 13:21<\/a>:\u2014<\/p>\n

\u201cPut far away thine hand from off me<\/em>;<\/p>\n

And let not the dread of thee make one afraid<\/em>.\u201d<\/p>\n

Hence many take \u05d0\u05b7\u05db\u05b0\u05e4\u05b4\u05bc\u05d9<\/span> (achpi<\/span>) here as though it were \u05d1\u05b7\u05bc\u05e4\u05b4\u05bc\u05d9<\/span> (chappi<\/span>) my hand<\/em>. The LXX. have taken this view of it,\u2014\u1f21 \u03c7\u03b5\u03af\u03c1 \u03bc\u03bf\u03c5<\/span>. The Chaldee Paraphrase, however, has \u05d8\u05d5\u05bc\u05e0\u05b4\u05d9<\/span> (touni<\/span>) my burden<\/em>. \u05d0\u05b7\u05db\u05b0\u05e4\u05b4\u05bc\u05d9<\/span> (achpi<\/span>) is evidently of the same root as the Arabic \u0623\u064e\u0643\u064e\u0641\u064e<\/span> (achapha<\/span>) to bind on a pack sa<\/em>ddle<\/em>; and in the Chaldee we have \u05d0\u05d5\u05bc\u05db\u05b7\u05e3<\/span> (ouchaph<\/span>) a saddle. My load<\/em> or pack on thee shall not be heavy<\/em>, in ordinary English phraseology would be,\u2014I will not saddle you with more than you can bear<\/em>.<\/p>\n

8<\/a>. The meaning of this verse is,\u2014I am quite certain that I cannot be mistaken in now quoting your own words.<\/p>\n

9<\/a>. I am clean<\/em>. \u05d7\u05b7\u05e3\u05be\u05d0\u05b8\u05bd\u05e0\u05b9\u05db\u05b4\u05d9<\/span> (khaph anochi<\/span>), \u05d7\u05e4\u05e3<\/span> (khphph<\/span>), both in the Arabic and Chaldee means to scrub, wash<\/em>, and comb<\/em>, with special reference to the head: so that, in its ordinary sense, \u05d7\u05b7\u05e3<\/span> (khaph<\/span>) would probably mean clean<\/em> as regards freedom from scurf<\/em>, &c.; in a moral sense, cleansed from<\/em> sin<\/em>. The two clauses put together denote the cleanness of the entire man. (See the Illustrations<\/a>.)<\/p>\n

Elihu is scarcely free from the fault of misinterpreting Job\u2019s language; at least he puts a sense upon it which Job had repudiated. (See 9:2<\/a>, and 14:4<\/a>.) This misinterpretation, however, was probably unintentional.<\/p>\n

10<\/a>. Disallowances,\u2014i.e., matters which he disallows<\/em>. The meaning imputed to Job is,\u2014God is unable to find in me any direct transgression of his law; He therefore, for the purpose of proceeding against me with hostility, searches out and finds various little matters at which he takes exception,\u2014things that I have done, not actually sinful, but which in severity of judgment he disallows. As the verb \u05d7\u05b5\u05e0\u05b4\u05d9\u05d0<\/span> (heni<\/span>) unquestionably means to disallow<\/em>, I have no hesitation in affixing the meaning disallowance<\/em> to the noun \u05ea\u05b0\u05bc\u05e0\u05d5\u05bc\u05d0\u05b8\u05d4<\/span> (tenouah<\/span>), and it is very suitable to the context. There is no reasonable ground for translating it occasion, hostility, alienation<\/em>, and other various senses that have been attached to it.<\/p>\n

He counteth me, &c.<\/em> Job had said this 13:24<\/a>, and 19:11<\/a>.<\/p>\n

11<\/a>. Reference is here made to 13:27<\/a>.<\/p>\n

12<\/a>. Elihu informs Job that the sentiments which he (Job) had expressed with reference to the motives by which he supposed God was governed in his dealings with him were wrong, and that that error arose from his measuring God by a human standard,\u2014judging of Him as though He were little as man, and so, could be actuated by the same principles which usually sway men in their actions. Job had indeed often averred, and that, in the sublimest language, that God was greater than man, but, then, he had not made a right use of his own doctrine.<\/p>\n

In this<\/em>. \u05d6\u05b9\u05d0\u05ea<\/span> (zoth<\/span>),\u2014However correct in other respects, yet here<\/em> you are wrong.<\/p>\n

Elihu does not tax Job, as the others had done, with crimes committed before his afflictions, but with sinful reflections which he had cast upon God in consequence of those afflictions.<\/p>\n

13<\/a>. Wherefore hast thou made thy complaint to him<\/em>? not Wherefore h<\/em>ast thou disputed with him<\/em>? This distinction has been overlooked, and hence the context has been entangled. For a similar use of \u05e8\u05b4\u05d9\u05d1<\/span> (riv<\/span>) followed by \u05d0\u05b6\u05dc<\/span> (el<\/span>), see Jud. 21:22<\/a>.<\/p>\n

The meaning of the whole verse is,\u2014How can you think that God will hear you, when you so often have refused to hear Him when he has spoken? Elihu somewhat softens this by making the application to Job indirectly, or rather, by making it of universal application.<\/p>\n

I am not sure whether I should not prefer reading with several MSS. \u05e8\u05b4\u05d9\u05d1\u05d5\u05b9\u05ea<\/span> (rivoth<\/span>). The meaning of the first clause would then be,\u2014Wherefore are complaints<\/em> [made<\/em>] to him<\/em>?<\/p>\n

14<\/a>. Speaketh<\/em>,\u2014by the voice of his providences, such as dreams, afflictions, &c., and which are afterwards specified by Elihu.<\/p>\n

Once<\/em>,\u2014and if men attended to that first admonition, it would not be necessary to repeat it.<\/p>\n

Regard it,\u2014i.e<\/em>., regard God\u2019s speaking. Man generally neglects to listen to God, when, by speaking mildly through such means as dreams, He endeavours to deter him from evil courses; and even when God resorts to the severer measure of speaking through afflictions, man too often continues deaf to the appeal.<\/p>\n

15<\/a>. Elihu now instances three different ways in which God speaks to men for their profit:\u2014first, through the medium of dreams<\/em> (vers. 15\u201318<\/a>); secondly, by personal affliction<\/em> (vers. 19\u201322<\/a>); and thirdly, by the intervention of a divinely-sent messenger<\/em> (vers. 23\u201328<\/a>). Job was now experiencing the second of these means, and Elihu probably assumes, whether justly or not, that he himself was the messenger referred to in the third instance.<\/p>\n

In the dream, &c<\/em>. In dreams during the night, and those, whether occurring in heavy sleep or in light slumbers. Eliphaz, in chap. 4:12<\/a>, &c., had recorded an instance, in his own experience, in which he had been powerfully impressed by a divine admonition, received through the medium of a dream.<\/p>\n

16<\/a>. God first uncovers the ear, removing all impediments, in order to convey into it the requisite instruction, and then He closes it up, putting, as it were, a seal upon it in order to prevent the instruction so conveyed from escaping. Several kindred roots, as well as one of the Arabic meanings of the word, show that \u05d7\u05b8\u05ea\u05b7\u05dd<\/span> (khatham<\/span>) has the sense of shutting<\/em> and locking up<\/em>, as well as of setting a seal<\/em>, and so, of sealing up<\/em>.<\/p>\n

Their instruction<\/em>. The Kethib is \u05d5\u05d1\u05de\u05e1\u05e8\u05dd<\/span> (wvmsrm<\/span>); this the Masorites have pointed \u05d5\u05bc\u05d1\u05b0\u05de\u05b9\u05e1\u05b8\u05e8\u05b8\u05dd<\/span>(ouvemosaram<\/span>), a word of no particular meaning, unless it signifies and on their chain<\/em>. I think that not improbably the punctuation should be \u05d5\u05bc\u05d1\u05b0\u05de\u05bb\u05e1\u05b8\u05e8\u05b8\u05dd<\/span> (ouvemusaram<\/span>) = \u05d5\u05bc\u05d1\u05b0\u05de\u05d5\u05bc\u05db\u05b8\u05e8\u05b8\u05dd<\/span> (ouvemousaram<\/span>).<\/p>\n

17<\/a>. To withdraw, &c.<\/em> Some supply \u05de\u05df<\/span> (min<\/span>) from the latter clause, before \u05de\u05b7\u05bd\u05e2\u05b2\u05e9\u05b6\u05c2\u05d4<\/span> (magneseh<\/span>), but this, I think, is unnecessary, as \u05de\u05b7\u05bd\u05e2\u05b2\u05e9\u05b6\u05c2\u05d4<\/span> (magneseh<\/span>) may be taken absolutely, and signify as to a wo<\/em>rk, i.e., with regard to some purposed evil work<\/em>; Just as our word deed<\/em> often means an evil deed. Or, perhaps, the punctuation might be \u05de\u05b5\u05bd\u05e2\u05b2\u05e9\u05c2\u05d4<\/span> (megnesoh<\/span>), and the meaning would then be, So as to tur<\/em>n aside man from to do, i.e., from perpetrating something intended<\/em>. There are some who supply \u05de\u05df<\/span> (min<\/span>) before \u05d0\u05b8\u05e8\u05b8\u05dd<\/span> (adam<\/span>), as it stands before \u05d2\u05b6\u05bc\u05d1\u05b6\u05e8<\/span> (gever<\/span>) in the next clause, and so, make the parallel more complete. Or again, the clause might be translated, So as to make man put away a work<\/em>. There are many remarkable instances in Scripture of the truth here stated, and the following cases may have been familiar to Elihu and to those whom he was addressing. Abimclech<\/span> (Gen. 20<\/a>), and Laban<\/em> (Gen. 31:24<\/a>).<\/p>\n

He covereth pride, &c.<\/em>,\u2014He mercifully prevents the great man from accomplishing proud projects. Covereth pride<\/em>,\u2014and so, in point of fact, removes the temptation by putting it out of sight. This clause is parallel with the first clause of the previous verse, and God\u2019s covering pride is contrasted with his uncovering the ear, the latter being the instrumental cause of the former.<\/p>\n

\u05d2\u05b5\u05bc\u05d5\u05b8\u05d4<\/span> (gewah<\/span>) is for \u05d2\u05b5\u05bc\u05d0\u05b8\u05d4<\/span> (geah<\/span>) or \u05d2\u05b7\u05bc\u05bd\u05d0\u05b2\u05d5\u05b8\u05d4<\/span> (gaewah<\/span>).<\/p>\n

18<\/a>. He keepeth back, &c<\/em>. It is here implied that pride leads to a pit-fall. Compare Prov. 16:18<\/a>.<\/p>\n

Nebuchadnezzar was thus duly warned by a dream (Dan. 4<\/a>), but as he did not give heed to the warning, his pride met with the punishment forewarned. (Dan. 4:28<\/a>, &c., &c.)<\/p>\n

And his life from passing away like a dart<\/em>. This is usually translated,\u2014And his life from perishing by the sword or dart<\/em>; but the Hebrew \u05de\u05b5\u05bd\u05e2\u05b2\u05d1\u05b9\u05e8 \u05d1\u05b7\u05bc\u05e9\u05b8\u05bc\u05bd\u05c1\u05dc\u05b7\u05d7<\/span> (megnevor bashshalakh<\/span>) can scarcely admit of this rendering; literally it is from passing away in a dart, i.e<\/em>., after the manner of a dart: the preposition \u05d1\u05b0\u05bc<\/span> (be<\/span>) has often the signification of similitude.<\/p>\n

The meaning is,\u2014By the means here spoken of, God often preserves man from sudden death<\/em>.<\/p>\n

19<\/a>. A second means by which God deals with man for his good,\u2014affliction.<\/p>\n

He is argued with<\/em>. God takes this method to convince him that he is in error, &c., &c.<\/p>\n

The controversy with his bones, &c<\/em>. I adopt the Kethib \u05e8\u05b4\u05d9\u05d1<\/span> (riv<\/span>) in preference to the Keri \u05e8\u05d5\u05b9\u05d1<\/span> (rov<\/span>), notwithstanding the authority of the ancient versions: \u05e8\u05b4\u05d9\u05d1<\/span> (riv<\/span>) forms an exact parallelism with \u05d4\u05d5\u05bc\u05db\u05b7\u05d7<\/span> (houchakh<\/span>), and \u05d0\u05b5\u05ea\u05b8\u05df<\/span> (ethan<\/span>) retains its proper sense of perennial, constant, &c<\/em>.; the awkwardness also is avoided of speaking of a robust multitude of bones<\/em>,\u2014meaning, of course, a multitude of strong bones<\/em>; or of supplying \u05de\u05b7\u05db\u05b0\u05d0\u05d5\u05b9\u05d1<\/span> (machov<\/span>) pain<\/em> before \u05d0\u05b5\u05ea\u05b8\u05df<\/span> (ethan<\/span>), as in the Authorized Version.<\/p>\n

God, by torturing his bones, may be said to engage in controversy with the man.<\/p>\n

20<\/a>. His appetite<\/em>,\u2014more literally, his life<\/em>; but as regards the particular meaning which I have here given, compare chap. 38:39<\/a>.<\/p>\n

Abhorreth<\/span>. \u05d6\u05b4\u200d\u05bd\u05d4\u05b2\u05de\u05b7\u05ea\u05bc\u05d5\u05bc<\/span> (zihemattou<\/span>). Although this word does not elsewhere occur, yet its meaning is pretty clearly ascertained from the Arabic. The suffix is pleonastic.<\/p>\n

His soul<\/em>,\u2014often, as here, signifies the seat of the appetites, &c., &c. This verse implies that there is a craving for food, whilst, at the same time, there is a loathing felt for it.<\/p>\n

21<\/a>. His flesh, &c<\/em>. His flesh which, previously to his disease, was plump and beautiful in form, gradually disappears, and nothing is left to view but the ugly outline of mere skin and bone. There is some difficulty about the second clause. I am inclined to think that the Kethib \u05e9\u05e4\u05d9<\/span> (shphi<\/span>) should be adhered to, and that the word should be read \u05e9\u05bb\u05c1\u05e4\u05b5\u05bc\u05d9<\/span> (shuppei<\/span>), an unknown noun, from the unknown root \u05e9\u05b8\u05c1\u05e4\u05b7\u05e3<\/span> (shaphaph<\/span>). This root in the Arabic gives meanings which certainly are most suitable to the passage before us,\u2014such as things that are transparent<\/em> and pervious to the light<\/em>,\u2014as veils<\/em>, and other coverings, an emaciated body<\/em>, and the like. See Castell.<\/p>\n

And the transparent coverings, &c<\/em>. Hence, he looks like a mere skeleton.<\/p>\n

22<\/a>. To the pit<\/em>,\u2014to the grave where the body goes to corruption. \u05e0\u05b6\u05e4\u05b6\u05e9\u05c1<\/span> (nephesh<\/span>) soul<\/em> is often used in Scripture for the mere animal life<\/em>, and not always for that living principle which survives death.<\/p>\n

The destroyers<\/em>. \u05de\u05b0\u05de\u05b4\u05ea\u05b4\u05d9\u05dd<\/span> (memithim<\/span>.) This may refer to any of those destructive agencies which God employs to terminate the vital functions. The Jewish notion of their being angels of death<\/em> has no sufficient Scriptural warrant. The cases of the death of the firstborn in Egypt, and of the pestilence in the time of David, and of the destruction of Sennacherib\u2019s host, are too extraordinary, and so, probably, too exceptional likewise, to favor the view.<\/p>\n

23<\/a>. Elihu now adverts to a third method resorted to by God for the purpose of reclaiming man. This passage is one of those celebrated in this book as having been the occasion of much perplexity and of much variety in the views expressed by commentators. Those who are curious may see in Schultens a fair statement of the almost endless opinions advanced on this verse; for greater convenience, however, he has reduced them to three classes:\u2014one class of opinions holding that \u201cthe messenger\u201d and \u201cinterpreter\u201d here spoken of is strictly a human being, such as a prophet or priest; a second class taking the view that \u05de\u05b7\u05dc\u05b0\u05d0\u05b8\u05da\u05b0<\/span> (malach<\/span>) is here literally an angel rather than an ordinary messenger; and a third class contending that Christ the angel of the covenant is here intended. There is, to my mind, no warrant for either of the two latter suppositions. God, in dealing with men and communicating his will to them, uses, so far as we know, the ministry of men, and not of angels; and had this passage referred to the Messiah, it would, one would think, have been so remarkable as not to have escaped the notice of the New Testament writers in their quotations. Lee lays much stress (and in fact it is his one great argument) upon the circumstance that \u05de\u05b7\u05dc\u05b0\u05d0\u05b8\u05da\u05b0<\/span> (malach<\/span>), prior to the time of Job, always signified a literal angel<\/em>, and never a messenger<\/em>; but he forgets that, in the very first chapter of this book, it repeatedly means a human messenger<\/em>. Again, he would make \u05de\u05b5\u05dc\u05b4\u05d9\u05e5<\/span> (melits<\/span>) signify an <\/em>intercessor<\/em> or mediator<\/em>, but gives no authority for taking the word here in that sense.<\/p>\n

The two latter clauses of this verse appear to me to be explanatory of the former clause, and to form a kind of parenthesis; and so, Elihu\u2019s meaning is,\u2014If the afflicted man happens to have by his side<\/em> (\u05e2\u05b8\u05dc\u05b8\u05d9\u05d5<\/span>) (gnalaiv<\/span>) a messenger (and by a messenger I mean such a man as is one out of a thousand, one who can interpret to his fellow-men the Divine will and the mysteries of Providence, and can convince them of the righteousness of all God\u2019s dealings), then, &c., &c.<\/p>\n

God\u2019s uprightness<\/em>. The word God<\/em>, though not expressed in the original, is, I think, sufficiently understood, the word \u05dc\u05b0\u05d0\u05b8\u05d3\u05b8\u05dd<\/span> (leadam<\/span>) being inserted rather than \u05dc\u05d5\u05b9<\/span> (lo<\/span>), purposely, as it appears, to form an antithesis to it.<\/p>\n

Elihu evidently implies that he was himself just such a messenger and interpreter as he is here describing; and that he was sent, in order to justify God\u2019s ways in the eyes of Job, who had hitherto been questioning the justice of God, in the afflictions he was enduring.<\/p>\n

Some commentator\u2019s are determined to discover here the doctrine of Christ\u2019s imputed righteousness; I am satisfied that that doctrine is scriptural (for if sin be remitted,\u2014in other words,\u2014if all defect of righteousness be covered by Christ\u2019s merit, what is this but the imputation of righteousness by Christ\u2019s merit?), but I am equally satisfied that it was far from Elihu\u2019s thoughts; whilst one cannot but admire the zeal of men earnestly to contend for holy and blessed scriptural doctrines, yet, it does great injury to the more general reception of those doctrines, to assert their existence in passages which, after all, may not really contain them.<\/p>\n

24<\/a>. This verse may possibly be made to apply to the grace of God in salvation, and to his deliverance of his people from everlasting death through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus; but such application of it can only be in the way of accommodation, as that is not the real meaning of the passage. Its plain and literal import is, that if God be pleased to deal graciously with the sick and dying man in question, then, on the consideration of that man\u2019s acknowledging his sins, and of his being brought through the ministry of the messenger to a state of true repentance, God issues the command, that he is to recover from his sickness, and thus be delivered from going down into a premature grave. This case is not unlike that of Hezekiah; indeed it so resembles it in many particulars, that I wonder it should have escaped (as I believe it has done) the notice of commentators. The case is recorded in Isaiah 38<\/a>\u2014Hezekiah being sick unto death, prays to the Lord for deliverance,\u2014vers. 3<\/a> and 14<\/a>; and then receives this message<\/em> through the prophet Isaiah,\u2014\u201cGo, and say to Hezekiah, Thus saith the Lord, the God of David thy father, I have heard thy prayer, I have seen thy tears: behold, I will add unto thy days fifteen years.\u201d Isaiah here is the messenger (\u05de\u05b7\u05dc\u05b0\u05d0\u05b8\u05da\u05b0<\/span> malach<\/span>) to whom God says concerning Hezekiah, \u201cDeliver him from going down to the pit; I have found a ransom.\u201d The \u05de\u05b8\u05e6\u05b8\u05ea\u05b4\u05d9 \u05db\u05b9\u05e4\u05b6\u05e8<\/span> (matsathi chopher<\/span>) I have found a ransom<\/em>, corresponds with \u201cI have heard thy prayer, I have seen thy tears.\u201d And \u201cthe pit<\/em>\u201d which Elihu mentions is the same that Hezekiah calls in v. 17<\/a> \u201cthe pit of corruption,\u201d in which verse he celebrates God\u2019s goodness in having delivered him from the grave.<\/p>\n

And God is gracious<\/em>. I consider that the conditional \u05d0\u05b4\u05dd<\/span> (im<\/span>) if<\/em> in the former verse is continued in this, and so the meaning is,\u2014supposing the case that God is gracious, &c.<\/p>\n

And saith, Deliv<\/em>er him, &c.,\u2014i.e<\/em>., God gives the messenger authority to declare to the sick man that his life shall be spared, and it is spared accordingly. Thus God\u2019s prophets and ministers may be said themselves to do what God authorizes them to declare shall be done\u2014compare what God says to Jeremiah in Jer. 1:9<\/a>, 10<\/a>: \u201cBehold, I have put my words in thy mouth; see, I have this day set thee over the nations, and over the kingdoms, to root out, and to pull down, and to destroy, and to throw down, to build, and to plant\u201d\u2014i.e<\/em>., to declare that these nations and kingdoms shall be rooted out, and pulled down, &c., &c.<\/p>\n

Deliver him<\/em>,\u2014\u05e4\u05b8\u05bc\u05d3\u05b8\u05e2<\/span> (padagn<\/span>) does not occur elsewhere, but is probably the same as \u05e4\u05b8\u05bc\u05d3\u05b8\u05d4<\/span> (padah<\/span>), to redeem<\/em> or set free<\/em>, by the common Chaldaic substitution of \u05e2<\/span> (gn<\/span>) for \u05d7<\/span> (h<\/span>); some MSS., however, read \u05e4\u05b8\u05bc\u05e8\u05b7\u05e2<\/span> (paragn<\/span>), to let loose<\/em>, and this after all may be the correct reading.<\/p>\n

I have found a ransom<\/em>. As the deliverance here spoken of is merely a temporal deliverance, a mere respite from the grave, \u201cthe ransom<\/em>\u201d \u05db\u05b9\u05bc\u05e4\u05b6\u05e8<\/span> (chopher<\/span>) here does not necessarily imply that atonement by which alone sin is pardoned, and eternal salvation secured; such a view of it would be altogether unsuitable to the context, and foreign to the design which Elihu had in view; but it means, as appears to me, the attainment of the end on account of which God afflicted the sufferer. God\u2019s object in afflicting him, and in bringing him down to the brink of the grave, was to bring him to a particular state of mind; and when that particular state of mind is attained, then God, so far from seeing a reason why the affliction should be continued, sees a reason<\/em> rather why it should be removed. This state of mind is called by Elihu in v. 26<\/a> \u201crighteousness<\/em>,\u201d and corresponds with what St. Paul calls in Heb. 12:11<\/a>, \u201cthe peaceable fruit of righteousness<\/em>,\u201d and which he describes as being produced in them who are exercised by affliction. In Hezekiah\u2019s case, the state of mind, which moved God graciously to withdraw his afflicting hand, was that monarch\u2019s contrition, earnestness, and trustfulness as exhibited in his prayer\u2014compare Isa. 38 v. 5<\/a>, with v. 14<\/a>. In Job\u2019s case it was very similar\u2014see 42:1\u20136<\/a>.<\/p>\n

25<\/a>. The effects of his restoration to health.<\/p>\n

\u05e8\u05bb\u05bd\u05d8\u05b2\u05e4\u05b7\u05e9\u05c1<\/span> (rutephash<\/span>) is probably compounded of \u05e8\u05b8\u05d8\u05b7\u05d1<\/span> (ratav<\/span>), to be green, fresh, &c<\/em>., and \u05d8\u05b8\u05e4\u05b7\u05e9\u05c1<\/span> (taphash<\/span>), to be thick, fat, plump, &c<\/em>.<\/p>\n

26<\/a>. He seeth his face with<\/em> shouting,\u2014i.e.<\/em>, the man, now brought to a right state of mind by his affliction and by the instructions of the messenger, is able to delight in God\u2019s presence. His prayers are accompanied with loud outbursts of praise and thanksgiving. He sees what he could not before understand, how graciously God has been dealing with him throughout his sufferings,\u2014those sufferings have been sanctified to him and have produced their intended effect, he is humbled, has blessed views of God\u2019s mercy, and his lamentations are turned into loud jubilees.<\/p>\n

God rendereth to a mortal his righteousness<\/em>. God does this by restoring him to prosperity, after having caused him to pass through a period of affliction. That affliction was sent, not through any caprice on the part of God, but for a wise purpose and with gracious intent to the individual, and so soon as that purpose is attained, and the half-unbelieving murmurer submits himself wholly to the will of God, and humbly trusts in Divine mercy, then God deals accordingly; he removes the affliction, and in every respect acts towards his child according to the measure of faith, penitence, love, and other holy fruits which have been produced in him. The righteousness here spoken of must not be confounded with that which saves the soul.<\/p>\n

27<\/a>. He singeth, &c<\/em>. Here again is a resemblance to the case of Hezekiah\u2014(see Isaiah 38:9<\/a>, &c., especially verses 17\u201320<\/a>.)<\/p>\n

\u05e9\u05c1\u05d5\u05bc\u05e8<\/span> (shour<\/span>) has two significations, to behold<\/em>, and also to sing<\/em>; the context, I think, decides in favor of the second signification.<\/p>\n

I take \u05e2\u05b7\u05dc<\/span> (gnal<\/span>) to be here in the sense of \u05e2\u05b7\u05dc \u05e4\u05b0\u05bc\u05e0\u05b5\u05d9<\/span> (gnal pe<\/span>nei<\/span>); perhaps, indeed, \u05e4\u05b0\u05bc\u05e0\u05b5\u05d9<\/span> (penei<\/span>) is intended to be implied.<\/p>\n

And it was not requited me<\/em>,\u2014lit., And it teas not evened unto me<\/em>, \u05d5\u05dc\u05b9\u05d0\u05be\u05e9\u05b8\u05c1\u05d5\u05b8\u05d4 \u05dc\u05b4\u05d9<\/span> (welo shawah li<\/span>)\u2014i.e.<\/em>, I did not receive a punishment equal to my deserts.<\/p>\n

28<\/a>. If we adopt the Keri, and read \u05e0\u05b7\u05e4\u05b0\u05e9\u05c1\u05d5\u05b9<\/span> (naphsho<\/span>) and \u05d7\u05b7\u05d9\u05b8\u05bc\u05ea\u05d5\u05b9<\/span> (khaiyatho<\/span>), his soul<\/em>, and his life<\/em>, then we must understand this verse not as part of the recovered man\u2019s song, but as Elihu\u2019s own remark; both the Chaldee and Jerome take this view of it: but if we follow the Kethib \u05e0\u05b7\u05e4\u05b0\u05e9\u05b4\u05c1\u05d9<\/span> (naphshi<\/span>) and \u05d4\u05b7\u05d9\u05b8\u05bc\u05ea\u05b4\u05d9<\/span> (khaiyathi<\/span>) my soul<\/em>, and my life<\/em>, we obtain the more suitable sense.<\/p>\n

My life seeth, &c.,\u2014i.e.<\/em>, my life is preserved, and I still continue to have the enjoyment of the natural light, instead, as it might otherwise have been, of being in the dark chambers of the grave.<\/p>\n

29<\/a>. All these things<\/em>,\u2014dreams, afflictions, and messengers divinely sent.<\/p>\n

30<\/a>. It is generally admitted that \u05dc\u05b5\u05d0\u05d5\u05b9\u05e8<\/span> (leor<\/span>) is for \u05dc\u05b0\u05d4\u05b5\u05d0\u05d5\u05b9\u05e8<\/span> (leheor<\/span>), Inf. Niph.<\/p>\n

That it<\/em> (his soul<\/em>) may be enlighten<\/em>ed with the light of life,\u2014i.e.<\/em>, that he may continue to live and enjoy the natural light.<\/p>\n

31<\/a>. Elihu, in closing his first address, prepares Job to expect a second, meanwhile giving him the opportunity of a reply.<\/p>\n

32<\/a>. I should delight, &c<\/em>. If I prove you to be wrong, and you are unable to reply to my charge, it is no particular pleasure to me that it should be so; on the contrary, I had rather that you were able to prove yourself to be in the right.<\/p>\n

33<\/a>. If not<\/em>,\u2014if you have nothing to say in reply. Elihu not improbably here waited for a reply from Job, and finding him silent, resumed his discourse.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n
\n

Job 34<\/a><\/p>\n

1<\/a>. Elihu commences a new discourse, addressed both to Job and to his friends.<\/p>\n

Answered<\/em>. See note on 3:2<\/span><\/a>\u2014replied to the circumstances of the case.<\/p>\n

2<\/a>. My verse<\/em>. See note on 4:2<\/span><\/a>, and below, on ver. 3<\/span><\/a>.<\/p>\n

3<\/a>. A reason why they should attend. Job had said the same thing in 12:11<\/a>.<\/p>\n

As it is the province of the palate to determine what food is palatable or otherwise, so it is the province of the ear (assisted of course by the judgment, and which, Elihu implies in 5:2<\/a>, these men had), carefully to examine and to judge of opinions expressed. Compare St. Paul\u2019s expression in Phil. 1:10<\/a>, \u201cThat ye may approve things that are excellent,\u201d i.e<\/em>., that ye may know how to try different things, and then judge for yourselves which are the most excellent. It occurs to me here, that this proverbial expression, in its literal import, strengthens the view I have taken (see Note, 4:2<\/span><\/a>) of \u05de\u05b4\u05dc\u05b4\u05bc\u05d9\u05df<\/span> (millin<\/span>) signifying verse<\/em>. What the ear is said to try must certainly be rhythmical.<\/p>\n

4<\/a>. Having put to the test our opinions, let us come to some correct decision<\/em>, \u05de\u05b4\u05e9\u05b0\u05c1\u05e4\u05b8\u05bc\u05d8<\/span> (mishpat<\/span>), on the subject.<\/p>\n

\u05d1\u05b8\u05bc\u05d7\u05df<\/span> (bakhan<\/span>) and \u05d1\u05b8\u05bc\u05d7\u05e8<\/span> (bakhar<\/span>) are evidently cognate, the former word refers to the process of test<\/em>, the latter to the selection of whatever stands the test<\/em>, and which consequently is \u05d8\u05d5\u05b9\u05d1<\/span> (tov<\/span>), good<\/em>.<\/p>\n

5<\/a>. I am just<\/em>. Job had meant this in a civil sense: Elihu takes it in a theological sense; Job had said to the effect\u2014I am not the criminal that these men suppose me to be, neither will I allow that God has afflicted me on account of any such criminality. Job never asserted that he was just in the sense of being free from sin; on the contrary, see 14:4<\/a>.<\/p>\n

Hath put aside, &c<\/em>. Job had said this in 27:2<\/a>.<\/p>\n

6<\/a>. \u05e2\u05b7\u05dc<\/span> (gnal<\/span>) here means on the subject of<\/em>.<\/p>\n

He is a false one<\/em>. So Job had thought, for he had hoped, but so far in vain, for some interposition of God, which would have set him right in the eyes of his friends who had wronged him.<\/p>\n

\u05d0\u05b2\u05db\u05b7\u05d6\u05b5\u05bc\u05d1<\/span> (echazzev<\/span>). This is according to the Masoretic punctuation, but it has proved perplexing to all commentators. I suggest a different punctuation, \u05d0\u05b7\u05db\u05b0\u05d6\u05b8\u05d1<\/span> (achzav<\/span>), proving false, deceptive, &c.<\/em>; in that case, we have not only a good sense, but also an inverted parallelism with the former verse, the first clause of that verse corresponding with the second of this, and the second of that with the first of this.<\/p>\n

Without transgression<\/em>. Without my having committed any offence,<\/p>\n

7<\/a>. He drinketh laughter, &c<\/em>. Does nothing but laugh at holy things.<\/p>\n

8<\/a>. To company with<\/em>, lit., for companionship with<\/em>. As Job takes the road with such persons, so he must be classed with them. \u201cNoscitur a sociis.\u201d<\/p>\n

9<\/a>. Job had not said this in so many words; Elihu somewhat unfairly infers it from the general scope of some of his remarks, perhaps from such passages as these:\u20149:22<\/a>, 21:7<\/a>, &c.; 30:26<\/a>.<\/p>\n

Delight himself with God<\/em>. The force of \u05e2\u05b4\u05dd<\/span> (gnim<\/span>) here gives a pregnant sense, Delight in companionship with God<\/em>. If a man finds no profit or delight in companionship with God, he naturally tries to find his pleasure in companionship with sinners. This seems to be Elihu\u2019s intended deduction in this and the former verse.<\/p>\n

10<\/a>. Listen, then, to my refutation of such profane notions as Job has advanced, and make use of your sense in judging of what I say.<\/p>\n

Elihu\u2019s refutation of Job\u2019s presumed impious doctrines does not, after all, contain any new argument; he only reiterates what Job\u2019s friends had already stated, and what Job would most certainly have agreed to all along.<\/p>\n

\u05de\u05b5\u05e8\u05b6\u05e9\u05b7\u05c1\u05e2<\/span> (mereshagn<\/span>), lit., from wickedness<\/em>, i.e.<\/em>, here, from doing wickedly<\/em>, and so with \u05de\u05b5\u05e2\u05b8\u05d5\u05b6\u05dc<\/span> (megnawel<\/span>) in the next clause.<\/p>\n

Supply \u05dc\u05b0<\/span> (le<\/span>) before \u05e9\u05b7\u05c1\u05d3\u05b7\u05bc\u05d9<\/span> (shaddai<\/span>).<\/p>\n

To act iniquitously<\/em>. By causing wicked men to prosper, and by punishing the good; the next verse shows that some such meaning is intended.<\/p>\n

11<\/a>. The w<\/em>ork of a man, &c., &c<\/em>. Elihu does not state this general truth with the view of examining the particular question of the cause of Job\u2019s sufferings (though of course it might to some extent touch that question), but he asserts it, simply to clear God from all imputation of injustice.<\/p>\n

12<\/a>. Therefore Job is wrong in saying, \u201cI am just, and God hath put aside my right; concerning my right he is a false one,\u201d &c., &c. (See verses 5<\/a>, 6<\/a>.)<\/p>\n

13<\/a>. Elihu means by this question,\u2014One would imagine from Job\u2019s sentiments that God was only some inferior deity, and that he governed the world in subordination to a superior; I ask the question, then,\u2014Who is that superior? The sentiment implied in the question is in accordance with the view afterwards held by the Gnostics. Elihu of course repudiates the notion, but insinuates that it is the conclusion to which the sentiments expressed by Job would naturally lead.<\/p>\n

I supply \u05e2\u05b8\u05dc\u05b8\u05d9\u05d5<\/span> (gnalaiv<\/span>) in the second clause, carrying it on from the first.<\/p>\n

Laid upon him all<\/em> the whole world<\/em>, i.e.<\/em>, its government, &c.<\/p>\n

14<\/a>. If he should give his regard to himself, lit., if he should set his heart upon himself<\/em>, i.e.<\/em>, as I understand it, if God should consider only himself in the matter.<\/p>\n

His spirit and his breath<\/em>. That which he himself originally gave (see Gen. 2:7<\/a>), and therefore called his<\/em>.<\/p>\n

Elihu says this, to assert God\u2019s sovereignty, and the bearing of this on the main argument is, if God be sovereign, and amenable to no superior, then he can have no motive for doing what is otherwise than right. The argument is not unlike that of Abraham, \u201cShall not the Judge of all the earth do right?\u201d and that of St. Paul, \u201cIs God unrighteous who taketh vengeance? God forbid, for then how shall God judge the world?\u201d<\/p>\n

16<\/a>. Elihu again addresses himself to Job in particular.<\/p>\n

After \u05d0\u05b4\u05dd<\/span> (im<\/span>) supply \u05dc\u05b0\u05da\u05b8<\/span> (lecha<\/span>) to thee<\/em>.<\/p>\n

My verse<\/em>. See Note on 4:2<\/span><\/a>.<\/p>\n

17<\/a>. Is this indeed the doctrine you hold, that he who sways the sceptre of the world can possibly be unjust?<\/p>\n

A hater of right<\/em>. A Hebraism for\u2014one who is not a lover of right<\/em>.<\/p>\n

Dost thou justly condemn<\/em>? Is it possible that you can carry your views so far as to do this? And yet, (Elihu implies) this is what your doctrine would lead to.<\/p>\n

Justly<\/em>, lit., just<\/em>, but the word may be used adverbially. The sense is, art thou just in condemning<\/em>?<\/p>\n

The application of the whole of this verse to God has been, so far as I know, overlooked, yet it admirably suits the context and removes difficulties.<\/p>\n

18<\/a>. Is one to say, &c., i.e<\/em>., is it proper to do so? The authorized version expresses the meaning correctly, but it is a paraphrase, not a translation.<\/p>\n

Villain<\/em>. This word in its present meaning very well accords with \u05d1\u05b0\u05bc\u05dc\u05b7\u05d9\u05b7\u05bc\u05e2\u05b7\u05dc<\/span> (beliyagnal<\/span>), belial, i.e., a good-for-nothing<\/em>.<\/p>\n

19<\/a>. How then to him<\/em>. \u05d0\u05b7\u05e3 \u05db\u05b4\u05bc\u05d9 \u05dc\u05b0<\/span> (aph chi le<\/span>) must evidently be supplied at the commencement of the verse. If one dare not tax an earthly monarch with wickedness, how much less can this be done in the case of Him, who is so infinitely above all monarchs, that there is no difference in his eyes, and in his treatment of them, between princes and beggars, both being equally his creatures.<\/p>\n

20<\/a>. They die<\/em>, i.e.<\/em>, the great and mighty, as the use of the opposite word \u05e2\u05b7\u05dd<\/span>(gnam<\/span>) the people<\/em>, in the second clause, and the particular reference in the third clause, show.<\/p>\n

