The present translation reads with the LXX וְהִלְבִּישׁוֹ ( vÿhilbisho , “and he will clothe him”) rather than the reading of the MT וְהִלְבִּישׁוּ ( vÿhilbishu , “and they will clothe”). The reading of the LXX is also followed by NAB, NRSV, TEV, CEV, and NLT. Likewise, the later verbs in this verse (“cause him to ride” and “call”) are better taken as singulars rather than plurals.


Heb “and let them call” (see the previous note).


Heb “do not let fall”; NASB “do not fall short.”


Part of the Greek tradition and the Syriac Peshitta understand this word as “friends,” probably reading the Hebrew term רֲכָמָיו ( rakhamayv , “his friends”) rather than the reading of the MT חֲכָמָיו ( hakhamayv , “his wise men”). Cf. NLT “all his friends”; the two readings appear to be conflated by TEV as “those wise friends of his.”


Heb “from the seed of the Jews”; KJV, ASV similar.


Heb “to drink”; NASB “to drink wine.” The expression is a metaphor for lavish feasting, cf. NRSV “to feast”; KJV “to banquet.”


Heb “If I have found grace in your eyes” (so also in 8:5 ); TEV “If it please Your Majesty.”


The second occurrence of the Hebrew verb וַיּאמֶר ( vayyo ’ mer , “and he said”) in the MT should probably be disregarded. The repetition is unnecessary in the context and may be the result of dittography in the MT.


Heb “has so filled his heart”; NAB “who has dared to do this.”


Heb “for he saw that calamity was determined for him from the king”; NAB “the king had decided on his doom”; NRSV “the king had determined to destroy him.”


Heb “falling”; NAB, NRSV “had (+ just TEV) thrown himself (+ down TEV).”


Heb “where Esther was” (so KJV, NASB). The term “lying” has been supplied in the translation for stylistic reasons; cf. NAB, NIV, NRSV, NLT “was reclining.”


Heb “fifty cubits.” See the note on this expression in Esth 5:14 .


Heb “house” (so NAB, NASB, NRSV; also in vv. 2, 7 ). Cf. TEV “all the property.”


Heb “Esther.” The pronoun (“she”) was used in the translation for stylistic reasons. A repetition of the proper name is redundant here in terms of contemporary English style.


The LXX does not include the expression “the Agagite.”


Heb “my kindred” (so KJV, NASB, NRSV); NAB “my race”; NIV “my family”; NLT “my people and my family.”


Heb “sent forth his hand”; NAB, NIV “attacked”; NLT “tried to destroy.” Cf. 9:2 .


Heb “in that time”; NIV “At once.”


Heb “it was written”; this passive construction has been converted to an active one in the translation for clarity and for stylistic reasons.


Heb “Cush” (so NIV), referring to the region of the upper Nile in Africa. Cf. KJV and most other English versions “Ethiopia.”


Heb “He”; the referent (Mordecai) has been specified in the translation for clarity.


Heb “children and women.” As in 3:13 , the translation follows contemporary English idiom, which reverses the order.


Heb “this” (so NASB); most English versions read “that” here for stylistic reasons.


Heb “making haste and hurrying”; KJV, ASV “being hastened and pressed.”


Heb “shouted and rejoiced.” The expression is a hendiadys (see the note on 5:10 for an explanation of this figure).


Heb “light and gladness and joy and honor” (so NASB). The present translation understands the four terms to be a double hendiadys.


Heb “peoples of the land” (so NASB); NIV “people of other nationalities”; NRSV “peoples of the country.”


Heb “were becoming Jews”; NAB “embraced Judaism.” However, the Hitpael stem of the verb is sometimes used of a feigning action rather than a genuine one (see, e.g., 2 Sam 13:5, 6 ), which is the way the present translation understands the use of the word here (cf. NEB “professed themselves Jews”; NRSV “professed to be Jews”). This is the only occurrence of this verb in the Hebrew Bible, so there are no exact parallels. However, in the context of v. 17 the motivation of their conversion ( Heb “the fear of the Jews had fallen upon them”) should not be overlooked. The LXX apparently understood the conversion described here to be genuine, since it adds the words “they were being circumcised and” before “they became Jews.”


Heb “had fallen upon them” (so NRSV); NIV “had seized them.”


Heb “great”; NRSV “powerful”; NIV “prominent”; NCV “very important.”


Heb “the man Mordecai” (so NASB, NRSV).


For this number much of the Greek MS tradition reads “fifteen thousand.” The Lucianic Greek recension reads “70,100.”


Heb “he”; the referent (the king) has been specified in the translation for clarity.


Heb “his”; the referent (Haman) has been specified in the translation for clarity.


The LXX and the Syriac Peshitta omit the word “second.”


The present translation is based on the Niphal form וַיּשָּׁלַח ( vayyishalakh , “were sent”; so also NRSV, TEV, CEV, NLT) rather than the reading of the MT וַיּשְׁלַח ( vayyishlakh , Qal, “and he sent”). The subject of the MT verb would have to be Mordecai (cf. NAB, NIV, NCV), but this is problematic in light of v. 29 , where both Esther and Mordecai are responsible for the letters.


Heb “peace and truth.” The expression is probably a hendiadys (see the note on 5:10 for an explanation of this figure).


Heb “written in the book” (so NASB); NIV, NLT “written down in the records”; NRSV “recorded in writing.”


Heb “great among the Jews” (so KJV, NASB); NIV “preeminent among the Jews”; NRSV “powerful among the Jews.”


Heb “brothers”; NASB “kinsmen”; NIV “fellow Jews.”


Heb “he was seeking”; NAB “as the promoter of his people’s welfare.”


Heb “he was speaking peace to”; NRSV “and interceded for the welfare of.”


The Hebrew construction is literally “a man was,” using אִישׁ הָיָה (’ ish hayah ) rather than a preterite first. This simply begins the narrative.


In Hebrew the defining relative clause (“whose name was Job”) is actually an asyndetic verbless noun-clause placed in apposition to the substantive (“a man”); see GKC 486 §155. e .


The word תָּם ( tam ) has been translated “perfect” (so KJV, ASV). The verbal root תָּמַם ( tamam ) means “to be blameless, complete.” The word is found in Gen 25:27 where it describes Jacob as “even-tempered.” It also occurs in Ps 64:5 ( 64:4 ET) and Prov 29:10 . The meaning is that a person or a thing is complete, perfect, flawless. It does not mean that he was sinless, but that he was wholeheartedly trying to please God, that he had integrity and was blameless before God.


The word יָשָׁר ( yashar , “upright”) is complementary to “blameless.” The idea is “upright, just,” and applies to his relationships with others ( Ps 37:37 and 25:21 ).


The verb begins the sentence: “and there were born.” This use of the preterite with vav ( ו ) consecutive, especially after the verb הָיָה ( hayah , “to be”), is explanatory: there was a man…and there was born to him…” ( IBHS 551-52 §33.2.2b).


The word means “cattle, livestock, possessions” (see also Gen 26:14 ). Here it includes the livestock, but also the entire substance of his household.


Or “amounted to,” “totaled.” The preterite of הָיָה ( hayah , “to be”) is sometimes employed to introduce a total amount or an inventory (see Exod 1:5 ; Num 3:43 ).


The word עֲבֻדָּה (’ avuddah , “service of household servants”) indicates that he had a very large body of servants, meaning a very large household.


Heb “and that man.”


The expression is literally “sons of the east.” The use of the genitive after “sons” in this construction may emphasize their nature (like “sons of belial”); it would refer to them as easterners (like “sons of the south” in contemporary American English). BDB 869 s.v. קֶדֶם says “dwellers in the east.”


The perfect verb with the ו ( vav ), וְהָלְכוּ ( vÿhalÿkhu , “they went”) indicates their characteristic action, actions that were frequently repeated (GKC 335-36 §112. dd ).


Heb “make a feast.”


The sense is cryptic; it literally says “house – a man – his day.” The word “house” is an adverbial accusative of place: “in the house.” “Man” is the genitive; it also has a distributive sense: “in the house of each man.” And “his day” is an adverbial accusative: “on his day.” The point is that they feasted every day of the week in rotation.


The use of קָרָא ( qara ’, “to call, invite”) followed by the ל ( lamed ) usually has the force of “to summon.” Here the meaning would not be so commanding, but would refer to an invitation (see also 1 Kgs 1:19, 25, 26 ).


Normally cardinal numerals tend to disagree in gender with the numbered noun. In v. 2 “three daughters” consists of the masculine numeral followed by the feminine noun. However, here “three sisters” consists of the feminine numeral followed by the feminine noun. The distinction appears to be that the normal disagreement between numeral and noun when the intent is merely to fix the number (3 daughters as opposed to 2 or 4 daughters). However, when a particular, previously known group is indicated, the numeral tends to agree with the noun in gender. A similar case occurs in Gen 3:13 (“three wives” of Noah’s sons).


The verse begins with the temporal indicator “and it happened” or “and it came to pass,” which need not be translated. The particle כִּי ( ki , “when”) with the initial verbal form indicates it is a temporal clause.


The verb is the Hiphil perfect of נָקַף ( naqaf , “go around”), here it means “to make the round” or “complete the circuit” (BDB 668-69 s.v. II נָקַף Hiph). It indicates that when the feasting had made its circuit of the seven sons, then Job would sanctify them.


The form is a preterite with vav ( ו ) consecutive. The same emphasis on repeated or frequent action continues here in this verse. The idea here is that Job would send for them , because the sanctification of them would have consisted of washings and changes of garments as well as the sacrifices (see Gen 35:2 ; 1 Sam 16:5 ).


Or “purify.”


The first verb could also be joined with the next to form a verbal hendiadys: “he would rise early and he would sacrifice” would then simply be “he would sacrifice early in the morning” (see M. Delcor, “Quelques cas de survivances du vocabulaire nomade en hébreu biblique,” VT 25 [1975]: 307-22). This section serves to explain in more detail how Job sanctified his children. sn In the patriarchal society it was normal for the father to act as priest for the family, making the sacrifices as needed. Job here is exceptional in his devotion to the duty. The passage shows the balance between the greatest earthly rejoicing by the family, and the deepest piety and affection of the father.


The text does not have “according to”; the noun “number” is an accusative that defines the extent of his actions (GKC 373-74 §118. e , h ).


The clause stands as an accusative to the verb, here as the direct object introduced with “perhaps” ( IBHS 645-46 §38.8d).


Heb “sons,” but since the three daughters are specifically mentioned in v. 4 , “children” has been used in the translation. In this patriarchal culture, however, it is possible that only the sons are in view.


The Hebrew verb is בָּרַךְ ( barakh ), which means “to bless.” Here is a case where the writer or a scribe has substituted the word “curse” with the word “bless” to avoid having the expression “curse God.” For similar euphemisms in the ancient world, see K. A. Kitchen, Ancient Orient and Old Testament , 166. It is therefore difficult to know exactly what Job feared they might have done. The opposite of “bless” would be “curse,” which normally would convey disowning or removing from blessing. Some commentators try to offer a definition of “curse” from the root in the text, and noting that “curse” is too strong, come to something like “renounce.” The idea of blaspheming is probably not meant; rather, in their festivities they may have said things that renounced God or their interest in him. Job feared this momentary turning away from God in their festivities, perhaps as they thought their good life was more important than their religion.


The imperfect expresses continual action in past time, i.e., a customary imperfect (GKC 315 §107. e ).


The beginning Hebrew expression “and there was – the day” indicates that “there came a day when” or more simply “the day came when.” It emphasizes the particular day. The succeeding clause is then introduced with a preterite with the with vav ( ו ) consecutive (see E. Dhorme, Job , 5).


The preposition עַל (’ al ) in this construction after a verb of standing or going means “before” (GKC 383 §119. cc ).


The imperfect may be classified as progressive imperfect; it indicates action that although just completed is regarded as still lasting into the present (GKC 316 §107. h ).


Heb “answered the Lord and said” (also in v. 9 ). The words “and said” here and in v. 9 have not been included in the translation for stylistic reasons.


The verb שׁוּט ( shut ) means “to go or rove about” (BDB 1001-2 s.v.). Here the infinitive construct serves as the object of the preposition.


The Hitpael (here also an infinitive construct after the preposition) of the verb הָלַךְ ( halakh ) means “to walk to and fro, back and forth, with the sense of investigating or reconnoitering (see e.g. Gen 13:17 ). sn As the words are spoken by Satan, there is no self-condemnation in them. What they signify is the swiftness and thoroughness of his investigation of humans. The good angels are said to go to and fro in the earth on behalf of the suffering righteous ( Zech 1:10, 11; 6:7 ), but Satan goes seeking whom he may devour ( 1 Pet 5:8 ).


The Hebrew has “have you placed your heart on Job?” This means “direct your mind to” (cf. BDB 963 s.v. I שׂוּם 2.b). sn The question is undoubtedly rhetorical, for it is designed to make Satan aware of Job as God extols his fine qualities.


The Hebrew conjunction כִּי ( ki ) need not be translated in this case or it might be taken as emphatic (cf. IBHS 665 §39.3.4e): “Certainly there is no one like him.”


The same expressions that appeared at the beginning of the chapter appear here in the words of God. In contrast to that narrative report about Job, the emphasis here is on Job’s present character, and so the participle form is translated here asa gnomic or characteristic present (“turns”). It modifies “man” as one who is turning from evil.


The Hebrew form has the interrogative ה ( he ) on the adverb חִנָּם ( khinnam , “gratis”), a derivative either of the verb חָנַן ( khanan , “to be gracious, show favor”), or its related noun חֵן ( khen , “grace, favor”). The adverb has the sense of “free; gratis; gratuitously; for nothing; for no reason” (see BDB 336 s.v. חִנָּם ). The idea is that Satan does not disagree that Job is pious, but that Job is loyal to God because of what he receives from God. He will test the sincerity of Job.


The use of the independent personal pronoun here emphasizes the subject of the verb: “Have you not put up a hedge.”


The verb שׂוּךְ ( sukh ) means “to hedge or fence up, about” something (BDB 962 s.v. I שׂוּךְ ). The original idea seems to have been to surround with a wall of thorns for the purpose of protection (E. Dhorme, Job , 7). The verb is an implied comparison between making a hedge and protecting someone.


Or “substance.” The herds of livestock may be taken by metonymy of part for whole to represent possessions or prosperity in general.


The verb פָּרַץ ( parats ) means “to break through.” It has the sense of abundant increase, as in breaking out, overflowing (see also Gen 30:30 and Exod 1:12 ).


The particle אוּלָם (’ ulam , “but”) serves to restrict the clause in relation to the preceding clause ( IBHS 671-73 §39.3.5e, n. 107).


The force of the imperatives in this sentence are almost conditional – if God were to do this, then surely Job would respond differently. sn The two imperatives (“stretch out” and “strike”) and the word “hand” all form a bold anthropomorphic sentence. It is as if God would deliver a blow to Job with his fist. But the intended meaning is that God would intervene to destroy Job’s material and physical prosperity.


See the comments on Job 1:5 . Here too the idea of “renounce” may fit well enough; but the idea of actually cursing God may not be out of the picture if everything Job has is removed. Satan thinks he will denounce God.


The particle הִנֵּה ( hinneh , “behold”) introduces a foundational clause upon which the following volitional clause is based.


The versions add a verb here: “delivered to” or “abandoned to” the hand of Satan.


Heb “in your hand.” The idiom means that it is now Satan’s to do with as he pleases.


The Hebrew word order emphatically holds out Job’s person as the exception: “only upon him do not stretch forth your hand.”


The Targum to Job adds “with permission” to show that he was granted leave from God’s presence.


The Targum to Job clarifies that it was the first day of the week. The fact that it was in the house of the firstborn is the reason.


The use of the verb “to be” with the participle gives emphasis to the continuing of the action in the past (GKC 360 §116. r ).


The LXX has “the spoilers spoiled them” instead of “the Sabeans swooped down.” The translators might have connected the word to שְָׁבָה ( shavah , “to take captive”) rather than שְׁבָא ( shÿva ’, “Sabeans”), or they may have understood the name as general reference to all types of Bedouin invaders from southern Arabia ( HALOT 1381 s.v. שְׁבָא 2.c). sn The name “Sheba” is used to represent its inhabitants, or some of them. The verb is feminine because the name is a place name. The Sabeans were a tribe from the Arabian peninsula. They were traders mostly ( 6:19 ). The raid came from the south, suggesting that this band of Sabeans were near Edom. The time of the attack seems to be winter since the oxen were plowing.


The Hebrew is simply “fell” (from נָפַל , nafal ). To “fall upon” something in war means to attack quickly and suddenly.


Heb “the edge/mouth of the sword”; see T. J. Meek, “Archaeology and a Point of Hebrew Syntax,” BASOR 122 (1951): 31-33.


The pleonasms in the verse emphasize the emotional excitement of the messenger.


The particle עוֹד (’ od , “still”) is used with the participle to express the past circumstances when something else happened ( IBHS 625-26 §37.6d).


The Hebrew expression is literally “yet/this/speaking/and this/ arrived.” The sentence uses the two demonstratives as a contrasting pair. It means “this one was still speaking when that one arrived” ( IBHS 308-9 §17.3c). The word “messenger” has been supplied in the translation in vv. 16, 17, and 18 for clarity and for stylistic reasons.


Or “from the sky.” The Hebrew word שָׁמַיִם ( shamayim ) may be translated “heaven[s]” or “sky” depending on the context.


The verb פָּשַׁט ( pashat ) means “to hurl themselves” upon something (see Judg 9:33, 41 ). It was a quick, plundering raid to carry off the camels.


Heb “with the edge/mouth of the sword.”


The use of the particle הִנֵּה ( hinneh , “behold”) in this sentence is deictic, pointing out with excitement the events that happened as if the listener was there.


The word מֵעֵבֶר ( me ’ ever ) is simply “from the direction of”; the word עֵבֶר (’ ever ) indicates the area the whirlwind came across.


The verb וַיָּקָם ( vayyaqom , “and he arose”) indicates the intentionality and the rapidity of the actions to follow. It signals the beginning of his response to the terrible news. Therefore, the sentence could be translated, “Then Job immediately began to tear his robe.”


wah ,” OTS (1977): 41-55.


The adjective “naked” is functioning here as an adverbial accusative of state, explicative of the state of the subject. While it does include the literal sense of nakedness at birth, Job is also using it symbolically to mean “without possessions.”


The two verbs are simple perfects. (1) They can be given the nuance of gnomic imperfect, expressing what the sovereign God always does. This is the approach taken in the present translation. Alternatively (2) they could be referring specifically to Job’s own experience: “Yahweh gave [definite past, referring to his coming into this good life] and Yahweh has taken away” [present perfect, referring to his great losses]. Many English versions follow the second alternative.


The last clause is difficult to translate. It simply reads, “and he did not give unseemliness to God.” The word תִּפְלָה ( tiflah ) means “unsavoriness” or “unseemliness” in a moral sense. The sense is that Job did not charge God with any moral impropriety in his dealings with him. God did nothing worthless or tasteless. The ancient versions saw the word connected with “foolishness” or “stupidity” ( תָּפֵל , tafel , “to be tasteless”). It is possible that “folly” would capture some of what Job meant here. See also M. Dahood, “Hebrew-Ugaritic Lexicography XII,” Bib 55 (1974): 381-93.


This last purpose clause has been omitted in some Greek versions.


Heb “answered the Lord and said” (also in v. 4 ). The words “and said” here and in v. 9 have not been included in the translation for stylistic reasons.


See the note on this phrase in 1:7 .


The form is the Hiphil participle, “make strong, seize, hold fast.” It is the verbal use here; joined with עֹדֶנּוּ (’ odennu , “yet he”) it emphasizes that “he is still holding firmly.” The testing has simply strengthened Job in his integrity.


This is the same word used to describe Job as “blameless, pure.” Here it carries the idea of “integrity”; Job remained blameless, perfect.


The vav ( ו ) with the preterite is used here to express the logical conclusion or consequence of what was stated previously. God is saying that Job has maintained his integrity, so that now it is clear that Satan moved against him groundlessly (GKC 328 §111. l ).


The verb literally means “to swallow”; it forms an implied comparison in the line, indicating the desire of Satan to ruin him completely. See A Guillaume, “A Note on the Root bala` ,” JTS 13 (1962): 320-23; and N. M. Sarna, “Epic Substratum in the Prose of Job,” JBL 76 (1957): 13-25, for a discussion of the Ugaritic deity Mot swallowing up the enemy.


The form is the simply preterite with the vav ( ו ) consecutive. However, the speech of Satan is in contrast to what God said, even though in narrative sequence.


The preposition בְּעַד ( bÿ ’ ad ) designates interest or advantage arising from the idea of protection for (“for the benefit of”); see IBHS 201-2 §11.2.7a.


The LXX has “make full payment, pay a full price” (LSJ 522 s.v. ἐκτίνω ).


Heb “Indeed, all that a man has he will give for his life.”


The particle הִנּוֹ ( hinno ) is literally, “here he is!” God presents Job to Satan, with the restriction on preserving Job’s life.


The LXX has “I deliver him up to you.”


Heb “hand.”


The verb is נָכָה ( nakhah , “struck, smote”); it can be rendered in this context as “afflicted.”


Heb “crown.”


The verb גָּרַד ( garad ) is a hapax legomenon (only occurring here). Modern Hebrew has retained a meaning “to scrape,” which is what the cognate Syriac and Arabic indicate. In the Hitpael it would mean “scrape himself.”


The construction uses the disjunctive vav ( ו ) with the independent pronoun with the active participle. The construction connects this clause with what has just been said, making this a circumstantial clause.


The versions have some information here that is interesting, albeit fanciful. The Targum calls her “Dinah.” The LXX has “when a long time had passed.” But the whole rendering of the LXX is paraphrastic: “How long will you hold out, saying, ‘Behold, I wait yet a little while, expecting the hope of my deliverance?’ for behold, your memorial is abolished from the earth, even your sons and daughters, the pangs and pains of my womb which I bore in vain with sorrows, and you yourself sit down to spend the night in the open air among the corruption of worms, and I am a wanderer and a servant from place to place and house to house, waiting for the setting sun, that I may rest from my labors and pains that now beset me, but say some word against the Lord and die.”