In the middle of the night<\/em>\u2014\u05d7\u05b2\u05e6\u05d5\u05b9\u05ea \u05dc\u05b8\u05d9\u05b0\u05dc\u05b8\u05d4<\/span> (khetsoth layelah<\/span>). This does not necessarily mean exactly at midnight.<\/p>\n

The people<\/em>. The tribe or nation over whom monarchs, thus suddenly cut off, reigned.<\/p>\n

Is shocked<\/em>. The original \u05d2\u05b7\u05bc\u05e2\u05b7\u05e9\u05c1<\/span> (gagnash<\/span>) implies disturbance, such as is produced by an earthquake<\/em>. It does not follow that such kings were loved by their subjects. The shock produced is occasioned by the awful suddenness of the Divine stroke.<\/p>\n

Not by hand<\/em>. Not by human hand, and therefore by a manifest stroke of God, thus rendering the event the more awful.<\/p>\n

21<\/a>. A reason why God is no respecter of persons\u2014why he does not notice the opulent more than the destitute, even because he judges of men not by the circumstances of their station, but by their actions; and which, by reason of his omniscience, he is well qualified to do.<\/p>\n

23<\/a>. It is as absurd to question the justice of God\u2019s dealings, when he punishes an individual by some sudden and severe stroke, as it is impossible for the workers of iniquity to hide themselves from God under cover of darkness, and so, escape his eye; for God need only look at a man once in order to perceive his sinfulness, and find sufficient ground to bring him into judgment. This appears to me to be the obvious meaning of this confessedly difficult verse. It is one that does no violence to the language, and it is suitable to the context.<\/p>\n

He need not set his eyes, &c.<\/em> I supply \u05e2\u05b5\u05d9\u05e0\u05b8\u05d9\u05d5<\/span> (gneinaiw<\/span>) his eyes<\/em>, after \u05d9\u05b8\u05e9\u05b4\u05c2\u05d9\u05dd<\/span> (yasim<\/span>), from v. 21<\/a>. This is far more natural, and more suitable to the context than going back as far as v. 14<\/a> to fetch \u05dc\u05b4\u05d1\u05bc\u05d5\u05b9<\/span> (libbo<\/span>) his heart<\/em>. \u05e9\u05b4\u05c2\u05d9\u05dd \u05e2\u05b7\u05d9\u05b4\u05df \u05e2\u05b7\u05dc<\/span> (sim gnain gnal<\/span>) to set eyes upon<\/em>, is a Hebrew phrase of frequent occurrence. The future tense in Hebrew has many shades of meaning; here, it is he will not set, &c<\/em>., in the sense, there is no occasion that he should set<\/em>, or, he must not set<\/em>.<\/p>\n

24<\/a>. Without inquiry<\/em>. So thoroughly cognizant is God of all the ways of men, that when he destroys even great men and puts others in their place, it is not necessary that he should go through even the formality of an investigation.<\/p>\n

25<\/a>. In a night<\/em>. \u05dc\u05b8\u05d9\u05b0\u05dc\u05b8\u05d4<\/span> (layelah<\/span>) here is in the sense of by night<\/em>, and this accords with the statement in v. 20<\/a>.<\/p>\n

26<\/a>. \u05ea\u05b7\u05bc\u05d7\u05b7\u05ea<\/span> (takhath<\/span>), somewhat in the sense of \u05ea\u05b7\u05bc\u05d7\u05b7\u05ea \u05d0\u05b2\u05e9\u05b6\u05c1\u05e8<\/span> (takhath asher<\/span>), the infinitive \u05d7\u05b1\u05d9\u05d5\u05b9\u05ea\u05b8\u05dd<\/span> (heyotham<\/span>) being here understood. (See Gesenius).<\/p>\n

He struck, &c<\/em>. \u05e1\u05b8\u05e4\u05b7\u05e7<\/span> (saphak<\/span>), a word probably formed from the sound, and not unlike our English word smack<\/em>.<\/p>\n

In the open sight of others<\/em>, lit., in a place of spectators, i.e<\/em>., God inflicts his judgments upon such men so as to make a public spectacle of them. It seems to me, however, that this clause is imperfect, and that \u05d0\u05b2\u05e9\u05b6\u05c1\u05e8<\/span> (asher<\/span>) is redundant in the next; I am inclined therefore to reject the Masoretic punctuation, and to conjecture that the reading should be \u05d0\u05b8\u05e9\u05b7\u05c2\u05e8<\/span> (asar<\/span>), i.q.<\/em>, \u05d0\u05b8\u05e1\u05b7\u05e8<\/span> (asar<\/span>), and that it should be connected with this clause, in which case the rendering would be:\u2014<\/p>\n

\u201cIn the open sight of others he put [them] in bonds<\/em>,<\/p>\n

For that they had turned away from after him<\/em>.\u201d<\/p>\n

\u05e9\u05c2<\/span> (s<\/span>) is commonly employed in this book instead of \u05e1<\/span> (s<\/span>); thus we have in 6:2<\/a>, and other places, \u05db\u05b7\u05bc\u05e2\u05b7\u05e9\u05c2<\/span> (chagnas<\/span>) instead of \u05db\u05b7\u05bc\u05e2\u05b7\u05e1<\/span> (chagnas<\/span>), vexation<\/em>.<\/p>\n

27<\/a>. A reason of the punishment inflicted upon them; they had departed from God, and had not given heed to his will. Their fellow-men may have been ignorant that there existed such irreligion in them, but the omniscient God had noticed it.<\/p>\n

28<\/a>. In order to bring upon each, &c.<\/em>, lit., upon <\/em>him<\/em>. This verse is a sequence of v. 26<\/a>. God struck these persons with signal judgment, in order to bring upon them the cries of those whom they had oppressed, and then there is added as a general truth that God hears the cry of the weak, and this hearing implies avenging.<\/p>\n

29<\/a>. And if he give quiet, &c., &c<\/em>.\u2014putting the case that he does so. If in his sovereign pleasure, and on hearing their cry, he chooses to shield the meek from further injury, and to reassure them, by disarming or cutting off their oppressors, then, it is not in the power of any man to disturb the enjoyment of that tranquillity. And on the other hand, if God choose, at the same time, to frown upon and to manifest his anger against the evil-doers in question, then, it is impossible for them to induce him to give them his countenance or favor.<\/p>\n

And this, in reference at once to the nation and to the man<\/em>, i.e.<\/em>, God, by this act of vengeance, at once gives quiet to the oppressed nation, and troubles the wicked oppressor.<\/p>\n

30<\/a>. A continuation of the reason why God punished these men (v. 26<\/a>), that they might be prevented from causing any further disturbance or mischief amongst their people, and which their high position had enabled them to perpetrate very extensively.<\/p>\n

The negative sense given to \u05de\u05b4\u05df<\/span> (min<\/span>) in both clauses is very common.<\/p>\n

\u05de\u05b4\u05de\u05b9\u05bc\u05e7\u05b0\u05e9\u05b5\u05c1\u05d9<\/span> (mimmokeshei<\/span>) is for \u05de\u05b4\u05d4\u05b0\u05d9\u05d5\u05b9\u05ea \u05de\u05b9\u05e7\u05b0\u05e9\u05b5\u05c1\u05d9<\/span> (miheyoth mokeshei<\/span>).<\/p>\n

I think it not improbable that there is some reference throughout these latter verses to Job\u2019s punishment and deposition from office. God had acted thus towards him (Elihu implies), both because he had marked wickedness in him, and also to prevent his having the power of doing harm by mismanaged government.<\/p>\n

31<\/a>. This and the two next verses are, perhaps, as difficult as any in the book, Of this verse Schultens well says, \u201cInsuperabilis ferme scopulus, ad quern magni sententiarum fluctus cooriuntur;\u201d and of verse 33<\/a> he remarks, \u201cPerplex\u00e6 non minus, quam pr\u00e6rupt\u00e6 sententi\u00e6.\u201d<\/p>\n

For, &c<\/em>.,\u2014i.e.<\/em>, God must have some good reasons, such as those I have just advanced, when He afflicts, for<\/em> surely it never can be becoming in any man to suppose that he has been punished without deserving it.<\/p>\n

Shall any one say, &c<\/em>.,\u2014i.e.<\/em>, is it proper that any one should say? The sense, therefore, is much the same as in the first clause of ver. 18<\/a>.<\/p>\n

I have borne, &c., &c<\/em>. I agree with Schnurrer, that instead of \u05d0\u05b6\u05d7\u05b0\u05d1\u05b9\u05bc\u05dc<\/span> (ekhebol<\/span>), the reading should be \u05d0\u05b5\u05d7\u05b8\u05d1\u05b5\u05dc<\/span> (ekhavel<\/span>); in which case, my translation is quite literal. I see no other way of making sense of this clause, at least without offending against Hebrew idiom. The meaning as it stands is,\u2014I have been afflicted more than I ought or than I was obliged to be.<\/p>\n

32<\/a>. Things beyond what I see, &c., &c<\/em>. The language of arrogance. It amounts to this,\u2014As far as I can judge, I am undeservedly afflicted; if I am wrong in the supposition, I beg you will enlighten me on the subject.<\/p>\n

If I have done evil, &c<\/em>. If I have sinned in a way commensurate to my afflictions (which I do not believe I have done), then I will sin no more.<\/p>\n

33<\/a>. Is this thy view<\/em>? \u05d4\u05b2\u05de\u05b5\u05bd\u05e2\u05b4\u05de\u05b0\u05bc\u05da\u05b8<\/span> (hemegnimmecha<\/span>),\u2014lit., Whether from with thee<\/em>? i.e.<\/em>, Does this proceed from thee? Is this what in effect you have stated? = Are these your sentiments?<\/p>\n

He will requite it<\/em>. He will requite the self-righteousness and the arrogance of such sentiments as those just alluded to. It is observable that Elihu does not charge Job directly with having uttered the sentiments in question, but infers that they are sentiments which lie held, or, rather, that they were conclusions to which Job\u2019s opinions, if carried out, necessarily led.<\/p>\n

Though thou repudiate it<\/em>. However much you may repudiate the conclusions to which the principles you have expressed of necessity lead, yet you cannot alter the fact of their being legitimate deductions from the opinions you have avowed; and you may depend upon it, that God will deal with you accordingly.<\/p>\n

But thou choosest, &c<\/em>. This, however, is no concern of mine; the conclusion I have just drawn is in reality your sentiment, and not mine.<\/p>\n

Speak, therefore, what thou dost know<\/em>. If, indeed, you do repudiate the sentiments which I have shown to be fairly deducible from the maxims you have advanced, then let me advise you in future to speak more advisedly, and to confine your remarks to such subjects as you are acquainted with.<\/p>\n

34<\/a>. Men of sense will say, &c<\/em>. Elihu seems tacitly to mean,\u2014If you, Job\u2019s friends, are really men of sense, or if there are any other persons who hear me who have pretensions to wisdom, they will certainly tell me that they adopt the opinion which I have expressed with reference to Job.<\/p>\n

Sense<\/em>. The word \u05dc\u05b5\u05d1<\/span> (lev<\/span>), besides signifying heart<\/em>, is often used to express all such qualities as were supposed by the ancient Orientals to have their seat in the heart, such as understanding, affection, sense, &c<\/em>.<\/p>\n

For a wise man doth hearken to me<\/em>. A wise man, in hearing my arguments, will assent to their truth; and therefore (according to the first clause and the next verse) he will tell me that, in point of fact, he adopts my conclusions.<\/p>\n

36<\/a>. To translate \u05d0\u05b8\u05d1\u05b4\u05d9<\/span> (avi<\/span>) here, my father<\/em>, would be incongruous; and equally so to derive it from \u05d1\u05bc\u05d5\u05b9\u05d0<\/span> (bo<\/span>), and to suppose that it stands for \u05d0\u05b8\u05d1\u05b4\u05d9\u05d0<\/span> (avi<\/span>), I will bring<\/em>, or adduce<\/em>. There can be little question but that the \u05e6\u05b8\u05d1\u05b5\u05d9\u05e0\u05b8\u05d0<\/span> (tsaveina<\/span>) I wish<\/em>, of the Chaldee Paraphrase gives the true meaning. In this case, \u05d0\u05b8\u05d1\u05b4\u05d9<\/span> (avi<\/span>) is a form, with a pronominal suffix, from the root \u05d0\u05b8\u05d1\u05b8\u05d4<\/span> (avah<\/span>), to wish<\/em>.<\/p>\n

My wish is that Job might be tried, &c<\/em>. My object and desire in the remarks I have made is, that Job\u2019s sentiments might be thoroughly tested, and so, exposed; and that, because, although he may not himself mean it, I conceive them to be of a most dangerous tendency.<\/p>\n

\u05d1\u05b0\u05bc\u05d0\u05b7\u05e0\u05b0\u05e9\u05b5\u05c1\u05d9 \u05d0\u05b8\u05d5\u05b6\u05df<\/span> (beanshci awen<\/span>), with<\/em>, or amongst, wicked men,\u2014i.e.<\/em>, Job\u2019s remarks place him in the same category with<\/em> wicked men; whether actually wicked, or not, himself, he has, at all events, contended for their principles and opinions.<\/p>\n

37<\/a>. For he addeth, &c<\/em>. Job, by his irreverent speaking about God, and by the manifest encouragement he thereby gives to irreligious principles, adds to his former sinfulness, whatever that may have been.<\/p>\n

Irreligion<\/em>. \u05e4\u05b6\u05bc\u05e9\u05b7\u05c1\u05e2<\/span> (peshagn<\/span>) a breaking away from<\/em> (Divine<\/em>) authority<\/em>; the very reverse of religion, which binds<\/em> (ligo<\/span>) to God.<\/p>\n

He applaudeth irreligion<\/em>. If \u05db\u05b7\u05bc\u05e4\u05b8\u05bc\u05d9\u05d5<\/span> (chappaiw<\/span>) be supplied to \u05d9\u05b4\u05e1\u05b0\u05e4<\/span>\u05bc\u05d5\u05b9\u05e7<\/span> (ispok<\/span>), the word will mean, he clappeth his hands<\/em>; and that may be either in the way of triumph<\/em>, or of scorn<\/em>, &c. I take it in the former sense here, and connect it with \u05e4\u05b6\u05bc\u05e9\u05b7\u05c1\u05e2<\/span> (peshagn<\/span>). I am aware that I cannot adduce a particular instance of its being used in the exact sense I have given to it; but it is, nevertheless, quite consonant with Hebrew idiom. Some understand \u05d9\u05b4\u05e1\u05b0\u05e4\u05b9\u05bc\u05e7<\/span> (ispok<\/span>) to refer to the noisiness<\/em> of Job\u2019s declamations. In that case, he clattereth<\/em> would be a good word to express it. It is evident, from numerous ancient Egyptian paintings, that clapping or striking the hands together was generally adopted as an accompaniment to musical instruments, and even to the human voice. The allusion here may be to this circumstance; and so, the secondary meaning of \u05d9\u05b4\u05e1\u05b0\u05e4\u05bc\u05d5\u05b9\u05e7<\/span> (ispok<\/span>) would be, here, he forms an accompaniment to<\/em>, or, he supports, plays in concert with<\/em>, and the like.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n

<\/span><\/span>Job 35<\/a><\/p>\n

1<\/a>. Elihu, having indirectly attacked Job, now turns from the friends, and appeals to the Patriarch\u2019s own judgment and natural sense of propriety.<\/p>\n

2<\/a>. Hast thou counted this to be judgment<\/em>? Do yo<\/span>u really believe you could be right in saying, &c., &c.?<\/p>\n

I am more right, &c<\/em>.,\u2014not more righteous<\/em>, as many make it. It would be preposterous to suppose that Elihu would even impute such a sentiment to<\/span> Job. The meaning of Elihu is, that Job, in desiring that the cause pending between him and God might be tried, implied his conviction that God was afflicting him without cause, and, so far, was wrong in doing so.<\/span><\/p>\n

3<\/a>. Wherein it serveth thee<\/em>. Of what use is it to you (you say to yourself) that you are in the right? in other words,\u2014the blamelessness of your life renders your affliction unjust.<\/p>\n

More <\/em><\/span>than had I sinned<\/em>,\u2014lit., more than my sin<\/em>.<\/p>\n

4<\/a>. With verse<\/em>. See Note on 4:2<\/span><\/a>.<\/p>\n

And together with thee, thy friends<\/em>. Elihu considers that the arguments of the friends had been incomplete and inconclusive.<\/p>\n

<\/span>5\u20137<\/a>. If the heavens be so high, how absurd the supposition that God, who is higher than they, can be in any way affected, either by your righteousness or unrighteousness. This sentiment of Elihu\u2019s mus<\/span>t, of course, be received with such modifications, as other parts of Scripture impose upon it; otherwise, if pressed too far, it would involve the Epicurean notion of the utter indifference of the Deity to mundane affairs. It is interesting in this, as in other instances, to observe what deep truths lie at the bottom of, and were doubtless the origin of, heathen errors.<\/span><\/p>\n

8<\/a>. This, together with the <\/span>preceding remark, is only an amplification of what Eliphaz had advanced in 22:2<\/a>. You cannot bring God down to any human standard. God himself employs a somewhat similar argument in Isa. 55:8<\/a>, 9<\/a>.<\/p>\n

9<\/a>. Th<\/span>ere seems to be no particular connexion between this and the verses immediately preceding, but there is, I think, a connexion with the previous chapter. Elihu had there argued that God often, and whenever<\/span> He pleases, does, in answer to the cry of the oppressed, visit oppressors with signal judgment; but being aware, from what Job had already said (chap. 24<\/a>), that Job would meet this argument with <\/span>the objection that, in a general way, God does not hearken to the ery of the oppressed, he now proceeds to explain why this is.<\/p>\n

Because of a multitude of oppressions the oppressed cry out<\/em>. The Hebrew <\/span>idiom is, Because of a multitude<\/em> (of something) the oppressed cry out<\/em>. The something, which is not expressed, is readily understood from the passive participle which immediately follows. Elihu evident<\/span>ly refers to, and grants the truth of, what Job had stated in 24:12<\/a>, and in what, indeed, is the general argument of that chapter, though he denies the inference that God is unjust in not attending to<\/span> such cries, and explains why God is inattentive to them. The meaning is,\u2014Job, you are quite right in saying that oppressions abound, and that the oppressed cry out, and that yet God does not hear them; <\/span>but<\/em> then, why is this? It is because these wretched sufferers have not the faith to address their cries to God.<\/p>\n

Cry out<\/em>. The force of the Hiphil here is, cry out for help<\/em>.<\/p>\n

10<\/a>. But, &c<\/em>. For the conn<\/span>exion, see the note above.<\/p>\n

Who giveth songs in the night<\/em>. The meaning is, that as it is God\u2019s nature and property to show mercy, and give grounds for thankfulness and praise, even in the darkest trial<\/span>s, so, if these persons addressed themselves to him in faith\u2014i.e.<\/em>, in the belief that He is a God of this gracious character\u2014they would, instead of uttering ineffectual howlings under their miseries, <\/span>soon have their prayers exchanged for songs of thanksgiving, even in the dark night of their calamity.<\/p>\n

11<\/a>. Elihu implies that the consideration that God has endowed man with reason, a gift so much mor<\/span>e excellent than that instinct which is possessed by animals, ought to be an argument prevailing with men to induce them, in their sufferings, to apply to their bountiful God, instead of merely uttering such natural cries of anguish as are uttered by the brute creation. The gist of Elihu\u2019s argu<\/span>ment in all this is, that the reason men are not comforted in their afflictions, and redressed, when they are oppressed by their fellow-mortals, is, that in their lamentations they do not really call upon God for help.<\/span><\/p>\n

\u05de\u05b7\u05dc\u05b0\u05bc\u05e4\u05b5\u05e0\u05d5\u05bc<\/span> (mallephenou<\/span>) is for \u05de\u05b0\u05d0\u05b7\u05dc\u05b0\u05bc\u05e4\u05b5\u05e0\u05d5\u05bc<\/span> (meallephenou<\/span>).<\/p>\n

12<\/a>. This verse is capable<\/span> of three interpretations, and it is, perhaps, difficult to determine which is preferable. The verse may either be taken in the sense in which I have given it above; or the meaning may be that God does not hear the cries of<\/span> the afflicted, because of the pride and wickedness of the sufferers, which prevents their addressing their cries to him; or there may be a pregnant construction here, and so the passage may be translated, <\/span>There they cry, but He heareth not [so as to deliver them] from the haughtiness of the wicked<\/em>. Compare this with Ps. 22:21<\/a>:\u2014\u201cThou hast heard me from the horns of the unico<\/span>rns;\u201d i.e.<\/em>, Thou hast heard me [so as to deliver me] from the horns, &c<\/em>.<\/p>\n

13<\/a>. Vanity<\/em>. The mere utterance of expressions which are without faith.<\/p>\n

See it<\/em>. So as to regard it in any favorable point of vie<\/span>w.<\/p>\n

14<\/a>. Elihu now shows that he intends the remarks just made to apply to Job with peculiar force. You are not answered and not noticed by God in your affliction; not only because your lamentations are<\/span> merely empty and unbelieving utterances of nature, but also, and especially, because, upon your own admission, you add positive impiety to your lack of religious feeling; you have openly avowed both your scepticism on the subject of God\u2019s presence and of his interference in human affairs, and also your impatient want of confidence in Him.<\/span><\/p>\n

It will be observed that I have carried the negative force<\/span> of \u05dc\u05b9\u05d0<\/span> (lo<\/span>) from the first clause into the second; and, indeed, unless this be done, I do not see how any sense, really suitable to the context, can be extracted from the passage.<\/p>\n

Job had not actuall<\/span>y said what is here imputed to him; but Elihu perhaps unfairly infers it, probably from the circumstance that Job had expressed a wish of being able to discover whereabouts God\u2019s judgment-seat was, so as to lay his caus<\/span>e before Him; and that, together with the expression of that wish, Job had lamented his inability to see God at all. See chap. 23:2\u20139<\/a>.<\/p>\n

15<\/a>. Commentators have generally explained this<\/span> with reference to God\u2019s dealings with Job, as though Elihu stated that those dealings had been more lenient than what was really deserved; but this interpretation is, I think, erroneous. Job had expressed his wonder\u2014first, that men who might b<\/span>e presumed innocent should be allowed to suffer so much as they often did at the hands of proud oppressors, and that under their sufferings and cries God did not appear for their relief; and secondly, that God permitted such wanton oppressors to go on in their proud and cruel career without punishment. Job had certainly expressed these sentiments,\u2014but, not without some reference to God, and to a time of reckoning sooner or later. (See the w<\/span>hole of chap. <\/span>24<\/a>) Elihu, however, ascribes to him the sentiments, without giving him credit for the limitations <\/span>which he had appended to them, and accordingly answers them in their broadest sense. With the first of them\u2014that men who might be presumed innocent are not heard when groaning under their oppressions\u2014he deals in vers. <\/span>9\u201313<\/a>; and with regard to the second\u2014that insolent oppressors are pretty much allowed to do as they please without any particular animadversion on the part of God\u2014he concludes, in ver<\/span>s. 15<\/a>, 16<\/a>, that Job had made this sentiment the basis of much of the empty verbosity and bombast that had marked his discourses.<\/p>\n

\u05d5\u05b0\u05e2\u05b7\u05ea\u05b8\u05bc\u05d4<\/span> (wegnattah<\/span>),\u2014And now<\/em>. This gives intensity to what follows. Jo<\/span>b has uttered such and such opinions, and now<\/em>, as it were to crown all, because he supposes so and so to be the case, he says so and so.<\/p>\n

Because he\u2014of insolence<\/em>. Because [according to Job\u2019s statements<\/span>] God does not exhibit any very marked displeasure against the cruel excesses of proud men.<\/p>\n

\u05e4\u05b7\u05bc\u05e9\u05c1<\/span> (pash<\/span>), not short for \u05e4\u05b6\u05bc\u05e9\u05b7\u05c1\u05e2<\/span> (peshagn<\/span>) transgression<\/em>, as some have it, nor multitude, i.e.<\/em>, of sins, <\/span>as some Hebrew Doctors without particular authority render it, but, far more probably, from \u05e4\u05bc\u05d5\u05bc\u05e9\u05c1<\/span> (poush<\/span>), which, according to the Arabic, signifies to be proud<\/em>, and used in Hab. 1:8<\/a> (see Gesenius) o<\/span>f a horseman leaping proudly and fiercely<\/em>.<\/p>\n

Not at all<\/em>. I take this to be the force of \u05d0\u05b7\u05d9\u05b4\u05df<\/span> (ain<\/span>), as used in this passage.<\/p>\n

\u05e4\u05b8\u05bc\u05e7\u05b7\u05d3 \u05d0\u05b7\u05e4\u05bc\u05d5\u05b9<\/span> (pakad appo<\/span>),\u2014lit., hath visited [as to] his anger<\/em>; i.e.<\/em>, so f<\/span>ar as his anger was concerned. This may therefore be expressed by in his anger<\/em>.<\/p>\n

16<\/a>. Job (according to Elihu) makes the fact of the apparent impunity with which proud and powerful men oppress, the subj<\/span>ect of wordy, pointless, and ignorant harangues.<\/p>\n

To no purpose<\/em>. \u05d4\u05b6\u05d1\u05b6\u05dc<\/span> (hevel<\/span>),\u2014lit., vanity<\/em>.<\/p>\n

\n

Job 36<\/a><\/p>\n

1<\/a>. Elihu added, &c<\/em>. Jewish commentators remark here that Elihu, having spoken three times, which was as often as Job and his friends, with the exception of Zophar (who had allowed his last turn<\/span> to pass by), had done, might reasonably have stopped here; but that, as he did not, his so-to-speak extra discourse is introduced by the word added<\/em>.<\/p>\n

2<\/a>. It has often been remarked, since Jarchi first <\/span>noticed it, that the words in the sentence \u05db\u05b7\u05bc\u05bd\u05ea\u05b7\u05bc\u05e8\u05be\u05dc\u05b4\u05d9 \u05d6\u05b0\u05e2\u05b5\u05d9\u05e8 \u05d5\u05b7\u05bd\u05d0\u05b2\u05d7\u05b7\u05d5\u05b6\u05bc\u05bd\u05da\u05b8<\/span> (chattar li zegneir wackhawwecha<\/span>) are purely Chaldaic; the corresponding sentence in Hebrew would be \u05d4\u05d5\u05b9\u05d7\u05b7\u05dc\u05be\u05db\u05b4\u05d9 \u05de\u05b0\u05e2\u05b7\u05d8 \u05d5\u05b8\u05d0\u05b7\u05d2<\/span><\/span>\u05b4\u05bc\u05d9\u05d3\u05b6\u05bd\u05da\u05b8<\/span> (hokhal li megnat waaggidecha<\/span>).<\/p>\n

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

3<\/a>. \u05dc\u05b0\u05de\u05b5\u05bd\u05e8\u05b8\u05d7\u05d5\u05b9\u05e7<\/span> (lemerakhok<\/span>),\u2014lit., unto from afar<\/em>. The force of this might be expressed by translating \u05d0\u05b6\u05e9\u05b8\u05bc\u05c2\u05d0<\/span> (essa<\/span>) I will go to fetc<\/em><\/span>h<\/em>.<\/p>\n

I will fetch my opinion from afar,\u2014i.e.<\/em>, I will draw my arguments, in support of the opinion I advance, not from commonplace topics, but from a far more distant range of subjects. Elihu states in t<\/span>he next clause what opinion he intends to maintain, namely, that righteousness does belong to God<\/em>. Elihu implies,\u2014Let men take what view of it they please, let circumstances even seem to favor their v<\/span>iew, that God acts unjustly, yet I defend this, as a fundamental truth, that God is just; and this is my position in the arguments I am about to advance; I will ascribe righteousnees to my Maker<\/em>.<\/p>\n

4<\/a>. M<\/em><\/span>y verse<\/em>. See Note on 4:2<\/span><\/a>.<\/p>\n

One sincere in his opinions is with thee<\/em>. This and the preceding clause are addressed especially to Job. Elihu is here speaking of himself, and says,\u2014You have to deal with on<\/span>e who is honest in the views which he maintains.<\/p>\n

Sincere<\/em>. \u05ea\u05b8\u05bc\u05de\u05b4\u05d9\u05dd<\/span> (tamim<\/span>), perfect with regard to soundness and sincerity<\/em>.<\/p>\n

5<\/a>. And despiseth not<\/em>,\u2014understand, any who might be supposed to be despicable <\/span>objects on account of their poverty or weakness, &c., &c. Elihu\u2019s argument is, that the very greatness of God is a guarantee for his impartiality. In the second clause Elihu explains that by God\u2019s greatness\u2014he means his greatness both in power and in dispos<\/span>ition\u2014he is almighty and generous.<\/p>\n

6<\/a>. Live,\u2014i.e.<\/em>, sooner or later God destroys the wicked.<\/p>\n

He giveth the poor, &c<\/em>. He defends their cause, and <\/span>rescues them out of the hand of the wicked.<\/p>\n

Their right<\/em>. The pronoun here, though not actually expressed in the original, is understood, because \u05de\u05b4\u05e9\u05b0\u05c1\u05e4\u05b7\u05bc\u05d8<\/span> (mishpat<\/span>) is in statu constructo.<\/p>\n

7<\/a>. He withd<\/em><\/span>raweth not, &c<\/em>. Elihu\u2019s meaning in this and the following clauses is, that God does not withdraw his loving attention from a righteous man (so long, at least, as he continues such, see ver. 12<\/a>, &c.), <\/span>be his outward circumstances what they may; putting the case that he is a king on the throne, God advances him to eminent and lasting prosperity; or, putting the case that he is a deposed monarch, and in capt<\/span>ivity, some transgression has been the occasion of this severe affliction. God, however, does not on that account withdraw his favor, but rather has appointed the affliction with a view to the man\u2019s correction and ultimate happiness. Job\u2019s friends had argued that it was impossible for a good man to be in affliction. Elihu here contradicts them: he says that <\/span>it is quite possible for a good <\/em><\/span>man to be in affliction<\/em>. Job himself had argued, that very frequently good men are in affliction, and that he could not account for it on any principles of justice: Elihu here shows that God is just i<\/em><\/span>n afflicting good men, that it is on account of faults they have committed, and that God actually so afflicts them with kindly intentions towards them<\/em>.<\/p>\n

From the righteous<\/em>,\u2014lit., from a righteous man<\/em>. <\/span>But the plurals which follow show that this noun, though in the singular number, is to be taken in a collective sense.<\/p>\n

And they being<\/em>. \u05d5\u05b0\u05d0\u05b6\u05ea\u05be<\/span> (weeth<\/span>). I take this to be the force of the Hebrew here, p<\/span>utting the case that they are kings on thrones, then<\/em> (the apodosis) God deals so and so.<\/p>\n

And they are exalted<\/em>. A consequence of God\u2019s establishing them.<\/p>\n

8<\/a>. Or if, being bound, &c<\/em>. Or if, instead of be<\/span>ing in possession of their thrones, these same righteous persons shall have fallen into misfortune, and having been first taken captives in war, in cords of affliction, have afterwards been bound in fetters. (See the <\/span>Illustrations<\/a>.)<\/p>\n

Cords of affliction<\/em>,\u2014or of humiliation<\/em>.<\/p>\n

9<\/a>. Then<\/em>,\u2014the apodosis.<\/p>\n

That they have been excessive<\/em>. It is difficult to say whether this refers to the persons or to their tra<\/span>nsgressions; if to the former, then it means that they transgressed principally by being overbearing in their conduct: their exalted positions led them to be too proud, insolent, and oppressive<\/em>. If th<\/span>e word refers to the transgressions, then it signifies that those transgressions exceeded such limits<\/em> that it became necessary for God to take marked notice of them.<\/p>\n

10<\/a>. And he openeth their ear, &c<\/em>. <\/span>God having, in the first instance, by means of the correction employed, uncovered the ear of the afflicted man, and so, put it in a condition of ability to hear, he then, through that now unstopped orga<\/span>n, commands the sufferer to forsake his sins. Of course it is the spiritual ear that is here alluded to.<\/p>\n

11<\/a>. They finish<\/em>,\u2014\u05d9\u05b0\u05db\u05b7\u05dc\u05bc\u05d5\u05bc<\/span> (yechallou<\/span>), some copies have \u05d9\u05b0\u05d1\u05b7\u05dc\u05bc\u05d5\u05bc<\/span> (yevallou<\/span>), they wear away<\/em>; <\/span>there appears to be the same uncertainty of the reading as in 21:13<\/a>.<\/p>\n

12<\/a>. If they do not choose to profit by their afflictions, then their end is that they die suddenly; and that, through their folly i<\/span>n not understanding God\u2019s design in afflicting them.<\/p>\n

They pass away like a dart<\/em>. See note on 33:18<\/span><\/a>.<\/p>\n

13<\/a>. For<\/em>. This is intended to substantiate the possibility that afflicted persons may not profit by t<\/span>heir afflictions, and that it is not necessarily always that they \u201chear the rod and who hath appointed it;\u201d though perhaps hitherto apparently righteous, affliction shows what manner of men they really are, and brings to light their wickedness; and so far from affliction being of any service <\/span>to them, they are so bad and so incorrigible that they only go on treasuring up for themselves wrath against the day of wrath.<\/span><\/p>\n

Lay up wrath<\/em>,\u2014in the same sense as in Romans 2:5<\/a>; though some understand this (but on insufficient grounds), as meaning that these persons lay up<\/em>, i.e.<\/em>, cherish<\/em> anger in their hear<\/span>ts against God.<\/p>\n

They cry not, &c., &c<\/em>. They do not turn to God with prayer when he afflicts them.<\/p>\n

When he bindeth them<\/em>,\u2014as in v. 8<\/a>. It is man who binds them, but man being only the instrument, God is <\/span>represented as the doer of it.<\/p>\n

14<\/a>. Their soul, &c<\/em>.,\u2014i.e.<\/em>, the souls of these persons (who being impious in heart, though perhaps apparently righteous in the eyes of others, are not changed for the bet<\/span>ter by their afflictions) die in the same lamentable state as the most abandoned characters; their former apparent righteousness does not avail them, and that God who sees the impiety that exists in their hearts, classes them <\/span>amongst the worst of men, and deals with them as such. Thus Elihu clearly brings out the truth, that affliction is a true touchstone of character; before affliction there may<\/span> have been no apparent difference between two individuals, both may have been equally moral and respectable in the eyes of their fellow-men; calamity befalls them, and then is brought to light the fact, that there is grace in the heart of the one, impiety in that of the other; the one acknowledges his sinfulness and repents, the other becomes hardened, and proves to be no<\/span> better than persons who are guilty even of crimes unmentionable.<\/span><\/p>\n

Like that of prostitute youths<\/em>,\u2014lit., amongst the youth<\/em>; the meaning is,\u2014the persons in question are, in their death, or way of dying, classed by God amongst th<\/span>e youth, i.e.<\/em>, they die a death such as the youths here alluded to die. The word \u05e7\u05b0\u05d3\u05b5\u05e9\u05b4\u05c1\u05d9\u05dd<\/span> (kedeshim<\/span>) sodomites<\/em>, in the next clause, determines what sort of youths are here referred to, viz., prostitu<\/em><\/span>te youths<\/em>.<\/p>\n

To say that these persons \u201cdie in youth<\/em>,\u201d as many understand it, would be untrue, and moreover would destroy the point of Elihu\u2019s argument, for he is evidently speaking of persons of ripe y<\/span>ears (such as Job was) being afflicted, and of the two different effects of affliction upon them; and further, the rendering I have given makes the parallelism complete.<\/p>\n

And their life<\/em>. Supply from th<\/span>e former clause dieth<\/em>.<\/p>\n

Like that of Sodomites<\/em>. Not with the \u05e7\u05b0\u05d3\u05d5\u05b9\u05e9\u05b4\u05c1\u05d9\u05dd<\/span> (kedoshim<\/span>) saints<\/em>, as one might have expected from the former behaviour of these apparently righteous persons, but with the \u05e7\u05b0\u05d3\u05b5\u05e9<\/span><\/span>\u05b4\u05c1\u05d9\u05dd<\/span> (kedeshim<\/span>), men consecrated by heathen rites to the vilest of crimes<\/em>.<\/p>\n

All this is of course intended to apply to Job;\u2014if you are really a good man fallen into trouble, God is dealing mercifully; <\/span>he is showing you that you have been too proud and overbearing in your conduct, and the proof of your goodness will be that you will return to him in true humiliation and repentance, and then he will bring you out of trouble. Whereas, if your affliction only causes you to sin more against God and to restrain prayer before h<\/span>im, then such conduct proves you to be impious in heart, and if it be so, your fate, notwithstanding your past profession, will be as awful as that which befalls the most licentious profligates.<\/span><\/p>\n

15<\/a>. Elihu here draws a conclusion from his own statements just uttered. When an <\/span>afflicted righteous man is delivered, his affliction is in God\u2019s hands the means of his deliverance, for it is by means of troubles that God so opens the ears of those who are tried, as that they hear and obey his voice calling them to repentance.<\/span><\/p>\n

The \u05d1\u05b0\u05bc<\/span> (be<\/span>) in both clauses might be translated in<\/em> instead of by<\/em>, but the latter rendering gives much more point to the whole passage.<\/p>\n

The apparently p<\/span>aradoxical statement of the verse, that affliction works its own cure, is strengthened by a double paronomasia, which cannot be exactly rendered in English; the following, however, would nearly express it:\u2014<\/span><\/p>\n

\u201cHe redresseth<\/em> the humble [afflicted]<\/em> by his [humbling] affliction<\/em>,<\/p>\n

And he uncovereth their car by distress<\/em>.\u201d<\/p>\n

16<\/a>. This verse has, correctly enough, been counted full of difficulties, and has be<\/span>en generally misunderstood. The meaning is,\u2014Not only is it true that when an afflicted man is righteous his affliction is, in God\u2019s hands, a means of his deliverance (v. 15<\/a>); but more than this, God d<\/span>oes, by an actual putting forth of power, bring him out of his distress into circumstances of liberty and plenty. Elihu\u2019s inference is,\u2014surely if you Job were really a righteous man, the matter would by this time have been prove<\/span>d\u2014God would, by an act of power, have brought you out of your distress into a position of prosperity.<\/p>\n