The verb is literally בָּרַךְ , ( barakh , “bless”). As in the earlier uses, the meaning probably has more to do with renouncing God than of speaking a curse. The actual word may be taken as a theological euphemism for the verb קִלֵּל ( qillel , “curse”). If Job’s wife had meant that he was trying to justify himself rather than God, “bless God” might be translated “speak well of God,” the resolution accepted by God in 42:7-8 following Job’s double confession of having spoken wrongly of God ( 40:3-5; 42:1-6 ). sn The church fathers were quick to see here again the role of the wife in the temptation – she acts as the intermediary between Satan and Job, pressing the cause for him. However, Job’s wife has been demonized falsely. Job did not say that she was a foolish woman, only that she was speaking like one of them ( 2:10 ). Also, Job did not exclude her from sharing in his suffering (“should we receive”). He evidently recognized that her words were the result of her personal loss and pain as well as the desire to see her husband’s suffering ended. When God gave instructions for the restoration of Job’s friends because of their foolish words ( 42:7-9 ), no mention is made of any need for Job’s wife to be restored.


The imperative with the conjunction in this expression serves to express the certainty that will follow as the result or consequence of the previous imperative (GKC 324-25 §110. f ).


Heb “he said to her.”


The word “foolish” ( נָבָל , naval ) has to do with godlessness more than silliness ( Ps 14:1 ). To be foolish in this sense is to deny the nature and the work of God in life its proper place. See A. Phillips, “NEBALA – A Term for Serious Disorderly Unruly Conduct,” VT 25 (1975): 237-41; and W. M. W. Roth, “NBL,” VT 10 (1960): 394-409.


The verb קִבֵּל ( qibbel ) means “to accept, receive.” It is attested in the Amarna letters with the meaning “receive meekly, patiently.”


The adverb גָּם ( gam , “also, even”) is placed here before the first clause, but belongs with the second. It intensifies the idea (see GKC 483 §153). See also C. J. Labuschagne, “The Emphasizing Particle GAM and Its Connotations,” Studia Biblica et Semitica , 193-203.


The two verbs in this sentence, Piel imperfects, are deliberative imperfects; they express the reasoning or deliberating in the interrogative sentences.


A question need not be introduced by an interrogative particle or adverb. The natural emphasis on the words is enough to indicate it is a question (GKC 473 §150. a ). sn The Hebrew words טוֹב ( tov , “good”) and רַע ( ra ’, “evil”) have to do with what affects life. That which is good benefits people because it produces, promotes and protects life; that which is evil brings calamity and disaster, it harms, pains, or destroys life.


Heb “sin with his lips,” an idiom meaning he did not sin by what he said.


Heb “a man from his place”; this is the distributive use, meaning “each man came from his place.”


The verb can mean that they “agreed together”; but it also (and more likely) means that they came together at a meeting point to go visit Job together.


The verb “to show grief” is נוּד ( nud ), and literally signifies “to shake the head.” It may be that his friends came to show the proper sympathy and express the appropriate feelings. They were not ready for what they found.


Heb “they lifted up their eyes.” The idiom “to lift up the eyes” (or “to lift up the voice”) is intended to show a special intensity in the effort. Here it would indicate that they were trying to see Job from a great distance away.


The Hiphil perfect here should take the nuance of potential perfect – they were not able to recognize him. In other words, this does not mean that they did not know it was Job, only that he did not look anything like the Job they knew.


Heb “they tossed dust skyward over their heads.”


The word כְּאֵב ( kÿ ’ ev ) means “pain” – both mental and physical pain. The translation of “grief” captures only part of its emphasis.


The verb “cursed” is the Piel preterite from the verb קָלַל ( qalal ); this means “to be light” in the Qal stem, but here “to treat lightly, with contempt, curse.” See in general H. C. Brichto, The Problem of “ Curse ” in the Hebrew Bible (JBLMS); and A. C. Thiselton, “The Supposed Power of Words in the Biblical Writings,” JTS 25 (1974): 283-99.


The text has וַיַּעַן ( vayya ’ an ), literally, “and he answered.” The LXX simply has “saying” for the entire verse. The Syriac, Targum, and Greek A have what the MT has. “[Someone] answered and said” is phraseology characteristic of all the speeches in Job beginning with Satan in 1:9 . Only in 40:1 is it employed when God is speaking. No other portion of the OT employs this phraseology as often or as consistently.


The relative clause is carried by the preposition with the resumptive pronoun: “the day [which] I was born in it ” meaning “the day on which I was born” (see GKC 486-88 §155. f , i ).


The verb is the Niphal imperfect. It may be interpreted in this dependent clause (1) as representing a future event from some point of time in the past – “the day on which I was born” or “would be born” (see GKC 316 §107. k ). Or (2) it may simply serve as a preterite indicating action that is in the past.


The MT simply has “and the night – it said….” By simple juxtaposition with the parallel construction (“on which I was born”) the verb “it said” must be a relative clause explaining “the night.” Rather than supply “in which” and make the verb passive (which is possible since no specific subject is provided, but leaves open the question of who said it), it is preferable to take the verse as a personification. First Job cursed the day; now he cursed the night that spoke about what it witnessed. See A. Ehrman, “A Note on the Verb ‘ amar ,” JQR 55 (1964/65): 166-67.


The word is גֶּבֶר ( gever , “a man”). The word usually distinguishes a man as strong, distinct from children and women. Translations which render this as “boy” (to remove the apparent contradiction of an adult being “conceived” in the womb) miss this point.


The first two words should be treated as a casus pendens (see D. J. A. Clines, Job [WBC], 69), referred to as an extraposition in recent grammarians.


The verb דָּרַשׁ ( darash ) means “to seek, inquire,” and “to address someone, be concerned about something” (cf. Deut 11:12 ; Jer 30:14,17 ). Job wants the day to perish from the mind of God.


The verb is the Hiphil of יָפַע ( yafa ’), which means here “cause to shine.” The subject is the term נְהָרָה ( nÿharah ,“light”), a hapax legomenon which is from the verb נָהַר ( nahar , “to gleam” [see Isa 60:5 ]).


The verb is גָּאַל ( ga ’ al , “redeem, claim”). Some have suggested that the verb is actually the homonym “pollute.” This is the reading in the Targum, Syriac, Vulgate, and Rashi, who quotes from Mal 1:7,12 . See A. R. Johnson, “The Primary Meaning of ga ’ al, ” VTSup 1 (1953): 67-77.


The expression “the blackness of the day” ( כִּמְרִירֵי יוֹם , kimrire yom ) probably means everything that makes the day black, such as supernatural events like eclipses. Job wishes that all ominous darknesses would terrify that day. It comes from the word כָּמַר ( kamar , “to be black”), related to Akkadian kamaru (“to overshadow, darken”). The versions seem to have ignored the first letter and connected the word to מָרַר ( marar , “be bitter”).


The verb is simply לָקַח ( laqakh , “to take”). Here it conveys a strong sense of seizing something and not letting it go.


The pointing of the verb is meant to connect it with the root חָדָה ( khadah , “rejoice”). But the letters in the text were correctly understood by the versions to be from יָחַד ( yakhad , “to be combined, added”). See G. Rendsburg, “Double Polysemy in Genesis 49:6 and Job 3:6 ,” CBQ 44 (1982): 48-51.


The particle הִנֵּה ( hinneh , “behold”) in this sentence focuses the reader’s attention on the statement to follow.


The word גַּלְמוּד ( galmud ) probably has here the idea of “barren” rather than “solitary.” See the parallelism in Isa 49:21 . In Job it seems to carry the idea of “barren” in 15:34 , and “gloomy” in 30:3 . Barrenness can lead to gloom.


The word is from רָנַן ( ranan , “to give a ringing cry” or “shout of joy”). The sound is loud and shrill.


The verb is simply בּוֹא ( bo ’, “to enter”). The NIV translates interpretively “be heard in it.” A shout of joy, such as at a birth, that “enters” a day is certainly heard on that day.


Not everyone is satisfied with the reading of the MT. Gordis thought “day” should be “sea,” and “cursers” should be “rousers” (changing ’ alef to ’ ayin ; cf. NRSV). This is an unnecessary change, for there is no textual problem in the line (D. J. A. Clines, Job [WBC], 71). Others have taken the reading “sea” as a personification and accepted the rest of the text, gaining the sense of “those whose magic binds even the sea monster of the deep” (e.g., NEB). sn Those who curse the day are probably the professional enchanters and magicians who were thought to cast spells on days and overwhelm them with darkness and misfortune. The myths explained eclipses as the dragon throwing its folds around the sun and the moon, thus engulfing or swallowing the day and the night. This interpretation matches the parallelism better than the interpretation that says these are merely professional mourners.


The verb is probably “execrate, curse,” from קָבַב ( qavav ). But E. Ullendorff took it from נָקַב ( naqav , “pierce”) and gained a reading “Let the light rays of day pierce it (i.e. the night) apt even to rouse Leviathan” (“ Job 3:8 ,” VT 11 [1961]: 350-51).


The verbal adjective עָתִיד (’ atid ) means “ready, prepared.” Here it has a substantival use similar to that of participles. It is followed by the Polel infinitive construct עֹרֵר (’ orer ). The infinitive without the preposition serves as the object of the preceding verbal adjective (GKC 350 §114. m ).


Heb “the stars of its dawn.” The word נֶשֶׁף ( neshef ) can mean “twilight” or “dawn.” In this context the morning stars are in mind. Job wishes that the morning stars – that should announce the day – go out.


The verb “wait, hope” has the idea of eager expectation and preparation. It is used elsewhere of waiting on the Lord with anticipation.


The absolute state אַיִן (’ ayin , “there is none”) is here used as a verbal predicate (see GKC 480 §152. k ). The concise expression literally says “and none.”


The subject is still “that night.” Here, at the end of this first section, Job finally expresses the crime of that night – it did not hinder his birth.


The Hebrew has simply “my belly [= womb].” The suffix on the noun must be objective – it was the womb of Job’s mother in which he lay before his birth. See however N. C. Habel, “The Dative Suffix in Job 33:13 ,” Bib 63 (1982): 258-59, who thinks it is deliberately ambiguous.


The word עָמָל (’ amal ) means “work, heavy labor, agonizing labor, struggle” with the idea of fatigue and pain.


The negative only occurs with the first clause, but it extends its influence to the parallel second clause (GKC 483 §152. z ).


The two verbs in this verse are both prefix conjugations; they are clearly referring to the past and should be classified as preterites. E. Dhorme ( Job , 32) notes that the verb “I came out” is in the perfect to mark its priority in time in relation to the other verbs.


The translation “at birth” is very smooth, but catches the meaning and avoids the tautology in the verse. The line literally reads “from the womb.” The second half of the verse has the verb “I came out/forth” which does double duty for both parallel lines. The second half uses “belly” for the womb.


The verb קִדְּמוּנִי ( qiddÿmuni ) is the Piel from קָדַם ( qadam ), meaning “to come before; to meet; to prevent.” Here it has the idea of going to meet or welcome someone. In spite of various attempts to connect the idea to the father or to adoption rites, it probably simply means the mother’s knees that welcome the child for nursing. See R. de Vaux, Ancient Israel , 42. sn The sufferer is looking back over all the possible chances of death, including when he was brought forth, placed on the knees or lap, and breastfed.


There is no verb in the second half of the verse. The idea simply has, “and why breasts that I might suck?”


Heb “that I might suckle.” The verb is the Qal imperfect of יָנַק ( yanaq , “suckle”). Here the clause is subordinated to the preceding question and so function as a final imperfect.


The word עַתָּה (’ attah , “now”) may have a logical nuance here, almost with the idea of “if that had been the case…” ( IBHS 667-68 §39.3.4f). However, the temporal “now” is retained in translation since the imperfect verb following two perfects “suggests what Job’s present state would be if he had had the quiet of a still birth” (J. E. Hartley, Job [NICOT], 95, n. 23). Cf. GKC 313 §106. p .


The copula on the verb indicates a sequence for the imperfect: “and then I would….” In the second half of the verse it is paralleled by “then.”


The text uses a combination of the perfect (lie down/sleep) and imperfect (quiet/rest). The particle עַתָּה (’ attah , “now”) gives to the perfect verb its conditional nuance. It presents actions in the past that are not actually accomplished but seen as possible (GKC 313 §106. p ).


The last part uses the impersonal verb “it would be at rest for me.”


The difficult term חֳרָבוֹת ( khoravot ) is translated “desolate [places]”. The LXX confused the word and translated it “who gloried in their swords.” One would expect a word for monuments, or tombs (T. K. Cheyne emended it to “everlasting tombs” [“More Critical Gleanings in Job,” ExpTim 10 (1898/99): 380-83]). But this difficult word is of uncertain etymology and therefore cannot simply be made to mean “royal tombs.” The verb means “be desolate, solitary.” In Isa 48:21 there is the clear sense of a desert. That is the meaning of Assyrian huribtu . It may be that like the pyramids of Egypt these tombs would have been built in the desert regions. Or it may describe how they rebuilt ruins for themselves. He would be saying then that instead of lying here in pain and shame if he had died he would be with the great ones of the earth. Otherwise, the word could be interpreted as a metonymy of effect, indicating that the once glorious tomb now is desolate. But this does not fit the context – the verse is talking about the state of the great ones after their death.


The expression simply has “or with princes gold to them.” The noun is defined by the noun clause serving as a relative clause (GKC 486 §155. e ).


Heb “filled their houses.” There is no reason here to take “houses” to mean tombs; the “houses” refer to the places the princes lived (i.e., palaces). The reference is not to the practice of burying treasures with the dead. It is simply saying that if Job had died he would have been with the rich and famous in death.


The verb is governed by the interrogative of v. 12 that introduces this series of rhetorical questions.


The verb is again the prefix conjugation, but the narrative requires a past tense, or preterite.


Heb “hidden.” The LXX paraphrases: “an untimely birth, proceeding from his mother’s womb.”


The noun נֵפֶל ( nefel , “miscarriage”) is the abortive thing that falls (hence the verb) from the womb before the time is ripe ( Ps 58:9 ). The idiom using the verb “to fall” from the womb means to come into the world ( Isa 26:18 ). The epithet טָמוּן ( tamun , “hidden”) is appropriate to the verse. The child comes in vain, and disappears into the darkness – it is hidden forever.


The word עֹלְלִים (’ olÿlim ) normally refers to “nurslings.” Here it must refer to infants in general since it refers to a stillborn child.


The relative clause does not have the relative pronoun; the simple juxtaposition of words indicates that it is modifying the infants.


The parallelism uses the perfect verb in the first parallel part, and the imperfect opposite it in the second. Since the verse projects to the grave or Sheol (“there”) where the action is perceived as still continuing or just taking place, both receive an English present tense translation (GKC 312 §106. l ).


Here the noun רֹגז ( rogez ) refers to the agitation of living as opposed to the peaceful rest of dying. The associated verb רָגַז ( ragaz ) means “to be agitated, excited.” The expression indicates that they cease from troubling, meaning all the agitation of their own lives.


The word יָגִיעַ ( yagia ’) means “exhausted, wearied”; it is clarified as a physical exhaustion by the genitive of specification (“ with regard to their strength”).


“There” is not in the Hebrew text, but is supplied from the context.


The LXX omits the verb and translates the noun not as prisoners but as “old men” or “men of old time.”


The verb שַׁאֲנָנוּ ( sha ’ ananu ) is the Pilpel of שָׁאַן ( sha ’ an ) which means “to rest.” It refers to the normal rest or refreshment of individuals; here it is contrasted with the harsh treatment normally put on prisoners.


Or “taskmaster.” The same Hebrew word is used for the taskmasters in Exod 3:7 .


The versions have taken the pronoun in the sense of the verb “to be.” Others give it the sense of “the same thing,” rendering the verse as “small and great, there is no difference there.” GKC 437 §135. a , n. 1, follows this idea with a meaning of “the same.”


The LXX renders this as “unafraid,” although the negative has disappeared in some mss to give the reading “and the servant that feared his master.” See I. Mendelsohn, “The Canaanite Term for ‘Free Proletarian’,” BASOR 83 (1941): 36-39; idem, “New Light on hupsu ,” BASOR 139 (1955): 9-11.


The plural “masters” could be taken here as a plural of majesty rather than as referring to numerous masters.


Heb “he”; the referent (God) has been specified in the translation for clarity.


The verb is the simple imperfect, expressing the progressive imperfect nuance. But there is no formal subject to the verb, prompting some translations to make it passive in view of the indefinite subject (so, e.g., NAB, NIV, NRSV). Such a passive could be taken as a so-called “divine passive” by which God is the implied agent. Job clearly means God here, but he stops short of naming him (see also the note on “God” earlier in this verse). sn In vv. 11, 12, and 16 there was the first series of questions in which Job himself was in question. Now the questions are more general for all mankind – why should the sufferers in general have been afflicted with life?


The verse simply begins with the participle in apposition to the expressions in the previous verse describing those who are bitter. The preposition is added from the context.


The verb is the Piel participle of חָכָה ( khakhah , “to wait for” someone; Yahweh is the object in Isa 8:17; 64:3 ; Ps 33:20 ). Here death is the supreme hope of the miserable and the suffering.


The verse simply has the form אֵין (’ en , “there is not”) with a pronominal suffix and a conjunction – “and there is not it” or “and it is not.” The LXX and the Vulgate add a verb to explain this form: “and obtain it not.”


The parallel verb is now a preterite with a vav ( ו ) consecutive; it therefore has the nuance of a characteristic perfect or gnomic perfect – the English present tense. sn The verb חָפַר ( khafar ) means “to dig; to excavate.” It may have the accusative of the thing that is being sought ( Exod 7:24 ); but here it is followed by a comparative min ( מִן ). The verse therefore describes the sufferers who excavate or dig the ground to find death, more than others who seek for treasure.


Here too the form is the participle in apposition “to him who is in misery” in v. 20 . It continues the description of those who are destitute and would be delighted to die.


The Syriac has “and gather themselves together,” possibly reading גִּיל ( gil , “rejoicing”) as גַּל ( gal , “heap”). Some have tried to emend the text to make the word mean “heap” or “mound,” as in a funerary mound. While one could argue for a heap of stones as a funerary mound, the passage has already spoken of digging a grave, which would be quite different. And while such a change would make a neater parallelism in the verse, there is no reason to force such; the idea of “jubilation” fits the tenor of the whole verse easily enough and there is no reason to change it. A similar expression is found in Hos 9:1 , which says, “rejoice not, O Israel, with jubilation.” Here the idea then is that these sufferers would rejoice “to the point of jubilation” at death.


This sentence also parallels an imperfect verb with the substantival participle of the first colon. It is translated as an English present tense.


The particle could be “when” or “because” in this verse.


This first part of the verse, “Why is light given,” is supplied from the context. In the Hebrew text the verse simply begins with “to a man….” It is also in apposition to the construction in v. 20 . But after so many qualifying clauses and phrases, a restatement of the subject (light, from v. 20 ) is required.


The LXX translated “to a man whose way is hidden” with the vague paraphrase “death is rest to [such] a man.” The translators apparently combined the reference to “the grave” in the previous verse with “hidden”


The verb is the Hiphil of סָכַךְ ( sakhakh ,“to hedge in”). The key parallel passage is Job 19:8 , which says, “He has blocked [ גָּדַר , gadar ] my way so I cannot pass, and has set darkness over my paths.” To be hedged in is an implied metaphor, indicating that the pathway is concealed and enclosed. There is an irony in Job’s choice of words in light of Satan’s accusation in 1:10 . It is heightened further when the same verb is employed by God in 38:8 (see F. I. Andersen, Job [TOTC], 109).


For the prepositional לִפְנֵי ( lifne ), the temporal meaning “before” (“my sighing comes before I eat”) makes very little sense here (as the versions have it). The meaning “in place of, for” fits better (see 1 Sam 1:16 , “count not your handmaid for a daughter of Belial”).


The word normally describes the “roaring” of a lion ( Job 4:10 ); but it is used for the loud groaning or cries of those in distress ( Pss 22:1; 32:3 ).


This second colon is paraphrased in the LXX to say, “I weep being beset with terror.” The idea of “pouring forth water” while groaning can be represented by “I weep.” The word “fear, terror” anticipates the next verse.


The construction uses the cognate accusative with the verb: “the fear I feared,” or “the dread thing I dreaded” ( פַחַד פָּחַדְתִּי , pakhad pakhadti ). The verb פָּחַד ( pakhad ) has the sense of “dread” and the noun the meaning “thing dreaded.” The structure of the sentence with the perfect verb followed by the preterite indicates that the first action preceded the second – he feared something but then it happened. Some commentaries suggest reading this as a conditional clause followed by the present tense translation: “If I fear a thing it happens to me” (see A. B. Davidson, Job , 24). The reason for this change is that it is hard for some to think that in his prime Job had such fears. He did have a pure trust and confidence in the Lord ( 16:19, 29:18 ff). But on the other hand, he did make sacrifices for his sons because he thought they might sin. There is evidence to suggest that he was aware that calamity could strike, and this is not necessarily incompatible with trust.


The verb אָתָה (’ atah ) is Aramaic and is equivalent to the Hebrew verb בּוֹא ( bo ’, “come, happen”).


The final verb is יָבֹא ( yavo ’, “has come”). It appears to be an imperfect, but since it is parallel to the preterite of the first colon it should be given that nuance here. Of course, if the other view of the verse is taken, then this would simply be translated as “comes,” and the preceding preterite also given an English present tense translation.


The LXX “peace” bases its rendering on שָׁלַם ( shalam ) and not שָׁלָה ( shalah ), which retains the original vav ( ו ). The verb means “to be quiet, to be at ease.”


The verb is literally “and I do/can not rest.” A potential perfect nuance fits this passage well. The word נוּחַ ( nuakh , “rest”) implies “rest” in every sense, especially in contrast to רֹגֶז ( rogez , “turmoil, agitation” [vv. 26 and 17 ]).


The last clause simply has “and trouble came.” Job is essentially saying that since the trouble has come upon him there is not a moment of rest and relief.


The verb has no expressed subject, and so may be translated with “one” or “someone.”


The Piel perfect is difficult here. It would normally be translated “has one tried (words with you)?” Most commentaries posit a conditional clause, however.