Have urged thee<\/em>. Elihu certainly implies a sort of gracious violence o<\/span>r compulsion on the part of God in bringing the good out of trouble. Compare Gen. 19:15<\/a>, 16<\/a>.<\/p>\n

Out of the gorge of distress<\/em>,\u2014lit., out of the mouth of distress<\/em>; as \u05e6\u05b8\u05e8<\/span> (tsar<\/span>) in its primary sense means <\/span>narrowness<\/em>, and only in its secondary sense, distress; gorge<\/em> is a very suitable rendering for \u05e4\u05b4\u05d9<\/span> (phi<\/span>), lit., mouth<\/em>.<\/p>\n

And the setting down, &c<\/em>.,\u2014i.e.<\/em>, and your tray would be set down full of fatness<\/em>. <\/span>\u05e0\u05b7\u05d7\u05b7\u05ea<\/span> (nakhath<\/span>) is the setting down of<\/em>, not the things set on<\/em>. The \u05e9\u05bb\u05c1\u05dc\u05b0\u05d7\u05b8\u05df<\/span> (shulkhan<\/span>) was evidently a moveable table corresponding in use to a large dinner tray. (See the Illustrations<\/a> on this subjec<\/span>t.)<\/p>\n

17<\/a>. But thou hast filled up, &c<\/em>.,\u2014i.e.<\/em>, putting the case that you have filled up, &c<\/em>.; Elihu evidently implies that Job had done this.<\/p>\n

There seems to be a play upon the word filling<\/em> in this and th<\/span>e former verse,\u2014so far from the result of your trial being repentance on your part, and on God\u2019s part prosperity for you and a well filled<\/em> table, you have rather filled up<\/em>, by your impatience and obse<\/span>rvations upon God\u2019s justice, &c., that measure of iniquity which makes wicked men liable to judgment.<\/p>\n

Judgment and sentence hold together<\/em>. Seeing that you have rendered yourself liable to judgment, I <\/span>would just remind you that the act of judgment and the delivery of the sentence are very closely connected;\u2014the one is a kind of natural consequence of, and follows very closely upon the other. \u05de\u05b4\u05e9\u05b0\u05c1\u05e4<\/span><\/span>\u05b8\u05bc\u05d8<\/span> (mishpat<\/span>) is often used to signify the decision to which a judge comes after he has tried a case<\/em>.<\/p>\n

18<\/a>. Elihu implies, that the fact, that Job had not yet been delivered out of his affliction, and t<\/span>hat he had apparently made no good use of the trial, but rather by ungodly tempers had been filling up that measure of iniquity which rendered him liable to judgment, was, rather than otherwise, a proof that <\/span>there was divine wrath gone out against him<\/em>, and that, such being the case, he ought to beware<\/em> how he went on provoking God, else it might soon be too late; destruction might come upon him in <\/em><\/span>an instant, and no amount of ransom would enable him to avoid it<\/em>.<\/p>\n

Beware lest<\/em>. This is not the only instance in which \u05e4\u05b6\u05bc\u05df<\/span> (pen<\/span>), more usually, simply lest<\/em>, has necessarily the extensive meaning here <\/span>given to it.<\/p>\n

He urge thee off<\/em>. \u05d9\u05b0\u05e1\u05b4\u05bd\u05d9\u05ea\u05b0\u05da\u05b8<\/span> (yesithecha<\/span>.) This is evidently intended to correspond with the same word \u05d4\u05b2\u05e1\u05b4\u05bd\u05d9\u05ea\u05b0\u05da\u05b8<\/span> (hesithecha<\/span>) in ver. 16<\/a>, thus,\u2014God has not as yet by his mercy urged you <\/em><\/span>out<\/em> of your distress (ver. 16<\/a>), take care that in his provoked wrath He does not altogether urge you away<\/em> with a stroke.<\/p>\n

19<\/a>. Do not flatter yourself that wealth, influence, social position, or any oth<\/span>er such adventitions circumstance can avail you with Him.<\/p>\n

Will he esteem, &c<\/em>. \u05d4\u05b2\u05d9\u05b7\u05bd\u05e2\u05b2\u05e8\u05b9\u05da\u05b0<\/span> (heyagueroch<\/span>), will he put<\/em> your opulence in competition<\/em> with other things of infinitely greater importance to <\/span>Him,\u2014such as his justice, holiness, &c.? This is the full force of what I conceive to be implied in the word here used.<\/p>\n

Thine opulence<\/em>. \u05e9\u05c1\u05d5\u05bc\u05e2\u05b2\u05da\u05b8<\/span> (shougnecha<\/span>). This might be translated your cry<\/em>, but th<\/span>e context determines the meaning here given to be the best.<\/p>\n

Not balsam<\/em>. \u05d1\u05b0\u05bc\u05e6\u05b8\u05e8<\/span> (betsar<\/span>), probably the same as \u05d1\u05b6\u05bc\u05e6\u05b6\u05e8<\/span> (betser<\/span>) in 22:24<\/a>. For the meaning here given, and the immense value of this produc<\/span>t, I must refer to the Note on that verse.<\/p>\n

All the powers of might<\/em>. All such things as are generally supposed to make a person influential and powerful,\u2014namely, money, knowledge, station, &c.<\/p>\n

20<\/a>. Pant<\/em><\/span> not for the night<\/em>. Do not be anxious to enter upon the state of death. Job had repeatedly expressed a wish to die, and had spoken of that state as one of ease and rest. Elihu cautions him against suc<\/span>h a desire. Death, according to Elihu\u2019s view, at least for the wicked, was a continued night spent in lower regions.<\/p>\n

When people are carried off below<\/em>. I have endeavoured to preserve the ambiguity of <\/span>the original, which may mean either that people from below<\/em> (i.e.<\/em>, from this earth) are carried off, or that people are carried off to a place below<\/em>. I incline to the latter signification.<\/p>\n

The whole ve<\/span>rse may be thus paraphrased:\u2014Do not long to enter upon that night of death, in which people are removed [from their earthly abodes] to subterranean habitations.<\/p>\n

21<\/a>. \u05db\u05b4\u05bc\u05d9 \u05e2\u05b7\u05dc\u05be\u05d6\u05b6\u05d4<\/span> (chi gnal zeh<\/span>). The \u05e2\u05b7<\/span><\/span>\u05dc<\/span> (gnal<\/span>) in this phrase has been a considerable difficulty to commentators; and no wonder, so long as they were determined to make it dependent upon \u05d1\u05b8\u05bc\u05d7\u05b7\u05e8<\/span> (bakhar<\/span>), which, of course, it could not be,<\/span> without admitting a decidedly anomalous construction. The difficulty, however, is removed by making the \u05e2\u05b7\u05dc<\/span> (gnal<\/span>) independent of \u05d1\u05b8\u05bc\u05d7\u05b7\u05e8<\/span> (bakhar<\/span>), and by referring this latter word, as it obviously o<\/span>ught to be, to the subject of the previous verse, i.e.<\/em>, the night<\/em>, &c., i.e.<\/em>, death<\/em>. And so, the present verse might be paraphrased,\u2014Take care lest your desire to die be a decided setting of your face<\/span> upon iniquity; and I warn you that it is such, for iniquity is really the reason why you make choice of death, rather than of bearing the affliction which God is pleased to send upon you.<\/p>\n

22<\/a>. Elihu n<\/span>ow, in this and the following verses, adduces the greatness of God, as discoverable in his works, as another reason why Job should desist from the presumptuous language he had used with reference to God.<\/span><\/p>\n

Who is master<\/em>. It is somewhat doubtful whether \u05de\u05d5\u05b9\u05e8\u05b6\u05d4<\/span> (moreh<\/span>) here ought to be taken in its Chaldaic sense, as a lord<\/em>, or in its more ordinary and Hebrew signification, as a teacher<\/em>: the former me<\/span>aning is certainly more suitable to the context. I have preferred, however, to retain the ambiguity, and so, have translated the word master<\/em>.<\/p>\n

23<\/a>. Who hath encharged him with his way?\u2014i.e.<\/em>, Who has giv<\/span>en God directions as to the course He must pursue? Or it might be translated, Who hath supervised his way<\/em>? i.e.<\/em>, Under what supervisor does God act? Elihu had already advanced much the same sentiment <\/span>in 34:13<\/a>. The second clause, Who hath said, Thou hast done wrong<\/em>? seems rather to favor the second translation which I have given of the first clause; but there are many instances which prove that at <\/span>least the ordinary meaning of \u05e4\u05b8\u05bc\u05e7\u05b7\u05d3 \u05e2\u05b7\u05dc<\/span> (pakad gnal<\/span>) is to give (something) in charge to (some one)<\/em>.<\/p>\n

24<\/a>. His doings<\/em>. \u05e4\u05b8\u05bc\u05bd\u05e2\u05b2\u05dc\u05d5\u05b9<\/span> (po\u00f6lo<\/span>) is singular, but often has a collective sense; his work<\/em> would no<\/span>t give the full force of the original.<\/p>\n

Which<\/em>. Lee explains \u05d0\u05b2\u05e9\u05b6\u05c1\u05e8<\/span> (asher<\/span>) in the sense of \u05dc\u05b0\u05de\u05b7\u05e2\u05b7\u05df \u05d0\u05b2\u05e9\u05b6\u05c1\u05e8<\/span> (lemagnan asher<\/span>); but can it ever have such a sense before a preterite?<\/p>\n

Have seen<\/em>. Many, among <\/span>whom Jerome and apparently the Chaldee, take \u05e9\u05c1\u05d5\u05bc\u05e8<\/span> (shour<\/span>) in the sense of \u05e9\u05b4\u05c1\u05d9\u05e8<\/span> (shir<\/span>) to sing<\/em>, but this is unnecessary.<\/p>\n

25<\/a>. Have gazed upon them<\/em>. \u05d7\u05b8\u05d6\u05b8\u05d4 \u05d1\u05b0<\/span> (khazah ve<\/span>) is to look at with some degree <\/em><\/span>of satisfaction<\/em>.<\/p>\n

Mortal man beholdeth them from afar<\/em>. Elihu\u2019s inference is, that this is right and proper, that it does not become mortals to pry too closely into the secret workings of God. Many of G<\/span>od\u2019s works are placed at a distance, though within sight; and, being so placed, man should not presume to endeavour to get nearer to them. This I take to be Elihu\u2019s meaning, and if so, it is probably intended as a reproof to Job for his presuming to pry into the secrets of God\u2019s providential dealings. Job ought to magnify what God does, content t<\/span>o look at it at a distance.<\/p>\n

26<\/a>. God\u2019s greatness bein<\/span>g utterly beyond all human comprehension, and his duration beyond all computation, that man must needs be arrogant who scans his actions with a cavilling spirit. Such is evidently the inference which, Elihu intends, Job sh<\/span>ould draw and apply to his own case.<\/p>\n

27<\/a>. For<\/em>. As a proof that God is great.<\/p>\n

He draineth off the drops of water<\/em>,\u2014poetically for He reduceth<\/em> or rarefieth water into drops<\/em>. There is<\/span> no foundation for giving the sense of drawing up<\/em> or attracting<\/em> to \u05d2\u05b8\u05bc\u05e8\u05b7\u05e2<\/span> (garagn<\/span>), as has usually been done; to reduce<\/em> might be a correct translation of the word.<\/p>\n

They are strained<\/em>,\u2014or filtrated<\/em>, or <\/span>percolated<\/em>, i.e.<\/em>, the water is strained, so as to become rain such as falls in a mist. The metaphorical meaning of \u05d9\u05b8\u05d6\u05b9\u05e7\u05bc\u05d5\u05bc<\/span> (yazokkou<\/span>) here is taken from the straining of liquids<\/em>, and not from its oth<\/span>er sense, the fusing of metals<\/em>, as Lee and others understand it.<\/p>\n

In the first clause Elihu advances a general statement,\u2014that God shows his greatness by rarefying water into minute drops; and then the<\/span> second clause contains a more particular description,\u2014the water becomes the fine misty rain which God sends, by a process which Elihu compares to the straining of fluids.<\/p>\n

28<\/a>. So that<\/em>. \u05d0\u05b2\u05e9\u05b6\u05c1\u05e8\u05be<\/span> (asher<\/span>)<\/span>, or it might be rendered, That the skies flow down<\/em>, indicating design or purpose on the part of God.<\/p>\n

Drizzle<\/em>. \u05d9\u05b4\u05e8\u05b0\u05e2\u05b2\u05e4\u05d5\u05bc<\/span> (irgnephou<\/span>), always applied to the dropping of small rain. In Proverbs 3:20<\/a> it <\/span>is used in reference to the dew,\u2014the skies drizzle dew<\/em>. Compare Shakspeare\u2019s,\u2014<\/p>\n

\u201cWhen the sun sets the air doth drizzle dew<\/em>.\u201d<\/p>\n

29<\/a>. Ay.<\/span> \u05d0\u05b7\u05e3<\/span> (aph<\/span>), besides, moreover<\/em>, &c.<\/p>\n

Doth man understand<\/em>. \u05d0\u05b4\u05dd \u05d9\u05b8\u05d1\u05b4\u05d9\u05df<\/span> (<\/span>im yavin<\/span>) supply \u05d0\u05b8\u05d3\u05b8\u05dd<\/span> (adam<\/span>) from the previous clause. It is scarcely possible to give, in English, the full force of the irony here conveyed, by the really impossible, though apparently possible, su<\/span>pposition suggested. The nearest approach to it would, I think, be,\u2014Perhaps man does understand<\/em>. A bare possibility is imagined with, at the same time, the highest amount of improbability.<\/p>\n

The cloud<\/em>. <\/span>\u05e2\u05b8\u05d1<\/span> (gnav<\/span>) is particularly a dense cloud<\/em>. The next clause shows that the sort of cloud specially referred to is the thunder-cloud<\/em> which God is said to make use of as his pavilion. Compare Psalm 18:11\u2013<\/span>13<\/a>.<\/p>\n

30<\/a>. Behold, He hath spread, &c<\/em>.,\u2014i.e.<\/em>, Behold, with regard to the wide-spread dark cloud to which I am now drawing your attention, how God spreads out his light upon the upper surface of it, and w<\/span>ith its under surface envelops in darkness the whole sea in its widest outspreadings. Elihu means that (so far at least as human vision can go), the canopy of cloud in the heavens is (from time to time) co-extensive with the utmost limits of the sea, and covers it with darkness; whilst above that canopy all is wide-spread light and brightness.<\/span><\/p>\n

This verse has given much trouble, and has been misund<\/span>erstood, chiefly in consequence of the supposition that \u05e9\u05b8\u05c1\u05e8\u05b0\u05e9\u05b5\u05c1\u05d9 \u05d4\u05b7\u05d9\u05b8\u05bc\u05dd<\/span> (shorshei haiyam<\/span>), lit., roots of the sea<\/em>, must mean the depths<\/em> or bottoms<\/em> of the sea; but to say that God covers the bottoms o<\/span>f the sea with clouds would be sheer nonsense; and to say here that He covers the bottoms of the sea with waters<\/em> (if that be the word to be understood), would be jumping from one subject to another: b<\/span>esides which, it seems to me much more natural to understand by the roots of the sea<\/em> its extremities<\/em>, and by which it is, as it were, rooted to the coast: and the figure becomes the more beautiful, if<\/span> we consider how reasonably the different inlets, arms, creeks, &c., of the sea, in its sweep along the various shores, may be supposed to resemble the outspread roots of a tree.<\/p>\n

31<\/a>. For, &c<\/em>. Elihu he<\/span>re proposes an augmentation of the difficulty of understanding the spreadings of the cloud (ver. 29<\/a>); there is not only the difficulty of understanding the physical laws, but there are also the provid<\/span>ential laws, which give being to, and which regulate the movements of these atmospheric bodies: and those providential laws, which so direct these outspreadings of the cloud as to make them means of inflicting judgments on nations, and at the same time of furnishing man with food, must be taken into <\/span>the consideration, and they add considerably to the difficulty of investigation.<\/p>\n

By them<\/em>,\u2014of course<\/span> by the spreadings of the cloud<\/em>, the subject upon which Elihu is speaking. It seems to me strange that this pronoun should have been referred to any other noun, as such reference only serves to compli<\/span>cate the passage.<\/p>\n

He judgeth nations<\/em>,\u2014chastises them by means of floods, lightning, whirlwinds, and any other destructive atmospheric agencies which accompany violent storms.<\/p>\n

He giveth food, &c<\/em>. These<\/span> same storms, so destructive in some instances, are in others most beneficial, especially in the promotion of fertilization.<\/p>\n

32<\/a>. On the hollow of his hands, &c<\/em>. I take the construction here to be preg<\/span>nant, and to mean,\u2014that God places the lightning on the hollow of his hands, and so, covers it from the view of men, who, of course, are underneath. In other words, the lightning is, according to Elihu\u2019s description, concealed from mortal ey<\/span>es (until sent forth on its errand), by being on the upper<\/em>, and not on the under surface of the clouds. The clouds are here poetically called God\u2019s hands, and <\/span>the inference, or rather the assertion is, that He has them under his complete control.<\/p>\n

\u05d0\u05d5\u05b9\u05e8<\/span> (or<\/span>),\u2014light<\/em> in general, but the context shows that lightning<\/em> in particular is here intended.<\/p>\n

In striking<\/em>,\u2014o<\/span>r in coming into collision<\/em> [with something<\/em>]. The word striking<\/em> is literal, and precisely the word we ordinarily use with reference to lightning.<\/p>\n

Totally different views have been taken of this verse. <\/span>One of these I may express in the following words:\u2014<\/p>\n

\u201cHe hath covered the light<\/em> (i.e<\/em>., the sun) with his hands<\/em>,<\/p>\n

And he forbiddeth it<\/em> [to shine<\/em>] by an intervention<\/em>\u201d<\/p>\n

(i.e<\/em>., an intervention of some object<\/span>, such as a cloud as in the case of storms, or the moon, or the earth\u2019s shadow, as during an eclipse). This is evidently the meaning which is to be attached to the authorized version. I prefer, however, the rendering I have given, on<\/span> many accounts.<\/p>\n

33<\/a>. This verse is capable of innumerable renderings, and none of them so decidedly satisfactory as might be wished. The difficulty arises from the ambi<\/span>guity of almost every word. For instance, \u05e8\u05b5\u05e2\u05d5\u05b9<\/span> (regno<\/span>) may mean either his noise<\/em> or its noise<\/em> (i.e<\/em>., the thunder of God, or of the cloud), or it may mean his friend<\/em>, or again, his will<\/em>. Then, again, <\/span>it is uncertain whether God<\/em>, or the cloud<\/em>, or the lightning<\/em>, be the nominative to \u05d9\u05b7\u05d2\u05b4\u05bc\u05d9\u05d3<\/span> (yaggid<\/span>); and in like manner it is not clear to which of these \u05e2\u05b8\u05dc\u05b8\u05d9\u05d5<\/span> (gnalaiw<\/span>) may relate. Again, the word \u05de\u05b4<\/span><\/span>\u05e7\u05b0\u05e0\u05b6\u05d4<\/span> (mikneh<\/span>) may mean either cattle<\/em> or possession<\/em>, or possibly it might be for \u05de\u05b4\u05e7\u05b0\u05e0\u05b6\u05d0<\/span> (mikne<\/span>), as Lee has it, and which, if there be such a word, would no doubt mean zeal<\/em>. (Barnes, by some strange <\/span>oversight, reads \u05de\u05b4\u05e7\u05b0\u05d5\u05b6\u05d4<\/span> (mikweh<\/span>), and grounds his observations on it.) And further \u05d0\u05b7\u05e3<\/span> (aph<\/span>) may signify either wrath<\/em> or also<\/em>, whilst lastly \u05e2\u05d5\u05b9\u05dc\u05b6\u05d4<\/span> (gnoleh<\/span>) may mean a rising<\/em> (perhaps of a storm), or<\/span>, a plant<\/em>, or it may be the same as \u05e2\u05d5\u05b9\u05dc\u05b8\u05d4<\/span> (gnolah<\/span>), for \u05e2\u05b7\u05d5\u05b0\u05dc\u05b8\u05d4<\/span> (gnawlah<\/span>) iniquity<\/em>.<\/p>\n

The translation which I have given furnishes this sense,\u2014God\u2019s thunder gives intimation respecting him that he has <\/span>been storing up his wrath, and is now about to let it loose against iniquity. Not unlikely, thunder was actually heard at the time Elihu was speaking, and he tells Job that this sound portends that God is coming forth to punish; the thunderbolt, however, is. so completely in God\u2019s power (v. <\/span>32<\/a>) that it can strike only where he wills.<\/p>\n

As \u05de\u05b4\u05e7\u05b0\u05e0\u05b6\u05d4<\/span> (mikneh<\/span>) signifies both cattle<\/em> and possessions<\/em>, our w<\/span>ord stock<\/em>, or store<\/em>, is a very suitable rendering.<\/p>\n

The verse might be translated:\u2014<\/p>\n

\u201cHis noise<\/em> (thunder) announceth him<\/em>.<\/p>\n

Even cattle<\/em> [announce<\/em>] the rising<\/em> [storm<\/em>].\u201d<\/p>\n

Or again, for his noise, his friend<\/em> <\/span>(i.e<\/em>., some one who is in God\u2019s confidence), may be substituted.<\/p>\n

And again,\u2014<\/p>\n

\u201cHe announceth his will to it<\/em> (i.e<\/em>., to the lightning);<\/p>\n

The zeal of<\/em> [his<\/em>] wrath against iniquity<\/em>.\u201d<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\n
\n
\n

Job 37<\/a><\/p>\n

1<\/a>. There should be no separation of the chapters here.<\/p>\n

At this<\/em>. Either at the noise of the thunder, then actually heard, or at the consideration of God\u2019s wrath against iniquity, or probably at both.<\/p>\n

Doth my heart tremble, &c<\/em>. This effect of fear is sufficiently common. It is caused by the blood forsaking the extremities.<\/p>\n

2<\/a>. Hark! hark<\/em>! lit., hearken with a hearkening<\/em>.<\/p>\n

Raging, grumbling<\/em>. These are literal renderings of \u05e8\u05b9\u05d2\u05b6\u05d6<\/span> (rogez<\/span>) and \u05d4\u05b6\u05d2\u05b6\u05d4<\/span> (hegeh<\/span>), and are sufficiently descriptive of thunder.<\/p>\n

Elihu here draws marked attention to the storm which was then probably rising, and out of which God shortly afterwards addressed Job (see 38:1<\/a>).<\/p>\n

His voice<\/em>. Thunder is often called God\u2019s voice (see Ps. 29<\/a>).<\/p>\n

3<\/a>. \u05d9\u05b4\u05e9\u05b0\u05c1\u05e8\u05b5\u05d4\u05d5\u05bc<\/span> (ishrehou<\/span>). Some take this from \u05d9\u05b8\u05e9\u05b7\u05c1\u05e8<\/span> (yashar<\/span>), to direct<\/em>; others, again, from \u05e9\u05b8\u05c1\u05e8\u05b8\u05d4<\/span> (sharah<\/span>), i.q.<\/em>, Arab., \u0634\u0631\u064a<\/span> (shri<\/span>) to flash<\/em>. But I prefer, with Lee, to take it from \u05e9\u05b8\u05c1\u05e8\u05b8\u05d4<\/span> (sharah<\/span>), i.q.<\/em>, Chald., \u05e9\u05b0\u05c1\u05e8\u05b8\u05d0<\/span> (shera<\/span>) to loose<\/em>. In this case, \u05d9\u05b4\u05e9\u05b0\u05c1\u05e8\u05b5\u05d4\u05d5\u05bc<\/span> (ishrehou<\/span>) is contracted for \u05d9\u05b4\u05e9\u05b0\u05c1\u05e8\u05b0\u05d4\u05b5\u05d4\u05d5\u05bc<\/span> (ishrehehou<\/span>).<\/p>\n

Letteth it loose<\/em>, i.e<\/em>., the lightning.<\/p>\n

The ends of the earth<\/em>, lit., the wings of, &c<\/em>. A winged globe is common both in Egyptian and Assyrian sculpture.<\/p>\n

4<\/a>. After it, <\/em>&c.<\/em>, i.e<\/em>., after the lightning is seen, the thunder is heard.<\/p>\n

He stayeth them not<\/em>. Elihu leaves it for the moment to his hearers to guess, that, by them<\/em>, he means the usual concomitants of thunder-storms, such as hail, rain, &c. These, however, he mentions almost immediately afterwards.<\/p>\n

5<\/a>. God thundereth marvels<\/em>. Elihu now proceeds to speak of the effects which follow close upon the thunder,\u2014the things which he stayeth not<\/em> (as in the former verse), and these he calls marvels<\/em>. The beauty of this passage is destroyed by translating this word adverbially.<\/p>\n

6<\/a>. \u05d4\u05b1\u05d5\u05b5\u05d0<\/span> (hew\u00e9<\/span>), from \u05d4\u05b8\u05d5\u05b8\u05d0<\/span> (hawa<\/span>), or \u05d4\u05b8<\/span>\u05d5\u05b8\u05d4<\/span> (hawah<\/span>), and not an Aramaism for \u05d4\u05b1\u05d9\u05b5\u05d4<\/span> (heyeh<\/span>), as Rosenm\u00fcller takes it.<\/p>\n

His violent rains<\/em>, lit., rains of his strength<\/em>.<\/p>\n

7<\/a>. Sealeth he up, &c<\/em>. During the season of snow and rain, i.e<\/em>., during winter, God seals up the hand of every man, by hindering him from engaging in his ordinary agricultural pursuits.<\/p>\n

That all the mortals, &c<\/em>. God\u2019s object in thus obliging men to cease from their ordinary labours is, that they may know that it is his hand, and that they are dependent upon him; and also, that they may acquire knowledge, by considering the wonders of nature at that season. These wonders Elihu goes on to describe.<\/p>\n

The mortals he hath made<\/em>, lit., men of his workmanship<\/em>. Some take this to mean his labourers<\/em>, i.e<\/em>., men who may be said to labour for him, because they till his earth. But this appears to me a forced construction of the Hebrew.<\/p>\n

8<\/a>. Such is the inclemency of the weather at that season that even the wild beast is driven for shelter into his lurking-places.<\/p>\n

His abodes<\/em>. Implying that he has more than one haunt which he frequents.<\/p>\n

9<\/a>. Elihu continues his description of winter weather. Another of its features is, that the tempest comes out of its hidden chamber in which it has been pent up, and that, as it drives along in its fury, it scatters cold in every direction.<\/p>\n

Commentators in general have seemed to think, that Elihu is giving information as to the particular quarters of the heavens from whence the tempest and the cold proceed, and so, they determine, upon very slight authority, that \u05d7\u05b6\u05d3\u05b6\u05e8<\/span> (kheder<\/span>) must mean the south<\/em>, and \u05de\u05b0\u05d6\u05b8\u05e8\u05b4\u05d9\u05dd<\/span> (mezarim<\/span>) the north<\/em>. The authority in the former instance is that, in 9:9<\/a>, \u05d7\u05b6\u05d3\u05b6\u05e8<\/span> (kheder<\/span>) is used in connexion with the south, and that, in Isa. 21:1<\/a>, and Zech. 9:14<\/a>, the \u05e1\u05d5\u05bc\u05e4\u05b8\u05d4<\/span> (souphah<\/span>) tempest<\/em>, is said to come from the south; and, in the latter instance, the authority is no higher than the circumstance that the north is the cold quarter, and the assumption that \u05d7\u05b6\u05d3\u05b6\u05e8<\/span> (kheder<\/span>) must mean the south. But the context here, so far from being improved by any such departure from the first and literal meaning of the words in question, is to my mind rather altogether interrupted and spoiled.<\/p>\n

Its chamber<\/em>. The pronoun is not expressed in the Hebrew, but the article here sufficiently implies it.<\/p>\n

A comparison seems intended between the \u05ea\u05b8\u05bc\u05d1\u05b9\u05d5\u05d0<\/span> (tavo<\/span>) in this verse and that in the last, whilst, on the one hand, the wild beast goe<\/em>s into<\/em> his lair, to secure himself from the tempest, on the other hand, the tempest comes out<\/em> of the hiding-place where it has been pent up, and by its cold and fury drives everything before it.<\/p>\n

Its s<\/em>catterings, i.e., the scatterings of the tempest<\/em>.<\/p>\n

10<\/a>. The chill blast which produces ice is here called the breath of God, because it emanates from him.<\/p>\n

Is compressed<\/em>, lit., is in a squeeze<\/em>, being forced into that position by the contracting and congealing power of the freezing temperature.<\/p>\n

Some take \u05de\u05d5\u05bc\u05e6\u05b8\u05e7<\/span> (moutsak<\/span>) as from \u05d9\u05b8\u05e6\u05b7\u05e7<\/span> (yatsak<\/span>) to pour out<\/em>, but it is better to take it from \u05e6\u05d5\u05bc\u05e7<\/span> (tsouk<\/span>) to compress, squeeze<\/em>, &c., as it thus forms an evident contrast to \u05e8\u05b9\u05d7\u05b7\u05d1<\/span> (rokhav<\/span>) breadth<\/em>, and very properly expresses the binding qualities of ice; and moreover, the two same words occurring in 36:16<\/a>, in manifest antithesis, confirm the meaning here given.<\/p>\n

11<\/a>. \u05e8\u05b4\u05d9<\/span> (ri<\/span>),\u2014probably for \u05e8\u05b0\u05d5\u05b4\u05d9<\/span> (rewi<\/span>), from \u05e8\u05b8\u05d5\u05b8\u05d4<\/span> (rawah<\/span>). See Gesenius.<\/p>\n

\u05d8\u05b8\u05e8\u05b7\u05d7<\/span> (tarakh<\/span>),\u2014I take this word in one of the Arabic senses which it undoubtedly has of falling headlong<\/em>, \u201csemet conjecit, projecit, se pr\u00e6cipitem dedit, et dejecit se hinc deorsum<\/em>.\u201d (Castell.)<\/p>\n

For \u05e2\u05b2\u05e0\u05b7\u05df<\/span> (gnenan<\/span>), construct, I am disposed to read \u05e2\u05b8\u05e0\u05b8\u05df<\/span> (gnanan<\/span>), absolute, a reading supported by the authority of fifteen MSS. collated by De Rossi.<\/p>\n

The parallelism is preserved in the translation I have given, and the meaning is sufficiently obvious without comment. The connexion with the context seems to be,\u2014God, in his providential arrangements, has so ordained it, that storm and tempest cannot always last; in their own discharge they exhaust themselves<\/em>.<\/p>\n

12<\/a>. \u05d5\u05b0\u05d4\u05d5\u05bc\u05d0<\/span> (wehou<\/span>). Many refer this to God, but the reflexive force of \u05de\u05b4\u05ea\u05b0\u05d4\u05b7\u05e4\u05b5\u05bc\u05da\u05b0<\/span> (mithhappech<\/span>), veereth<\/em>, or turneth itself about<\/em>, rather shows its relation to \u05e2\u05b8\u05e0\u05b8\u05df<\/span> (gnanan<\/span>) the cloud<\/em>.<\/p>\n

\u05ea\u05b7\u05bc\u05d7\u05b0\u05d1\u05bc\u05d5\u05bc\u05dc\u05b9\u05d5\u05ea<\/span> (ta<\/span>khebouloth<\/span>), which I have translated management<\/em>, is so evidently a nautical word relating to the steering, sailing, and general governance of a ship, that I suspect \u05de\u05b4\u05ea\u05b0\u05d4\u05b7\u05e4\u05b5\u05bc\u05da\u05b0<\/span> (mithhappech<\/span>) is here used in a nautical sense also, and not unlikely was often so used. I have accordingly rendered it veereth<\/em>; its ordinary meaning is turneth itself about<\/em>.<\/p>\n

His management<\/em>. Of course, God\u2019s management<\/em>.<\/p>\n

I take \u05d0\u05b2\u05e9\u05b6\u05c1\u05e8<\/span> (asher<\/span>) to be here for \u05d1\u05b7\u05bc\u05d0\u05b2\u05e9\u05b6\u05c1\u05e8<\/span> (baasher<\/span>), on account of which, or for which<\/em>.<\/p>\n

That they, i.e<\/em>., the cloud and the lightning.<\/p>\n

13<\/a>. Be the object which God has in ordering his cloud and lightning to the earth what it may, whether to chastise man or to bless him, or whether God does it for the mere benefit of his own earth, in any case God is the doer of it; he <\/em>supplieth it<\/em>\u2014\u05d9\u05b7\u05de\u05b0\u05e6\u05b4\u05d0\u05b5\u05d4\u05d5\u05bc<\/span> (yam<\/span>tsiehou<\/span>), i.e<\/em>., he maketh it to be found<\/em>, or findable<\/em>, or indeed we might translate the word, he findeth it<\/em>, in the sense of he furnisheth it<\/em>.<\/p>\n

15<\/a>. Chargeth them<\/em>. \u05e9\u05c2\u05d5\u05bc\u05dd \u05e2\u05b7\u05dc<\/span> (soum gnal<\/span>) is to lay someth<\/em>ing upon another<\/em>, here, to lay the command<\/em> spoken of in v. 12<\/a>, to enjoin<\/em>, or to impose a task<\/em>.<\/p>\n

Them<\/em>. The cloud and the lightning, spoken of before, and also again in the next clause.<\/p>\n

This verse has, I think, been generally mistaken. Elihu is not speaking here of the mystery of the formation of lightning, but is arguing man\u2019s ignorance from the circumstance of its suddenness. Job (says Elihu) does not know when<\/em> God is commissioning the thunderstorm on its errand; neither does he know, till he actually sees the lightning flash, the instant in which it is to appear. This would not be quite true of the thunder.<\/p>\n

16<\/a>. The thick cloud<\/em>,\u2014\u05e2\u05b8\u05d1<\/span> (gnav<\/span>), the dense, heavy cloud, surcharged with moisture. Elihu challenges Job to explain how this is suspended in the air.<\/p>\n

In all knowledge<\/em>. The force of the plural \u05d3\u05b5\u05e2\u05b4\u05d9\u05dd<\/span> (degnim<\/span>) may, perhaps, thus be given by the addition of the word all<\/em>.<\/p>\n

17<\/a>. Thou, whose garments, &c<\/em>. This is clearly the meaning of \u05d0\u05b2\u05e9\u05b6\u05c1\u05e8\u05be\u05d1\u05b0\u05bc\u05d2\u05b8\u05d3\u05b6\u05d9\u05da\u05b8<\/span> (asher begadeicha<\/span>), in connexion with what goes before. And the sense is,\u2014You, Job, can readily enough feel<\/em> the changes of the weather, but you cannot give any explanation of them.<\/p>\n

When He tulleth, &c<\/em>. Thus producing a close atmosphere.<\/p>\n

18<\/a>. Thou, together with Him, spreadest out, &c<\/em>. \u05ea\u05b7\u05bc\u05e8\u05b0\u05e7\u05b4\u05d9\u05e2\u05b7<\/span> (tarkiagn<\/span>) is in the form of an assertion, and not of a question; if the interrogative \u05d4<\/span> (h<\/span>) be supplied, (which is usually done by commentators,) the bitter irony of the passage is destroyed. The force of it appears to be this:\u2014Elihu says to Job, Do you know about the cloud, and about the lightning, &c.? But of course you do, seeing that you, together with God, lay out the expanse of the firmament under which all these meteoric phenomena take place; you are consequently, of course, able to instruct us, and we look to you for that instruction, (ver. 19<\/a>.)<\/p>\n

Spreadest out<\/em>. \u05e8\u05b8\u05e7\u05b7\u05e2<\/span> (rakagn<\/span>) is to spread out like plates of metal, by beating it out<\/em>. This idea corresponds well with the resemblance of a molten mirror<\/em> mentioned in the next clause. The ancients probably considered that the sphere of the firmament was a transparent solid. Compare the \u03c7\u03b1\u03bb\u03ba\u03b5\u03bf\u03bd \u03bf\u03c5\u03c1\u03b1\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd<\/span> of the Greek poets.<\/p>\n

19<\/a>. The keen irony of the former verse is continued in this. You, being a joint artificer with God in the construction of the heavens, must necessarily be able to give us lessons as to how we ought to address ourselves to Him in his presence; and we beg of you to do so, because, as to ourselves, such is our ignorance that we cannot put words or ideas together for such a purpose.<\/p>\n

What we shall say to Him<\/em>. When He appears, as perhaps He may do, in the approaching storm.<\/p>\n

Compose<\/em>. \u05e2\u05b8\u05e8\u05b7\u05da\u05b0<\/span> (gnarach<\/span>) is to make regular disposition of anything<\/em>, such as forces<\/em>, &c.; here, words<\/em>, as in 32:14<\/a>.<\/p>\n

Because of darkness<\/em>. The external darkness produced by the gathering cloud is only a type of the darkness of my mind and of that of my friends. Job is so wise that he can see through this thick darkness, but we cannot.<\/p>\n

20<\/a>. Is it to be told Him, &c<\/em>. Is it proper that I should let Him have intimation of my intention to enter into a controversy with Him? Even the bearer of such a message would pay the penalty of his rashness. This verse is one of great difficulty, and this is the best sense that I can extract from it.<\/p>\n

21<\/a>, 22<\/a>. Two verses of extraordinary difficulty. The argument appears to be,\u2014If men cannot so much as gaze at the natural sun when it is shining in its greatest splendour\u2014that is, when, by reason of a wind, the sky is clearest\u2014how can it be supposed that mortals can endure to behold the tremendous majesty of God? And if they cannot even look upon such brightness, how much less can they approach such a glorious Being for the purpose of entering into controversy with Him? This appears to be the scope of Elihu\u2019s argument here, though he expresses it abruptly, and, as far as we can judge, confusedly; much as a man might be supposed to do, who felt aware (as he probably did at this moment) that God himself was about to appear.<\/p>\n

So splendid is <\/em>he<\/em>,\u2014lit., splendid he<\/em>. The sun\u2019s splendour is mentioned here as a reason why men cannot see (i.e<\/em>., gaze at) that luminary; and therefore my addition of the word so<\/em> is not out of place.<\/p>\n