The verb means “to be weary.” But it can have the extended sense of being either exhausted or impatient (see v. 5 ). A. B. Davidson ( Job , 29) takes it in the sense of “will it be too much for you?” There is nothing in the sentence that indicates this should be an interrogative clause; it is simply an imperfect. But in view of the juxtaposition of the first part, this seems to make good sense. E. Dhorme ( Job , 42) has “Shall we address you? You are dejected.”


The construction uses a noun with the preposition: “and to refrain with words – who is able?” The Aramaic plural of “words” ( מִלִּין , millin ) occurs 13 times in Job, with the Hebrew plural ten times. The commentaries show that Eliphaz’s speech had a distinctly Aramaic coloring to it.


The deictic particle הִנֵּה ( hinneh , “behold”) summons attention; it has the sense of “consider, look.”


The verb יָסַר ( yasar ) in the Piel means “to correct,” whether by words with the sense of teach, or by chastening with the sense of punish, discipline. The double meaning of “teach” and “discipline” is also found with the noun מוּסָר ( musar ).


The parallelism again uses a perfect verb in the first colon and an imperfect in the second; but since the sense of the line is clearly what Job has done in the past, the second verb may be treated as a preterite, or a customary imperfect – what Job repeatedly did in the past (GKC 315 §107. e ). The words in this verse may have double meanings. The word יָסַר ( yasar , “teach, discipline”) may have the idea of instruction and correction, but also the connotation of strength (see Y. Hoffmann, “The Use of Equivocal Words in the First Speech of Eliphaz [Job IV–V],” VT 30 [1980]: 114-19).


The “feeble hands” are literally “hands hanging down.” This is a sign of weakness, helplessness, or despondency (see 2 Sam 4:1 ; Isa 13:7 ).


Both verbs in this line are imperfects, and probably carry the same nuance as the last verb in v. 3 , namely, either customary imperfect or preterite. The customary has the aspect of stressing that this was what Job used to do.


The form is the singular active participle, interpreted here collectively. The verb is used of knees that give way ( Isa 35:3 ; Ps 109:24 ).


The expression is often translated as “feeble knees,” but it literally says “the bowing [or “tottering”] knees.” The figure is one who may be under a heavy load whose knees begin to shake and buckle (see also Heb 12:12 ). sn Job had been successful at helping others not be crushed by the weight of trouble and misfortune. It is easier to help others than to preserve a proper perspective when one’s self is afflicted (E. Dhorme, Job , 44).


The sentence has no subject, but the context demands that the subject be the same kind of trouble that has come upon people that Job has helped.


This is the same verb used in v. 2 , meaning “to be exhausted” or “impatient.” Here with the vav ( ו ) consecutive the verb describes Job’s state of mind that is a consequence of the trouble coming on him. In this sentence the form is given a present tense translation (see GKC 329 §111. t ).


This final verb in the verse is vivid; it means “to terrify, dismay” (here the Niphal preterite). Job will go on to speak about all the terrors that come on him.


The word יִרְאָה ( yir ’ ah , “fear”) in this passage refers to Job’s fear of the Lord , his reverential devotion to God. H. H. Rowley ( Job [NCBC], 46) says that on the lips of Eliphaz the word almost means “your religion.” He refers to Moffatt’s translation, “Let your religion reassure you.”


The word כִּסְלָתֶךָ ( kislatekha , “your confidence”) is rendered in the LXX by “founded in folly.” The word כֶּסֶל ( kesel ) is “confidence” (see 8:14 ) and elsewhere “folly.” Since it is parallel to “your hope” it must mean confidence here.


This second half of the verse simply has “your hope and the integrity of your ways.” The expression “the perfection of your ways” is parallel to “your fear,” and “your hope” is parallel to “your confidence.” This sentence is an example of casus pendens or extraposition: “as for your hope, it is the integrity of your ways” (see GKC 458 §143. d ). sn Eliphaz is not being sarcastic to Job. He knows that Job is a God-fearing man who lives out his faith in life. But he also knows that Job should apply to himself the same things he tells others.


The use of the independent personal pronoun is emphatic, almost as an enclitic to emphasize interrogatives: “who indeed….” (GKC 442 §136. c ).


The perfect verb in this line has the nuance of the past tense to express the unique past – the uniqueness of the action is expressed with “ever” (“who has ever perished”).


The adjective is used here substantivally. Without the article the word stresses the meaning of “uprightness.” Job will use “innocent” and “upright” together in 17:8 .


The Niphal means “to be hidden” (see the Piel in 6:10; 15:18; and 27:11 ); the connotation here is “destroyed” or “annihilated.”


The perfect verb here represents the indefinite past. It has no specific sighting in mind, but refers to each time he has seen the wicked do this.


The LXX renders this with a plural “barren places.”


Heb “reap it.”


The LXX in the place of “breath” has “word” or “command,” probably to limit the anthropomorphism. The word is מִנִּשְׁמַת ( minnishmat ) comprising מִן ( min ) + נִשְׁמַת ( nishmat , the construct of נְשָׁמָה [ nÿshamah ]): “from/at the breath of.” The “breath of God” occurs frequently in Scripture. In Gen 2:7 it imparts life; but here it destroys it. The figure probably does indicate a divine decree from God (e.g., “depart from me”) – so the LXX may have been simply interpreting.


The word רוּחַ ( ruakh ) is now parallel to נְשָׁמָה ( nÿshamah ); both can mean “breath” or “wind.” To avoid using “breath” for both lines, “blast” has been employed here. The word is followed by אַפוֹ (’ afo ) which could be translated “his anger” or “his nostril.” If “nostril” is retained, then it is a very bold anthropomorphism to indicate the fuming wrath of God. It is close to the picture of the hot wind coming off the desert to scorch the plants (see Hos 13:15 ).


“There is” has been supplied to make a smoother translation out of the clauses.


Heb “voice.”


The verb belongs to the subject “teeth” in this last colon; but it is used by zeugma (a figure of speech in which one word is made to refer to two or more other words, but has to be understood differently in the different contexts) of the three subjects (see H. H. Rowley, Job [NCBC], 46-47).


The word לַיִשׁ ( layish ) traditionally rendered “strong lion,” occurs only here and in Prov 30:30 and Isa 30:6 . It has cognates in several of the Semitic languages, and so seems to indicate lion as king of the beasts.


The form of the verb is the Qal active participle; it stresses the characteristic action of the verb as if a standard universal truth.


The text literally has “sons of the lioness.”


The LXX of this verse offers special problems. It reads, “But if there had been any truth in your words, none of these evils would have fallen upon you; shall not my ear receive excellent [information] from him?” The major error involves a dittography from the word for “secret,” yielding “truth.”


The verb גָּנַב ( ganav ) means “to steal.” The Pual form in this verse is probably to be taken as a preterite since it requires a past tense translation: “it was stolen for me” meaning it was brought to me stealthily (see 2 Sam 19:3 ).


Heb “received.”


The word שֵׁמֶץ ( shemets , “whisper”) is found only here and in Job 26:14 . A cognate form שִׁמְצָה ( shimtsah ) is found in Exod 32:25 with the sense of “a whisper.” In postbiblical Hebrew the word comes to mean “a little.” The point is that Eliphaz caught just a bit, just a whisper of it, and will recount it to Job.


Here too the word is rare. The form שְׂעִפִּים ( sÿ ’ ippim , “disquietings”) occurs only here and in 20:2 . The form שַׂרְעַפִּים ( sar ’ appim , “disquieting thoughts”), possibly related by dissimilation, occurs in Pss 94:19 and 139:23 . There seems to be a connection with סְעִפִּים ( sÿ ’ ippim ) in 1 Kgs 18:21 with the meaning “divided opinion”; this is related to the idea of סְעִפָּה ( sÿ ’ ippah , “bough”). H. H. Rowley ( Job [NCBC], 47) concludes that the point is that like branches the thoughts lead off into different and bewildering places. E. Dhorme ( Job , 50) links the word to an Arabic root (“to be passionately smitten”) for the idea of “intimate thoughts.” The idea here and in has more to do with anxious, troubling, disquieting thoughts, as in a nightmare.


Heb “visions” of the night.


The word תַּרְדֵּמָה ( tardemah ) is a “deep sleep.” It is used in the creation account when the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall on Adam; and it is used in the story of Jonah when the prophet was asleep during the storm. The LXX interprets it to mean “fear,” rendering the whole verse “but terror falls upon men with dread and a sound in the night.”


The two words פַּחַד ( pakhad , “trembling”) and רְעָדָה ( rÿ ’ adah , “terror”) strengthen each other as synonyms (see also Ps 55:6 ). The subject of the verb קָרָא ( qara ’, “befall, encounter”) is פַּחַד ( pakhad , “trembling”); its compound subject has been placed at the end of the colon.


The subject of the Hiphil verb הִפְחִיד ( hifkhid , “dread”) is פַּחַד ( pakhad , “trembling”), which is why it is in the singular. The cognate verb intensifies and applies the meaning of the noun. BDB 808 s.v. פַּחַד Hiph translates it “fill my bones with dread.” In that sense “bones” would have to be a metonymy of subject representing the framework of the body, so that the meaning is that his whole being was filled with trembling.


The word רוּחַ ( ruakh ) can be “spirit” or “breath.” The implication here is that it was something that Eliphaz felt – what he saw follows in v. 16 . The commentators are divided on whether this is an apparition, a spirit, or a breath. The word can be used in either the masculine or the feminine, and so the gender of the verb does not favor the meaning “spirit.” In fact, in Isa 21:1 the same verb חָלַף ( khalaf , “pass on, through”) is used with the subject being a strong wind or hurricane “blowing across.” It may be that such a wind has caused Eliphaz’s hair to stand on end here. D. J. A. Clines ( Job [WBC], 111) also concludes it means “wind,” noting that in Job a spirit or spirits would be called רְפָאִים ( rÿfa ’ im ), אֶלֹהִים (’ elohim ) or אוֹב (’ ov ).


The verbs in this verse are imperfects. In the last verse the verbs were perfects when Eliphaz reported the fear that seized him. In this continuation of the report the description becomes vivid with the change in verbs, as if the experience were in progress.


The subject of this verb is also רוּחַ ( ruakh , “spirit”), since it can assume either gender. The “hair of my flesh” is the complement and not the subject; therefore the Piel is to be retained and not changed to a Qal as some suggest (and compare with Ps 119:120 ).


The LXX has the first person of the verb: “I arose and perceived it not, I looked and there was no form before my eyes; but I only heard a breath and a voice.”


The imperfect verb is to be classified as potential imperfect. Eliphaz is unable to recognize the figure standing before him.


The imperfect verbs in this verse express obvious truths known at all times (GKC 315 §107. f ).


The word for man here is first אֱנוֹשׁ (’ enosh ), stressing man in all his frailty, his mortality. This is paralleled with גֶּבֶר ( gever ), a word that would stress more of the strength or might of man. The verse is not making a great contrast between the two, but it is rhetorical question merely stating that no human being of any kind is righteous or pure before God the Creator. See H. Kosmala, “The Term geber in the OT and in the Scrolls,” VTSup 17 (1969): 159-69; and E. Jacob, Theology of the Old Testament , 156-57.