Gold<\/em>. Poetically here for something that resembles gold\u2014namely, the golden tints that sometimes emblazon the sky. Literal gold is surely quite out of the question.<\/p>\n

Out of the north cometh gold<\/em>. This does not mean that golden tints are mostly observable in the northern quarter of the sky, for this would not be true, at least not in so southern a latitude as Arabia; but the meaning is rather,\u2014Out of the north comes the wind, which, by clearing the sky of clouds, causes it to blaze with the full effulgence of the sun.<\/p>\n

Upon God there is terrible majesty<\/em>. Glorious as the heavens are when suffused with golden light, and gilded with the rays of the sun, whose blaze is too powerful for mortals to face, yet God must necessarily be invested with a glory far more terrible [and such, therefore, as we dare not attempt to gaze upon].<\/p>\n

23<\/a>. We do not discover Him<\/em>. With all our knowledge and all our bragging, we cannot dive into the mysteries of God\u2019s providential dealings. Our researches have, thus far certainly, been in vain.<\/p>\n

Vast in power, &c<\/em>. God is in every respect too great, in might, in wisdom, in justice, and in goodness, to be questioned about his acts; and if He is so questioned, He will not so far condescend as to give men an account of them.<\/p>\n

Give answer<\/em>. The received reading is \u05dc\u05b9\u05d0\u05be\u05d9\u05e2\u05b7\u05e0\u05b6\u05bc\u05d4<\/span> (lo yegnanneh<\/span>) He will not afflict<\/em> (i.e<\/em>., unjustly); but this sense is somewhat out of place here, and therefore I prefer to read \u05dc\u05b9\u05d0\u05be\u05d9\u05b7\u05bd\u05e2\u05b2\u05e0\u05b6\u05d4<\/span> (lo yagneneh<\/span>), which has the support of some old and good MSS.<\/p>\n

24<\/a>. Elihu here draws his conclusion:\u2014From all that I have advanced, it is clearly men\u2019s business to stand in awe of the Almighty, and not to look at Him with curious gaze; and those who are truly wise will certainly act upon these principles.<\/p>\n

There is an evidently intentioned play upon the words \u05d9\u05b0\u05e8\u05b5\u05d0\u05d5\u05bc<\/span>\u05d4\u05d5\u05bc<\/span> (yereouhou<\/span>) and \u05d9\u05b4\u05e8\u05b0\u05d0\u05b6\u05d4<\/span> (ireh<\/span>); much as if we said, men ought to fear, and not to stare<\/em>.<\/p>\n

Will pry<\/em>,\u2014lit., will see<\/em>; i.e<\/em>., will see so as to try and find him out, look<\/em>, or gaze with curiosity<\/em>.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n

 <\/p>\n

\n
\n

Job 38<\/a><\/p>\n

1<\/a>. God himself now interposes\u2014here called Jehovah, the Eternal<\/em>. For other similar Divine appearances, see Exod. 19:18<\/a>; Num. 9:15<\/a>, &c.; 1 Kings 19:11<\/a>, &c.; Ezek. 1:4<\/a>, &c.<\/p>\n

2<\/a>. Some think that this<\/span> reproof is intended for Elihu, but Job evidently takes it to himself in his acknowledgment in 42:3<\/a>.<\/p>\n

Darkeneth counsel<\/em>. So far from throwing light upon God\u2019s ways, only makes them appear more obscure.<\/span> Job had done this by his questionings, &c., as to the equity of the Divine government.<\/p>\n

By verse without knowledge<\/em>. By talking without really understanding the true facts of the case. A common error.<\/p>\n

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

3<\/a>. Gird up now, &c<\/em>. Prepare now, if you can, to meet me on the battle-field [of controversy] like a hero.<\/p>\n

4<\/a>. God now commences putting questions to Job which are utterly beyond<\/span> his power to answer.<\/p>\n

Where wast thou, &c<\/em>.? God implies,\u2014How is it you were not there to assist me in the work?<\/p>\n

If thou hast the knowledge<\/em>,\u2014lit., if thou knowest understanding<\/em>.<\/p>\n

5<\/a>. Who laid the measure<\/em><\/span>s thereof<\/em>? Who stretched the line upon it<\/em>? Who determined upon its dimensions, and marked them out with lines of measurement previously to its construction.<\/p>\n

\u05de\u05b0\u05de\u05b7\u05d3\u05b6\u05bc\u05d9\u05d4\u05b8<\/span> (memaddeiah<\/span>), its measures<\/em>. Both<\/span> the context and also the root \u05de\u05b8\u05d3\u05b7\u05d3<\/span> (maddad<\/span>) determine this to be the meaning.<\/p>\n

6<\/a>. The bases thereof<\/em>. The bases of the columns which may be supposed to support it.<\/p>\n

Sunken<\/em>. The idea conveyed by \u05d8\u05b8\u05d1\u05b7\u05e2<\/span> (<\/span>tavagn<\/span>) is of large massive stones being deposited, as the foundations of a building, into some soft, clayey stratum, and by their weight gradually settling down into a fixed position.<\/p>\n

Its corner-ston<\/em><\/span>e<\/em>. Not, I think, the top corner-stone<\/em>, but the corner-stone at the base<\/em>. If it were the former, \u05d9\u05b8\u05e8\u05b8\u05d4<\/span> (yarah<\/span>), cast<\/em>, or heaved down<\/em>, would scarcely be appropriate. Compare Isa. 28:16<\/a>, \u201cBehold, I lay i<\/span>n Zion for a foundation a stone, a tried stone, a precious corner-stone, a sure foundation.\u201d There certainly is no question but that only one stone is here spoken of, and that stone (Christ, of course) <\/span>is at once a corner-stone and a foundation<\/em>. See also Ps. 118:22<\/a>, \u201cThe stone which the builders refused is become the head stone of the corner<\/em>;\u201d not in the sense of the top stone<\/em> of the corner, but t<\/em><\/span>he principal corner-stone<\/em> at the base. This is clear from 1 Pet. 2:4\u20138<\/a>, where he quotes both this passage from Ps. 118<\/a> and also that just referred to in Isa. 28<\/a>, and applies the stone<\/em> mentioned in bot<\/span>h to Christ. He speaks of God\u2019s laying it as a foundation<\/em>, and making it (that same stone) the head, i.e<\/em>., principal stone of the corner, and then states that that same stone was a stone of stumbling<\/em> <\/span>to the disobedient. How could it be called a stone of stumbling\u2014i.e<\/em>., how could people be said to fall against it\u2014if it were a top stone? When God laid it, it fell upon many, and destroyed them; and s<\/span>ince it has been laid, many fall upon it, and are broken. So our Lord\u2019s words in Matt. 21:44<\/a>.<\/p>\n

I dwell at length upon this, because, as we shall see in our next verse, much of the beauty of the passage<\/span> is lost by understanding \u05e4\u05b4\u05bc\u05e0\u05b8\u05bc\u05d4<\/span> (pinnah<\/span>) here as a top corner-stone<\/em>. God is comparing his work of the creation of the world to that of an architect in the construction of a building. The proper meas<\/span>urements are first taken, and then the foundation is laid. That foundation does not consist of one stone, but of many, though there is one principal stone. There are, for the sides of the building, th<\/em><\/span>e bases<\/em>, \u05d0\u05b2\u05d3\u05b8\u05e0\u05b4\u05d9\u05dd<\/span> (edanim<\/span>), on which the columns rest; and then these are supported and held together by the \u05d0\u05b6\u05d1\u05b6\u05df \u05e4\u05b4\u05bc\u05e0\u05b8\u05bc\u05d4<\/span> (even pinnah<\/span>), the corner-stone<\/em>. This, I think, throws some light on Eph. 2:2<\/span>0<\/a>, \u201cYe are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets<\/em>, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner-stone<\/em>.\u201d The apostles on the one side and the prophets on the other side are the bases of <\/span>the spiritual structure; Jesus Christ is that principal foundation-stone, which is placed at the angle, and upon which the whole building may be said to rest and to hang together.<\/p>\n

7<\/a>. These joyful accl<\/span>amations in heaven are usually understood to have taken place at the completion<\/em> of the creation of the world; but this is, I think, incorrect. (See the note on the previous verse.) The period here ass<\/span>igned to the outbursts of acclamation amongst the celestial hosts is the period of the foundation<\/em> of the world,\u2014the time when its bases and its bottom corner-stone were laid. It is certainly remarkabl<\/span>e that the same feeling which prompted angels to praise and shout for joy when God commenced the construction of a new world, now, instinctively as it were, moves men to exhibit (to compare great things with small) very similar transports at the laying the foundation of great public buildings\u2014not to sa<\/span>y even of private houses also; it is a common practice of modern times, and may be traced to the most remote antiquity. We have an interesting account of this in <\/span>Ezra 3:10\u201313<\/a>. \u201cWhen the builders laid the foundation of the temple of the Lord,\u201d the people are there represented as expressing their j<\/span>oy, in just the same way, as the angels are here described as having manifested their gladness, when the foundations of the world were laid. \u201cAll the people shouted with a great shout<\/em>, when they prais<\/span>ed the Lord, because the foundation of the house of the Lord was laid<\/em>;\u201d and also, \u201cthey sang together<\/em> by course, in praising and giving thanks unto the Lord.\u201d The Prophet Zechariah (4:7<\/a>) alludes to th<\/span>is circumstance,\u2014\u201cZerubbabel hath brought forth (not shall bring forth) the head (i.e<\/em>., the principal) stone thereof with shoutings<\/em>, crying, Grace, grace unto it.\u201d And then it is foretold of him that <\/span>as he had thus laid the foundation, so also his hands should finish it. (vers. 8<\/a>, 9<\/a>.)<\/p>\n

The morning stars<\/em>. Who these are is sufficiently explained in the parallel place in the next clause.<\/p>\n

The sons of G<\/em><\/span>od<\/em>. Intelligent beings worthy of the appellation. Such, no doubt, as are usually called angels.<\/p>\n

8<\/a>. And he pent up,\u2014i.e<\/em>., God did so, at the same time that the sons of God shouted for joy, and when the<\/span> foundations of the earth were laid.<\/p>\n

The question put to Job in verse 4<\/a> is implied here\u2014\u201cWhere wast thou when God did this?\u201d<\/p>\n

Pent up<\/em>. Confined the sea to one channel.<\/p>\n

With doors<\/em>,\u2014doors of the womb, fi<\/span>guratively great and strong barriers on both sides, and which the mass of rushing waters could not overflow.<\/p>\n

From the womb<\/em>. Perhaps from the centre of the earth. God is here comparing the first appear<\/span>ance of the sea at the time of the creation to a birth. The description does not refer to its after state when it was formed into oceans and seas, but to its first breaking forth from its womb, when such was its volume, that it needed the restraint which none but God could put <\/span>on it; God\u2019s power alone prevented the doors which kept it within bounds from giving way.<\/p>\n

9<\/a>. When, &c<\/em>. The question is sti<\/span>ll implied, \u201cWhere wast thou at that time?\u201d<\/p>\n

When I made the cloud, &c<\/em>. No sooner is the ocean born than it is wrapped in clouds and thick darkness, and these are its infantile dress and swaddling band<\/span>s. God thus in grand language expresses how manageable was the ocean to him<\/em>. These clouds were probably formed by evaporations from it.<\/p>\n

10<\/a>. And spanned<\/em> \u05d5\u05b8\u05bd\u05d0\u05b6\u05e9\u05b0\u05c1\u05d1\u05b9\u05bc\u05e8<\/span> (waeshbor<\/span>). The parallelism require<\/span>s that this word should have here the sense of measuring<\/em>: its ordinary Hebrew signification is that of breaking<\/em>\u2014hence some understand it here in the sense of breaking off a part with a view to reduce <\/em><\/span>to a determined measure<\/em>. It is better, however, with others, to take the word here in its Arabic signification of measuring with a span<\/em>.<\/p>\n

11<\/a>. Shall be set<\/em>,\u2014lit., some one shall set<\/em>\u2014understand \u05d7\u05b9\u05e7<\/span> (khok<\/span><\/span>) a bound<\/em>, or some such word.<\/p>\n

The question put to Job in 5:4<\/a> is to be understood up to this verse\u2014\u201cWhere wast thou when I did all this, &c.\u201d?<\/p>\n

Pride<\/em>,\u2014\u05d2\u05b8\u05bc\u05d0\u05b9\u05d5\u05df<\/span> (gaon<\/span>) is a proud uplifting<\/em>, a term very su<\/span>itable to the upheaving of the crested wave just as it seems vainly endeavouring to overpass the mark assigned to it on the shore, and upon which it immediately breaks in its fruitless effort.<\/p>\n

12<\/a>. Sup<\/span>posing, however, that you were not in being when I created the world, still let me ask you, have you, ever since the time of your birth, directed the outgoings of the morning?<\/p>\n

The day-spring to know h<\/em><\/span>is place<\/em>. Allusion seems to be here made, as Barnes thinks, to the fact that the rising of the sun is not always in the same place, being north or south of the equator according to the time of year,\u2014t<\/span>hus constantly varying its position, yet always knowing its place.<\/p>\n

\u05d9\u05b4\u05d3\u05b7\u05bc\u05e2\u05b0\u05ea\u05b8\u05bc\u05d4 \u05e9\u05b7\u05bc\u05c1\u05d7\u05b7\u05e8<\/span> (iddagntah sshakhar<\/span>). Here the \u05d4<\/span> (h<\/span>) is paragogic; some MSS., however, read the \u05d4<\/span> (h<\/span>) as an article, the Dagesh i<\/span>n \u05e9\u05b7\u05bc\u05c1\u05d7\u05b7\u05e8<\/span> (sshakhar<\/span>) seems to support this.<\/p>\n

13<\/a>. To take hold of<\/em>. I have preserved the ambiguity of the original, as it is not determined whether the meaning is, that the dawn might take hold of<\/em>, or th<\/em><\/span>at you<\/em> (Job<\/em>) might take hold of<\/em>. Jerome and Jarchi take the latter meaning, I incline to the former. If this be the correct view, the winged globe may perhaps convey the idea that the earth travels th<\/span>rough space, and the dawn is here said to overtake the earth in its flight\u2014compare the \u05db\u05b7\u05bc\u05e0\u05b0\u05e4\u05b6\u05d9 \u05e9\u05b7\u05c1\u05d7\u05b7\u05e8<\/span> (chanphei shakhar<\/span>) wings of the dawn<\/em>, in Ps. 139:9<\/a>. Whether this truth, thus enunciated by God hi<\/span>mself, was understood by Job and his friends in its true and literal meaning, or whether they regarded it as a merely figurative expression, is of course doubtful.<\/p>\n

That the wicked might be shaken out <\/em><\/span>of it<\/em>. If the former clause refers to Job this of course also; and the question for Job to consider is, whether he can (as God does) himself advance with the dawn, and chase away those who under cover<\/span> of the night have been perpetrating deeds of darkness. But I prefer to understand this only of the dawn<\/em>, which is thus represented as scaring away wicked doers by its approach. By a bold figure, the <\/span>effect produced is described as such as one might naturally ascribe to some more violent agency, rather than to the gentle approach of the dawn. So completely are men who choose the night for their deeds of violence driven into their dark hiding-places by the approach of day, so entirely are the<\/span>y then out of sight, that it is all one as though they had been altogether violently shaken out of the earth.<\/span><\/p>\n

14<\/a>. This verse is one of great difficulty, and so, has been very variously interpreted. The rendering I have given is as literal (consistently with sense) as possible; the exactly literal render<\/span>ing would be, It turneth round like clay a seal, and they stand out<\/em> (or up<\/em> or forth<\/em>) as though dress<\/em>. Though convinced from the first that this is the literal version of the original, it long remained<\/span> an objection on my mind as to its meaning, that it seemed to advert to the fact of the rotatory motion of the earth, and which (I scarcely know on what grounds) I thought unlikely should be alluded to by God in an age so remote as that of Job. After much consideration, however, I have come to the c<\/span>onclusion that such is the true sense of the passage. I shall now consider the principal words separately. <\/span>\u05ea\u05b4\u05bc\u05ea\u05b0\u05d4\u05b7\u05e4\u05b5\u05bc\u05da\u05b0<\/span> (tithhappech<\/span>) it (i.e<\/em>., the earth, 5:13<\/a>, as the fem. gender proves) turneth round<\/em>, or turneth itself<\/em>, and where the context requires continuance of action, it goeth on turning itse<\/em><\/span>lf, i.e., goeth round and round<\/em>. I consider this to be its meaning in the only three other passages in Scripture in which it occurs, as here, in the Hithpahel form. The first is in Gen. 3:24<\/a>, \u05d5\u05b0\u05d0\u05b5\u05ea \u05dc\u05b7<\/span><\/span>\u05d7\u05b7\u05d8 \u05d4\u05b7\u05d7\u05b6\u05e8\u05b6\u05d1 \u05d4\u05b7\u05de\u05b4\u05bc\u05ea\u05b0\u05d4\u05b7\u05e4\u05b6\u05bc\u05db\u05b6\u05ea<\/span> (weeth lahat hakherev hammithhappecheth<\/span>),\u2014the flashing sword that turned round and round<\/em>; this may mean either that the sword continually made the circuit of the tree of li<\/span>fe, or that it kept on revolving round its hilt as round an axis. The word occurs again in this book in 37:12<\/a>, where it refers to the veering about<\/em> of the clouds, or to their rolling themselves over<\/em> i<\/span>n their passage across the heavens. We meet with it once more in Judges 7:13<\/a>, where, in a dream, a cake, \u05e6\u05b0\u05dc\u05d5\u05bc\u05dc<\/span> (tseloul<\/span>), lit., a roll<\/em>, see the root \u05e6\u05b8\u05dc\u05b7\u05dc<\/span> (tsallal<\/span>), of barley bread is described as r<\/em><\/span>olling over<\/em>, \u05de\u05b4\u05ea\u05b0\u05d4\u05b7\u05e4\u05b5\u05bc\u05da\u05b0<\/span> (mithhappech<\/span>), against a tent.<\/p>\n

\u05db\u05b0\u05bc\u05d7\u05b9\u05de\u05b6\u05e8 \u05d7\u05b9\u05d5\u05ea\u05b8\u05dd<\/span> (chehhomer khotham<\/span>),\u2014lit., like clay a seal, i.e., like clay<\/em> [which is<\/em>] a seal, i.e., like a clay seal<\/em>, a seal made of brick or <\/span>pottery, or some such material. Now as the earth is here said to turn round like such a seal, the question arises (not in order to determine the correctness of the rendering, but for the sake of illustration), whether there is<\/span> any evidence extant, that in very ancient times seals were so made as to revolve<\/em>; for the answer to this question I refer to the Illustrations<\/a>, in which it is satisfactorily<\/span> shown that there were, in remote times, seals in the form of cylinders, which revolved round axles introduced into them longitudinally. Some interpreters have referred to these, but then they have, to my mind, erred in comparing t<\/span>he dawn to the revolving cylinder, and the earth to the clay impressed by it, for, in the first place, the idea of comparing the advancing light of day to a heavy and opaque cylinder, is clumsy; and secondly, the Hebrew will not admit of such an interpretation without violence being done to the language.<\/span><\/p>\n

And things stand out<\/em>. As in a cylindrical seal the objects engr<\/span>aved or stamped upon it successively come out to view as it turns round; so, as the earth revolves round its axis, and successively brings portions of its surface under the light of day, these are made to stand out in bold relief\u2014mountains and<\/span> valleys and forests and rivers and seas and islands, which were unseen, while the face of the earth was turned from the light, became grandly visible when that face is turned towards it.<\/span><\/p>\n

As though in dress<\/em>, \u05db\u05b0\u05bc\u05de\u05b9\u05d5 \u05dc\u05b0\u05d1\u05d5\u05bc\u05e9\u05c1<\/span> (chemo levoush<\/span>)\u2014as though<\/em> [in<\/em>] gorgeous attire<\/em>. As the earth turns round and presents any part of its surface to the light of day, eve<\/span>ry object stands out prominently, and as if it were magnificently clothed; this idea of clothing may refer to the variety of colouring and also to the vegetation on the face of the earth.<\/p>\n

This and the<\/span> following verse are a digression, in which God mentions one of the excellent effects of which daylight is productive, namely, the check which is thereby put to deeds of wickedness.<\/p>\n

15<\/a>. From the wicke<\/em><\/span>d their own light, &c<\/em>. Darkness is here figuratively called the light of the wicked. Day is their night, and night is their day. Job had said something like this in 24:13<\/a>, 15\u201317<\/a>.<\/p>\n

And the high-raised a<\/em><\/span>rm is broken<\/em>. By a bold figure, the dawn of day, because it approaches in time to arrest a meditated stroke, is said to break the arm uplifted to strike.<\/p>\n

16<\/a>. \u05e0\u05b4\u05d1\u05b0\u05db\u05b5\u05d9\u05be\u05d9\u05b8\u05dd<\/span> (nivchei yam<\/span>), the holes of th<\/em><\/span>e sea<\/em>. There has been some diversity of opinion as to the meaning of the first of these words, as it occurs nowhere else in Scripture. Schultens conceives that it may be the same as the Arabic word \u0646\u0628<\/span><\/span>\u0643<\/span> (nbch<\/span>) a hill with a pointed top<\/em>, and that so it may refer to rocks<\/em>, &c., at the bottom of the sea. Others, among whom Lee, suppose that the root may be \u05d1\u05bc\u05d5\u05bc\u05da\u05b0<\/span> (bouch<\/span>), to perplex<\/em>, &c., and so, unde<\/span>rstand here the intricacies<\/em> or labyrinths<\/em> of the sea; the form, however, from this root would be \u05e0\u05b0\u05d1\u05bb\u05db\u05b5\u05d9<\/span> (nevouchei<\/span>). The most numerous class of interpreters take the word from \u05d1\u05b8\u05bc\u05db\u05b8\u05d4<\/span> (bachah<\/span>) to weep<\/em><\/span>, and understand by the weepings<\/em> of the sea its undercurrents<\/em> (the Sept. have \u03c0\u03b7\u03b3\u1f74\u03bd<\/span>). Barnes supposes that the word may refer to under-springs at the bottom of the sea, which supply it with water. Bu<\/span>t all this is obviously unsatisfactory, as the term weepings<\/em> is highly inappropriate either to such immense volumes of water as tidal currents, or to water flowing upwards, and not downwards. The expr<\/span>ession weepings of the sea<\/em> can convey to my mind no other idea than droppings of the sea, such as might exist, if we imagine it oozing through the stratum which forms its bottom into subterraneous pla<\/span>ces under that bottom. We know, however, of no such leakage of the sea, and God is evidently speaking here of the surface of the bottom of the great deep, and not of what may be in the more central parts of the earth. My view is that <\/span>\u05e0\u05b4\u05d1\u05b0\u05db\u05b5\u05d9<\/span> (nivchei<\/span>) is, by a transposition sufficiently common, for \u05e0\u05b4\u05db\u05b0\u05d1\u05b5\u05d9<\/span> (nichvei<\/span>), from \u05e0\u05b8\u05db\u05b7\u05d1<\/span> (nachav<\/span>) = (by commutation of letters of same organ) \u05e0\u05b8\u05e7\u05b7\u05d1<\/span> (nakav<\/span>), to<\/em><\/span> bore, to perforate, to hollow out, to excavate<\/em>, and the like. Compare the cognates \u05db\u05b8\u05bc\u05d5\u05b8\u05d4<\/span> (chawah<\/span>), \u05db\u05b8\u05bc\u05e4\u05b7\u05e3<\/span> (chaphaph<\/span>), &c., &c. In this case the natural and obvious meaning of \u05e0\u05b4\u05db\u05b0\u05d1\u05b5\u05d9<\/span> (nichvei<\/span>), plur<\/span>. const, of \u05e0\u05b6\u05db\u05b6\u05d1<\/span> (nechev<\/span>), would be holes, caverns<\/em>, &c.,\u2014a meaning than which none can be more suitable to the passage before us.<\/p>\n

To<\/em> search<\/em>, lit., in search of<\/em>.<\/p>\n

17<\/a>. God now seems to descend from the <\/span>depths of the sea into the lower parts of the earth. He certainly by his question implies that the abodes of the dead were then in those parts. Other passages of Scripture confirm what is here implied. See Note on <\/span>26:6<\/span><\/a>.<\/p>\n

And seest thou, &c<\/em>. The force is,\u2014Not only have the gates of death not been opened to you, but you have not even seen the gates themselves.<\/p>\n

18<\/a>. Hast thou stretched thy attention to<\/em><\/span>, &c<\/em>. Amongst other objects of your consideration have you extended your attention so far as, \u05e2\u05b7\u05d3<\/span> (gnad<\/span>), the limits of the earth\u2019s latitudes,\u2014have you made yourself acquainted with its utmost bounds,<\/span> and with all contained therein?<\/p>\n

Breadths<\/em>,\u2014perhaps including length and breadth<\/em>, distance in every direction, i.e<\/em>., spaciousness generally, in contradistinction to depths<\/em>, which are spoken of previous<\/span>ly.<\/p>\n

19<\/a>, 20<\/a>. The one<\/em>,\u2014lit., it<\/em>. The parallelism of these two verses, both in its structure and sense, requires that the first clause of the latter verse should refer to the light<\/em>, and the second to the<\/em><\/span> darkness<\/em>. This has been overlooked by interpreters, and so, what I conceive to be the real force of the passage has been lost.<\/p>\n

Thou makest to understand<\/em>. \u05ea\u05b8\u05bc\u05d1\u05b4\u05d9\u05df<\/span> (tavin<\/span>) is evidently Hiphil here.<\/p>\n

The<\/span> sense of the two verses is,\u2014State which is the way that leads to the dwelling-place of light, since you are in the habit of conducting it back to its own border at the close of day. And state also where<\/span>abouts is the habitation of darkness, since you usually point out to it, what course it must take to reach it, when, at the dawn of day, it retires from earth.<\/p>\n

21<\/a>. Thou knowest<\/em>. Some understand thi<\/span>s as a question, but I take it as an affirmative, ironically spoken.<\/p>\n

22<\/a>. Magazines<\/em>. \u05d0\u05b9\u05bd\u05e6\u05b0\u05e8\u05d5\u05b9\u05ea<\/span> (otseroth<\/span>),\u2014treasuries<\/em>, as some take it, is but a secondary meaning of the word. Its first signification i<\/span>s storehouses<\/em>, whether for provisions, or for implements of war, or for silver and gold and other such valuable articles. It is in this latter case only that the word, obviously enough, signifies trea<\/em><\/span>suries<\/em>.<\/p>\n

The snow and hail are here compared to implements of war, and are said to be laid up in store, ready for whatever time God may require them. By the magazines<\/em>, in which they are described as be<\/span>ing deposited, we may understand,\u2014the natural causes or the peculiar atmospheric phenomena which combine to produce snow or hail whenever God wills to call these agencies into requisition. Compare Psa<\/span>lm 135:7<\/a>.<\/p>\n

23<\/a>. Which,\u2014i.e<\/em>., the snow and hail, or, perhaps, the latter only. God has used the latter of these agents for the destruction and punishment of his enemies on several occasions. (See Exod. 9<\/span>:18<\/a>; Josh. 10:11<\/a>; Isaiah 30:30<\/a>.) These same magazines are stored with weapons of wrath for the latter days also. (See Rev. 8:7<\/a>; Ezek. 38:22<\/a>; Rev. 11:19<\/a>; 16:18\u201321<\/a>.)<\/p>\n

Some understand the day of battle an<\/em><\/span>d of war<\/em> here to signify the season of winter when the elements may be supposed to engage in fierce conflict. The literal sense, however, is preferable.<\/p>\n

24<\/a>. A very frequent construction: literally the<\/span> passage is,\u2014Where is the way the light is distributed; the east wind is dispersed over the earth<\/em>?\u2014but fully, Where is the way<\/em> [to the place from whence<\/em>] the light is distributed<\/em>; [and where is the wa<\/em><\/span>y to the place from whence<\/em>] the east wind<\/em>, &c., &c.?<\/p>\n

The meaning is,\u2014Can you find your way to the focus of light from whence its rays in the eastern sky diverge and rapidly spread far and wide? Or can<\/span> you find your way to the point from which the east wind starts when it blows and scatters itself in every direction over the face of the earth?<\/p>\n

25<\/a>. Who divideth gutters, &c<\/em>. When heaven is overcharge<\/span>d with waters, who brings them to the earth, as in conduits, and so, prevents their falling in mass?<\/p>\n

Gutters<\/em>,\u2014lit., a gutter<\/em>, or watercourse<\/em>, or pipe<\/em>, or conduit<\/em>, &c.<\/p>\n

26<\/a>. To rain<\/em>,\u2014is here active, not <\/span>neuter, being Niphal; the sense being to make it rain<\/em>.<\/p>\n

27<\/a>. The circumstance that, in the distribution of rain, the same providential care is shown for uninhabited regions, as for countries in which hu<\/span>man beings are located, is an argument that God, and not man, is the agent.<\/p>\n

To satisfy<\/em>. Solomon tells us that one of the \u201cfour things that are never satisfied\u201d is \u201cthe earth that is not filled with wa<\/span>ter.\u201d (Prov. 30:15<\/a>, 16<\/a>.) Perhaps he had our passage in his mind when he wrote this.<\/p>\n

The word \u05d4\u05b7\u05e9\u05b0\u05c2\u05d1\u05b4\u05bc\u05d9\u05e2\u05b7<\/span> (hasbiagn<\/span>) to satisfy<\/em>, is used with special reference to thirst<\/em> in Isaiah 58:11<\/a>; Amos 4:8<\/a>, &c.,<\/span> &c.<\/p>\n

\u05de\u05b9\u05e6\u05b8\u05d0<\/span> (motsa<\/span>),\u2014lit., a going forth<\/em>. I take this to signify what we commonly understand by a growth<\/em> as applied to vegetation. It is remarkable how rapidly after a heavy rain, in tropical climates,<\/span> a growth of grass comes up and covers what was before a desert.<\/p>\n

28<\/a>. \u05d0\u05b6\u05d2\u05b0\u05dc\u05b6\u05d9<\/span> (eglei<\/span>) globules, drops<\/em>, or some such word, is evidently intended here; but whether from \u05d0\u05b8\u05d2\u05b7\u05dc<\/span> (agal<\/span>) in the sense of colle<\/em><\/span>cting<\/em>, or from \u05d2\u05b8\u05bc\u05dc\u05b7\u05dc<\/span> (galal<\/span>) in that of rolling<\/em>, or whether perhaps a compound of both, is difficult to say.<\/p>\n

29<\/a>. Both these clauses may refer either to paternity or to maternity: not unlikely the lat<\/span>ter is intended here, as the former is undoubtedly referred to in the previous verse.<\/p>\n

30<\/a>. Like stone, &c<\/em>. This may mean either that the waters, being in a congealed state, like stone, are no longer vi<\/span>sible; or that they are concealed as if they were lying under a facing of stone.<\/p>\n

Holdeth together<\/em>. The surface being so frozen, that every portion of it holds fast together.<\/p>\n

31<\/a>, 32<\/a>. The constellations<\/span> are here described as passing through the heavens like chariots drawn by horses, and needing a charioteer to direct them and bring them forth in their proper times. This view seems to have escaped the notice of commenta<\/span>tors, and hence the difficulty they have found in determining the sense of the passage. God\u2019s question to Job in effect is,\u2014Is it you who binds on the bands of the [vernal] Pleiade<\/em><\/span>s [the harbingers of spring], when it is time for them to commence running their course? Is it you who unlooses the traces of[the autumnal] Orion [the harbinger of winter], when the period arrives in which he is to terminate his journey<\/em><\/span>? As Orion sets when the Pleiades make their appearance, his journey may be said to end just as the Pleiades commence theirs; the traces of his chariot are then unf<\/span>astened. The notion of Orion chasing through the heavens after the Pleiades led the ancients to invent the myth of the attempt of Orion to violate the daughters of Pleione and Atlas (the Pleiades), an<\/span>d of their being placed in the heavens through the compassion of Juno after he had unsuccessfully pursued them for twelve years.<\/p>\n

According to the view I have taken, the binding on of the bands of the <\/span>Pleiades and the loosing of the traces of Orion would together represent the complete revolution of a year; and, indeed, if I mistake not, Amos makes mention of these constellations in that sense (ch. <\/span>5:8<\/a>), \u201cSeek him that maketh the seven stars (the Pleiades) and Orion, and turneth the shadow of death into morning, and maketh the day dark with night:\u201d in other words,\u2014Seek him who regulates the per<\/span>iods both of years and days.<\/p>\n

I certainly agree with those who take \u05de\u05b7\u05bd\u05e2\u05b2\u05d3\u05b7\u05e0\u05b9\u05bc\u05d5\u05ea<\/span> (magnedannoth<\/span>) for \u05de\u05b7\u05bd\u05e2\u05b2\u05e0\u05b7\u05bc\u05d3\u05b9\u05bc\u05d5\u05ea<\/span> (magnennaddoth<\/span>) by transposition of the letters, and so, give it the signification of b<\/em><\/span>ands<\/em>, from the root \u05e2\u05b8\u05e0\u05b7\u05d3<\/span> (gnanad<\/span>) to bind<\/em>. The parallelism requires some such meaning, and the \u03b4\u03b5\u03c3\u03bc\u1f78\u03bd<\/span> of the Septuagint and the \u05e9\u05b5\u05c1\u05d9\u05e8\u05b5\u05d9<\/span> (sheirei<\/span>) chains<\/em> of the Chaldee confirm this. Moreover \u05de\u05b7\u05bd\u05e2\u05b2\u05d3\u05b7<\/span><\/span>\u05e0\u05b4\u05bc\u05d9\u05dd<\/span> (magnedannim<\/span>) is used by the Talmudists in the sense of bands. The word \u05de\u05b7\u05bd\u05e2\u05b2\u05d3\u05b7\u05e0\u05b9\u05bc\u05d5\u05ea<\/span> (magnedannoth<\/span>) occurs again in 1 Sam. 15:32<\/a>, and there I should feel strongly inclined to translate it bands<\/em>:<\/span> \u201cAgag came unto him<\/em> (not delicately<\/em>, as in the Authorised Version, but) in bands<\/em>.\u201d<\/p>\n

32<\/a>. Canst thou bring forth, &c<\/em>. Is it you who causes each sign of the Zodiac to traverse its path in its proper seas<\/span>on? In other words,\u2014Do you direct the courses of the constellations in the path of the sun? Is it you also who guides the [northern] constellation, the Bear [in its circuit round the north pole]?<\/p>\n

\u05de\u05b7\u05d6\u05b8<\/span><\/span>\u05bc\u05e8\u05b9\u05d5\u05ea<\/span> (mazzaroth<\/span>) the Zodiac<\/em>. I follow those who take this word to be the same as \u05de\u05b7\u05d6\u05b8\u05bc\u05dc\u05b9\u05d5\u05ea<\/span> (mazzaloth<\/span>), the \u05dc<\/span> (l<\/span>) and \u05e8<\/span> (r<\/span>) being interchanged; the word in Job, however, being, I conceive, the origin<\/span>al word, and afterwards softened. This will meet Ewald\u2019s objection, that whilst \u05e8<\/span> (r<\/span>) often passes into \u05dc<\/span> (l<\/span>), it is rare to find \u05dc<\/span> (l<\/span>) passing into \u05e8<\/span> (r<\/span>). Hence, whilst I agree with those who conside<\/span>r that \u05de\u05b7\u05d6\u05b8\u05bc\u05dc\u05b9\u05d5\u05ea<\/span> (mazzaloth<\/span>) means the Zodiac<\/em>, I am scarcely disposed to agree in deriving the word from \u05d0\u05b8\u05d6\u05b7\u05dc<\/span> (azal<\/span>) to go<\/em>, or from \u05e0\u05b8\u05d6\u05b7\u05dc<\/span> (nazal<\/span>) to flow down<\/em>, or (Arab.) to lodge<\/em>, but rather from \u05d0\u05b8<\/span><\/span>\u05d6\u05b7\u05e8<\/span> (azar<\/span>) to gird<\/em>. I consider, then, that not improbably in process of time \u05de\u05b7\u05d6\u05b8\u05bc\u05e8\u05b9\u05d5\u05ea<\/span> (mazzaroth<\/span>) became softened into \u05de\u05b7\u05d6\u05b8\u05bc\u05dc\u05b9\u05d5\u05ea<\/span> (mazzaloth<\/span>), in which form we find it in 2 Kings 23:5<\/a>: eventually, the<\/span> singular, \u05de\u05b7\u05d6\u05b8\u05bc\u05dc<\/span> (mazzal<\/span>), came to signify an individual sign of the Zodiac<\/em>, as \u05de\u05b7\u05d6\u05b8\u05bc\u05dc \u05d8\u05b7\u05dc\u05b8\u05d4<\/span> (mazzal talah<\/span>) the sign of the ram<\/em>, and then any constellation<\/em> or star<\/em>, together with its supposed stellar<\/em><\/span> influence<\/em>. The Rabbins called the Zodiac \u05d2\u05dc\u05d2\u05dc \u05d4\u05de\u05d6\u05dc\u05d5\u05ea<\/span> (glgl hmzlwth<\/span>) the circle of the signs<\/em>, also \u05d0\u05d6\u05d5\u05e8 \u05d4\u05de\u05d6\u05dc\u05d5\u05ea<\/span> (azwr hmzlwth<\/span>) the girdle of the signs<\/em>, also \u05d0\u05d5\u05e4\u05df \u05d4\u05de\u05d6\u05dc\u05d5\u05ea<\/span> (aphn hmzlwth<\/span>) the wheel of the <\/em><\/span>signs<\/em>.<\/p>\n

33<\/a>. The laws of heaven<\/em>,\u2014the laws by which the heavenly bodies are regulated. These, therefore, were perhaps unknown in the days of Job. At the same time the context shows that the question refe<\/span>rs to something more than mere knowledge,\u2014i.e.<\/em>, Do you know the laws of heaven so as to take upon yourself the management or execution of them?<\/p>\n

Canst thou, on the earth, appoint its code<\/em>? Can you, bei<\/span>ng on the earth, give the heavenly bodies those written laws which they shall be bound to obey? This sense agrees well with the preceding clause, and with the succeeding context. I had at first adopte<\/span>d the view generally taken, and had translated the passage, Canst thou appoint its sway over the earth<\/em>? But, on consideration, my objections to this sense are,\u2014that it involves some little contradicti<\/span>on between the two clauses, for, in the first of them, the heavenly bodies are said to be bound by certain laws; and then, in the second, they would be said to exercise dominion. And then, the mention of the sway of these bodies over the earth might savour somewhat of astrological influence. And f<\/span>urther, I think that had \u05de\u05b4\u05e9\u05b0\u05c1\u05d8\u05b8\u05e8<\/span> (mishtar<\/span>) been intended to signify sway<\/em>, or any such word, it would <\/span>have been followed by \u05e2\u05b7\u05dc<\/span> (gnal<\/span>), and not by \u05d1\u05b0\u05bc<\/span> (b<\/span>). These objections are, I confess, slight, being far from unanswerable; yet they are just sufficient to make me prefer the rendering I have given, a<\/span>nd which is the view taken by Michaelis; besides which, I would observe with regard to the word \u05de\u05b4\u05e9\u05b0\u05c1\u05d8\u05b8\u05e8<\/span> (mishtar<\/span>), (which occurs nowhere else and which is supposed to signify dominion, simply because<\/span> the noun \u05e9\u05b9\u05c1\u05d8\u05b5\u05e8<\/span> (shoter<\/span>) means a scribe<\/em>, and then, by consequence a person in authority<\/em>), that its root \u05e9\u05b8\u05c1\u05d8\u05b7\u05e8<\/span> (shatar<\/span>) certainly means to write<\/em>, and has no other meaning that we know of; and then \u05e9\u05b0<\/span><\/span>\u05c1\u05d8\u05b7\u05e8<\/span> (shetar<\/span>) in Chaldee signifies a signed document<\/em>, or written contract<\/em>, see Jer. 32:11<\/a> (Chald. Par.); and the same word is in common use amongst the Rabbins to signify any kind of bill of contract,<\/em><\/span> indenture<\/em>, or any legal writing<\/em>.<\/p>\n

34<\/a>. Can you command the rain to fall at your pleasure. The second clause of this verse occurs in 22:11<\/a>. There, however, it must be understood in a metaphorical sense.<\/span><\/p>\n

35<\/a>. Canst thou send forth<\/em>, as on a commission.<\/p>\n

And they shall go<\/em>. And<\/em> here, as in the previous verse, has the force of so that<\/em>.<\/p>\n

Here we are<\/em>. This is probably said on their supposed return,\u2014Here we ar<\/span>e, we have executed your commission, and are now ready to receive further orders.<\/p>\n

36<\/a>. The notes of the commentators in general on this verse are exceedingly lengthy, from the supposed difficulty of ta<\/span>king \u05d8\u05bb\u05d7\u05b9\u05d5\u05ea<\/span> (tukhoth<\/span>) and \u05e9\u05b6\u05c2\u05db\u05b0\u05d5\u05b4\u05d9<\/span> (sechwi<\/span>) in their ordinary acceptation of inward parts<\/em>, and mind<\/em>, or intellect<\/em>. They have, however, created their own difficulty, by thinking it necessary to apply t<\/span>hese words, if so translated, to man; their argument then being, that the question, Who has endowed man with reason, &c<\/em>.? would be incongruous here, as being wholly irrelevant both to the preceding an<\/span>d the succeeding context. Hence many of them have ransacked the Arabic and Chaldee for new meanings, and by far-fetched derivation have surmised that the words in question may mean meteors<\/em> and phenome<\/em><\/span>na<\/em> of some kind, or have some such signification; and so, they understand the passage to be, Who putteth wisdom in the meteors<\/em>? or giveth understanding to the phenomena<\/em>? A fair sense, it must be confe<\/span>ssed, and suitable to the context. But I think we have no right to distort known Hebrew words from their known meaning, unless there be imperative necessity, and unless the Arabic or other cognate dialects really bears us out in so <\/span>doing. I see no difficulty in the verse, by bearing in mind that, in the preceding verses, the clouds and lightnings are personified, being represented as persons who hear and readily obey certain commands given to them by a superior, and that the article before <\/span>\u05d8\u05bb\u05d7\u05b9\u05d5\u05ea<\/span> (tukhoth<\/span>) and \u05e9\u05b6\u05c2\u05db\u05b0\u05d5\u05b4\u05d9<\/span> (sechwi<\/span>) implies, to some extent at least, that those words refer to those <\/span>personified agents. And then the question seems perfectly natural, Who is it that <\/em>endows the clouds and the lightnings with such wisdom and intellect, as that they should give that ready obedience, wh<\/em><\/span>ich they appear to do, to him who has the power of making them perform his high behests<\/em>?<\/p>\n

\u05e9\u05b6\u05c2\u05db\u05b0\u05d5\u05b4\u05d9<\/span> (sechwi<\/span>), intellect<\/em>. The power or the organ of perception<\/em>, as the root demonstrates.<\/p>\n

37<\/a>. Who can count<\/em><\/span>. Probably in the sense of mustering<\/em>. Who acts the \u05e1\u05b9\u05e4\u05b5\u05e8<\/span> (sopher<\/span>), the census-scribe<\/em>, with regard to the skies?<\/p>\n

The skies<\/em>. The Hebrew \u05e9\u05b0\u05c1\u05d7\u05b8\u05e7\u05b4\u05d9\u05dd<\/span> (shekhakim<\/span>) has evidently precisely the same meaning as <\/span>our word skies<\/em>, and signifies the whole region of the atmosphere that surrounds the earth, and that, whether studded with clouds or perfectly serene.<\/p>\n

Who can count the skies in wisdom<\/em>? Who, by his wis<\/span>dom, can exercise such control over the ever-varying skies as to summon them all before him that he may take a census of them. As clouds and lightnings are personified in the former verses, so are the skies here. They<\/span> present themselves at God\u2019s bidding, and he takes note of them.<\/p>\n

Or who can make the pitchers of heaven pour<\/em>? At God\u2019s bidding the skies present themselves before him (former clause),<\/span> like so many water-carriers, and then at his further bidding they discharge the contents of their vessels to the earth. God\u2019s question of course implies that none but himself can do this.<\/p>\n

Pitchers<\/em>. C<\/span>ommonly translated bottles<\/em>, especially utres, i.e<\/em>., skin bottles<\/em>. I was at first disposed to follow this ordinary view, and to render the word water-bags<\/em>, but I find no sufficient evidence to show tha<\/span>t \u05e0\u05b4\u05d1\u05b0\u05dc\u05b5\u05d9<\/span> (nivlei<\/span>) can ever mean vessels of skin: on the contrary, what evidence we have proves that they were a kind of earthen<\/em> jars. See Jer. 13:12<\/a> (compare \u201cI will dash them,\u201d in v. 14<\/a>); Isa. 30:14<\/a><\/span>; Lam. 4:2<\/a>; Jer. 48:12<\/a>; Isa. 22:24<\/a>. It is common to see, on ancient Egyptian pictures, jars or pitchers of wine laid up in cellars.<\/p>\n

Make \u2026 to pour<\/em>\u2014\u05d9\u05b7\u05e9\u05b0\u05c1\u05db\u05b4\u05bc\u05d9\u05d1<\/span> (yashchiv<\/span>). I take \u05e9\u05b8\u05c1\u05db\u05d1<\/span> (shachav<\/span>) here to<\/span> be the same as \u05e9\u05b8\u05c1\u05e4\u05b7\u05da\u05b0<\/span> (shaphach<\/span>) to pour out<\/em>, the letters being transposed, and \u05d1<\/span> (b<\/span>) and \u05e4<\/span> (ph<\/span>) being interchanged. Or the word here may be the same as the Arabic \u05e1\u05db\u05d1<\/span> (schb<\/span>), which is also to pour <\/em><\/span>out<\/em>. We have the same expression\u2014\u05e9\u05b4\u05c1\u05db\u05b0\u05d1\u05b7\u05ea\u05be\u05d6\u05b6\u05e8\u05b7\u05e2<\/span> (shichvath zeragn<\/span>), effusio seminis<\/em>\u2014Lev. 15:16<\/a>, 17<\/a>, 18<\/a>, 32<\/a>, &c., &c.<\/p>\n

38<\/a>. A description of the effect of the rain upon the dry ground; the dust flows in <\/span>streams like liquid metal, and then becomes solidified into a compact mass; and the clods, which had become broken and detached by the preceding drought, are washed into close contact, and get stuck together. How impossible for man to make so great a change as this on the face of <\/span>a country; and yet a few hours rain can effect it.<\/p>\n

39<\/a>. God now refers Job to the animal creation, and remarks upon thei<\/span>r instincts, and the wonderful adaptation of their natures to various purposes.<\/p>\n

The lioness<\/em>. See the Note on 4:10<\/span><\/a>. The meaning here is,\u2014Can you, as the lion, hunt the prey for the lioness?<\/p>\n

The appetit<\/em><\/span>e<\/em>. \u05d7\u05b8\u05d9\u05b8\u05d4<\/span> (khayah<\/span>) has the same sense here as in 33:20<\/a>. Perhaps this sense would also be best in Ps. 74:19<\/a>.<\/p>\n

40<\/a>. They<\/em>. Young lions; but not too young to hunt prey. See Ezek. 19:2<\/a>, 3<\/a>.<\/p>\n

And squat, in ambus<\/em><\/span>h<\/em>, with a view of throwing themselves with a bound on their prey the moment they see him. \u05d9\u05b5\u05e9\u05b0\u05c1\u05d1\u05d5\u05bc<\/span> (yeshevou<\/span>), if we take the Arabic meaning, signifies, not only sit<\/em>, but also leap<\/em>, spring<\/em>, &c.; it is<\/span> probable that the two ideas are intended to be combined here, sitting with a view to pouncing<\/em>. Compare Ps. 10:8<\/a>, and Rosenm\u00fcller\u2019s remarks on that passage. See the same word applied also in a similar<\/span> sense to the \u05db\u05b0\u05bc\u05e4\u05b4\u05d9\u05e8<\/span> (chephir<\/span>) young lion<\/em>, in Ps. 17:12<\/a>.<\/p>\n

41<\/a>. He wandereth, i.e<\/em>., the parent bird goes about in quest of food for his little ones who remain in the nest, and who, by their croakings, m<\/span>ay be said to cry to God\u2014a cry which he hears, and perfectly understands, and to which he attends, by supplying the parent bird with that in quest of which he is wandering about.<\/p>\n

\u05d9\u05b4\u05ea\u05b0\u05e2\u05d5\u05bc<\/span> (ithegnou<\/span>) is<\/span> plural, and so, properly, is, they wander<\/em>; but I conceive, with Lee, that it does not refer to the brood in the second, but to the raven in the first clause, and that, understood, not of any particul<\/span>ar individual, but of the whole class. I have translated the word in the singular to make the passage more clear to the English reader. The ordinary rendering, which makes the young ravens wandering about in a famished state, in search of food, has given countenance to the old, but I believe now exploded fable, about old ravens casting their young out of t<\/span>he nests at an early age, to shift for themselves. There is a similar passage to this in <\/span>Ps. 147:9<\/a>. It appears that the raven is a great adept in finding his carrion, and other food. The expression, he wandereth about for lack of food<\/em>, implie<\/span>s that, notwithstanding his adroitness, he would not be able to find what he wants, if God did not supply it to him, or rather, that the very adroitness with which he discovers it is attributable to his Creat<\/span>or.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

<\/div>\n

 <\/p>\n

\n

Job 39<\/a><\/p>\n

1<\/a>. Knowest thou, &c<\/em>. Have you that knowledge which is necessary to direct and superintend all the circumstances connected with the gestation of these wild creatures, who are so far removed from<\/span> the haunts of men, and whose home is so inaccessible to him?<\/p>\n

\u05d9\u05b7\u05bd\u05e2\u05b2\u05dc\u05b5\u05d9 \u05e1\u05b6\u05dc\u05b7\u05e2<\/span> (yagnelei selagn<\/span>), mountain goats<\/em>, quite lit., the mounters up of the rock<\/em>. There is no doubt the animal here intended is t<\/span>he Ibex<\/em>. It is said (see Maunder\u2019s \u201cTreas. of Nat. Hist.\u201d) that, of this creature, \u201cthe fore-legs being considerably shorter than the hinder, enables these animals to ascend<\/em> with more facility than to<\/span> descend, and hence, when pursued, they always attempt to gain the summits<\/em> of the mountains.\u201d I presume that it is from this circumstance that they are named \u05d9\u05b7\u05bd\u05e2\u05b2\u05dc\u05b4\u05d9\u05dd<\/span> (yagnelim<\/span>).<\/p>\n

Keep watch over<\/em>,\u2014so <\/span>that they may be safely delivered.<\/p>\n

2<\/a>. Canst thou count, &c<\/em>., and Knowest thou, &c<\/em>. Can you keep an exact register of all this, and exercise such providential care over these creatures, the mountain go<\/span>ats and hinds, as to preserve them from dangers during the time of gestation, and then deliver them at the proper period? On the contrary (God implies), does not all this take place without any intervention on your part? I think Rosenm\u00fcller mistakes the passage, and then he argues from the meaning which he attaches to<\/span> it, that in the days of Job, the period of the gestation of hinds was as yet unknown.<\/span><\/p>\n

3<\/a>. They eject<\/em>, lit., they cause to split through, i.e<\/em>., through the womb. \u05e4\u05b8\u05bc\u05dc\u05b7\u05d7<\/span> (palakh<\/span>) exactly corresponds with our word to split<\/em>.<\/p>\n

They cast out their labour-pains, i.e<\/em>., they cast out that w<\/span>hich was the cause of their labour-pains.<\/p>\n

The meaning of the whole verse is, that the parturition of the mountain goat and of the hind is rapid, though not without pain, and that it is accomplished by<\/span> Divine power, and without the intervention of Job.<\/p>\n

4<\/a>. The open field<\/em>. \u05d1\u05b7\u05bc\u05e8<\/span> (bar<\/span>), where it occurs elsewhere in the Bible, as a noun, means corn<\/em>; but the context shows that here it must have that sign<\/span>ification, which is common to it in the Chaldee, Samaritan, Syriac, and Arabic, of a wild, open country, out of doors<\/em>, &c., &c.<\/p>\n

These young creatures live independently: the inference is, it is God, a<\/span>nd God alone, who watches over them, and protects and supports them.<\/p>\n

5<\/a>. Who is it that has made the wild ass to differ so much from other animals of the same kind, in this respect at least, that whils<\/span>t they are under a yoke of servitude to man, he is free, and submits to no yoke? The inference is, it is God who has given him this liberty, and who has exempted him from all servitude.<\/p>\n

As \u05e2\u05b8\u05e8\u05b9\u05d5\u05d3<\/span> (gna<\/span><\/span>rod<\/span>) in the second clause means, equally with \u05e4\u05b6\u05bc\u05e8\u05b6\u05d0<\/span> (per\u00e9<\/span>) in the first clause, the wild ass<\/em>, or some species of it, to avoid tautology, I have rendered this in the second instance merely by the pers<\/span>onal pronoun. Had the Quagga<\/em> been an inhabitant of Asia, I might have supposed that he was the animal intended by \u05e2\u05b8\u05e8\u05b9\u05d5\u05d3<\/span> (gnarod<\/span>).<\/p>\n

Who hath unloosed his bonds<\/em>? In other words, who has given him that w<\/span>ild nature that he is never in bonds at all?<\/p>\n

6<\/a>. Whose house, &c<\/em>. To whom I have assigned the desert as a home.<\/p>\n

7<\/a>. The driver<\/em>. \u05e0\u05b9\u05d5\u05d2\u05b5\u05e9\u05c2<\/span> (noges<\/span>), as applied to men, is a taskmaster<\/em>; as applied to animals<\/span>, a driver<\/em>.<\/p>\n

8<\/a>. The range<\/em>. I retain this rendering of the Authorized Version, as it sufficiently expresses the meaning of \u05d9\u05b0\u05ea\u05d5\u05bc\u05e8<\/span> (yethour<\/span>), though the rcconnoitering<\/em> would, perhaps, be a more exact wor<\/span>d; and the sense would be, that which he gets by reconnoitering<\/em> on the mountains is his pasture.<\/p>\n

9<\/a>. \u05e8\u05b5\u05d9\u05dd<\/span> (reim<\/span>), written also \u05e8\u05b0\u05d0\u05b5\u05dd<\/span> (reem<\/span>), and \u05e8\u05b0\u05d0\u05b5\u05d9\u05dd<\/span> (reeim<\/span>). The wild ox<\/em>, as I suppose. Much has been<\/span> written upon the meaning of this word. It occurs seven times in the Scriptures, and is invariably rendered Unicorn<\/em> by our translators. Some contend that that creature is intended, and that it is not <\/span>a fabulous animal, as has been generally supposed. Others imagine it to be the Rhinoceros<\/em>, whilst others suppose the Oryx<\/em> to be meant; others, again, the Buffalo<\/em>; and others, the wild Ox<\/em>. My reasons f<\/span>or taking the latter view are:\u2014<\/p>\n

1. Though the word Rem<\/span>, \u05e8\u05b5\u05d9\u05dd<\/span> (reim<\/span>), occurs only seven times in the Bible, yet in four of those times it is associated with, and placed in parallelism with, bulls<\/em> or bu<\/em><\/span>llocks<\/em>; hence it becomes highly probable that the creature in question is itself of the bovine<\/em> species. Let us examine the passages. Deut. 33:17<\/a>:\u2014<\/p>\n

\u201cHis (Joseph\u2019s) glory is like the firstling of his bu<\/em><\/span>llock<\/em>,<\/p>\n

And his horns are like the horns of the reem<\/span>;<\/p>\n

With them he shall push the people,<\/p>\n

Together to the ends of the earth (or land);<\/p>\n

And they (these horns) are the ten thousands of Ephraim,<\/p>\n

And the a<\/span>re the thousands of Manasseh.\u201d<\/p>\n

Joseph is compared in the first distich to a horned animal, called a bullock<\/em> in the first clause, and a reem<\/span> in the second. The use he is to make of his horns is describ<\/span>ed in the second distich\u2014namely, to push away the people of the land (Canaan), and so make room for himself. And then, in the third distich, we are informed what these figurative horns (and which are the glory of Joseph) really are; they are not representations<\/span> so much of fierceness, &c., of character, as of multitudes\u2014the one horn representing the multitudes of the tribe of his son Ephraim, and the other, the multitudes of the tribe of his other son, Manasseh. Surely, then, this passage alone furnishes a strong presumption that the <\/span>Reem<\/span> and the Bullock<\/em> must be animals of the same species.<\/p>\n

Let<\/span> us now refer to Psalm 22<\/a>, where we shall find a very remarkable inverted parallelism. In ver. 12<\/a> (A. V., ver. 13<\/a>, Heb. Bible) we have:\u2014<\/p>\n

\u201cMany bulls<\/em> have compassed me,<\/p>\n

Strong bulls<\/em> of Bashan have bese<\/span>t me round.\u201d<\/p>\n

Ver. 13<\/a> (A. V.):\u2014<\/p>\n

\u201cThey (my enemies) gaped upon me with their mouths,<\/p>\n

As a ravening and a roaring lion<\/em>.\u201d<\/p>\n

Ver. 16<\/a> (A. V.):\u2014<\/p>\n

\u201cFor dogs<\/em> have compassed me,<\/p>\n

The assembly of the wicked<\/em> have enc<\/span>losed me.\u201d<\/p>\n

Ver. 20<\/a> (A. V.):\u2014<\/p>\n

\u201cDeliver my soul from the sword<\/em>,<\/p>\n

My darling from the power of the dog<\/em>.\u201d<\/p>\n

Ver. 21<\/a> (A. V.):\u2014<\/p>\n

\u201cSave me from the lion\u2019s<\/em> mouth,<\/p>\n

For thou hast heard [and saved] me from the horns<\/span> of the rems<\/em>.\u201d<\/p>\n

The inverted parallelism is obvious; and so, only three species of animals are here mentioned\u2014Dogs, Lions, and Bulls<\/em> or Rems<\/em> or Reems<\/em>; hence these two latter are animals of the same spe<\/span>cies.<\/p>\n

The next reference is to Psalm 29:6<\/a>:\u2014<\/p>\n

\u201cHe maketh them (the mountains directly mentioned) to skip like a calf<\/em>;<\/p>\n

Lebanon and Sirion like a young reem<\/em>.\u201d<\/p>\n

Here, again, it is obvious that as a calf<\/em> is <\/span>of the ox tribe, so also must be a young reem<\/em>.<\/p>\n

Isaiah 34:6<\/a>, 7<\/a>, is also to the point, and, to my mind, quite conclusive:\u2014<\/p>\n

\u201cThe sword of the Lord is filled with blood,<\/p>\n

It is made fat with fatness;<\/p>\n

And w<\/span>ith the blood of lambs<\/em> and goats<\/em>,<\/p>\n

With the fat of the kidneys of rams<\/em>.<\/p>\n

For the Lord hath a sacrifice in Bosrah,<\/p>\n

And a great slaughter in the land of Idumea;<\/p>\n

And the Reems<\/em> shall come down with them,<\/p>\n

An<\/span>d the bullocks<\/em> with the bulls<\/em>.\u201d<\/p>\n

The prophet is here comparing a great carnage that is to take place among the Edomites to a sacrifice of cattle to the Lord. That sacrifice of cattle is of the two kind<\/em><\/span>s prescribed by the law<\/em>\u2014of the flock<\/em>, and of the herd<\/em>. (This I think very remarkable.) See Lev. 1:1\u201313<\/a>. In other words, what may be distinguished as caprine<\/em> and bovine<\/em>. The first class are specified i<\/span>n ver. 6<\/a>. They are lambs<\/em>, goats<\/em>, and rams<\/em>. And then, the second class, who are to \u201ccome down\u201d or fall in slaughter along with those just mentioned, are, Reems<\/em>, bullocks<\/em>, and bulls<\/em>. Hence reems are bov<\/em><\/span>ine<\/em>; at the least, do not differ from bullocks and bulls more than goats differ from sheep and lambs; and, indeed, if they were not of the ox tribe, they could not have been mentioned by the prophet a<\/em><\/span>s cattle suitable for sacrifice<\/em>. To my mind, this is very conclusive, and, taken in connexion with the three previous passages, it seems to put the question beyond all doubt.<\/p>\n

II. Having, by the examin<\/span>ation of four of the seven passages of Scripture in which the word reem<\/span> occurs, arrived at the conclusion that that creature must be one of the ox tribe<\/em>, I proceed to examine a fifth passage, which bo<\/span>th corroborates the fact already deduced, that the creature in question is a species of ox, and also proves beyond all question, as it appears to me, that it must be a wild ox<\/em>. The passage is that bef<\/span>ore us together with the three following verses. 1st. It corroborates the fact, already deduced, that the creature in question is a species of ox<\/em>; for it would be highly incongruous to speak of any ot<\/span>her kind of animal as being seemingly capable of performing the duties belonging to the common ox, as is the case here. The mere idea of a hippopotamus, for instance, being stall-fed, or ploughing, or harrowing, or carting, is too ridiculous even to suppo<\/span>se. 2dly. This passage seems to me to prove, beyond all question, that if the reem be an ox at all, it must be a wild ox<\/em>; for it is introduced to<\/span> our notice in connexion with other wild animals, certain species of which have been domesticated, such as the mountain-goat, the stag, and the wild ass. The analogy, then, of the context would lead us to suppose that such as<\/span> the wild goat, or the stag that is removed from the haunts of man, or the wild ass, is to the common goat, and stag, and ass respectively, such is the reem<\/span> to the common or d<\/em><\/span>omestic ox<\/em>. Besides which, it is described in the passage before us as being manifestly an untameable animal, and one useless to man for any agricultural purpose. Judging from his outward appearance, <\/span>anatomy, &c., one might have supposed him (such is God\u2019s intimation here) capable of ploughing, harrowing, &c.; but experience shows that, such is his disposition, that he cannot be brought under the yoke. In short, whilst in all outward appearance he is an ox, yet in untameableness of disposition he shows himself to be the wild ox.<\/span><\/p>\n

The two other passages of Scripture in which the word reem<\/span> occurs<\/span> do not throw any very distinctive light upon the sort of animal intended; they show that he was possessed of great \u201cstrength<\/em>,\u201d or, as the word may mean, \u201cincapability of fatigue<\/em>\u201d (Numb. 23:22<\/a>), and t<\/span>hat his horns were his glory (Ps.92:10<\/a>),\u2014characteristics which, however applicable to the wild ox, are of course applicable to other powerful and horned animals.<\/p>\n

III. If the arguments already advanced<\/span> prove incontestably that the reem<\/span> must be a bovine animal, such animals as the unicorn<\/em>, the rhinoceros<\/em>, and the oryx<\/em>, are of course at once excluded from the question. I would further press against t<\/span>he two former of these animals that Deut. 33:17<\/a>, where the reem<\/span> is described as having horns<\/em>, is fatal to their claim. To say that some species of unicorns and rhinoceroses have been found with a smal<\/span>ler horn at the back of the larger is a mere evasion of the difficulty, for the smaller horn is so diminutive in size as scarcely to deserve mention. I am aware that it might be urged against me that,<\/span> according to the very interpretation I have given to Deut. 33:17<\/a>, the smaller horn might well refer to Manasseh, and the larger to Ephraim; but, at all events, the action ascribed there to these horn<\/span>s\u2014that of pushing<\/em> or butting<\/em>, \u05e0\u05b8\u05d2\u05b7\u05d7<\/span> (nagakh<\/span>)\u2014is wholly unsuitable to such creatures as the unicorn (according to descriptions and specimens) or the rhinoceros. Further, one can scarcely imagine the yo<\/span>ung of the unwieldy rhinoceros being so skittish as to be compared in his gambols with a young calf, as in Ps. 29:6<\/a>. Nor, again, is there any reason to suppose that such animals ever inhabited Idumea,<\/span> a country wholly unsuited to them. And, moreover, the work supposed to be assigned to the reem<\/span> in the chapter before us is, as I have already remarked, in the highest degree incongruous with the natu<\/span>re of the rhinoceros. This same argument tells also against the Oryx, added to which, it does not appear that that creature is untameable; on the contrary, Wilkinson, in his \u201cAncient Egyptians,\u201d speaks of the oryx as \u201cbeing among the animals tamed by the Egyptians, and kept in great numbers in the preser<\/span>ves of their villas.\u201d (Vol. iii., p. 24.)<\/p>\n

But the argument of all others upon which I lay stres<\/span>s to prove that the reem<\/span> cannot be either the unicorn, or the rhinoceros, or the oryx, is, that none of those creatures are bovine<\/em>. This argument, of course, does not apply to the buffalo<\/em>. My principa<\/span>l reason for thinking that the reem<\/span> is a wild ox, and not a buffalo, is, that the Egyptian sculptures often represent the former, but never, so far as I know, the latter (see the Illustrations<\/a>); and, <\/span>indeed, there is no reason for presuming that the buffalo was ever an inhabitant of Arabia or Idumea.<\/p>\n

It has been urged in favour of the oryx that the Arabic \u05e8\u05d9\u05dd<\/span> (rim<\/span>) signifies an antelope or gazelle<\/span>; but I observe that in Egyptian sculptures the syllable rn<\/span> is attached with other syllables as belonging to animals both of the cervine<\/em>, and the caprine<\/em>, and the bovine<\/em> species, such as the ibex<\/em>, t<\/span>he oryx<\/em>, the wild ox<\/em>, the gazelle<\/em>, and the antelope<\/em>, by which I would infer that these different animals were comprehended in those times under one genus.<\/p>\n

Just so I find over a sculptured wild ox<\/em> the <\/span> tsva<\/span>:compare the Hebrew \u05e6\u05b0\u05d1\u05b4\u05d9<\/span> (tsevi<\/span>), a gazelle<\/em>, and also Zebu<\/span>, the name for the Indian ox. The inference I draw from the whole of my examination of the subject is, that the Hebrew \u05e8\u05b5\u05d9\u05dd<\/span> (reim<\/span>) is p<\/span>roperly the wild ox<\/em>, and that possibly under that genus, such cervine<\/em> animals as the oryx<\/em>, antelope, &c<\/em>., may have been comprehended in the cognate dialects; there is certainly some affinity between t<\/span>he bovine and the cervine races, as may be seen in such specimens as the nyl-ghau<\/span> and the gnu<\/span> (or bos elaphus, i.e<\/em>., the ox-stag); but I contend for this, that in the Scripture use of the word the wil<\/em><\/span>d ox<\/em>, and no other animal, is intended.<\/p>\n

Whilst engaged on this note, but after writing the above, I have received this day\u2019s \u201cIllustrated London News\u201d (Jan. 19, 1856), containing a copy of a very rema<\/span>rkable sculpture lately discovered at Nimroud. It represents a man driving before him a herd of oxen, all of which are represented as having only one horn, which protrudes from the centre of the forehead; this of course was merely a conventional way of portraying this really two-horned animal; this, however, perhaps may account for the circumstance of the LX<\/span>X. translating \u05e8\u05b5\u05d9\u05dd<\/span> (reim<\/span>) by unicorn<\/em>; t<\/span>hey may, after all, under that very word have meant the wild ox<\/em>.<\/p>\n

10<\/a>. In the furrow of his cord,\u2014i.e.<\/em>, in such a furrow as his cord, if he followed its guidance, would cause him to make. The meaning is<\/span>,\u2014you cannot, by cords or by any other means, induce the wild ox to draw the plough in the direction you may require; you cannot force him to take a particular track.<\/p>\n

The valleys<\/em>. This word may be poe<\/span>tically used here to signify the furrows; the parallelism, I think, requires this sense.<\/p>\n

After thee<\/em>. Some commentators have puzzled themselves here by taking it for granted that, in harrowing, the agr<\/span>iculturist follows instead of going before the ox. Whatever may be the case now, however; it does not appear to have been so in Job\u2019s day.<\/p>\n

11<\/a>, 12<\/a>. Canst thou trust him, &c<\/em>.,\u2014i.e.<\/em>, as explained in the <\/span>next verse: can you so far trust him, on account of his great strength, as to suppose that he will cart your sheaves into your threshing-floor?<\/p>\n

Canst thou leave thy labour, &c<\/em>.,\u2014i.e.<\/em>, Can you place su<\/span>ch confidence in him as to leave the produce of your toil his care, and imagine that he will convey to your granary the grain gathered up from the threshing-floor?<\/p>\n

13<\/a>. \u05e8\u05b0\u05e0\u05b8\u05e0\u05b4\u05d9\u05dd<\/span> (renanim<\/span>),\u2014lit., scream<\/em><\/span>ers, songsters<\/em>, or some such word. I conceive that there is no doubt, from the description which follows, that ostriches<\/em> are meant. The ostrich (the camel-bird<\/em> of the Arabs) is a bird of great size an<\/span>d swiftness, and scours the deserts of Arabia, so that it is fitly introduced here in company with the other wild creatures which have their haunts in that country; and its strange conduct towards its unhatched young, in apparently sometimes<\/span> forsaking them (conduct, however, which as is explained here, results rather from stupidity than cruelty), makes the comparison which is instituted in this verse between it and the stork (a creature proverbially affectionate towards its young) very appropriate. The Arabs call the ostrich <\/span>\u0638\u0644\u064a\u0645<\/span> (dhlim<\/span>) cruel<\/em>; and so, it is, in the very epithet given to it, c<\/span>ontrasted with the stork whose epithet-name is \u05d7\u05b2\u05e1\u05b4\u05d9\u05d3\u05b8\u05d4<\/span> (khesidah<\/span>), pious<\/em>, in the sense of affectionate<\/em>.<\/p>\n

The wing of the ostrich thrilleth joyously<\/em>. \u05e2\u05b8\u05dc\u05b7\u05e1<\/span> (gnalas<\/span>) seems to refer rather to sound than <\/span>to motion, the translation I have given, thrilleth joyously<\/em>, perhaps refers to both; for the use of its wing to the ostrich see Pliny, N. H., x. 1, of which I give a translation:\u2014\u201cThe African or Ethio<\/span>pic ostriches are taller than a man on horseback, and swifter (compare below v. 18<\/a>), its wings being given it for this purpose, to assist in running: otherwise they are not strictly birds, and are not<\/span> raised from the ground.\u201d<\/p>\n

Is the feather and plume that of the stork<\/em>? I think the meaning of this is,\u2014however costly and however prized for its beauty the feather and plume of the ostrich may be, yet <\/span>the one bird falls short of the other in kindliness of disposition, as is further explained in the following verses.<\/p>\n

It is evident that the LXX. could attach no meaning either to \u05e0\u05b6\u05bd\u05e2\u05b1\u05dc\u05b8\u05bd\u05e1\u05b8\u05d4<\/span> (negnclas<\/span><\/span>ah<\/span>) or to \u05d7\u05b2\u05e1\u05b4\u05d9\u05d3\u05b8\u05d4<\/span> (khesidah<\/span>) or to \u05e0\u05b9\u05e6\u05b8\u05d4<\/span> (notsah<\/span>), as instead of translating these words, they have given them in Greek letters, \u03bd\u03b5\u03ad\u03bb\u03b1\u03c3\u03c3\u03b1<\/span>, \u1f00\u03c3\u03af\u03b4\u03b1<\/span>, and \u03bd\u03ad\u03c3\u03c3\u03b1<\/span>; unless it be that these words had, at <\/span>that time, become Greek provincialisms.<\/p>\n

14<\/a>. Schultens here quotes a passage from Leo Africanus which is quite to the purpose, and which I translate for the benefit of the English reader; speaking of t<\/span>he ostrich, he says,\u2014\u201cit lives in deserts where there is no water; and lays eggs on the sand, about ten or twelve in number, of the size of cannon balls, and, more or less, fifteen pounds in weight; b<\/span>eing of very short memory it soon forgets the place, and so, a female bird finding these eggs, incubates and hatches them, whether they be her own or those of another.\u201d<\/p>\n

She leaveth<\/em>. This word may be u<\/span>nderstood in the sense both of committing<\/em> and of forsaking<\/em>.<\/p>\n

And warmeth them on the dust<\/em>. This may mean, either that she hatches them herself on the dust, or that she leaves them there to be hatched b<\/span>y the heat of the sun and sand or by the incubation of some other ostrich. It certainly appears to be an established fact of natural history that, the ostrich does frequently, from a variety of causes, leave her own eggs, and being unable to find them again, either takes up with some other nest, or gives over s<\/span>earching for them.<\/p>\n

15<\/a>. And forgetteth that the foot, &c<\/em>.,\u2014i.e.<\/em>, the female ostrich so ac<\/span>ts in the selection of a place for her nest, as if she did not take into consideration the great danger to which her eggs are exposed by being laid on the open sand. In doing this, she of course only obeys a natural instinct, <\/span>and this forms, like everything else, a part of God\u2019s providential arrangements; at the same time, judging from the mere appearance of the thing, one might call that creature forgetful.<\/span><\/p>\n

16<\/a>. Another proof of the stolidity of the ostrich is that she sometimes forsakes her own nest for that of another; and this, I think, is the meaning that is here conveyed.<\/p>\n

She is hard upon<\/em><\/span> her young<\/em>,\u2014which, being deserted by the mother-bird, either perish or are hatched by another bird.<\/p>\n

For those not her\u2019s<\/em>,\u2014in favor of those eggs which do not really belong to her; in Lament. 4:3<\/a>, we ha<\/span>ve an allusion to the cruelty of the ostrich towards its young, perhaps the allusion in that passage is to the fact which is stated in this.<\/p>\n

Fearless, &c<\/em>.,\u2014i.e.<\/em>, being without caution<\/em>, she does not, a<\/span>s other birds do, provide against emergencies by building her nest in trees or on high rocks; hence the foot of the wild beast may crush her eggs; nor does she use sufficient care in marking the locality where she has<\/span> laid them, hence, if she wanders at a distance, she cannot find them again, and thus her labour<\/em> (in laying<\/em>) is, through her want of caution, in vain<\/em>.<\/p>\n

\u05d4\u05b4\u05e7\u05b0\u05e9\u05b4\u05c1\u05d9\u05d7\u05b7<\/span> (hikshiakh<\/span>), he is ha<\/em><\/span>rd upon<\/em>, is masculine, whereas we require a feminine here; such changes of gender, however, are not unfrequent in Hebrew.<\/p>\n

17<\/a>. Hath caused her to forget wisdom<\/em>. This is either a Hebraism or a highly po<\/span>etic expression, signifying that God has not endowed the ostrich with wisdom at all, or at least not with that sagacity which he has imparted to other animals. God cites hers, therefore, as an exceptional case; and the inference is, that he h<\/span>as done this according to his own good purpose, and that however strange it may appear, in the eyes of man, that a creature should instinctively act so foolishly as the ostrich seems to do, yet God has his reasons, reasons which man perhaps may be unable to divine. One apparent piece of folly commonly attributed to the ostrich is that that bird readily swallows large stones, hot bullets, and other such remarkable substances; it is suppose<\/span>d, however, by some naturalists that these are as necessary to the organic functions of that creature as gravel in the crop of an ordinary fowl. Thus, what at first sight appears to be folly in that bird, may, after all, be obedience to a wisely-ordained instinct.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

18<\/a>. \u05ea\u05b7\u05bc\u05de\u05b0\u05e8\u05b4\u05d9\u05d0<\/span> (tamri<\/span>),\u2014she lasheth herself<\/em>. The anc<\/span>ient versions have for the most part taken \u05de\u05b8\u05e8\u05b8\u05d0<\/span> (mara<\/span>) by metathesis for \u05e8\u05b8\u05d0\u05b7\u05dd<\/span> (raam<\/span>) = \u05e8\u05d5\u05bc\u05dd<\/span> (roum<\/span>), and so translate, she raiseth herself up<\/em>. It is preferable, however, to take this word in the same<\/span> sense as the Arabic \u0645\u0631\u064a<\/span> (mri<\/span>), to lash a horse to quicken its speed<\/em>. So the general meaning of the two clauses will be,\u2014Whilst the rider is lashing his courser in pursuit of the ostrich, she also las<\/span>heth herself with her wings, and, outstripping both horse and rider, may be said to laugh at them. This seems introduced here, to point it out as a kind of compensation which God makes to the ostrich, for her apparent folly in other respects; stupid as she may be in placing her eggs on the sand, or in mistaking those of another bi<\/span>rd for her own; yet, when hunted, in a moment she is up, and can soon distance her pursuers.<\/span><\/p>\n