The imperfect verb in this interrogative sentence could also be interpreted with a potential nuance: “Can a man be righteous?”


The classification of מִן ( min ) as a comparative in this verse (NIV, “more righteous than God”; cf. also KJV, ASV, NCV) does not seem the most probable. The idea of someone being more righteous than God is too strong to be reasonable. Job will not do that – but he will imply that God is unjust. In addition, Eliphaz had this vision before hearing of Job’s trouble and so is not addressing the idea that Job is making himself more righteous than God. He is stating that no man is righteous before God. Verses 18-21 will show that no one can claim righteousness before God. In 9:2 and 25:4 the preposition “with” is used. See also Jer 51:5 where the preposition should be rendered “before” [the Holy One].


The double question here merely repeats the same question with different words (see GKC 475 §150. h ). The second member could just as well have been connected with ו ( vav ).


The particle הֵן ( hen ) introduces a conditional clause here, although the older translations used “behold.” The clause forms the foundation for the point made in the next verse, an argument by analogy – if this be true, then how much more/less the other.


Heb “he”; the referent (God) has been specified in the translation for clarity.


The verb יַאֲמִין ( ya ’ amin ), a Hiphil imperfect from אָמַן (’ aman ) followed by the preposition בּ ( bet ), means “trust in.”


The verb שִׂים ( sim , “set”) with the preposition בּ ( bet ) has the sense of “impute” or “attribute something to someone.”


The word תָּהֳלָה ( toholah ) is a hapax legomenon , and so has created some confusion in the various translations. It seems to mean “error; folly.” The word is translated “perverseness” in the LXX; but Symmachus connects it with the word for “madness.” “Some commentators have repointed the word to תְּהִלָּה ( tÿhillah , “praise”) making the line read: “he finds no [cause for] praise in his angels.” Others suggest תִּפְלָה ( tiflah , “offensiveness, silliness”) a bigger change; this matches the idiom in Job 24:12 . But if the etymology of the word is הָלַל ( halal , “to be mad”) then that change is not necessary. The feminine noun “madness” still leaves the meaning of the line a little uncertain: “[if] he does not impute madness to his angels.” The point of the verse is that God finds flaws in his angels and does not put his trust in them.


The imperfect verb is in the plural, suggesting “they crush.” But since there is no subject expressed, the verb may be given an impersonal subject, or more simply, treated as a passive (see GKC 460 §144. g ).


The prepositional compound לִפְנֵי ( lifne ) normally has the sense of “before,” but it has been used already in 3:24 in the sense of “like.” That is the most natural meaning of this line. Otherwise, the interpretation must offer some explanation of a comparison between how quickly a moth and a human can be crushed. There are suggestions for different readings here; see for example G. R. Driver, “Linguistic and Textual Problems: Jeremiah,” JQR 28 (1937/38): 97-129 for a change to “bird’s nest”; and J. A. Rimbach, “‘Crushed before the Moth’ ( Job 4:19 ),” JBL 100 (1981): 244-46, for a change of the verb to “they are pure before their Maker.” However, these are unnecessary emendations.


The form יֻכַּתּוּ ( yukkatu ) is the Hophal imperfect of the root כָּתַת ( katat , “to be pounded, pulverized, reduced to ashes” [ Jer 46:5 ; Mic 1:7 ]). It follows the Aramaic formation (see GKC 182 §67. y ). This line appears to form a parallelism with “they are crushed like a moth,” the third unit of the last verse; but it has its own parallel idea in this verse. See D. J. A. Clines, “Verb Modality and the Interpretation of Job 4:20, 21 ,” VT 30 (1980): 354-57.


Or “from morning to evening.” The expression “from morning to evening” is probably not a merism, but rather describes the time between the morning and the evening, as in Isa 38:12 : “from day to night you make an end of me.”


This rendering is based on the interpretation that מִבְּלִי מֵשִׂים ( mibbÿli mesim ) uses the Hiphil participle of שִׂים ( sim , “set”) with an understood object “heart” to gain the idiom of “taking to heart, considering, regarding it” – hence, “without anyone regarding it.” Some commentators have attempted to resolve the difficulty by emending the text, a procedure that has no more support than positing the ellipses. One suggested emendation does have the LXX in its favor, namely, a reading of מֹשִׁיעַ ( moshia ’, “one who saves”) in place of מֵשִׂים ( mesim , “one who sets”). This would lead to “without one who saves they perish forever” (E. Dhorme, Job , 55).


The word יֶתֶר ( yeter , here with the suffix, יִתְרָם [ yitram ]) can mean “what remains” or “rope.” Of the variety of translations, the most frequently used idea seems to be “their rope,” meaning their tent cord. This would indicate that their life was compared to a tent – perfectly reasonable in a passage that has already used the image “houses of clay.” The difficulty is that the verb נָסַע ( nasa ’) means more properly “to tear up; to uproot.” and not “to cut off.” A similar idea is found in Isa 38:12 , but there the image is explicitly that of cutting the life off from the loom. Some have posited that the original must have said their tent peg was pulled up” as in Isa 33:20 (A. B. Davidson, Job , 34; cf. NAB). But perhaps the idea of “what remains” would be easier to defend here. Besides, it is used in 22:20 . The wealth of an individual is what has been acquired and usually is left over when he dies. Here it would mean that the superfluous wealth would be snatched away. The preposition בּ ( bet ) would carry the meaning “from” with this verb.


The text of the LXX does not seem to be connected to the Hebrew of v. 21 a. It reads something like “for he blows on them and they are withered” (see Isa 40:24 b). The Targum to Job has “Is it not by their lack of righteousness that they have been deprived of all support?” tn On the interpretation of the preposition in this construction, see N. Sarna, “The Interchange of the Preposition bet and min in Biblical Hebrew,” JBL 78 (1959): 310-16.


Heb “and without wisdom.” The word “attaining” is supplied in the translation as a clarification. sn The expression without attaining wisdom is parallel to the previous without anyone regarding it . Both verses describe how easily humans perish: there is no concern for it, nor any sense to it. Humans die without attaining wisdom which can solve the mystery of human life.


Some commentators transpose this verse with the following paragraph, placing it after v. 7 (see E. Dhorme, Job , 62). But the reasons for this are based on the perceived development of the argument and are not that compelling. sn The imperative is here a challenge for Job. If he makes his appeal against God, who is there who will listen? The rhetorical questions are intended to indicate that no one will respond, not even the angels. Job would do better to realize that he is guilty and his only hope is in God.


The participle with the suffix could be given a more immediate translation to accompany the imperative: “Call now! Is anyone listening to you?”


The LXX has rendered “holy ones” as “holy angels” (cf. TEV, CEV, NLT). The LXX has interpreted the verb in the colon too freely: “if you will see.”


One of the reasons that commentators transpose v. 1 is that the כִּי ( ki , “for”) here seems to follow 4:21 better. If people die without wisdom, it is folly that kills them. But the verse also makes sense after 5:1 . He is saying that complaining against God will not bring deliverance (v. 1 ), but rather, by such impatience the fool will bring greater calamity on himself.


The two words for “foolish person” are common in wisdom literature. The first, אֱוִיל (’ evil ), is the fool who is a senseless person; the פֹּתֶה ( poteh ) is the naive and silly person, the simpleton, the one who is easily led astray. The direct object is introduced with the preposition ל ( lamed ) in this verse (see GKC 366 §117. n ).


The two parallel nouns are similar; their related verbs are also paralleled in Deut 32:16 with the idea of “vex” and “irritate.” The first word כַּעַשׂ ( ka ’ as ) refers to the inner irritation and anger one feels, whereas the second word קִנְאָה ( qin ’ ah ) refers to the outward expression of the anger. In Job 6:2 , Job will respond “O that my impatience [ ka ’ as ] were weighed….”


The use of the pronoun here adds emphasis to the subject of the sentence (see GKC 437 §135. a ).


This word is אֱוִיל (’ evil ), the same word for the “senseless man” in the preceding verse. Eliphaz is citing an example of his principle just given – he saw such a fool for a brief while appearing to prosper (i.e., taking root).


A. B. Davidson argues that the verse does not mean that Eliphaz cursed his place during his prosperity. This line is metonymical (giving the effect). God judged the fool and his place was ruined; consequently, Eliphaz pronounced it accursed of God (see A. B. Davidson, Job , 36). Many emend the verb slightly to read “and it was suddenly cursed” ( וַיֻּכַב [ vayyukhav ] instead of וָאֶקּוֹב [ va ’ eqqov ]; see H. H. Rowley, Job [NCBC], 51).


The imperfect verbs in this verse describe the condition of the accursed situation. Some commentators follow the LXX and take these as jussives, making this verse the curse that the man pronounced upon the fool. Rashi adds “This is the malediction with which I have cursed him.” That would make the speaker the one calling down the judgment on the fool rather than responding by observation how God destroyed the habitation of the fool.


The verb יִדַּכְּאוּ ( yiddakkÿ ’ u ) could be taken as the passive voice, or in the reciprocal sense (“crush one another”) or reflexive (“crush themselves”). The context favors the idea that the children of the foolish person will be destroyed because there is no one who will deliver them.


Heb “in the gate.” The city gate was the place of both business and justice. The sense here seems to fit the usage of gates as the place of legal disputes, so the phrase “at the place of judgment” has been used in the translation.


The text simply says “and there is no deliverer.” The entire clause could be subordinated to the preceding clause, and rendered simply “without a deliverer.”


The MT reads “whose harvest the hungry eat up.” Some commentators want to follow the LXX and repoint קְצִירוֹ ( qÿtsiro , “his harvest”) to קָצְרוּ ( qatsÿru , “[what] they have reaped”; cf. NAB). The reference as it stands in the MT seems to be to the image of taking root in v. 3 ; whatever took root – the prosperity of his life – will not belong to him or his sons to enjoy. If the emendation is accepted, then the reference would be immediately to the “sons” in the preceding verse.


The line is difficult; the Hebrew text reads literally “and unto from thorns he takes it.” The idea seems to be that even from within an enclosed hedge of thorns other people will take the harvest. Many commentators either delete the line altogether or try to repoint it to make more sense out of it. G. R. Driver had taken the preposition אֶל (’ el , “towards”) as the noun אֵל (’ el , “strong man”) and the noun צִנִּים ( tsinnim , “thorns”) connected to Aramaic צִנָּה ( tsinnah , “basket”); he read it as “a strong man snatches it from the baskets” (G. R. Driver, “on Job 5:5 ,” TZ 12 [1956]: 485-86). E. Dhorme ( Job , 60) changed the word slightly to מַצְפֻּנִים ( matspunim , “hiding places”), instead of מִצִּנִּים ( mitsinnim , “out of the thorns”), to get the translation “and unto hiding places he carries it.” This fits the use of the verb לָקַח ( laqakh , “to take”) with the preposition אֶל (’ el , “towards”) meaning “carry to” someplace. There seems to be no easy solution to the difficulty of the line.


The word צַמִּים ( tsammim ) has been traditionally rendered “robbers.” But it has been connected by some of the ancient versions to the word for “thirst,” making a nice parallel with “hungry.” This would likely be pointed צְמֵאִים ( tsÿme ’ im ).


The verb has been given many different renderings, some more radical than others: “engulf,” “draws,” “gather,” “swallow” (see H. H. Rowley, Job [NCBC], 53). The idea of “swallow” is found in Job 20:15 . The general sense of the line is clear, in spite of the difficulties of determining the exact meaning of the verb.


The LXX has several variations for the line. It reads something like the following: “for what they have collected the just shall eat, but they shall not be delivered out of calamities; let their strength be utterly exhausted.” The LXX may have gotten the idea of the “righteous” as those who suffer from hunger. Instead of “thorns” the LXX has the idea of “trouble.” The Targum to Job interprets it with “shield” and adds “warriors” as the subject.


Heb “man [is].” Because “man” is used in a generic sense for humanity here, the generic “people” has been used in the translation.


There is a slight difficulty here in that vv. 6 and 7 seem to be saying the opposite thing. Many commentators, therefore, emend the the Niphal יוּלָּד ( yullad , “is born”) to an active participle יוֹלֵד ( yoled , “begets”) to place the source of trouble in man himself. But the LXX seems to retain the passive idea: “man is born to trouble.” The contrast between the two verses does not seem too difficult, for it still could imply that trouble’s source is within the man.


For the Hebrew בְנֵי־רֶשֶׁף ( bÿne reshef , “sons of the flame”) the present translation has the rendering “sparks.” E. Dhorme ( Job , 62) thinks it refers to some kind of bird, but renders it “sons of the lightning” because the eagle was associated with lightning in ancient interpretations. Sparks, he argues, do not soar high above the earth. Other suggestions include Resheph, the Phoenician god of lightning (Pope), the fire of passion (Buttenwieser), angels (Peake), or demons (Targum Job). None of these are convincing; the idea of sparks flying upward fits the translation well and makes clear sense in the passage.


The simple translation of the last two words is “fly high” or “soar aloft” which would suit the idea of an eagle. But, as H. H. Rowley ( Job [NCBC], 53) concludes, the argument to identify the expression preceding this with eagles is far-fetched.


The LXX has the name of a bird here: “the vulture’s young seek the high places.” The Targum to Job has “sons of demons” or “the sparks which shoot from coals of fire.”


The word אוּלָם (’ ulam ) is a strong adversative “but.” This forms the contrast with what has been said previously and so marks a new section.


The independent personal pronoun here adds emphasis to the subject of the verb, again strengthening the contrast with what Job is doing (see R. J. Williams, Hebrew Syntax , 22, §106).


The imperfect verbs in this verse express not so much what Eliphaz does as what he would do if he were in Job’s place (even though in 13:3 we have the affirmation). The use fits the category of the imperfect used in conditional clauses (see GKC 319 §107. x ).


The verb דָּרַשׁ ( darash , “to seek”) followed by the preposition אֶל (’ el , “towards”) has the meaning of addressing oneself to (God). See 8:19 and 40:10 .


The Hebrew employs אֵל (’ el ) in the first line and אֱלֹהִים (’ elohim ) in the second for “God”, but the LXX uses κύριος ( kurio" , “Lord”) in both places in this verse. However, in the second colon it also has “Lord of all.” This is replaced in the Greek version of Aquila by παντοκράτωρ ( pantokratwr , traditionally translated “Almighty”). On the basis of this information, H. M. Orlinsky suggests that the second name for God in the verses should be “Shaddai” ( JQR 25 [1934/35]: 271).


Heb “who does.” It is common for such doxologies to begin with participles; they follow the pattern of the psalms in this style. Because of the length of the sentence in Hebrew and the conventions of English style, a new sentence was started here in the translation.


The Hebrew has וְאֵין חֵקֶר ( vÿ ’ en kheqer ), literally, “and no investigation.” The use of the conjunction on the expression follows a form of the circumstantial clause construction, and so the entire expression describes the great works as “unsearchable.”


The preposition in עַד־אֵין (’ ad ’ en , “until there was no”) is stereotypical; it conveys the sense of having no number (see Job 9:10 ; Ps 40:13 ).


Heb “who gives.” The participle continues the doxology here. But the article is necessary because of the distance between this verse and the reference to God. sn He gives rain . The use of the verb “gives” underscores the idea that rain is a gift from God. This would be more keenly felt in the Middle East where water is scarce.


In both halves of the verse the literal rendering would be “upon the face of the earth” and “upon the face of the fields.”


The second participle is simply coordinated to the first and therefore does not need the definite article repeated (see GKC 404 §126. b ).


The Hebrew term חוּצוֹת ( khutsot ) basically means “outside,” or what is outside. It could refer to streets if what is meant is outside the house; but it refers to fields here (parallel to the more general word) because it is outside the village. See Ps 144:13 for the use of the expression for “countryside.” The LXX gives a much wider interpretation: “what is under heaven.”


Heb “setting.” The infinitive construct clause is here taken as explaining the nature of God, and so parallel to the preceding descriptions. If read simply as a purpose clause after the previous verse, it would suggest that the purpose of watering the earth was to raise the humble (cf. NASB, “And sends water on the fields, // So that He sets on high those who are lowly”). A. B. Davidson ( Job , 39) makes a case for this interpretation, saying that God’s gifts in nature have the wider purpose of blessing man, but he prefers to see the line as another benevolence, parallel to v. 10 , and so suggests a translation “setting up” rather than “to set up.”


The word שְׁפָלִים ( shÿfalim ) refers to “those who are down.” This refers to the lowly and despised of the earth. They are the opposite of the “proud” (see Ps 138:6 ). Here there is a deliberate contrast between “lowly” and “on high.”


The meaning of the word is “to be dark, dirty”; therefore, it refers to the ash-sprinkled head of the mourner (H. H. Rowley, Job [NCBC], 54). The custom was to darken one’s face in sorrow (see Job 2:12 ; Ps 35:14; 38:7 ).


The perfect verb may be translated “be set on high; be raised up.” E. Dhorme ( Job , 64) notes that the perfect is parallel to the infinitive of the first colon, and so he renders it in the same way as the infinitive, comparing the construction to that of 28:25 .


The Hiphil form מֵפֵר ( mefer ) is the participle from פָּרַר ( parar , “to annul; to frustrate; to break”). It continues the doxological descriptions of God; but because of the numerous verses in this section, it may be clearer to start a new sentence with this form (rather than translating it “who…”).


The word is related to the verb “to think; to plan; to devise,” and so can mean “thoughts; plans; imagination.” Here it refers to the plan of the crafty that must be frustrated (see also Isa 44:25 for the contrast).


The word עֲרוּמִים (’ arumim ) means “crafty” or “shrewd.” It describes the shrewdness of some to achieve their ends (see Gen 3:1 , where the serpent is more cunning than all the creatures, that is, he knows where the dangers are and will attempt to bring down the innocent). In the next verse it describes the clever plans of the wise – those who are wise in their own sight.


The consecutive clause showing result or purpose is simply introduced with the vav and the imperfect/jussive (see GKC 504-5 §166. a ).


The word תּוּשִׁיָּה ( tushiyyah ) is a technical word from wisdom literature. It has either the idea of the faculty of foresight, or of prudence in general (see 12:6; 26:3 ). It can be parallel in the texts to “wisdom,” “counsel,” “help,” or “strength.” Here it refers to what has been planned ahead of time.


The participles continue the description of God. Here he captures or ensnares the wise in their wickedly clever plans. See also Ps 7:16 , where the wicked are caught in the pit they have dug – they are only wise in their own eyes.


The etymology of נִפְתָּלִים ( niftalim ) suggests a meaning of “twisted” (see Prov 8:8 ) in the sense of tortuous. See Gen 30:8 ; Ps 18:26 [27].


The Niphal of מָהַר ( mahar ) means “to be hasty; to be irresponsible.” The meaning in the line may be understood in this sense: The counsel of the wily is hastened, that is, precipitated before it is ripe, i.e., frustrated (A. B. Davidson, Job , 39).


The verb מָשַׁשׁ ( mashash ) expresses the idea of groping about in the darkness. This is part of the fulfillment of Deut 28:29 , which says, “and you shall grope at noonday as the blind grope in darkness.” This image is also in Isa 59:10 .


The verb, the Hiphil preterite of יָשַׁע ( yasha ’, “and he saves”) indicates that by frustrating the plans of the wicked God saves the poor. So the vav ( ו ) consecutive shows the result in the sequence of the verses.


The juxtaposition of “from the sword from their mouth” poses translation difficulties. Some mss do not have the preposition on “their mouth,” but render the expression as a construct: “from the sword of their mouth.” This would mean their tongue, and by metonymy, what they say. The expression “from their mouth” corresponds well with “from the hand” in the next colon. And as E. Dhorme ( Job , 67) notes, what is missing is a parallel in the first part with “the poor” in the second. So he follows Cappel in repointing “from the sword” as a Hophal participle, מֹחֳרָב ( mokhorav ), meaning “the ruined.” If a change is required, this has the benefit of only changing the pointing. The difficulty with this is that the word “desolate, ruined” is not used for people, but only to cities, lands, or mountains. The sense of the verse can be supported from the present pointing: “from the sword [which comes] from their mouth”; the second phrase could also be in apposition, meaning, “from the sword, i.e., from their mouth.”


If the word “poor” is to do double duty, i.e., serving as the object of the verb “saves” in the first colon as well as the second, then the conjunction should be explanatory.


Other translations render this “injustice” (NIV, NRSV, CEV) or “unrighteousness” (NASB).


The verse summarizes the result of God’s intervention in human affairs, according to Eliphaz’ idea that even-handed justice prevails. Ps 107:42 parallels v. 16 b.


The particle “therefore” links this section to the preceding; it points this out as the logical consequence of the previous discussion, and more generally, as the essence of Job’s suffering.


The word אַשְׁרֵי (’ ashre , “blessed”) is often rendered “happy.” But “happy” relates to what happens. “Blessed” is a reference to the heavenly bliss of the one who is right with God.


The construction is an implied relative clause. The literal rendering would simply be “the man God corrects him.” The suffix on the verb is a resumptive pronoun, completing the use of the relative clause. The verb יָכַח ( yakhakh ) is a legal term; it always has some sense of a charge, dispute, or conflict. Its usages show that it may describe a strife breaking out, a charge or quarrel in progress, or the settling of a dispute ( Isa 1:18 ). The derived noun can mean “reproach; recrimination; charge” ( 13:6; 23:4 ). Here the emphasis is on the consequence of the charge brought, namely, the correction.


The noun מוּסַר ( musar ) is parallel to the idea of the first colon. It means “discipline, correction” (from יָסַר , yasar ). Prov 3:11 says almost the same thing as this line.


The addition of the independent pronoun here makes the subject emphatic, as if to say, “For it is he who makes….”


The imperfect verbs in this verse describe the characteristic activities of God; the classification as habitual imperfect fits the idea and is to be rendered with the English present tense.


The verb is the Hiphil imperfect of נָצַל ( natsal , “deliver”). These verbs might have been treated as habitual imperfects if it were not for the use of the numerical images – “six calamities…in seven.” So the nuance is specific future instead.


The use of a numerical ladder as we have here – “six // seven” is frequent in wisdom literature to show completeness. See Prov 6:16 ; Amos 1:3 , Mic 5:5 . A number that seems to be sufficient for the point is increased by one, as if to say there is always one more. By using this Eliphaz simply means “in all troubles” (see H. H. Rowley, Job [NCBC], 56).