19<\/a>. \u05e8\u05b7\u05e2\u05b0\u05de\u05b8\u05d4<\/span> (ragnmah<\/span>), quivering action<\/em>. The Authorized Version renders this thunder<\/em>, and there are many who defend this rendering; but in the first place, although \u05e8\u05b7\u05e2\u05b7\u05dd<\/span> (rag<\/span><\/span>nam<\/span>) means thunder<\/em>, it is by no means clear that \u05e8\u05b7\u05e2\u05b0\u05de\u05b8\u05d4<\/span>, (ragnmah<\/span>) must do so also. And secondly, the expression of clothing the neck of a horse with thunder conveys no very definite idea. Some of th<\/span>e defenders of that rendering endeavour to explain the incongruity by supposing, that the neighing of the horse, which may be supposed to proceed from the neck, may be meant. This, however, appears to me too absurd to be entertained for a moment. Bouillier\u2019s account of it is, I think, the best on that side of the question:\u2014\u201cTropum h<\/span>abes splendidissimum, reique sic appositum, ut nihil supra. Si equum generosum et bellacem cogites, ardu\u00e2 cervice, crispante jub\u00e2. superbientem, simul, vibrantibus collis musculis, pugnam provocantem, atque cum hinnitu ignes naribus, efflantem, quis neget, aptissim\u00e2 figur\u00e2 collum ejus tonitru velut amictum repr\u00e6sentari.\u201d This, however, at best, is unsatisfactory. Equally unsatisfactory is the notion that <\/span><\/span>\u05e8\u05b7\u05e2\u05b0\u05de\u05b8\u05d4<\/span> (ragnmah<\/span>) may signify a mane<\/em>. Gesenius makes the w<\/span>ord mean a trembling<\/em> (and there he is not far wrong), but also, poet., a mane<\/em>, because in high-bred horses the mane appears to tremble. Others give it the meaning of a mane from the idea of terror<\/em>, wh<\/span>ich the root \u05e8\u05b8\u05e2\u05b7\u05dd<\/span> (ragnam<\/span>) may be supposed to convey, just as the Greek \u03a6\u03cc\u03b2\u03b7<\/span>, a mane<\/span>, may be from \u03a6\u03cc\u03b2\u03bf\u03c2<\/span>, fear<\/em>. Others, again, give this rendering from \u05e8\u05e2\u05dd<\/span> (rgnm<\/span>), which in Chald. Aphel is, he lifte<\/em><\/span>d up<\/em>, and instance the Greek \u039b\u03bf\u03c6\u03b9\u1f70<\/span>, a mane<\/span>, from \u039b\u03cc\u03c6\u03b7<\/span>, a summit<\/em>. But all this is, after all, sheer guesswork; and as, moreover, the guess does not furnish a very suitable word\u2014as the parallelism req<\/span>uires something akin to power or mettle, or some such idea\u2014we are bound to look out for some meaning of a more satisfactory description. And I think that Schultens has furnished it. He considers that <\/span>\u05e8\u05b8\u05e2\u05b7\u05dd<\/span> (ragnam<\/span>), in its primary signification, = \u05e8\u05b8\u05e2\u05b7\u05d3<\/span> (ragnad<\/span>), to tremble<\/em>, which word in Arabic means both to tremble<\/em> and to thunder<\/em>; and he further shows that there is a particular part of the flesh<\/span> of the neck of a horse which is called by the Arabs by a peculiar name, \u05e4\u05e8\u05d9\u05e6\u05d4<\/span> (phritsh<\/span>), and which is defined by the Arabian lexicographers to be a portion of flesh or muscle in the neck of a horse w<\/em><\/span>hich is continually trembling<\/em>. There is in my mind, then, little doubt but that it is to this muscular action that reference is made in the text.<\/p>\n

20<\/a>. Canst thou make him start, &c<\/em>.? \u05d4\u05b2\u05ea\u05b7\u05e8\u05b0\u05e2\u05b4\u05d9\u05e9\u05b6\u05c1\u05e0\u05bc\u05d5\u05bc<\/span> (<\/span>hethargnishennou<\/span>). The verb \u05e8\u05b8\u05e2\u05b7\u05e9\u05c1<\/span> (ragnash<\/span>) means primarily to tremble<\/em>; and then, I conceive that, when it has reference to onward movement, it means to proceed in the wavy line of tremulous motion<\/em>, <\/span>which series of oblique movements is what a horse goes through when, as he runs, he makes a succession of starts, first on one side, and then on the other, and not unlike what we call caracoling<\/em>. Akin<\/span> to this is the same word in the Arabic, \u0631\u064e\u062e\u064e\u0634\u064e<\/span> (ragnasha<\/span>), which is, in the first instance, to tremble<\/em>, and then is referred to the wagging of an aged camel\u2019s head<\/em>, to the wagging gait of an ostrich <\/em><\/span>in rapid motion<\/em>, and to the wheeling flight of doves<\/em>,\u2014from all which we gather the idea of successive lateral and oblique motions<\/em>. It is worthy of notice also that \u05d7\u05b8\u05e8\u05b7\u05d2<\/span> (kharag<\/span>) is another Hebrew wor<\/span>d signifying to tremble<\/em>, and that \u05d7\u05b7\u05e8\u05b0\u05d2\u05b9\u05bc\u05dc<\/span> (khargol<\/span>) is a locust<\/em>; and further, that in Arabic also \u05d7\u05e8\u05d2\u05dc\u05d4<\/span> (khrglh<\/span>) is a locust<\/em>, and the verb \u05d7\u05e8\u05d2\u05dc<\/span> (khrgl<\/span>) is to move as a locust<\/em>, a motion (whatever it m<\/span>ay be) which the Arabs refer also to a horse. Hence the phrase \u05d7\u05e8\u05d2\u05dc \u05d0\u05dc\u05db\u05bc\u05e8\u05e1<\/span> (khrgl alphrs<\/span>), lit., the horse goes locust-wise<\/em>. Castell explains this also as meaning a horse going right and left<\/em>. Our wor<\/span>d caracole<\/em>, which is applied to a well-known particular action of a horse, is evidently derived from the Spanish caracolear<\/em> (in Catalan, caragolar<\/span>, which comes still nearer to the Arabic). I have no d<\/span>oubt that this word is traceable to \u05d7\u05e8\u05d2\u05dc<\/span> (khrgl<\/span>), and that it was introduced originally into Spain by the Arabs. The noun caracol<\/em> in Spanish, and caragol<\/span> in Catalan, signifies not only the particular <\/span>action of a horse which we call caracoling, but also a snail<\/em>, and indeed convolute shells<\/em> in general, and other things of spiral<\/em> or volute form<\/em>. These, I should say, are derived from the verb.<\/p>\n

Locusts<\/span> are compared to horses in Joel 2:4<\/a>.<\/p>\n

His snorting<\/em>. Rosenm\u00fcller has sufficiently shown that \u05e0\u05b7\u05d7\u05b7\u05e8<\/span> (nakhar<\/span>) means snorting<\/em>, and not the nostrils<\/em>.<\/p>\n

Is terror,\u2014i.e., is terrible<\/em>.<\/p>\n

21<\/a>. They paw<\/em>,\u2014lit., they d<\/em><\/span>ig<\/em>. The word is plural, referring to the whole class; meaning that all such noble horses do the like. The pawing here alluded to is a well-known action of a high-spirited horse when impatient of delay<\/span>.<\/p>\n

\u05e2\u05b5\u05de\u05b6\u05e7<\/span> (gnemek<\/span>) is not necessarily a valley<\/em> in the strict sense of the word; vale<\/em> is a very suitable sense here.<\/p>\n

He goeth out<\/em>. \u05d9\u05b8\u05e6\u05b8\u05d0<\/span> (yatsa<\/span>) is often used in the military sense of going out to meet a<\/span>n enemy.<\/p>\n

23<\/a>. Over him ringeth the quiver<\/em>. Bochart and others prefer to understand this as\u2014Against him whizzeth the quiver, i.e., the arrow<\/em> which the quiver contains; chiefly on the ground that it is n<\/span>o proof of courage in a horse that he bears with the clanging of the armour that is upon him or upon his rider. My objection to this is, that there is no description of an actual encounter here, but only of the impatience of the horse to enter into such encounte<\/span>r. In vers. 19<\/a>, 20<\/a>, and 21<\/a>, he is described as full of power; the muscular quiverings of his neck show his mettle; impatient of delay, he <\/span>caracoles, snorts, and paws the ground, and curvets in the exuberance of strength; at length (ver. 21<\/a>), he starts for the encounter, and is undismayed at the line of bristling steel that he sees drawn<\/span> up to receive him; his very speed makes the weapons which he carries rattle (ver. 22<\/a>, 23<\/a>); onward he goes, starting from side to side (ver. 24<\/a>), snuffing up the ground in his fury, pricking up at the<\/span> sound of the trumpet, and snorting with triumph; and catching a scent of the battle as he hears the loud hollaing of the captains and the shouting of the troopers (ver. 25<\/a>). Another objection which I<\/span> have to Bochart\u2019s view is, that making the quiver signify an arrow is so bold a figure that we ought not to have recourse to it for interpretation unless the literal sense is clearly impossible. That view is defended further on<\/span> the ground that \u05e8\u05b8\u05e0\u05b8\u05d4<\/span> (ranah<\/span>) = \u05e8\u05b8\u05e0\u05b7\u05df<\/span> (ranan<\/span>), which, amongst other meanings, refers to the noise made by a bowstring on the shooting of an arrow<\/em>; but although I admit it <\/span>does mean the twanging of a bow<\/em>, yet I find no authority for supposing that it can refer to the whizzing of an arrow<\/em>.<\/p>\n

The flash of the lance, &c<\/em>.,\u2014i.e.<\/em>, the flashing blade of, &c.<\/p>\n

24<\/a>. With starts<\/em>. See<\/span> Note on ver. 20<\/span><\/a>.<\/p>\n

He drinketh up, &c<\/em>. This is understood by many as describing the swiftness of the horse, as though in the rapidity of his flight he swallowed the ground over which he flew; and in su<\/span>pport of this, quotations to the same effect are given by Bochart and others from Arabic and Latin writers. But I scarcely think that the swiftness of the horse would be the subject of comment here, just after the remark that the ostrich \u201claugheth at the horse and at his rider.\u201d The action here denoted is that rather of a horse, who, as he goes forward, starts f<\/span>rom side to side, jerking his head down to the ground, and in apparent rage snuffing it up with distended nostril.<\/span><\/p>\n

And he believeth not, &c<\/em>. I see no reason for taking this in the sense of not standing still<\/em>, however apposite the \u201cstare<\/span> loco nescit\u201d of Virgil and of Statius may be. The more obvious meaning seems that, although the trumpet is sounding, he acts as though he did not hear it\u2014as though he did not believe it to be the sound of the trumpet, because he<\/span> bends his head down to the ground as he runs (as described in the previous clause), instead of jerking it up and pricking up his ears.<\/p>\n

25<\/a>. When the trumpet is loud, &c<\/em>.,\u2014<\/span>lit., at the plenty<\/em> or abundance of the trumpet<\/em>. The meaning, as compared with the former verse, is,\u2014So long as the blast of the trumpet is only distant, he acts as though he scarcely heard it, and wa<\/span>s uncertain whether really or not it was the trumpet at all; but so soon as he catches its full and prolonged note, and is no longer uncertain as to the meaning of that note, then he tosses up his head, and, pricking his ears, he gives a sudden snort, which resembles <\/span>Aha<\/em>! both in its sound and in its tone of joy and triumph.<\/p>\n

From afar he snuffeth the battle<\/em>. Not unlike this is Pliny\u2019s remark, spea<\/span>king of horses, \u201clidem pr\u0153sagiunt pugnam<\/em>.\u201d The meaning, however, probably is, that the horse, by his restiveness, snorting, &c., looks as if he were snuffing the approaching battle; and perhaps this p<\/span>resage on the part of the animal is explained in the next clause. He snuffs the battle, because he hears the thunder of the captains<\/em> (giving the word of command, and inciting their men to action) and <\/em><\/span>the shouting<\/em> along the whole line of the troops.<\/p>\n

There is, I conceive, no doubt that the whole of this magnificent description of what is usually called the war-horse relates to a cavalry-horse, and n<\/span>ot to a chariot-horse. Cavalry was probably at this time in use amongst the Assyrians. The frequent representation of it on the sculptures, at a somewhat later date, is some proof of this; but I much question whether it was in use amongst the <\/span>Egyptians\u2014at all events until a much later period. Certain it is that Egyptian cavalry is never delineated in the sculptures of that country. It is true that<\/span> we read of chariots and horsemen<\/em> forming Jacob\u2019s funeral cort\u00e9ge<\/span> out of Egypt (Gen. 50:9<\/a>), and of chariots and horsemen<\/em> pursuing the Israelites on their leaving Egypt (Ex. 14:9<\/a>, 28<\/a>); and in the song <\/span>of Moses mention is made, alluding to Pharaoh\u2019s army, of \u201cthe horse and his rider.\u201d But I strongly suspect that \u05e4\u05b8\u05bc\u05e8\u05b8\u05e9\u05c1<\/span> (parash<\/span>), in earlier Hebrew, means only a horse<\/em>, and not a horseman<\/em>; and that it<\/span> is only at a later period that it came to have the latter signification. As to the mention of \u201cthe horse and his rider,\u201d \u201cthe rider\u201d is there evidently the rider of the<\/em> \u05e8\u05b6\u05db\u05b6\u05d1<\/span> (rechev<\/span>), i.e., chariot<\/em>.<\/span> \u05e4\u05e8\u05e1<\/span> (phrs<\/span>) is a horse<\/em>, both in the Arabic and the Ethiopic. I am inclined to think that usually, in reference to an Egyptian warchariot, the \u05e1\u05d5\u05bc\u05e1<\/span> (sous<\/span>) was the horse which the driver had particularl<\/em><\/span>y in hand<\/em>, whilst the \u05e4\u05b8\u05bc\u05e8\u05b8\u05e9\u05c1<\/span> (parash<\/span>) was the off-horse<\/span>. (See the Illustrations<\/a>.)<\/p>\n

26<\/a>. Take wing<\/em>, \u05d9\u05b7\u05bd\u05d0\u05b2\u05d1\u05b5\u05e8<\/span> (yaever<\/span>). Some understand this as moulting<\/em>; but I prefer the general view, that it refers to <\/span>flying, soaring<\/em>, and the like. Take wing<\/em> gives the force of the Hiphil, and seems to me the exact meaning of the word.<\/p>\n

By thy wisdom, &c<\/em>. Is it any intelligence on your part that supplies the hawk wit<\/span>h those mechanical powers and with that instinct by which he takes wing and migrates at the proper season to a warmer climate?<\/p>\n

27<\/a>. At thy bidding<\/em>,\u2014lit., at thy mouth<\/em>.<\/p>\n

28<\/a>. The tooth of the rock,\u2014i.e., <\/em><\/span>the ledge<\/em>, or ridge<\/em>, or peak of the rock<\/em>. So, in Switzerland, we have \u201cLe dent<\/em> du Midi,\u201d and other similar instances.<\/p>\n

29<\/a>. He prieth<\/em>,\u2014\u05d7\u05b8\u05e4\u05b7\u05e8<\/span> (khaphar<\/span>) first means, he digs for<\/em>, &c.; thence, he grubs<\/em>; an<\/span>d so, he searches<\/em>; the first and literal meaning is not true of the eagle, and the next clause shows that searching with the eyes is particularly intended here.<\/p>\n

30<\/a>. Gulp<\/em>, \u05d9\u05b0\u05e2\u05b7\u05dc\u05b0\u05e2\u05d5\u05bc<\/span> (yegnalgnou<\/span>). The m<\/span>eaning given to this word is conjectural; but the sound, the requirement of the context, and the cognate, \u05dc\u05d5\u05bc\u05e2\u05b7<\/span> (louagn<\/span>) to suck down greedily<\/em>, all show that the meaning conjectured is probably correc<\/span>t, or at least not far wrong.<\/p>\n

Blood<\/em>. The blood of the animals brought to the nest by the parent bird.<\/p>\n

Where the slain are, &c<\/em>. Compare Matt. 24:28<\/a>, and see the Illustrations<\/a>.<\/p>\n

\n

JOB 40<\/a><\/p>\n

2<\/a>. Will disputing, &c<\/em>. Job making no reply to the questions just proposed to him, God presses him for an answer on other grounds. Job had often expressed himself as being anxious to enter into <\/span>a disputation with God, on the ground that the severe treatment which he experienced at God\u2019s hands was undeserved. God now says to Job,\u2014Have your wish; dispute with me if you will; but do you think, after what I have advanced on the subject of sundry of my providential acts, that any disputations on your part with me will be likely to have the effect of proving me wron<\/span>g, and so of leading me to correct my error? You consider my treatment of you unjust. Can you, do you think, prove to me that it is so?<\/span><\/p>\n

Let him that impleadeth God<\/em>,\u2014as you, Job, have done by arraigning my justice, &c.<\/p>\n

Reply to i<\/em><\/span>t<\/em>. Let him answer my challenge by which I defy him to prove to me that I have been wrong in any of my dealings.<\/p>\n

I see no ground for taking \u05d9\u05b4\u05e1\u05bc\u05d5\u05b9\u05e8<\/span> (issor<\/span>) as a noun, as Rosenm\u00fcller does.<\/p>\n

4<\/a>. I put my h<\/em><\/span>and, &c<\/em>. In token of silence, and particularly of silence occasioned by astonishment and admiration. See 21:5<\/a>; 29:9<\/a>; and Jud. 18:19<\/a>.<\/p>\n

5<\/a>. Once have I spoken but, &c<\/em>. I have already advanced certain stat<\/span>ements, but I will not attempt to defend them. The language here is, of course (as often throughout this book), forensic.<\/p>\n

Yea, twice, &c<\/em>. Yea, I acknowledge that I even repeated my rash statements, bu<\/span>t I shall not do it again.<\/p>\n

6<\/a>. God here resumes the argument, which had been interrupted in order to give Job the opportunity of replying, and which he had now declined to do.<\/p>\n

I attach no particular im<\/span>portance to the omission of the article before \u05e1\u05b0\u05e2\u05b8\u05e8\u05b8\u05d4<\/span> (segnarah<\/span>) here. It occurs in 38:1<\/a>.<\/p>\n

7<\/a>. Gird up now, &c<\/em>. See Note 38:3<\/span><\/a>.<\/p>\n

8<\/a>. Wilt thou even, &c<\/em>. The even<\/em> is emphatic:\u2014Will you, in attempting to vi<\/span>ndicate yourself, so attack with your arguments my judicial decisions as to make them appear utterly vain and futile? God implies that Job, in justifying himself, in effect condemned him; if Job were really as righteous as he maintained, then <\/span>God was unjust in afflicting him.<\/p>\n

9<\/a>. Hast thou then an arm, &c<\/em>.,\u2014Canst thou thunder, &c<\/em>. Have you such power and terrible majesty as God? If not, why presume<\/span> to enter into disputation with me?<\/p>\n

10<\/a>. Invest yourself, if you can, with a glory similar to mine.<\/p>\n

11<\/a>. Cause, if you can, and as I do, your indignation against pride and insolence to be felt.<\/p>\n

The outb<\/em><\/span>ursts<\/em>, \u05e2\u05b6\u05d1\u05b0\u05e8\u05d5\u05b9\u05ea<\/span> (gnevroth<\/span>), or the overflowings<\/em>.<\/p>\n

\u05d2\u05b5\u05bc\u05d0\u05b6\u05d4<\/span> (geeh<\/span>) proud<\/em>,\u2014or more literally what we should call high and mighty<\/em>.<\/p>\n

12<\/a>. \u05d4\u05b2\u05d3\u05b9\u05da\u05b0<\/span> (hedoch<\/span>). The root is \u05d4\u05b8\u05d3\u05b7\u05da\u05b0<\/span> (hadach<\/span>); it does not elsewhere occ<\/span>ur in the Bible. There is, however, no question but that its general meaning must be tread down<\/em>. Its cognates show this.<\/p>\n

13<\/a>. Hide them, &c., &c<\/em>. The meaning is,\u2014if it is in your power, get rid of the <\/span>wicked by natural death, as I can.<\/p>\n

In the dust,\u2014i.e.<\/em>, of the grave.<\/p>\n

Bandage their faces, &c<\/em>. I think the allusion here is to the bandaging of mummies, or at least to bandaging with a shroud.<\/p>\n

In the hi<\/em><\/span>dden place<\/em>,\u2014in the sepulchre.<\/p>\n

14<\/a>. Do all this if you can, and then, even I, God though I be, am ready to acknowledge to you that you can be altogether independent of me, and that you need not have rec<\/span>ourse to me for deliverance, as in that case you are, of course, able to deliver your own self. This is not without irony.<\/p>\n

15<\/a>. \u05d1\u05b0\u05bc\u05d4\u05b5\u05de\u05d5\u05b9\u05ea<\/span> (behemoth<\/span>). What animal is meant by this behemoth<\/span> is a question<\/span> that has sorely puzzled commentators; and before the time of Bochart many ridiculous notions were entertained upon the subject. Rabbinic writers revelled in the idea that he, and not \u201ccattle\u201d in general, was allud<\/span>ed to in Psalm 50<\/a>. as the monster \u201cupon a thousand hills,\u201d daily devouring the grass they furnished, and destined himself at length to furnish a feast in the great day to God\u2019s favored p<\/span>eople. The \u201cfathers,\u201d for the most part, surrounded the subject with an awe equally dreadful, and in the Behemoth here, and in the Leviathan of the next chapter, saw nothing but mystical representations of the devil. Others again have here pictured to themselves some hier<\/span>oglyphic monster that has no real existence. But these wild imaginations are surpassed by that of Bolducius, who, in the Behemoth, actually beholds Christ. More sober men have thought that beasts in general (so LXX. and Chald.), and especially cattle, might be here meant, and this is a position very strenuously defended by Lee. Good, with a plausible show of reason, contends for <\/span><\/span>the mammoth<\/em> or some other extinct pachydermatous animal. Many, amongst whom Schultens, consider that the elephant<\/em> is the animal intended. But Boch<\/span>art\u2019s view, which has since been very generally followed, with such exceptions, already named, as that of Lee, Schultens, Good, &c., is evidently the more correct, and without doubt the true one\u2014that the behemoth is the <\/span>hippopotamus<\/em>. If it be true, as there is every reason to suppose it is, that the leviathan in the next chapter is the crocodile, then it becomes perfectly natural to speak of the h<\/span>ippopotamus in connexion with it, these two being the most remarkable of amphibious animals, and both of them inhabitants of the Nile. Bochart moreover shows by innumerable quotations from ancient authors that these two animals are very generally spoken of together; and he brings forward an array of the following writers who so speak of them:\u2014Herodotus, Diodorus, Me<\/span>la, Pliny, Solinus, Philo, Pausanias, Marcellinus, Isidorus, Eustathius, and Antiochenus. And then, if <\/span>\u05d1\u05b0\u05bc\u05d4\u05b5\u05de\u05d5\u05b9\u05ea<\/span> (behemoth<\/span>) be a plural termination, it is by no means contrary to the genius of the Hebrew to regard it as the designat<\/span>ion of one<\/em> particular species of animals, as in that case the plural would only point to some superlative quality (probably size) in the animal. It is not, however, necessary to regard it as a plural <\/span>form, nor indeed a Hebrew word at all. Both the word and its termination may be purely Egyptian, in which language oth<\/span> is a very usual termination,\u2014as omoth, anoth mothoth<\/span>, &c., &c. And this is, I thi<\/span>nk, certainly borne out by the fact (see Gesenius) that the words P-ehe-mout<\/span> (almost behemoth<\/span>, and compare the Berber hauauit<\/span>) denote in Coptic water ox<\/em> (though whether used or not in that compounded <\/span>form is uncertain), by which name (sea cow<\/em>) we frequently call the hippopotamus.<\/p>\n

But perhaps, the strongest arguments, in favor of the behemoth being the hippopotamus, will be found as we proceed in t<\/span>he consideration of the description itself that is given of the creature here and in the following verses.<\/p>\n

Whom I made with thee<\/em>. Bochart takes \u05e2\u05b4\u05de\u05b8\u05bc\u05bd\u05da\u05b0<\/span> (gnimmach<\/span>) here to be near thee<\/em>, and cites pass<\/span>ages in which \u05e2\u05b4\u05dd<\/span> (gnim<\/span>) has this signification; and the meaning which he attaches to it is, that the hippopotamus might be considered as a neighbour of Job\u2019s; just as the Nile, which was that creatur<\/span>e\u2019s haunt, might be said to border upon Arabia, which was the patriarch\u2019s country. But I think that the Nile was not sufficiently near Job\u2019s country to justify any such interpretation as this, and as the ordinary signification of <\/span>\u05e2\u05b4\u05dd<\/span> (gnim<\/span>) with<\/em> is very suitable here, I see no reason for deviating from it. The expression whom I made with thee<\/em> means in its natural and obvious sense\u2014whom I made alon<\/span>g with thee,\u2014i.e., at the same time as I made thee<\/em>; thus distinguishing him perhaps from such extinct races of animals as existed during a previous period. Job may not have understood it, but God may <\/span>have meant that the Hippopotamus was not like the gigantic creatures of a former age, like the Megatherium or the Megalosaurus for instance, but that he was a creature that belonged to the same age as man.<\/span><\/p>\n

He eateth grass as the ox<\/em>. The hippopotamus may be compared to an ox in the shape of its head and general bulkiness of its body, as well as also in the noise it makes, which is said to be \u201ca pec<\/span>uliar kind of interrupted roar, between that of a bull and the braying of an elephant.\u201d\u2014(Maunder.) From these resemblances the Italians call the animal bomarino<\/em>, i.e., sea ox<\/em>, and we sometimes call it<\/span> the sea-cow<\/span>. The comparison here, however, is not as respects any particular outward resemblance, but in the fact that the hippopotamus eats grass as the ox does. This is literally true:\u2014\u201cBy night it<\/span> quits its watery residence in search of its food, which consists of the herbage that grows near the banks of the rivers, and the surrounding pastures.\u201d\u2014(Maunder.) Job\u2019s attention is called to this as a remarkable fact; though so huge and terrible a monster, yet he is not, as might have been expected, carnivorous, but herbivorous.<\/span><\/p>\n

16<\/a>. The loins are for the most part the seat of strength. See Nahum<\/span> 2:1<\/a>, and Psalm 69:23<\/a>.<\/p>\n

His might in the thews of his belly<\/em>. As the belly is the weakest and most vulnerable part of the elephant (as Bochart is at great pains to show), this passage excludes that anim<\/span>al from all claim to being the \u05d1\u05b0\u05bc\u05d4\u05b5\u05de\u05d5\u05b9\u05ea<\/span> (behemoth<\/span>), and strengthens the view that the hippopotamus is intended, as the belly of that creature is remarkably tough, and covered with a hide so thick as <\/span>to be impervious to musket balls.<\/p>\n

\u05d0\u05d5\u05b9\u05df<\/span> (on<\/span>),\u2014has sometimes special reference to masculine power<\/em>, but I see no reason for supposing that to be the meaning here intended.<\/p>\n

The thews<\/em>. This word probably e<\/span>xpresses \u05e9\u05b0\u05c1\u05e8\u05b4\u05d9\u05e8\u05b4\u05d9\u05dd<\/span> (sheririm<\/span>) as well as any other could do. It is a mistake to understand it in the same sense as \u05e9\u05b9\u05c1\u05e8\u05b6\u05e8<\/span> (shorer<\/span>) a navel<\/em>, to say nothing of the awkwardness of supposing, in that cas<\/span>e, that the word could be plural. It is rather the plural of \u05e9\u05b8\u05c1\u05e8\u05b4\u05d9\u05e8<\/span> (sharir<\/span>), i.q.<\/em>, Chald. \u05e9\u05b0\u05c1\u05e8\u05b4\u05d9\u05e8<\/span> (sherir<\/span>) firm, hard<\/em>, &c.; hence here, firm<\/em> or tough parts<\/em>.<\/p>\n

17<\/a>. Like a cedar he moveth his tail<\/em>. It i<\/span>s not the tail, but the animal himself, who is here compared to a cedar; the idea conveyed being,\u2014that as the trunk of a cedar remains immoveable whilst its branches wave to and to, so this creature moves h<\/span>is tail without its occasioning any movement in his body. The force of \u05de\u05b0\u05d5\u05b9\u05be\u05d0\u05b6\u05e8\u05b6\u05d6<\/span> (chemo erez<\/span>) is,\u2014as though he were a cedar<\/em>. Commentators have been much puzzled about this clause, because they <\/span>have applied the comparison of the cedar to the tail of the animal, and indeed, with this notion, I had originally conjectured that the reading might have been \u05d0\u05b6\u05e8\u05b6\u05d2<\/span> (ereg<\/span>) perhaps a shuttle<\/em>; involvin<\/span>g a very slight change in the appearance of the word, and giving a suitable sense; besides corresponding excellently with the parallel word in the next hemistich, \u05d9\u05b0\u05e9\u05c2\u05e8\u05b0\u05d2\u05d5\u05bc<\/span> (yesoregou<\/span>) are interwoven<\/em>,<\/span> \u05e9\u05b8\u05c2\u05e8\u05b7\u05d2<\/span> (sarag<\/span>) and \u05d0\u05b8\u05e8\u05b7\u05d2<\/span> (arag<\/span>) being cognate. The meaning, in that case, being, that the tail of the hippopotamus, as it moves backwards and forwards, has the resemblance of a shuttle when used in w<\/span>eaving, and that the sinews of his haunches are interwoven together, much as if a shuttle had done the work.<\/p>\n

18<\/a>. His bones,\u2014i.e., his marrow-bones<\/em>, as the context shows. For the same reason \u05d2\u05b0\u05bc\u05e8\u05b8\u05de\u05b8\u05d9\u05d5<\/span> <\/span>(geramaiw<\/span>) must mean his solid bones<\/em>; perhaps the ribs.<\/p>\n

19<\/a>. He is the first, &c<\/em>. It is difficult to determine whether this means the <\/em>beginning<\/em>, or the chief<\/em>, and then it is not easy to see in what way<\/span> either sense is applicable to the hippopotamus; the former, however, is the most common and natural sense of \u05e8\u05b5\u05d0\u05e9\u05b4\u05c1\u05d9\u05ea<\/span> (reshith<\/span>), and in that case the only possible meaning I can attach to it, as appl<\/span>ied to the hippopotamus here, is that he is an animal of the same type as some that existed in the world previously to its latest formation as described in Gen. 1<\/a>. He is certainly not unlike the pal\u00e6o<\/span>therium, one of the largest discovered animals of the first<\/em> period, found in the tertiary series.<\/p>\n

Presented him<\/em>. This is so exactly the literal rendering of \u05d9\u05b7\u05d2\u05b5\u05bc\u05e9\u05c1<\/span> (yaggesh<\/span>) that I wonder it should h<\/span>ave escaped the notice of commentators who have been puzzled about the meaning of the word here; and, moreover, it makes the rendering of \u05db\u05b4\u05bc\u05d9<\/span> (chi<\/span>) in the next verse easy, and gives a natural sense t<\/span>o the whole passage.<\/p>\n

His scythe<\/em>. \u05d7\u05b7\u05e8\u05b0\u05d1\u05bc\u05d5\u05b9<\/span> (kharbo<\/span>). The word \u05d7\u05b6\u05e8\u05b6\u05d1<\/span> (kherev<\/span>) is applied in Scripture to almost every variety of cutting instruments according to the context; most generally a sword<\/em>, but<\/span> besides this, a knife, a razor, a graving tool, an axe<\/em>. Bochart has by a variety of citations abundantly proved that it, or the Chaldee \u05d7\u05e8\u05d1\u05d0<\/span> (khrva<\/span>), and the Ph\u0153nician harba<\/span> are the same as the Greek<\/span> \u1f05\u03c1\u03c0\u03b7<\/span>, which seems to have been a kind of crooked sword<\/em> or falchion<\/em> (falx<\/em>), also a crooked dagger<\/em> (Lat., sica<\/em>, hence our sickle<\/em>), and likewise a scythe<\/em>. And it certainly is very remarkable, as he sh<\/span>ows, that the teeth of the hippopotamus, which are long, sharp, and slightly curved, have by profane writers been compared to this weapon. Thus Nicander Theriac., v. 566:\u2014<\/p>\n

\u1f2a \u1f35\u03c0\u03c0\u03bf\u03c5 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u039d\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f51\u03c0\u1f72\u03c1 \u03a3\u03ac\u03ca\u03bd<\/span><\/span> \u03b1\u1f30\u03b8\u03b1\u03bb\u03cc\u03b5\u03c3\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd<\/span><\/p>\n

\u0392\u03cc\u03c3\u03ba\u03b5\u03b9, \u1f00\u03c1\u03bf\u03cd\u03c1\u1fc3\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u03b4\u1f72 \u03ba\u03b1\u03ba\u1f74\u03bd \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03b2\u03ac\u03bb\u03bb\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u1f0d\u03a1\u03a0\u0397\u039d<\/span>.<\/p>\n

Aut fluvialis equi, Nilus quem pascit adustam<\/em><\/p>\n

Trans Sa\u00efn, atque Harpen damnosam immittit in agros<\/em>.<\/p>\n

On which passage the<\/span> Scholiast remarks,\u2014The Harpe<\/span> signifies a scythe<\/em> \u03b4\u03c1\u03b5\u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03b7\u03bd<\/span> (or sickle), and [the poet] so calls his<\/em> (hippopotamus\u2019s) teeth<\/em>, showing that he utterly devours the corn stalks. (See the Illustrations<\/a>.)<\/p>\n

20<\/a><\/span>. That<\/em>. A reason why God has furnished the hippopotamus with a scythe-like tooth; his food consisting of grasses, he is thus enabled to mow it down.<\/p>\n

The mountains<\/em>. Those in the immediate neighbourhood<\/span> of the river which is the haunt of the hippopotamus. Those which form the valley of the Nile, or perhaps the valley of the Jordan, would be the mountains which would most likely suggest themselves to the mind of Job on hearing this descr<\/span>iption.<\/p>\n

And all the beasts of the field might gambol there<\/em>. The hippopotamus, although a beast of the river<\/em>, nevertheless frequents also the localities which are <\/span>the haunts of the beasts of the field<\/em>. He in no way, however, disturbs their sports by his presence, for though so huge and fearful looking a monster, he is not a carnivorous, but strictly a graminivo<\/em><\/span>rous<\/em> animal, having been so created by God, who purposely furnished him with a scythe-like tooth.<\/p>\n

21<\/a>. The wild lotuses<\/em>\u2014\u05e6\u05b6\u05bd\u05d0\u05b1\u05dc\u05b4\u05d9\u05dd<\/span> (tseelim<\/span>). Some take this to be a Chaldaic form of \u05e6\u05b6\u05dc\u05b0\u05dc\u05b4\u05d9\u05dd<\/span> (tselelim<\/span>),<\/span> shades<\/em>, or shady trees<\/em>; but it is, I think, preferable to take it, as Abulwalid, Schultens, Gesenius, Lee, and others have done, as from \u0636\u0623\u0644<\/span> (dsal<\/span>), to be slim, slender<\/em>, &c. (gracilis, exiguus, tenui<\/em><\/span>s<\/em>, &c., see Castell), and then Med., Ye, \u0636\u064e\u064a\u064e\u0627\u0644\u064c<\/span> (dsayalon<\/span>), the wild lotus<\/em>. This lotus, however, must not be confounded with that lotus which is a species of water-lily<\/em>, and which grows in great abun<\/span>dance on canals and lagoons of the Nile, which is commonly called Nymph\u00e6a<\/span>, or Nenouphar<\/span>, by the Arabs, and which Herodotus tells us the Egyptians called Lotos<\/em>. The plant alluded to here is a small tre<\/span>e or prickly shrub, sufficiently common in Africa, and yielding a farinaceous berry about the size of an olive; it is the Sidar<\/span> of the Arabs.<\/p>\n

In the covert of the reed and the fen<\/em>, i.e.<\/em>, not only does<\/span> the hippopotamus lie down under the lotus shrubs on the more dry ground, but also he lies down in the fen, where the reeds afford a covert to him. Not unlikely the \u05d7\u05b7\u05d9\u05b7\u05bc\u05ea \u05e7\u05b8\u05e0\u05b6\u05d4<\/span> (khaiyath kaneh<\/span>) the b<\/em><\/span>east of the reed<\/em> in Ps, 68:31<\/a> is the hippopotamus, or perhaps the crocodile; I think, however, the former, from its being there classed with bulls.<\/p>\n

Schultens gives an apt quotation here from Ammianus <\/span>Marcellinus, L. 22,\u2014\u201cInter arundines celsas et squalentes nimia densitate h\u00e6c bellua cubilia ponit<\/em>.\u201d The mention of a fen here as being the haunt of the behemoth<\/span>, certainly shuts out the elephant from<\/span> all claim to being the creature here specified.<\/p>\n

22<\/a>. The wild lotuses, &c<\/em>. This forms a parallel with the first clause of the previous verse. These shrubs of the wild lotus under which he lies down fo<\/span>rm a shade for him.<\/p>\n

The osiers of the water-course, &c<\/em>. This, again, forms a parallel with the second clause of the previous verse. The reeds and osiers are very properly not said to shade him, as the<\/span> lotus shrubs do, but to afford him a covert by encompassing him.<\/p>\n

23<\/a>. \u05e2\u05b8\u05e9\u05b7\u05c1\u05e7<\/span> (gnashak<\/span>) expresses violent, overbearing, oppressive conduct<\/em>. As applied to a river, as here, overwhelming<\/em> would give a sui<\/span>table sense. The Arabs use \u0638\u064e\u0644\u064e\u0645\u064e<\/span> (dhalama<\/span>) in a precisely similar sense, referring it both to violent and unjust actions<\/em>, and also to the overflowing of a river<\/em> (see Castell). The best authorities ha<\/span>ve determined that \u05e0\u05b8\u05d4\u05b8\u05e8<\/span> (nahar<\/span>), and not the hippopotamus, must be the nominative to this verb, as clearly no meaning could be deduced from the idea of his oppressing a river<\/em>. That it should mean dri<\/em><\/span>nking a river<\/em>, as in the Vulg. and our auth. vers., is too far fetched, and at the same time would be decidedly too hyperbolical. The LXX. have it \u1f14\u03b1\u03bd \u03b3\u03ad\u03bd\u03b7\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c0\u03bb\u03b7\u03bc\u03bc\u03cd\u03c1\u03b1<\/span>, if there should be an inund<\/em><\/span>ation<\/em>. With this the Syriac and Arabic agree also, if a river should break forth<\/em>.<\/p>\n

He starteth not away<\/em>. He does not jump up to run away from the danger, as all other animals would naturally do; being <\/span>amphibious, he stands his ground, and calmly awaits the shock of waters.<\/p>\n

Though the Jordan, &c<\/em>. Whilst other animals would be in extreme terror, and would certainly perish if they could not effect a t<\/span>imely escape, the hippopotamus would not experience the slightest alarm, even though a river should burst forth (as the Jordan sometimes does) from its banks, and pour forth its flood over the surrounding country, and that, to such a depth as to reach even to the animal\u2019s mouth. Such is clearly the meanin<\/span>g of the passage, and fully demonstrates, I think, that the animal in question is the hippopotamus. The reason why the Jordan is the river particularly here used as <\/span>an illustration<\/em> is, I suppose, because not unlikely, rising as it does at the foot of the snow-clad Lebanon, it was liable to mor<\/span>e sudden<\/em> and violent swellings than either the Euphrates or the Nile. It is, in fact, more of a mountain torrent than either, and probably in its irruptions it drove away in consternation the lions an<\/span>d other wild beasts located in the thickets on its banks. Allusion seems to be made to this circumstance in Jer. 49:19<\/a>, where mention is made of the coming up of a lion from the swelling of Jordan<\/em>, an<\/span>d also in Jer. 12:5<\/a>, the question is asked as importing a state of extreme danger, \u201cHow wilt thou do in the swelling of Jordan<\/em>?\u201d The meaning in the text then is, so confident is the hippopotamus of hi<\/span>s power to stem the most overwhelming tide, that not even such a sudden torrent as the swollen Jordan occasions would make him start up from his lair; so far from this being the case, he calmly awaits it, and even receives it up to his eyes, as the next clause states.<\/span><\/p>\n

24<\/a>. He receiveth it up to his eyes<\/em>. I cannot agree with those who give this passage the sense, let some one take him before his eye<\/em><\/span>s<\/em>, meaning, let anybody, if he can, capture this animal whilst he is on his guard\u2014whilst he is looking on at those who are attempting to take him. The construction is very much forced to give this ren<\/span>dering. It appears to be much more natural, or rather, perhaps, necessary, that the beast in question should be the nominative to the verb; in this way, also, the parallelism and sense are preserved in this and the three preceding clauses, and the statement agrees admirably with the habits of the river-horse, which, when it swims, usually has the water up to its eyes.<\/span><\/p>\n

Up to his eyes<\/em>. \u05d1\u05b0\u05bc<\/span> (be<\/span>) has <\/span>very frequently the signification of \u05e2\u05b7\u05d3<\/span> (gnad<\/span>).<\/p>\n

His nose pierceth through snares<\/em>. A further proof of his immense strength. He walks right through and breaks the nets that are spread for weaker creatu<\/span>res than himself. If \u05de\u05bd\u05d5\u05b9\u05e7\u05b0\u05e9\u05b4\u05c1\u05d9\u05dd<\/span> (mokeshim<\/span>) might apply to nets<\/em> that are spread across rivers to intercept and catch fish; this would apparently give additional force to the passage, and afford a natu<\/span>ral introduction to the new subject in the next verse.<\/p>\n

\n

Job 41<\/a><\/p>\n

1<\/a>. Draw out<\/em>\u2014\u05ea\u05b4\u05bc\u05de\u05b0\u05e9\u05b9\u05c1\u05da\u05b0<\/span> (timshoch<\/span>). I take the future here to be a kind of permissive mood on a potential condition, and this use of it in Hebrew is by no means uncommon. The full meaning will t<\/span>herefore be, draw out if you can<\/em>, i.e.<\/em>, you may do it if you are able. The meaning of the whole clause is, fish up, if you can, a crocodile with a hook<\/em>\u2014try and catch him as you would an ordinary fish.<\/span> There may be instances in which this has been done, but they are only exceptional cases. My reasons for considering the leviathan here to be the crocodile will appear in the course of the notes which follow. (See the <\/span>Illustrations<\/a>.)<\/p>\n

And his tongue<\/em>. It has been objected by some that the crocodile has no tongue. This, however, is not true. Certainly it is not extensible, but it exists, being attach<\/span>ed by its marginal circumference to the lower jaw.<\/p>\n

2<\/a>. Supposing that you do catch a crocodile, can you then insert a rush into his snout, as you would do with an ordinary fish? Wilkinson, speaking of <\/span>the ancient Egyptian fishermen, says (without allusion to this passage), Vol. III., 61,\u2014\u201cThey passed the stalk of a rush through the gills, and thus attached them (the fish) together, in order more conveniently to carry them home.\u201d (See the <\/span>Illustrations<\/a>.) The meaning here is, Can you treat a crocodile in the same manner?<\/p>\n

With a spike<\/em>, \u05d7\u05d5\u05b9\u05d7\u05b7<\/span> (khoakh<\/span>) is literally a thorn<\/em>. The context here seems to<\/span> require a thorn of iron<\/em>, or of some other metal, i.e., some kind of spike<\/em>. Rosenm\u00fcller, borrowing from Oedmann an extract from Bruce, informs us that the Egyptian fishermen, having caught fish either<\/span> with hooks or nets, usually pass an iron ring through their jaws, to which a rope fastened on the bank is attached, so that the fish may be preserved alive, without the possibility of effecting their escape. It appears to me not unlikely that <\/span>the spike<\/em> here alluded to, after being inserted, was bent round so as to form a kind of ring, not unlike what is commonly put into the snout of pigs. The se<\/span>nse, of course, again is,\u2014You cannot deal with a crocodile as you would with a common fish.<\/p>\n

3<\/a>. Will he multiply entreaties, &c<\/em>. Lee supposes that allusion is here made to well-known cries of the dolph<\/span>in, and he cites quotations of Bochart\u2019s, also from Petr. Gill, \u201cA captis delphinis tanti fletus gemitusque fiunt, ut c\u00f9m in navi ubi permulti delphini tenebantur pernoctarem mihi acerbissimum dolorem<\/em><\/span> inusserint<\/em>.\u201d If, then, the supposition of such allusion in the text be correct, the meaning is, the crocodile is not a creature who, like the dolphin, by cries and moans seems to try to work upon you<\/span>r feelings, and to implore your pity.<\/p>\n

Soft things<\/em>,\u2014\u05e8\u05b7\u05db\u05bc\u05d5\u05b9\u05ea<\/span> (racchoth<\/span>), just the opposite of \u05e7\u05b8\u05e9\u05c1\u05d5\u05b9\u05ea<\/span> (kashoth<\/span>) rough things<\/em>, as in Gen. 42:30<\/a>.<\/p>\n

4<\/a>. Will he be glad (as conquered enemies usually are) to a<\/span>ccept the terms of being let off with his life, on the condition of his serving you for the rest of his days? In plain words, it is impossible for you to think of reducing a creature like the crocodile to any kind of domestic service.<\/span><\/p>\n

5<\/a>. It is usual for commentators here, after Bochart, to quote Catullus,\u2014\u201cPasser, delici\u00e6 me\u00e6 puell\u00e6, Quicum ludere, quem in sinu tenere, Quoi primum digitum dare adp<\/em><\/span>etenti, Et acris solet incitare morsus<\/em>.\u201d But I do not think that that gives the correct meaning here. I am inclined to take \u05e9\u05b8\u05c2\u05d7\u05b7\u05e7<\/span> (sakhak<\/span>) here in somewhat the same sense in which it is used in 2 Sam<\/span>. 2:14<\/a>, as referring to sporting with weapons<\/em>; in which case the word sport<\/em> may have been used in the same way as we now use it with reference to the field. Certain it is (see Illustrations<\/a>) that fiel<\/span>d sports were a favorite amusement with all classes of the ancient Egyptians; and it appears, from the evidence of their paintings, that, on their fowling<\/em> and fishing expeditions, they were accompanie<\/span>d by their sisters<\/em> and daughters<\/em> and other members of the family who assisted on these occasions. It is, I think, to such an occasion that allusion is here made. You cannot (God implies) include the c<\/span>rocodile in your field-sports, you cannot go and hunt him, as you go out and catch birds, and then bind him, as you bind them, for your sisters or daughters who accompany you on the expedition.<\/p>\n

The al<\/span>lusion in v. 1<\/a> and 2<\/a> is to the sport of fishing<\/em>, as here it is to that of fowling<\/em>; this connexion of the two is natural, and both are often represented on the same ancient Egyptian paintings. (See Ill<\/span>ustrations<\/a>).<\/p>\n

6<\/a>, 7<\/a>. The first of these verses is one of the great puzzles of this book; and the meaning of \u05d9\u05b4\u05db\u05b0\u05e8\u05d5\u05bc<\/span> (ichrou<\/span>) constitutes the main difficulty. As to the other words, there is little doubt<\/span> but that \u05d7\u05b7\u05d1\u05b8\u05bc\u05e8\u05b4\u05d9\u05dd<\/span> (khabbarim<\/span>) means partners in trade<\/em>, and what we call companies<\/em>, and that the word \u05db\u05b0\u05bc\u05e0\u05b7\u05bd\u05e2\u05b2\u05e0\u05b4\u05d9\u05dd<\/span> (chenagnenim<\/span>), lit., Canaanites<\/em>, means merchants<\/em>, traffickers<\/em>, traders<\/em>, or the like.<\/span> There is no doubt that many Canaanites were in very early times located in lower Egypt, and particularly in the Delta, and that they were there not simply as shepherds, as they were usually called, b<\/span>ut also as traders<\/em>. The difficulty, then, of the verse is, as I have said, as to the meaning of \u05d9\u05b4\u05db\u05b0\u05e8\u05d5\u05bc<\/span> (ichrou<\/span>), the root \u05db\u05b8\u05bc\u05e8\u05b8\u05d4<\/span> (charah<\/span>) both in Hebrew, Chaldee, Arabic, \u00c6thiopic, and indeed all the<\/span> kindred dialects, signifies to dig<\/em>. In 2 Kings 6:23<\/a>, it seems to signify to make a feast<\/em>. And in Deut. 2:6<\/a>, and Hosea 3:2<\/a>, it certainly means to buy<\/em>. Hence the verse has been rendered by some, Will c<\/em><\/span>ompanies dig<\/em> (i.e.<\/em>, a pitfall) for him<\/em>? which if taken literally might apply well to the hippopotamus but not to the crocodile. Others, however, who render \u05d9\u05b4\u05db\u05b0\u05e8\u05d5\u05bc<\/span> (ichrou<\/span>) by dig<\/em>, understand it in a <\/span>kind of secondary sense as laying snares, &c<\/em>. Others, again, translate the passage, Will companies make a banquet on him<\/em>? Others, again, Will companies make a banquet over him<\/em>? implying the impossibil<\/span>ity of fishing companies being able to feast on him as on an ordinary fish, or to celebrate his capture by a feast. The passage has also been rendered, Will companies purchase him<\/em>? This translation, h<\/span>owever, entirely ignores the preposition \u05e2\u05b7\u05dc<\/span> (gnal<\/span>). And once more, Lee has it, Will companies bargain over him<\/em>? This I prefer, but at the same time I see no special reason here for making the sentenc<\/span>e interrogative, as it is not so in the original, and further it appears to me that \u05db\u05b8\u05bc\u05e8\u05b8\u05d4 \u05e2\u05b7\u05dc<\/span> (charah gnal<\/span>), if in the sense of buying, &c<\/em>., would signify to bargain for<\/em> rather than to bargain over<\/em>; <\/span>I presume that, originally, passing the contract of a purchase<\/em> was signified or ratified by some such act as digging<\/em>, as being perhaps significant of payment of a purchase being originally made in man<\/span>ual labour or tillage, and that so the phrase \u05db\u05b8\u05bc\u05e8\u05b8\u05d4 \u05e2\u05b7\u05dc<\/span> (charah gnal<\/span>) might signify, to pass a contract for the purchase of, &c<\/em>., or, as we say, to bargain for<\/em>. The sense, then, which I give the pass<\/span>age according to my translation, and taking it in connexion with the next verse is,\u2014Putting the case that fishing companies should stipulate beforehand to pay you a certain price for the capture of the crocodile, in order that they might di<\/span>spose of him to traders;\u2014are you so certain of being able to capture him as to enter into any such agreement? It is not necessary to suppose from this that the crocodile was ever an article of merchandise; all that is intended is, that Job could not deal with such a creature as if it were an ordinary article of commerce.<\/span><\/p>\n

Canst thou fill, &c<\/em>.,\u2014i.e.<\/em>, supposing<\/span> (as it is put in the previous verse) that fishing companies stipulate with you for the capture of a crocodile, are you certain that you will be able to fulfil your agreement? Will you, do you think, be able to <\/span>transfix his skin with sharp-pointed missiles, or his head with a spear such as is commonly used in fishing? Bochart has very properly remarked that the creature here referred to cannot be the whale, because the process here alluded to is precisely the way in which whales can be and are captured; whereas the impenetrable coating of the crocodile would render any such attempts utterly abortive. Lee replies ve<\/span>ry lamely to this argument. For further information on the subject of <\/span>pikes<\/em> and fish-spears<\/em> see the Illustrations<\/a>.<\/p>\n

8<\/a>. Put thine hand, &c<\/em>.,\u2014i.e.<\/em>, Do so, if you dare, but I can tel<\/span>l you that, if you attempt it, you will at once be so terrified, as altogether to forget your intention of entering into conflict with the monster.<\/p>\n

9<\/a>. That man\u2019s hope, &c<\/em>.,\u2014lit., his hope, i.e.<\/em>, the h<\/span>ope of any person, whether you or any one else, who should make so rash an attempt under the vain expectation of succeeding. This is better than referring \u05ea\u05bc\u05d5\u05b9\u05d7\u05b7\u05dc\u05b0\u05ea\u05bc\u05d5\u05b9<\/span> (tokhalto<\/span>) to the crocodile, in <\/span>which case it would mean the hope of him, i.e.<\/em>, the hope of overcoming him.<\/p>\n

Proveth false,\u2014i.e.<\/em>, is found false. God speaks as if he saw the event actually occurring.<\/p>\n

Would he not be flung, &c<\/em>. The fo<\/span>rce of \u05d2\u05b7\u05bc\u05dd<\/span> (gam<\/span>) here is, not only does such a man find that his hope of overcoming the crocodile is deceptive, but more than that<\/em>, he actually drops down with fright at the mere sight of the terrifi<\/span>c monster. Bochart gives instances of the extreme terror that has been experienced by persons at the sight of a crocodile.<\/p>\n

10<\/a>. As to provoke him,\u2014i.e.<\/em>, provoke him to a contest.<\/p>\n

Who then, &c<\/em>. Such the<\/span>n being the case, who can dare stand up and provoke me to a contest? God probably implies that Job had daringly done so, though through ignorance of God\u2019s majesty and greatness.<\/p>\n

11<\/a>. Who hath fore-offi<\/em><\/span>ced me, &c<\/em>. In all the dialects \u05e7\u05b8\u05d3\u05b7\u05dd<\/span> (kadam<\/span>) means to forestall, to be beforehand with<\/em>, and the like; the next verb \u05e9\u05b8\u05c1\u05dc\u05b7\u05dd<\/span> (shalam<\/span>) seems to require that the particular meaning I have given should be<\/span> attached here to the idea of forestalling, i.e.<\/em>, to forestall with kindness<\/em>. Schultens moreover contends (and after him Gesenius and Rosenm\u00fcller) that the word has sometimes this particular sense in <\/span>the Arabic, pr\u00e6venire beneficiis<\/em>, though I cannot find this meaning in Castell. The Apostle, however, has given us the true interpretation of the whole verse, for it is evidently this which he quotes <\/span>in Romans 11:35<\/a>, 36<\/a>,\u2014\u201cWho hath first given to him<\/em>, and it shall be recompensed unto him again? For of him, and through, and to him, are all things.\u201d<\/p>\n

The force of the passage then as it stands here, is<\/span>, Seeing that everything is mine, how is it possible that any one can have so laid me under obligation, as to pretend that he has a claim upon me<\/em>? Job to a certain extent had urged some such claim.<\/p>\n

12<\/a><\/span>. After a short digression God resumes the subject of the crocodile, by entering into a more particular description of that creature, than he had done before; and he begins this by stating that he is <\/span>about thus to enter into particulars. \u201cI will not<\/em> (he says) be silent of<\/em> (or suppress mention of<\/em>) his parts<\/em>.\u201d<\/p>\n

\u05d1\u05b7\u05bc\u05d3\u05b4\u05bc\u05d9\u05dd<\/span> (baddim<\/span>) can scarcely be here translated limbs,\u2014<\/em>membra<\/em>, as Rosenm\u00fcller has it,\u2014fo<\/span>r God does not particularly describe these: the word does certainly sometimes mean limbs, branches, staves, &c<\/em>.; but, in its first intention, it signifies separate portions<\/em>, exactly what we call parts<\/em><\/span>; it has this signification in 18:13<\/a>.<\/p>\n

Subject<\/em>, \u05d3\u05b8\u05bc\u05d1\u05b8\u05e8<\/span> (davar<\/span>)\u2014lit., word, matter, &c<\/em>.<\/p>\n

His structure<\/em>,\u2014\u05e2\u05b6\u05e8\u05b0\u05db\u05bc\u05d5\u05b9<\/span> (gnercho<\/span>), more literally, his arrangement, i.e.<\/em>, the conformation of his bones, muscles, <\/span>skin, and general construction; \u201cthe beauty<\/em>\u201d of this arrangement or organization does not therefore necessarily consist in external appearance, for on this subject but little perhaps could be said in <\/span>favor of the crocodile, but it refers rather to the wonderful adaptation of the several parts of the animal to the purposes for which he was constructed by his maker.<\/p>\n

\u05d7\u05bc\u05d9\u05df<\/span> (khin<\/span>) for \u05d7\u05b5\u05df<\/span> (khen<\/span>). This <\/span>is Chaldaic, and by no means anomalous.<\/p>\n

13<\/a>. Who hath laid bare, &c<\/em>. Who has taken off the coating of the animal so as to make him naked? in plain words, who has ventured to undress him?<\/p>\n

\u05d2\u05b4\u05bc\u05dc\u05b8\u05bc\u05d4<\/span> (gilla<\/span><\/span>h<\/span>) is to make naked by uncovering<\/em>.<\/p>\n

The integument of the crocodile is here compared to clothing<\/em>\u2014\u05dc\u05b0\u05d1\u05d5\u05bc\u05e9\u05c1<\/span>; we might call it a coating<\/em> just in the same sense. Schultens tells us that in Arabic \u05dc\u05d1\u05d5\u05e9<\/span> (lbws<\/span><\/span>h<\/span>) specially means a coat of mail covering the entire body<\/em>. If so, this meaning would be very appropriate to the crocodile, but I cannot find it in Castell.<\/p>\n

Who would go into, &c<\/em>. Who would venture in<\/span>side his double jaws, [for the purpose of exploring his teeth, and the inside of his mouth in general]?<\/p>\n

\u05e8\u05b6\u05e1\u05b6\u05df<\/span> (resen<\/span>), precisely like our word muzzle<\/em>, seems to have signified both a curb<\/em>, or sort of h<\/em><\/span>alter<\/em>, and also the part of the mouth<\/em> or nose<\/em> over which such curb or halter fits. At least it has that double meaning in the Arabic. The Greek \u03c7\u03b1\u03bb\u03b9\u03bd\u1f78\u03c2<\/span> has also a similar sense. Bochart quotes from t<\/span>he Greek vocabulary of Pollux, II., 4, \u00a7 20, who informs us that the extremities of the lip against either cheek are called \u03c7\u03b1\u03bb\u03b9\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9<\/span>.<\/p>\n

The doubling of his muzzle<\/em>. I do not think that this refers to his <\/span>double row of teeth, but to the gape of his jaws. (See the Illustrations<\/a>.)<\/p>\n

14<\/a>. God here amplifies the question he had just proposed in the latter clause of the former verse.<\/p>\n

Who hath opened, &c<\/em>. Not o<\/span>nly would no one venture to go into the open jaws of the crocodile, but who has ever even ventured to open them when shut? His formidable rows of teeth are quite sufficient to deter the boldest from making a<\/span>ny such attempt.<\/p>\n

Bochart is very full in his description, both of the rictus<\/em> or gape<\/em> of the crocodile, and of the terrific character of his teeth.<\/p>\n

15<\/a>. In this and the two following verses God r<\/span>esumes the subject upon which he had touched in the question he had proposed in the first clause of v. 13<\/a>,\u2014\u201cWho hath laid bare the face of his clothing<\/em>?\u201d He proceeds to describe the coating of this re<\/span>markable creature.<\/p>\n

Those who claim for the whale<\/em> the honor of being the leviathan are driven to great shifts to explain these verses. Lee actually goes so far as to suppose that the dorsal-fin<\/em> of some<\/span> of the whale tribe is here intended.<\/p>\n

Majestic are his concave shields<\/em>. Who then would dare to lay bare the face of his clothing?<\/p>\n

I take majestic<\/em> \u05d2\u05b7\u05bc\u05bd\u05d0\u05b2\u05d5\u05b8\u05d4<\/span> (gaewah<\/span>), lit., majesty, grandeur<\/em>, or the li<\/span>ke, to be in apposition with \u05d0\u05b5\u05d9\u05de\u05b8\u05d4<\/span> (eimah<\/span>), terror<\/em>, or frightful<\/em>, in the previous verse\u2014that just as in the one case the frightful appearance of his teeth would deter any one from intruding into his <\/span>mouth, so, in the other case, the majestic appearance of his shield-covered body would prevent any one from attempting to strip him of his coating.<\/p>\n

Bochart and others take \u05d2\u05b7\u05bc\u05bd\u05d0\u05b2\u05d5\u05b8\u05d4<\/span> (gaewah<\/span>) to be the<\/span> same as \u05d2\u05b7\u05bc\u05d5<\/span> (gaw<\/span>) the back<\/em>, and others again as \u05d2\u05b4\u05bc\u05d5\u05b8\u05d4<\/span> (gewah<\/span>) the body<\/em>, but there is not the slightest necessity for departing from the ordinary meaning of the word.<\/p>\n

\u05d0\u05b2\u05e4\u05b4\u05d9\u05e7\u05b5\u05d9 \u05de\u05b8\u05d2\u05b4\u05e0\u05b4\u05bc\u05d9\u05dd<\/span> (ephikei mag<\/span><\/span>innim<\/span>) is a grand difficulty. Robora scutorum<\/em>, which may mean strong shields<\/em>, is Rosenm\u00fcller\u2019s version, but it is doubtful whether \u05d0\u05b8\u05e4\u05b4\u05d9\u05e7<\/span> (aphik<\/span>) can signify strong<\/em>. The lamin\u00e6<\/span> (plates<\/em>) of Jerome, and<\/span> umbones<\/em> (bosses<\/em>) of Lee, and others before him, are sheer guesses. The original meaning of the root \u05d0\u05b8\u05e4\u05b7\u05e7<\/span> (aphak<\/span>) appears to have been to hold, to contain<\/em>, and the like; hence \u05d0\u05b8\u05e4\u05b4\u05d9\u05e7<\/span> (aphik<\/span>) has the <\/span>meanings of a pipe, conduit, channel, tube, bed of a river<\/em>, and the like. Literally, then, it would signify, in connection with \u05de\u05b8\u05d2\u05b4\u05e0\u05b4\u05bc\u05d9\u05dd<\/span> (maginnim<\/span>), the hollows of shields<\/em>, which I take to signify ho<\/em><\/span>llow<\/em> or concave shields<\/em>, and which we find were anciently worn upon the back; and certainly the crocodile\u2019s body does appear as if it were enveloped with a number of these shields closely compacted to<\/span>gether, as described in the next clause. (See the Illustrations<\/a>.) We have the same idea in the testudo<\/em> of the Latins, which means both the shell of the tortoise (which is not unlike that of the crocod<\/span>ile), and also a warlike covering consisting of uplifted shields held close together.<\/p>\n

Shut<\/em>. \u05e1\u05b8\u05d2\u05d5\u05bc\u05e8<\/span> (sagour<\/span>) is singular, referring to each individual shield.<\/p>\n

18<\/a>. His sneezings make a light to shine<\/em>. I<\/span> understand this, as of the crocodile whilst under water, or just as he is rising to the surface; any sneezing or violent puffing of the animal would have the effect of giving a white appearance to the w<\/span>ater, the propulsion of air through water always producing this effect; and I doubt not but that it is very remarkably so in the case of a crocodile: indeed, not improbably this whitish appearance would be the first intimation which a beholder on the bank would have of the near approach of this creature.<\/span><\/p>\n

His eyes are as the eye-lids of the dawn<\/em>. His bright eyes suddenly appearing above the surf<\/span>ace of the water are the intimation that the entire creature is about to emerge, just as the first streaks of dawn prognosticate the speedy rising of the sun above the horizon. Bochart informs us that in the Egyptian hieroglyphics the same image is ad<\/span>opted; he quotes from the \u201cHiero.\u201d of Horus Apollo, I. 65. The passage is a very remarkable one,\u2014\u201c\u1f08\u03bd\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03bb\u1f74\u03bd \u03bb\u03ad\u03b3\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2, \u03b4\u03cd\u03bf \u1f40\u03c6\u03b8\u03b1\u03bb\u03bc\u1f78\u03c5\u03c2 \u03ba\u03c1\u03bf\u03ba\u03bf\u03b4\u03ad\u03b9\u03bb\u03bf\u03c5 \u03b6\u03c9\u03b3\u03c1\u03b1\u03c6<\/span><\/span>\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd, \u1f10\u03c0\u03b5\u03b9\u03b4\u03ae\u03c0\u03b5\u03c1<\/span> (lege \u1f10\u03c0\u03b5\u03b9\u03b4\u1f74 \u03c0\u03c1\u1f78<\/span>) \u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c3\u03ce\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u03b6\u03ce\u03bf\u03c5 \u1f41\u03b9 \u1f40\u03c6\u03b8\u03b1\u03bb\u03bc\u03bf\u1f76 \u1f10\u03ba \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03b2\u03c5\u03b8\u03bf\u1fe6 \u1f00\u03bd\u03b1\u03c6\u03b1\u03af\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9<\/span>.\u201d To describe the dawn, they depict the two eyes of the crocodile, inasmuch as the <\/em><\/span>eyes make their appearance out of the deep before the entire body of the beast<\/em>. If this passage be genuine, it certainly is a remarkable illustration of the text; but it is right to mention that the t<\/span>wo books concerning Egyptian hieroglyphics, extant under the name of Horus Apollo, and printed in Greek by Aldus in 1505, are of questionable authenticity.<\/p>\n

19<\/a>. Out of his mouth, &c<\/em>. By the lamps and s<\/span>parks of fire which the crocodile is here said to emit from his mouth, I understand the flakes of foam and the smaller particles of spray which are flung forward from the mouth of the animal as he rapidly cuts through th<\/span>e water; these, with a bright sun shining upon them, would have the appearance of flames and sparks, and indeed, in some instances, might exhibit prismatic colours.<\/p>\n

\u05db\u05b4\u05bc\u05d9\u05d3\u05d5\u05b9\u05d3\u05b4\u05d9\u05dd<\/span> (ch<\/span><\/span>idodim<\/span>) occurs here only, but there can be little doubt but that it means sparks<\/em>. The root \u05db\u05b8\u05bc\u05d3\u05b7\u05d3<\/span> (chadad<\/span>) to strike fire<\/em>, seems to establish this.<\/p>\n

20<\/a>. A pot heated<\/em>, lit., a pot blown, i.e.<\/em>, a pot on <\/span>a fire that is blown. Burning<\/em>\u2014\u05d0\u05b7\u05d2\u05b0\u05de\u05d5\u05b9\u05df<\/span> (agmon<\/span>) great heat<\/em>. This is sufficiently probable from the Arabic root.<\/p>\n

Smoke<\/em>, or rather steam, which has the appearance of smoke. All animals emit steam from th<\/span>eir nostrils, and I doubt not but that it is remarkably the case with the crocodile, and especially when his snout just skims along the surface of the water.<\/p>\n

21<\/a>. Commentators have created their own di<\/span>fficulty in this verse, by making \u05e0\u05b6\u05e4\u05b6\u05e9\u05c1<\/span> (nephesh<\/span>) signify breath<\/em>, for which meaning there is no conceivable warrant. Having committed this error, they have then been obliged to resort of course to th<\/span>e most fanciful interpretations to explain how the breath of a crocodile or of any other creature can kindle live coals. I take the meaning to be a description of the fiery impetuosity of the crocodile as being the occasion of these appearances <\/span>of rushing steam and brilliant foam from his nostrils and mouth; just as fire kindles and keeps alive the coals which make the pot boil and send forth its <\/span>streams of steam, so, the fire in this case is within the crocodile; it is his spirit which, creating an internal heat, sends forth volumes of steam from his nostrils. The two previous verses speak of certain remarkable appearances about the crocodile. This verse ascribes the cause of those appearances to the <\/span>fiery temper<\/em> of the creature.<\/p>\n

22<\/a>. Strength<\/em> and Terror<\/em> are here personified, and also cont<\/span>rasted together. Strength<\/em> has a secure lodgment in the crocodile\u2019s neck. There may be allusion here to the unbending nature of this creature\u2019s neck. Terror<\/em> advances with him, and accompanies him in hi<\/span>s progress wherever he goes, for his appearance throws every thing around him into a state of perturbation.<\/p>\n

Danceth<\/em> refers to the commotion, tremor, and flight which the fear of the monster inspires i<\/span>n all across whose path he comes, as he pursues his way through the waters. The contrast in the two clauses appears to be, that whilst on the one hand the crocodile advances firmly and securely with the consciousness of irresistible strength, on the other hand he occasions tremor and <\/span>alarm all around him wherever he comes. Pie is himself imperturbable<\/em> in the midst of the perturbation<\/em> he occasions.<\/span><\/p>\n

23<\/a>. \u05de\u05b7\u05e4\u05b0\u05bc\u05dc\u05b5\u05d9 \u05d1\u05b0\u05bc\u05e9\u05b8\u05c2\u05e8\u05d5\u05b9<\/span> (mappelei besaro<\/span>), the falling<\/em> or pendulous parts of his flesh, i.e.<\/em>, in ordinary animals, the dewlaps<\/em>. In the crocodile these are not loose and flabby, but they are firmly set<\/span>.<\/p>\n

God had spoken before of the scaly armour on the back of the crocodile; he now speaks of the fleshy parts of that creature\u2014the under part of its neck and its belly; and though these are soft in comp<\/span>arison with the back, yet they are far from being moveable, or flabby.<\/p>\n

\u05d9\u05b8\u05e6\u05d5\u05bc\u05e7<\/span> (yatsouk<\/span>), solid<\/em>, like metal that has been cast and has solidified.<\/p>\n

They<\/em>, lit., it, i.e.<\/em>, each of the dewlaps.<\/p>\n

24<\/a>. His hea<\/em><\/span>rt<\/em>. The literal heart, not metaphorically courage<\/em>; so, Bochart and others after him, have rightly observed.<\/p>\n

A nether millstone<\/em>. Wilkinson informs us, in his work on the ancient Egyptians, that \u201cthe st<\/span>one of which hand-mills were made was usually a hard grit,\u201d and also that \u201cmany of the larger millstones, which were usually of granite, have been found amidst the crumbled ruins of ancient towns.\u201d Most commentators have imagined from the text that <\/span>the lower millstone<\/em> must necessarily have been a harder quality of stone than the \u05e4\u05b6\u05bc\u05dc\u05b7\u05d7 \u05e8\u05b6\u05db\u05b6\u05d1<\/span> (pelakh rechev<\/span>), the upper<\/em> or rider millstone<\/em>; of this, <\/span>however, there is no proof, nor is the supposition necessary. I presume that the reason on account of which the heart of the crocodile is compared here to a lower and not to an upper millstone is simply because <\/span>the former was fixed and immoveable, whilst the latter was made to revolve. This opens to us, then, a new idea, and prevents what would otherwise be tautology in the text. The solidity of the heart of the crocodile consists not only in its <\/span>compactness<\/em>, in which respect it is like a stone<\/em>, but also in its fixedness<\/em>, in which respect it is like a lower millstone<\/em>.<\/p>\n

25<\/a>. Because of his rising<\/em><\/span>,\u2014i.e.<\/em>, because of his rising up out of the water. \u05de\u05b4\u05e9\u05b5\u05bc\u05c2\u05ea\u05d5\u05b9<\/span> (missetho<\/span>) is for \u05de\u05b4\u05e9\u05b5\u05bc\u05c2\u05d0\u05ea\u05d5\u05b9<\/span> (missetho<\/span>), which is the reading of many MSS.<\/p>\n

Because of consternation<\/em>. \u05de\u05b4\u05e9\u05b0\u05bc\u05c1\u05d1\u05b8\u05e8\u05b4\u05d9\u05dd<\/span> (mishshevarim<\/span>),\u2014lit., bec<\/em><\/span>ause of breakings<\/em>. Some take this in the sense of breakers<\/em> or waves, caused by the movements of the crocodile in the water. At first I considered that possibly it might refer to the breaking<\/em> of reeds <\/span>and jungle on the part of the creature making his way from the banks of the river from which he had just emerged; but it appears to me more natural to adopt the view generally taken, and to understand <\/span>breakings<\/em> [of mind<\/em>], i.e.<\/em>, terrors<\/em>: perhaps the meaning is as well expressed by consternation<\/em> as by any other word.<\/p>\n

\u05d9\u05b4\u05ea\u05b0\u05d7\u05b7\u05d8\u05b8\u05bc\u05bd\u05d0\u05d5\u05bc<\/span> (ithkhattaou<\/span>),\u2014is exactly expressed by they are bewildered<\/em>.<\/p>\n

26<\/a>. The s<\/em><\/span>word of him that reacheth at him, &c<\/em>.,\u2014lit., he that reacheth sword at him it<\/em> (the sword) cannot stand.<\/p>\n

Nor mace, nor battle-axe<\/em>. \u05de\u05b7\u05e1\u05b8\u05bc\u05e2 \u05d5\u05b0\u05e9\u05b4\u05c1\u05e8\u05b0\u05d9\u05b8\u05d4<\/span> (massagn weshiryah<\/span>). As whatever meaning may be give<\/span>n to these words must be simply conjectural, I assign my reasons for translating them as I have done:\u20141st. The context makes it in the highest degree probable that some sort of weapons<\/em> are intended. 2<\/span>dly. It is on the same account probable that those weapons are offensive<\/em>. 3dly. That they are weapons used in a hand-to-hand fight<\/em>, because the sword and the spear are here associated with them, and a<\/span>lso because missile weapons are afterwards spoken of separately in vers. 28<\/a>, 29<\/a>. 4thly. That these hand-to-hand offensive weapons are probably such as a heavy armed soldier ordinarily carried with him<\/span> into the battle-field together with a sword and a spear, and if so, they must be the mace<\/em> and the battle-axe<\/em>; the only other weapons with which the heavy armed infantry of the ancient Egyptians are d<\/span>epicted. 5thly. The parallelism in the next verse renders it not improbable that the weapons in question were in part formed of copper; and this would agree well with both the mace<\/em> and the battle-axe<\/em>,<\/span> both being anciently composed of copper and wood. And 6thly. As the root \u05e0\u05b8\u05e1\u05b7\u05e2<\/span> (nasagn<\/span>) means to pluck up<\/em> or pull up<\/em> (especially the pegs of a tent), \u05de\u05b7\u05e1\u05b8\u05bc\u05e2<\/span> (massagn<\/span>) might very well signify, in the <\/span>first place, the instrument<\/em> by which such pegs were pulled up\u2014such as a heavy mallet<\/em> or beetle<\/em>, an instrument which, used as a weapon, would then assume the form of the formidable mace<\/em>. I by no means <\/span>consider the above reasons conclusive; but, as the meanings of the words in question can be only guessed at, I give the reasons by which I have arrived at the renderings given.<\/p>\n

Cannot stand<\/em>. So impene<\/span>trable is the skin that the weapon of iron or copper will bend or break upon it. It requires no appeal to testimony in these days to show how true this is of the crocodile.<\/p>\n

27<\/a>. Iron esteemeth he, &c<\/em>. <\/span>The sword and spear (weapons of iron, and mentioned in the former verse) make no more impression upon him than if they were straw. They bend or break upon him just as a straw would.<\/p>\n

What is coppered, <\/em><\/span>&c., &c<\/em>. Namely, as I suppose, the mace and battle-axe (weapons of wood, bound and headed with copper). These would break upon the crocodile\u2019s back like rotten wood. \u05e0\u05b0\u05d7\u05d5\u05bc\u05e9\u05b8\u05c1\u05d4<\/span> (nekhoushah<\/span>) is an adjec<\/span>tive.<\/p>\n

28<\/a>. In this and the following verse the weapons ordinarily used by light armed infantry are enumerated. Of these the crocodile makes as small count as of the others previously mentioned. (See th<\/span>e Illustrations<\/a>.)<\/p>\n

With him,\u2014i.e.<\/em>, as far as he is concerned; in his estimation.<\/p>\n

29<\/a>. Boomerangs<\/em>. \u05ea\u05bc\u05d5\u05b9\u05ea\u05b8\u05d7<\/span> (tothakh<\/span>), a club-stick<\/em> (as the Arabic root indicates), much in use amongst the ancient Egpptian<\/span> soldiers; in the present day called lissan<\/span> (i.e.<\/em>, tongue); used by light armed troops as well as by heavy infantry; in the first case probably used as a projectile weapon; in form and use apparently <\/span>like the boomerang, it was about two feet and a-half long, and was made of hard acacia wood.<\/p>\n

30<\/a>. \u05ea\u05b7\u05bc\u05d7\u05b0\u05ea\u05b8\u05bc\u05d9\u05d5<\/span> (takhetaiw<\/span>), his lower parts<\/em>. Those parts of the crocodile which extend below his body from <\/span>the hind legs downwards\u2014i.e.<\/em>, his tail<\/em>,\u2014that portion of the animal which has not yet been described, and of which it is impossible to have a more accurate and concise description than that here given.<\/span><\/p>\n

Are sharp points of potsherds,\u2014i.e.<\/em>, resemble sharp points of potsherds. These are evidently the pointed, zigzag-shaped tubercles, which stand upright in two rows on each side of the upper part of th<\/span>e crocodile\u2019s tail. (See the Illustrations<\/a>.) They are thus described by Lacep\u00e8de in his continuation of the works of Buffon, vol. xiii., page 110:\u2014\u201cDe chaque c\u00f4t\u00e9 de la queue s\u2019\u00e9tendent deux rangs d\u2019a<\/span>utres tubercules, en forme de cr\u00eates, qui la font par\u00f4itre h\u00e9riss\u00e9e de pointes, et qui se r\u00e9unissent \u00e0 une certaine distance de son extr\u00e9mit\u00e9, de mani\u00e8re \u00e0 n\u2019y former qu\u2019un seul rang.\u201d On each side of<\/em><\/span> the<\/em> [crocodile\u2019s] tail, two rows of other tubercles extend, crest-formed, which make it appear thickly set with points, and which, at some little distance from its extremity, unite together so as to <\/em><\/span>form a single row<\/em>.<\/p>\n

\u05d7\u05b8\u05e8\u05d5\u05bc\u05e5<\/span> (kharouts<\/span>) gold<\/em>. This is its ordinary signification, and is very suitable here. The crocodile is said to spread gold upon the mud when his tail, the under part of which is of<\/span> a saffron colour, trails along or lies upon a bed of mud. The following extract from Lacep\u00e8de is to the purpose:\u2014\u201cLe dessous du corps, de la queue et des pieds, ainsi que la face int\u00e9rieure des pattes, sont d\u2019un blanc jaun\u00e2tre. On a pr\u00e9tendu que le nom de ces grands animaux venait de la ressemblance de leur couleur avec celle du safran, en latin <\/span>crocus<\/em>, et en gree \u03ba\u03c1\u03bf\u03ba\u03bf\u03c2<\/span>.\u201d The underpart of the bo<\/em><\/span>dy, of the tail, and of the feet, as well as also the insides of the paws, are of a whitish yellow. Some have held that the name of these great animals is derived from the resemblance of their colour to that of saffron\u2014in L<\/em><\/span>atin crocus, and in Greek<\/em> \u03ba\u03c1\u03bf\u03ba\u03bf\u03c2<\/span>.<\/p>\n

\u05d7\u05b8\u05e8\u05d5\u05bc\u05e5<\/span> (kharouts<\/span>) is probably selected here, instead of a more ordinary word for gold<\/em>, on account of its alliteration with \u05d7\u05b8\u05bd\u05e8\u05b6\u05e9\u05c2<\/span> (khares<\/span>). It<\/span> is observable that alliteration particularly abounds in this part of the book.<\/p>\n

A kind of seeming incongruity is doubtless intended in the notion of the crocodile spreading gold upon the mud. It is wh<\/span>at man would not do. Man makes a display of gold, puts it in the most conspicuous position, &c.; but the crocodile has no such ambition; he makes no display of the most brilliant parts of his body; on the contrary, he spreads the golden-tinted portions of his belly and tail on the mud.<\/span><\/p>\n

31<\/a>. The depth<\/em>, \u05de\u05b0\u05e6\u05d5\u05bc\u05dc\u05b8\u05d4<\/span> (metsoulah<\/span>). This word, as many have remarked, refers not merely to the depth of the sea,<\/span> but also of a river; in Zech. 10:11<\/a> it is applied either to the Nile or the Euphrates.<\/p>\n

\u05d9\u05b8\u05dd<\/span> (yam<\/span>) sea<\/em>, is constantly used also for great rivers. (See the lexicons, if necessary, for instances.)<\/p>\n

He mak<\/em><\/span>eth the depth to boil, &c<\/em>.,\u2014i.e.<\/em>, by his rapid motions he makes the river, in which he moves, have the appearance of boiling water.<\/p>\n

He maketh the sea like a<\/em> [boiling<\/em>] pot, &c<\/em>. The crocodile, by his mo<\/span>vements, makes the water not only like an ordinary boiling pot, but especially like a boiling pot of ointment<\/em>, on account of the smell of musk which he emits from his body. Bochart has remarked this, <\/span>and the fact seems sufficiently established. Lacep\u00e8de, in his continuation of Buffon, vol. xiii., page 122, having stated that the flesh of the crocodile, and particularly that of the tail and the lower belly, serves as food to the n<\/span>egroes of Africa and certain tribes of India and America, who find it delicate and juicy, goes on to say:\u2014\u201cMais il par\u00f4it que presque tous les Europ\u00e9ans qui ont voulu en manger ont \u00e9t\u00e9 rebut\u00e9s par l\u2019odeur de muse dont elle est impr\u00e9gn\u00e9e.\u201d <\/span>It appears, however, that almost all Europeans who have wished to eat it have been repelled by the smell of musk with which it i<\/em><\/span>s impregnated<\/em>. Also, page 111:\u2014\u201cLes crocodiles ont deux glandes ou petites poches audessous des m\u00e2choires et deux autres aupr\u00e8s de l\u2019anus: ces quatre glandes contiennent une mati\u00e8re volatile qui leur <\/span>donne une odeur de muse assez forte.\u201d Crocodiles have two glands or small pouches under the jaws, and two also near the anus: these four glands contain a volatile matter, which gives them a rather str<\/em><\/span>ong smell of musk<\/em>.<\/p>\n

A<\/em> [boiling<\/em>] pot of ointment<\/em>. The idea of boiling<\/em> is supplied from the previous hemistich.<\/p>\n

32<\/a>. He maketh a path<\/em>, &c<\/em>. Just as a ship or boat does in passing through the water. This ve<\/span>rse needs no comment. Bochart has multiplied quotations from Greek and Latin poets who speak of the white or hoary wake of a ship.<\/p>\n

33<\/a>. There is not on earth a dominion as his<\/em>,\u2014lit., there is not on ea<\/em><\/span>rth his dominion<\/em>,\u2014meaning, no other dominion of like magnitude. This is the view of the passage given in the Vulgate, Non est super terram potestas, qu\u00e6 ei comparetur<\/em>, and is undoubtedly the true mean<\/span>ing of the Hebrew. Muntinghe and Rosenm\u00fcller support it; and the statement of the text, that on earth there is no other dominion to be compared with that of the crocodile, is so remarkably confirmed by a passage in the account of the <\/span>crocodile by that eminent naturalist, Lacep\u00e8de, that I cannot forbear giving the whole passage, and also subjoining a translation. Vol. xiii., page 105:\u2014\u201cLa Nature en accordant \u00e0 l\u2019aigle les hautes r\u00e9gions de l\u2019atmosph\u00e8re, en donnant au lion pour son domaine les vastes d\u00e9serts des contr\u00e9es ardentes, a abandonn\u00e9 au crocodile les rivages des mers et des grands fleuves des zones torrides. Cet animal \u00e9norme, vivant sur les confins de <\/span>la terre et des eaux, \u00e9tend sa puissance sur les habitans des mers et sur ceux que la terre nourrit. L\u2019emportant en grandeur sur tous les animaux de son ordre, ne partageant sa subsistence ni avec le vautour, comme l\u2019aigle, ni avec le tigre, comme le lion, il exerce une domination plus absolue que celle du lion et de l\u2019aigle; et il jouit d\u2019un empire d\u2019autant plus durable, qu\u2019appartenant \u00e0 deux \u00e9l\u00e9mens, il peut \u00e9chapper plus ais\u00e9ment aux pi\u00e9ges, qu\u2019ayant moins de ehaleur dans le sang il a moins besoin de r\u00e9parer des forces qui s\u2019\u00e9puisent moins vite, et que, pouvant r\u00e9sister plus long temps \u00e0 la faim, il livre moins souvent des <\/span>combats hazardeux.\u201d <\/span><\/span><\/span>Nature<\/em> [God<\/em>], in assigning to the eagle the high regions of the air, in giving<\/em><\/span> to the lion, for his domain, the vast deserts of hot countries, has given up to the crocodile the borders of the seas and of the great rivers of the torrid zones. This enormous animal, living on the confines of the land and of the waters, extends his power over t<\/em><\/span>he inhabitants of the seas, and over those to which the land gives subsistence. Swaying it grandly over all the animals of his own order\u2014not having to share his living either with the vulture, as does the eagle, or with the tiger, as does the lion\u2014he exercises a dominion more absolute than that of the lion <\/em><\/span>and of the eagle<\/em>, and he enj<\/em><\/span>oys an empire so much the more durable, as, belonging to two elements, he can the more easily avoid snares; having a less heated blood, he has the less need to repair powers which become the less quickly exhaus<\/em><\/span>ted; and being able the longer to resist hunger, he engages the less often in hazardous conflicts<\/em>.<\/p>\n

Who is made to be without dread,\u2014i.e<\/em>., he is so constructed as that he need not fear; his i<\/span>mpenetrable armour, his terrible teeth, the advantages that he has in belonging to two elements, his size, power, &c., are so many reasons why he should feel himself secure in that dominion which his Creator has assigned to him. It is not asserted here th<\/span>at he has no fear of man, for man is not under his dominion; he may not be afraid of some of the weapons which man uses successfully against other animals, as is stated in the previous verses; but it is no objection against the statement in the text that the crocodile has sometimes shown timidity in avoiding man. \u201cThe fear and the dread\u201d of man is instinctively lodged in all the brute creation. (<\/span><\/span>Gen. 9:2<\/a>.) All that the text asserts is, that this creature has no fear so far as his dominion extends; and I make no doubt but that this is true <\/span>of every full-grown individual of this species. (See the above extract from Lacep\u00e8de.)<\/p>\n

\u05e2\u05b8\u05e9\u05c2\u05d5\u05bc<\/span> (gnasou<\/span>) is for \u05e2\u05b8\u05e9\u05c2\u05d5\u05bc\u05d9<\/span> (gnasoui<\/span>).<\/p>\n

34<\/a>. He looheth down upon<\/em>. \u05e8\u05b8\u05d0\u05b8\u05d4<\/span> (raah<\/span>), it is generally admitted, has o<\/span>ccasionally this signification, and the \u05db\u05b8\u05bc\u05dc\u05be\u05d2\u05b8\u05bc\u05d1\u05b9\u05d4\u05b7\u05bc<\/span> (chol gavoah<\/span>) certainly seems to determine for it that particular sense here. The meaning appears to be, that, though the crocodile is only a rept<\/span>ile, yet he has no fear of, but rather despises, animals of lofty stature. He certainly has been known to make these his prey, by seizing them from under the water by the legs when they have been drinking by the river\u2019s edge, and so, drawing them in and drowning them. And though tigers and cheetahs, and other such animals, have been<\/span> known to vanquish the crocodile, yet the animals so vanquished have not been of large size; and moreover, there is reason to believe that in the days of Job these monsters of the Nile, being comparatively undisturbed by man, attained to a much more considerable size than do those in the present day. They probably approximated in bulk to the Saurians of the earlier period, and in that case might certainly, and to the very letter, be said to look down upon every high thing.<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

He is king over all the ferocious tribes<\/em>. Not that he is necessarily of a ferocious spirit himself, on the contrary he is tameable, and does not attack except in self-defence, or when impe<\/span>lled by hunger, but he reigns over those smaller creatures who often display more cruelty than himself. This perhaps is best illustrated by a passage from Lacep\u00e8de, the author from whom I have already quoted much. He says, Vol. III., page 106:\u2014\u201cLe crocodile ne le c\u00e8de en grandeur qu\u2019\u00e0 un petit nombre des animaux qui habitent les m\u00eames pays que lu<\/span>i. C\u2019est done assez souvent sans trouble qu\u2019il exerce son empire sur les quadrup\u00e8des ovipares. Incapable de d\u00e9sirs tr\u00e8s-ardeus, il ne ressent pas la f\u00e9rocit\u00e9.\u2026 Roi dans son domaine, comme l\u2019aigle et le lion dans les leurs, il a, pour ainsi dire, leur noblesse, en m\u00eame temps que leur puissance. Les baleines, les premiers des c\u00e9tac\u00e9es auxquelles nous venons de le comparer, ne d\u00e9truisent \u00e9galement que pour se conserver ou se reproduire; et voil\u00e0 donc les quatres grands dominateurs des caux, des rivages, des d\u00e9serts et de l\u2019air, qui r\u00e9unissent \u00e0 <\/span>la sup\u00e9riorit\u00e9 de la <\/span><\/span>force, une certaine douceur dans l\u2019instinct, et laissent \u00e0. des esp\u00e8ces inf\u00e9rieures<\/span>, \u00e0, des tyrans subalternes, la cruaut\u00e9 sans besoin.\u201d<\/p>\n

The crocodile yields in size to a few only of the animals who inhabit the same countries as himself. It is therefore often enough without trouble <\/em><\/span>that he exercises his empire over the oviparous quadrupeds. Incapable of very ardent desires, he feels no ferocity<\/em>.\u2026 King in his domain, as the eagle and the lion are in theirs, he has, so to speak, a<\/em><\/span>t once their nobleness and their power. Whales, the first of the cetaceous tribes, and to which we have just compared him, destroy, in like manner, only for self-preservation or for self reproduction; here then we have the four great dominators, of the waters, of the shores, of the <\/em><\/span>deserts, and of the air, who unite to superiority of force a certain mildness of instinct, and leave to the inferior species\u2014to subaltern tyrants, gratuitous cruelty.<\/em><\/span><\/p>\n

It is impossible for words more explicitly to illustrate and confirm the statement of the text;\u2014this \u201cking in his domain<\/em>\u201d \u201cleaves to subaltern tyrants<\/em><\/span>, gratuitous cruelty<\/em>,\u201d or as the text has it, \u201cHe is king over all the ferocious tribes<\/em>.\u201d<\/p>\n

\u05d1\u05b0\u05bc\u05e0\u05b5\u05d9 \u05e9\u05b7\u05c1\u05d7\u05b7\u05e5<\/span> (benei shakhats<\/span>),\u2014ferocious tribes<\/em>, i.e<\/em>., tribes of ferocious beasts, lit., sons of ferocity<\/em>. I <\/span>have elsewhere explained that \u05d1\u05b0\u05bc\u05e0\u05b5\u05d9<\/span> (benei<\/span>) may often signify tribes<\/em>. We have the same expression in ch. 28:8<\/a>. It is worthy of remark that probably the translators of the Chaldee and Sept. versions r<\/span>ead \u05d1\u05b0\u05bc\u05e0\u05b5\u05d9 \u05e9\u05b8\u05bd\u05c1\u05e8\u05b6\u05e5<\/span> (benei sharets<\/span>) reptile tribes<\/em>. This gives a good sense, and is approved of by Michaelis, Hufnagel, Moldenhauer, and Dathe, but it is not supported by MS. authority, nor is there an<\/span>y necessity for departing from the received text. The versions just noticed may here read \u05d1\u05b0\u05bc\u05e0\u05b5\u05d9 \u05e9\u05b8\u05c2\u05d7\u05d5\u05bc<\/span> (benei sakhou<\/span>) tribes of swimming<\/em>; two MSS. read \u05e9\u05d7<\/span> (skh<\/span>), probably the same word.<\/p>\n

\n
\n
\n

JOB 42<\/a><\/p>\n

1<\/a>. All translators and expositors of this book, on reaching this point, enter, no doubt, into the feelings which Schultens has so fully expressed, and which he compares to those of a mariner, w<\/span>ho having been long tossed among rocks and heavy seas is just entering port and is already shortening sail. \u201cPer maria, per fluctus, per scopulos, multum, diuque, jactati, portum jam non videmus sed tangimus. Eum ingressurus, vela tantum colligenda restant; et paucula digerenda; qu\u00e6 ad l\u00e6tissimum huncce exitum, et plane divinam rerum conversionem, spectant.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n

2<\/a>. Job now thoroughly convinced, and th<\/span>oroughly penitent, makes full confession of his ignorance and folly.<\/p>\n

\u05d9\u05b8\u05d3\u05b7\u05e2\u05b0\u05ea\u05b4\u05bc<\/span> (yadagneti<\/span>) for \u05d9\u05b8\u05d3\u05b7\u05e2\u05b0\u05ea\u05b4\u05bc\u05d9<\/span> (yadagneti<\/span>); for similar instances see Ps. 140:13<\/a>, and Ezek. 16:59<\/a>.<\/p>\n

And no design of thine can<\/em><\/span> be frustrated<\/em>,\u2014lit., And no design can be cut off from thee<\/em>: a natural consequence of the omnipotence ascribed to God in the previous clause.<\/p>\n

\u05de\u05b0\u05d6\u05b4\u05de\u05b8\u05bc\u05d4<\/span> (mezimmah<\/span>) usually, though not always, especiall<\/span>y signifies, an evil design<\/em>, if intended to be applied to God in that its general sense, it will mean God\u2019s purpose of inflicting evil<\/em> upon an individual or individuals: that purpose may be, and of co<\/span>urse always is, in itself most holy and just and good, but then it may not appear so in the eyes of the sufferer.<\/p>\n

3<\/a>. Who indeed is this, &c<\/em>. Job here cites what God had said in 38:2<\/a>, and makes the app<\/span>lication of it to himself; he acknowledges that he had indeed been guilty of what God had evidently, by implication, laid to his charge. The sense is,\u2014Did you ask, \u201cWho is this, who, without knowledge of the subject, is<\/span> endeavouring to throw a veil over the glory of my dispensations?\u201d I confess that I am that person, for I have indeed advanced opinions upon subjects which, I now see, were utterly beyond the scope of my limited understanding.<\/span><\/p>\n

It will be observed by reference to the passage in 38:2<\/a>, that Job does not cite what God had said with strictly verbal accuracy; this was not necessary; t<\/span>he sense, however, is the same.<\/p>\n

4<\/a>. Hear now, &c<\/em>. Some suppose that Job here quotes in spirit and substance some of his own words, as a proof that he had indeed spoken foolishly, and on matters beyond <\/span>the ken of his knowledge. The sayings of his own to which he alludes would in that case be in substance, in ch. 13:3<\/a>, and especially 22<\/a>, wherein he had presumptuously expressed a desire to argue with <\/span>God, and had actually called upon the Almighty to render a reason for the way in which he was dealing with him. It appears to me, however, that Job is rather citing the words which God had addressed to him in <\/span>38:3<\/a>, and 40:7<\/a>, and that he does it with this meaning,\u2014You have indeed twice called upon me to give a succinct reply to the questions you have put to me; my only reply is (v. 5<\/a> and 6<\/a>) that th<\/span>e sight of thee makes me repudiate all that I formerly advanced.<\/p>\n

The view more generally taken of this verse is, that it has no reference to anything that has been said before, and that Job now utters<\/span> it as the language of humility and submissiveness, and humbly seeks for further information from God. My objection to this is\u20141st. That Job does not ask God any particular question on which he requires information. 2nd. That on the supposed view, the first clause, \u201c<\/span>Hear, now, and I will speak<\/em>,\u201d would be the formula of an opening address, leading one to expect that that address was to be of some l<\/span>ength at least, whereas no such address does actually follow. 3rdly. That the words themselves would be too arrogant for Job to use in his present humbled state of mind. 4thly. That as v. 3<\/a> is manifes<\/span>tly a citation from 38:2<\/a>, and as the words in this present verse occur in 38:3<\/a>, they may reasonably be supposed to be a citation also; and 5thly. On the supposition of their being a citation, a more n<\/span>atural and at the same time a more pregnant sense is obtained.<\/p>\n

5<\/a>. I had heard of thee, &c<\/em>. I confess that when I uttered such foolish and intemperate speeches, taking you to task about your acts, &c.,<\/span> I had only an imperfect knowledge of thee; but now, that knowledge is increased as much as actual sight exceeds a mere report. Whether we understand this sight of God (of course the second person of the Holy Trinity) on the part of Job as bodily, or mental only, is of no consequence; it may have been the form<\/span>er; but if not, the latter would be equally real and vivid.<\/p>\n

6<\/a>. Job here states particular<\/span>ly what effect that sight of God which he now had produced upon him,\u2014thorough self-humiliation.<\/p>\n

I repudiate<\/em>,\u2014\u05de\u05b8\u05d0\u05b7\u05e1<\/span> (maas<\/span>), to reject with abhorrence<\/em>. Job means that he recanted what he had said, his f<\/span>ormer sentiments being now abominable in his eyes.<\/p>\n

In dust and ashes<\/em>,\u2014the usual outward marks in that age of deep sorrow, and often especially indicative of sorrow for sin\u2014Isa. 58:5<\/a>; Daniel 9:3<\/a>; Jonah<\/span> 3:6<\/a>; and Matt. 11:21<\/a>.<\/p>\n

7<\/a>. The Eternal said to Eliphaz, &c<\/em>. God addresses himself to Eliphaz particularly, perhaps because he had opened the controversy, or he may have been senior in years to the othe<\/span>rs, or God may have considered that graver guilt attached to the remarks he had made. Elihu is not mentioned; we may hence infer that the same amount of blame did not attach to him as to the others; he had certainly spoken with much asperity to Job, but had said nothing derogatory to God\u2019s glory, and it may be that the zeal for God\u2019s honour <\/span>which he had displayed, in some measure, excused the apparent want of temper and of charity with which he had judged of Job\u2019s speeches; whilst at the same time, that very offence against the rule of charity disqualified him from receiving that praise to which his zeal might otherwise have entitled him. God\u2019s silence may imply that, all circumstances considered, he was not particularly deserving either of censure or of praise.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

Ye have not spoken of me ar<\/em><\/span>ight, as hath my servant Job<\/em>. This of course is to be understood comparatively; Job had spoken intemperately in many respects; but then it may be urged in extenuation of this fault that he had done so<\/span> under great provocation and excitement; not only through his painful disease, but particularly through the bitter reproaches of his friends, who had argued from his afflictions that his former great pretensions to piety must have been purely hypocritical, and that, under the mask of religion, he was in reality a criminal of no ordinary stamp. To a good man, as Job was,<\/span> such accusations must have been deeply painful, and may certainly be pleaded, as excuses to some extent, for some of the rash sentiments which he uttered. No such excuse can be offered on behalf of Eliphaz and his companions; they were in the enjoyment of ease, and were not under the necessity of speaking in self-defence against base and false accusations. Besides which, perhaps partly through ignorance and perhaps partly because it suited their purpose, they <\/span><\/span><\/span>wrongly<\/em> contended that God, in his moral government of the world, afflicted none but the iniquitous, whereas Job rightly enough<\/em> vindicated the fact that the moral <\/span>Governor of the universe afflicts, as he pleases, both good and bad alike.<\/p>\n

8<\/a>. Seven bullocks, and seven rams<\/em>. Lee is right in asserting that this exact double offering was not prescribed under the Mos<\/span>aic law; that the passages referred to by Rosenm\u00fcller\u2014Lev. 23:18<\/a>, and Numb. 29:32<\/a>\u2014do not prove it; and that the fact of its having been occasionally offered, as in 1 Chron. 15:26<\/a>, and 2 Chron. 29:21<\/a>, <\/span>is no proof that it was commanded under that dispensation. The command here, therefore, seems rather to carry us back to patriarchal times, and when we find what we may suppose to have been a traditiona<\/span>l practice of this identical rite in heathen Moab (see Numb. 23:1<\/a>, 2<\/a>), it certainly becomes an argument in favor of the antiquity of this book. The same was practised in much later times. See Virg. <\/span>vi. 38:\u2014<\/p>\n

Nunc grege de intacto septem mactare juvencos<\/em><\/p>\n

Pr\u00e6stiterit, totidem lectas, de more, bidentes<\/em>.<\/p>\n

Go unto my servant Job<\/em>. As your officiating priest, and your mediator; he will present the offeri<\/span>ng which you bring, and he will intercede for you. Sacrificing and intercession were evidently sacerdotal functions even before the giving of the law. Job is here called God\u2019s servant<\/em> no less than thr<\/span>ee times, perhaps with reference to the sacerdotal office, and as a type of him who was to be in the truest sense God\u2019s servant, and who is often spoken of by the prophets under that designation.<\/p>\n

Shal<\/em><\/span>l pray for you<\/em>. Just so, the great High Priest of the Church prays even for those who have insulted and blasphemed Him.<\/p>\n

For him will I accept<\/em>. Him<\/em> emphatic,\u2014not you, but him<\/em>. The force of this is expr<\/span>essed by \u05db\u05b4\u05bc\u05d9 \u05d0\u05b4\u05dd<\/span> (chi im<\/span>).<\/p>\n

10<\/a>. Turned the captivity<\/em>. Probably a proverbial expression, signifying a delivery out of all misfortunes, and a restitution of former prosperity.<\/p>\n

And the Eternal gave Job t<\/em><\/span>wice as much as he had before<\/em>,\u2014lit., added all that had been to Job unto double<\/em>. In what way God did this, and whether immediately or by degrees, is neither possible nor necessary to determine.<\/p>\n

On beh<\/em><\/span>alf of his friends<\/em>,\u2014lit., on behalf of his friend, i.e<\/em>., each of them individually.<\/p>\n

11<\/a>. And there came to him all his brethren, &c<\/em>. The estrangement and unkind conduct of these had been one ingredient<\/span> in the cup of Job\u2019s misery: of this he bitterly complains in 19:13<\/a>, 14<\/a>. The change in their conduct, here described, must be attributed primarily to God, in whose power are all hearts. The removal of<\/span> Job\u2019s disease, the vindication of his character by God himself, and a general prosperous turn in his affairs, may have been secondary means by which the change of conduct was effected.<\/p>\n

One <\/em>kesitah<\/span> of<\/em><\/span> money<\/em>. \u05e7\u05b0\u05e9\u05b4\u05c2\u05d8\u05b8\u05d4 \u05d0\u05b6\u05d7\u05b8\u05ea<\/span> (kesitah ekhath<\/span>). What the <\/em>kesitah<\/span> really was is difficult positively to determine. The word occurs in Gen. 33:19<\/a>; Josh. 24:32<\/a> (which latter passage is no more than a reference <\/span>to the former); and also in this place. In these different instances it is rendered in the ancient versions sheep<\/em> and lamb<\/em>. Bochart has adduced six reasons to show that it cannot have that meaning, an<\/span>d that it must signify a piece of money. 1st. (I give his reasons as briefly as possible.) Wherever else in Scripture sheep or lambs are spoken of they are never called kesitah<\/span>; nor has the word any s<\/span>uch meaning in any of the Hebrew dialects, such as the Chaldee, the Syriac, the Samaritan, the \u00c6thiopic, or the Arabic. 2d. The Rabbinic expositors and lexicographers, with the exception of Aben Ezra, agree in translating <\/span>kesitah<\/span>, a piece of money<\/em>, and one of them, R. Akiba,*<\/a> mentions having met with a coin in Africa called kesitah<\/span>. 3dly. In the absence of authority for the Masoretic selection of <\/span>\u05e9\u05c2<\/span> (s<\/span>) instead of \u05e9\u05c1<\/span> (sh<\/span>) it may be assumed that the latter might have been preferable; in which case the word in question might fairly be considered as connected with the root \u05e7\u05b8\u05e9\u05b7\u05c1\u05d8<\/span> (kashat<\/span>),\u2014a word<\/span> containing the notion of truth<\/em>, and in the Chaldee often applied to true<\/em> measure in opposition to false, and which might therefore be supposed equally applicable to true coin<\/em> in opposition to what wa<\/span>s spurious. 4thly. Kesitah<\/span> being feminine, if the word means a lamb, it must be only a female and not a male lamb; but it is highly improbable that only ewe-lambs should have been the staple of Jacob\u2019<\/span>s purchase in the one case, or of the gift of Job\u2019s friends in the other. 5thly. Not only during, but long previously to, the time of Jacob, purchases were effected by actual money, either weighed or counted, and not by barter,\u2014as may be proved by the facts that Abraham had servants <\/span>bought with money<\/em> (Gen. 17:12<\/a>, 13<\/a>), that he bought the field of Ephron for four hundred shekels of silver, current w<\/em><\/span>ith the merchant<\/em> (23:16<\/a>), that Joseph was sold for twenty<\/em> [pieces<\/em>] of silver<\/em> (37:28<\/a>), that Joseph\u2019s brethren purchased corn for money in full weight<\/em> (43:21<\/a>), and that at the same period of time the Eg<\/span>yptians bought corn for money<\/em>, and it was only when money failed<\/em> that they were permitted by Joseph to barter (47:14\u201316<\/a>). And, 6thly, Acts 7:16<\/a> probably refers to the transaction recorded in Gen. 33:1<\/span>9<\/a> and Josh. 24:32<\/a>; and if so, the hundred kesitahs paid by Jacob are called a sum of money<\/em>, \u03c4\u03b9\u03bc\u1fc6\u03c2 \u1f00\u03c1\u03b3\u03c5\u03c1\u03b9\u03cc\u03c5<\/span>. I consider the above arguments of Bochart, of which I have given the substance, so far co<\/span>nclusive as to decide that the kesitah was strictly a piece of money<\/em>, and not an actual lamb<\/em>: at the same time considerable deference is due to the authority of the ancient versions which agree in tra<\/span>nslating kesitah by sheep<\/em> or lamb<\/em>. It strikes me that the two opinions are easily reconcileable by the supposition, not (as has been surmised) that the kesitah was a coin stamped with the image of a l<\/span>amb, for it is almost certain that stamped money<\/em> was not in use at so early a period as that of Jacob, but that the kesitah<\/span> was a particular weight, resembling in form that of a lamb<\/em>. That it was a we<\/span>ight I consider probable from the Arabic root \u05e7\u05e1\u05d8<\/span> (kasat<\/span>), which means to measure out equally<\/em>, and also a pair of scales<\/em>; and that the weight in question was in the form of a lamb I deem further proba<\/span>ble from the fact that weights of that form<\/em> were in use amongst the ancient Egyptians, and were used for the purpose of weighing money<\/em>. (See the Illustrations<\/a>.) I conceive then that the kesitah<\/span> repres<\/span>ented a sum of money, of one or more pieces (rings) of silver or of gold (most probably silver<\/em>, as the ring of gold is mentioned here in the next clause; compare also the expression \u03c4\u03b9\u03bc\u1fc6\u03c2 \u1f00\u03c1\u03b3\u03c5\u03c1\u03b9\u03cc\u03c5<\/span> <\/span>in Acts 7:16<\/a>), which was equivalent in weight to a particular weight of that name, and which had the resemblance of a lamb. According to the illustration, three rings of a particular money made one ke<\/span>sitah. In further confirmation of the above view, I would observe that the Egyptians used weights in the form also of bulls\u2019 heads<\/em>, and of lions<\/em> and other animals. Weights of lions<\/em> and ducks<\/em> have also<\/span> been discovered at Nineveh, with inscriptions upon them specifying their weight. I conceive that the Latin pecunia<\/em> (money), derived from pecus<\/em> (cattle), is so derived, not from its having been stampe<\/span>d with the effigies of cattle, but from its having been weighed with the kind of weights above-mentioned.<\/p>\n

One ring of gold<\/em>. \u05e0\u05b6\u05d6\u05b6\u05dd \u05d6\u05b8\u05d4\u05b8\u05d1<\/span> (nezem zahav<\/span>). Money was at this time in the form of rings. (See<\/span> the Illustrations<\/a>.)<\/p>\n

12<\/a>. There is nothing worthy of remark here except that Job\u2019s farm property is described here as being exactly the double of what it was previously to his calamities. (1:3<\/a>.) (See t<\/span>he Illustrations<\/a> on that chapter and verse.)<\/p>\n

13<\/a>. The same number as before. Whether these were by a first or second wife it is, of course, impossible to ascertain. \u05e9\u05b4\u05c1\u05d1\u05b0\u05e2\u05b8\u05e0\u05b8\u05d4<\/span> (shivgnanah<\/span>) occurs in th<\/span>is form nowhere else. Ewald takes it to mean a seven<\/em>, just as we say a dozen. (Umbreit.) Jarehi ridiculously thinks it may mean twice seven<\/em>. His desire to make out that Job now had double the number o<\/span>f his former sons is evidently father to the idea. I have seen or heard it somewhere noticed (though I forget where) that the reason why Job\u2019s second family of children were not double the number of his first family is, because the children of the first family,<\/span> though dead, were not really lost to him,\u2014though in another world, they were his still. The idea is very beautiful, and by no means improbable.<\/span><\/p>\n

14<\/a>. Jemima<\/span>, \u05d9\u05b0\u05de\u05b4\u05d9\u05de\u05b8\u05d4<\/span> (yemimah<\/span>),\u2014i.e., day-like<\/em>; and so corresponding, perhaps, to the Latin Diana<\/em>. Or it may mean a dove<\/em>.<\/p>\n

Kezia<\/span>,\u2014or cassia<\/span>. An Oriental perfume.<\/p>\n

Keren-happuch<\/span>. Horn of stibium<\/em>. N<\/span>ames similar to these are familiar to readers of the \u201cArabian Nights\u2019 Entertainments,\u201d and they are common to this day in the East.<\/p>\n

15<\/a>. And there were not found<\/em>,\u2014lit., there was not found<\/em>; the sense b<\/span>eing, No such thing was found as women beautiful as, &c., &c<\/em>.<\/p>\n

Their father gave them inheritance among their brethren<\/em>. The following extract from Forster\u2019s \u201cGeography of Arabia\u201d is so excellent and ap<\/span>posite that I cannot forbear transcribing it. Vol. ii., page 66:\u2014\u201cNor are the scriptural indications of that first of patriarchal blessings, a numerous posterity, confined to the sons of Job: as in the analogous cases of Sarah, Hagar, and Keturah, the blessing is extended to his dau<\/span>ghters; and most remarkably; since, while his seven sons are left unnamed<\/em>, his three daughters are specially distingu<\/span>ished by name<\/em>, as co-heirs with their brethren. The distinction here (at once so marked and unexpected), the significancy of Scripture language taken into account, we well may rest assured is not with<\/span>out a difference. And the difference which most naturally suggests itself is plainly this\u2014that the daughters of Job should not only become the mothers of nations, but that they should \u201ccall the lands after their own names.\u201d Whether the names of Job\u2019s younger daughters may still live\u2014that of <\/span>Kezia<\/span> in the Kiss\u00e6i<\/em> and Kissia<\/span> of Ptolemy, a people and province east of the Euphrates and Tigris, or in the<\/span> modern Khuzistan<\/span>, or else in Kazuan<\/span>, and the Kassanit\u00e6<\/em>,*<\/a> on the coast of Hedjaz; and that of Keren Happuch<\/span> in the town of Korna<\/span> and people of the Abuc\u00e6i<\/em>,\u2020<\/a> at the head of the Persian Gulf\u2014I will not u<\/span>ndertake to determine. But the name of the eldest daughter, Jemima<\/span>, stands so accurately represented by that of Jemima<\/span> or Jemama<\/span>, the central province of the Arabian peninsula, that (the known origin <\/span>of most names of localities in Arabia considered) the evidence of the probable derivation would be good, did it rest on the coincidence of name alone. In the instance of the province of Jemama, however, it so fortunately happens, we possess the wholly independent evidence<\/span> of native tradition as to the territorial appellation having had its origin in a female proper name<\/em>. The historical fact, that <\/span>some kingdoms of Arabia were anciently governed by female sovereigns, is familiar to all. The province of Jemama<\/span> is specially mentioned by the Arabs themselves as an example in point; and (without the<\/span> most distant reference to the daughter of Job) an Arab tradition of immemorial standing has preserved and handed down to us the further fact, that this province originally derived its name, Jemama<\/span> (o<\/span>r \u2018the dove<\/em>\u2019), from Queen Jemama<\/em>, the first sovereign of the land. That this ancient Arab Queen was no other than Jemima, the eldest daughter of Job, is a conclusion so natural in itself, so conformab<\/span>le with the analogy of the patriarchal blessings, and so confirmed by the ascertained existence, in or near the land of Uz, of a people named the Agubeni, Beni Ayub<\/span>, or sons of Job<\/em>, as (in the judgmen<\/span>t, at least, of the present writer) to shed a pleasing light upon the crowning blessings with which, in the Book of Job, God was pleased to reward the faith, the patience, and the \u2018good old age\u2019 of the Patriarch of Uz.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n

16<\/a>. Job lived after this a hundred and forty years<\/em>. As we do not know how old he was when his affliction came upon him, we cannot precisely determine the age at which he died; but <\/span>as he had, previously to his affliction, a family of ten children, all grown-up, he could not have been less than sixty or seventy years. And as in other respects God gave him twice, as much as he had before, so perhaps also in this. The half, then, of one hundred and forty gives us seventy, and the two periods united make two h<\/span>undred and ten\u2014an age which unquestionably places Job in patriarchal times.<\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

 <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

JOB 23 2. \u05de\u05b0\u05e8\u05b4\u05d9 (meri). The ordinary meaning of this word is rebellion, from the root \u05de\u05b8\u05e8\u05b8\u05d4 (marah). Some, however, think that, in this instance, the sense requires that we should take \u05de\u05b8\u05e8\u05b8\u05d4 (marah) as equivalent to \u05de\u05b8\u05e8\u05b7\u05e8 (marar), to be bitter. There is certainly a similar instance in 2 Kings 14:26, where the form … <\/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-169","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\/169","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=169"}],"version-history":[{"count":3,"href":"http:\/\/buch.jehovah-shammah.de\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/169\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":173,"href":"http:\/\/buch.jehovah-shammah.de\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/169\/revisions\/173"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/buch.jehovah-shammah.de\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=169"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/buch.jehovah-shammah.de\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=169"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/buch.jehovah-shammah.de\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=169"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}