Heb “from the hand of the sword.” This is idiomatic for “the power of the sword.” The expression is also metonymical, meaning from the effect of the sword, which is death.


The Hebrew verb essentially means “you will be hidden.” In the Niphal the verb means “to be hidden, to be in a hiding place,” and protected ( Ps 31:20 ).


Heb “from the lash [i.e., whip] of the tongue.” Sir 26:9 and 51:2 show usages of these kinds of expressions: “the lash of the tongue” or “the blow of the tongue.” The expression indicates that a malicious gossip is more painful than a blow. sn The Targum saw here a reference to Balaam and the devastation brought on by the Midianites.


The word here is שׁוֹד ( shod ); it means “destruction,” but some commentators conjecture alternate readings: שׁוֹאָה ( sho ’ ah , “desolation”); or שֵׁד ( shed , “demon”). One argument for maintaining שׁוֹד ( shod ) is that it fits the assonance within the verse שׁוֹד … לָשׁוֹן … שׁוֹט ( shot … lashon … shod ).


The repetition of “destruction” and “famine” here has prompted some scholars to delete the whole verse. Others try to emend the text. The LXX renders them as “the unrighteous and the lawless.” But there is no difficulty in having the repetition of the words as found in the MT. tn The word for “famine” is an Aramaic word found again in 30:3 . The book of Job has a number of Aramaisms that are used to form an alternative parallel expression (see notes on “witness” in 16:19 ).


The negated jussive is used here to express the conviction that something cannot or should not happen (GKC 322 §109. e ).


Heb “your covenant is with the stones of the field.” The line has been variously interpreted and translated. It is omitted in the LXX. It seems to mean there is a deep sympathy between man and nature. Some think it means that the boundaries will not be violated by enemies; Rashi thought it represented some species of beings, like genii of the field, and so read אֲדֹנֵי (’ adone , “lords”) for אַבְנֵי (’ avne , “stones”). Ball takes the word as בְּנֵי ( bÿne , “sons”), as in “sons of the field,” to get the idea that the reference is to the beasts. E. Dhorme ( Job , 71) rejects these ideas as too contrived; he says to have a pact with the stones of the field simply means the stones will not come and spoil the ground, making it less fertile.


Heb “the beasts of the field.”


This is the only occurrence of the Hophal of the verb שָׁלֵם ( shalem , “to make or have peace” with someone). Compare Isa 11:6-9 and Ps 91:13 . The verb form is the perfect; here it is the perfect consecutive following a noun clause (see GKC 494 §159. g ).


The verb is again the perfect, but in sequence to the previous structure so that it is rendered as a future. This would be the case if Job were right with God.


Heb “tent.”


The word שָׁלוֹם ( shalom ) means “peace; safety; security; wholeness.” The same use appears in 1 Sam 25:6 ; 2 Sam 20:9 .


The verb is פָּקַד ( paqad , “to visit”). The idea here is “to gather together; to look over; to investigate,” or possibly even “to number” as it is used in the book of Numbers. The verb is the perfect with the vav consecutive; it may be subordinated to the imperfect verb that follows to form a temporal clause.


The verb is usually rendered “to sin”; but in this context the more specific primary meaning of “to miss the mark” or “to fail to find something.” Neither Job’s tent nor his possessions will be lost.


Heb “your seed.”


The word means “your shoots” and is parallel to “your seed” in the first colon. It refers here (as in Isa 34:1 and 42:5 ) to the produce of the earth. Some commentators suggest that Eliphaz seems to have forgotten or was insensitive to Job’s loss of his children; H. H. Rowley ( Job [NCBC], 57) says his conventional theology is untouched by human feeling.


The word translated “in a full age” has been given an array of meanings: “health; integrity”; “like a new blade of corn”; “in your strength [or vigor].” The numerical value of the letters in the word בְכֶלָח ( bÿkhelakh , “in old age”) was 2, 20, 30, and 8, or 60. This led some of the commentators to say that at 60 one would enter the ripe old age (E. Dhorme, Job , 73).


To make a better parallelism, some commentators have replaced the imperative with another finite verb, “we have found it.”


The preposition with the suffix (referred to as the ethical dative) strengthens the imperative. An emphatic personal pronoun also precedes the imperative. The resulting force would be something like “and you had better apply it for your own good!”


Heb “answered and said.”


The conjunction לוּ ( lu , “if, if only”) introduces the wish – an unrealizable wish – with the Niphal imperfect.


Job pairs כַּעְסִי ( ka ’ si , “my grief”) and הַיָּתִי ( hayyati , “my misfortune”). The first word, used in Job 4:2 , refers to Job’s whole demeanor that he shows his friends – the impatient and vexed expression of his grief. The second word expresses his misfortune, the cause of his grief. Job wants these placed together in the balances so that his friends could see the misfortune is greater than the grief. The word for “misfortune” is a Kethib - Qere reading. The two words have essentially the same meaning; they derive from the verb הָוַה ( havah , “to fall”) and so mean a misfortune.


The Qal infinitive absolute is here used to intensify the Niphal imperfect (see GKC 344-45 §113. w ). The infinitive absolute intensifies the wish as well as the idea of weighing.


The third person plural verb is used here; it expresses an indefinite subject and is treated as a passive (see GKC 460 §144. g ).


The adverb normally means “together,” but it can also mean “similarly, too.” In this verse it may not mean that the two things are to be weighed together, but that the whole calamity should be put on the scales (see A. B. Davidson, Job , 43).


E. Dhorme ( Job , 76) notes that כִּי־עַתָּה ( ki ’ attah ) has no more force than “but”; and that the construction is the same as in 17:4; 20:19-21; 23:14-15 . The initial clause is causative, and the second half of the verse gives the consequence (“because”…“that is why”). Others take 3a as the apodosis of v. 2 , and translate it “for now it would be heavier…” (see A. B. Davidson, Job , 43).


The verb לָעוּ ( la ’ u ) is traced by E. Dhorme ( Job , 76) to a root לָעָה ( la ’ ah ), cognate to an Arabic root meaning “to chatter.” He shows how modern Hebrew has a meaning for the word “to stammer out.” But that does not really fit Job’s outbursts. The idea in the context is rather that of speaking wildly, rashly, or charged with grief. This would trace the word to a hollow or geminate word and link it to Arabic “talk wildly” (see D. J. A. Clines, Job [WBC], 158). In the older works the verb was taken from a geminate root meaning “to suck” or “to swallow” (cf. KJV), but that yields a very difficult sense to the line.


Most commentators take “my spirit” as the subject of the participle “drinks” (except the NEB, which follows the older versions to say that the poison “drinks up [or “soaks in”] the spirit.”) The image of the poisoned arrow represents the calamity or misfortune from God, which is taken in by Job’s spirit and enervates him.


The LXX translators knew that a liquid should be used with the verb “drink”; but they took the line to be “whose violence drinks up my blood.” For the rest of the verse they came up with, “whenever I am going to speak they pierce me.”


The word translated “sudden terrors” is found only here and in Ps 88:16 [17]. G. R. Driver notes that the idea of suddenness is present in the root, and so renders this word as “sudden assaults” (“Problems in the Hebrew text of Job,” VTSup 3 [1955]: 73).


The verb עָרַךְ (’ arakh ) means “to set in battle array.” The suffix on the verb is dative (see GKC 369 §117. x ). Many suggestions have been made for changing this word. These seem unnecessary since the MT pointing yields a good meaning: but for the references to these suggestions, see D. J. A. Clines, Job (WBC), 158. H. H. Rowley ( Job [NCBC], 59), nonetheless, follows the suggestion of Driver that connects it to a root meaning “wear me down.” This change of meaning requires no change in the Hebrew text. The image is of a beleaguering army; the host is made up of all the terrors from God. The reference is to the terrifying and perplexing thoughts that assail Job (A. B. Davidson, Job , 44).


There have been suggestions to identify this animal as something other than a wild donkey, but the traditional interpretation has been confirmed (see P. Humbert, “En marge du dictionnaire hébraïque,” ZAW 62 [1950]: 199-207).


The verb נָהַק ( nahaq , “bray”) occurs in Arabic and Aramaic and only in Job 30:7 in Hebrew, where it refers to unfortunate people in the wilderness who utter cries like the hungry wild donkey.


The construction forms a double question ( אִם ... הֲ , ha …’ im ) but not to express mutually exclusive questions in this instance. Instead, it is used to repeat the same question in different words (see GKC 475 §150. h ).


The LXX captures the meaning of the verse, but renders it in a more expansive way. tn This word occurs here and in Isa 30:24 . In contrast to the grass that grows on the fields for the wild donkey, this is fodder prepared for the domesticated animals.


Heb “a tasteless thing”; the word “food” is supplied from the context.


Some commentators are not satisfied with the translation “white of an egg”; they prefer something connected to “slime of purslane” (H. H. Rowley, Job [NCBC], 59; cf. NRSV “juice of mallows”). This meaning is based on the Syriac and Arabic version of Sa`adia. The meaning “white of the egg” comes from the rabbinic interpretation of “slime of the yolk.” Others carry the idea further and interpret it to mean “saliva of dreams” or after the LXX “in dream words.” H. H. Rowley does not think that the exact edible object can be identified. The idea of the slimy glaring white around the yolk of an egg seems to fit best. This is another illustration of something that is tasteless or insipid.


The traditional rendering of נַפְשִׁי ( nafshi ) is “my soul.” But since נֶפֶשׁ ( nefesh ) means the whole person, body and soul, it is best to translate it with its suffix simply as an emphatic pronoun.


For the explanation of the perfect verb with its completed action in the past and its remaining effects, see GKC 311 §106. g .


The phrase “such things” is not in the Hebrew text but has been supplied.


The second colon of the verse is difficult. The word דְּוֵי ( dÿve ) means “sickness of” and yields a meaning “like the sickness of my food.” This could take the derived sense of דָּוָה ( davah ) and mean “impure” or “corrupt” food. The LXX has “for I loathe my food as the smell of a lion” and so some commentators emend “they” (which has no clear antecedent) to mean “I loathe it [like the sickness of my food].” Others have more freely emended the text to “my palate loathes my food” (McNeile) or “my bowels resound with suffering” (I. Eitan, “An unknown meaning of RAHAMIÝM ,” JBL 53 [1934]: 271). Pope has “they are putrid as my flesh [= my meat].” D. J. A. Clines ( Job [WBC], 159) prefers the suggestion in BHS , “it [my soul] loathes them as my food.” E. Dhorme ( Job , 80) repoints the second word of the colon to get כְּבֹדִי ( kÿvodi , “my glory”): “my heart [glory] loathes/is sickened by my bread.”


The Hebrew expresses the desire (desiderative clause) with “who will give?” (see GKC 477 §151. d ).


The verb בּוֹא ( bo ’, “go”) has the sense of “to be realized; to come to pass; to be fulfilled.” The optative “Who will give [that] my request be realized?” is “O that my request would be realized.”


The text has תִקְוָתִי ( tiqvati , “hope”). There is no reason to change the text to “my desire” (as Driver and others do) if the word is interpreted metonymically – it means “what I hope for.” What Job hopes for and asks for is death. sn See further W. Riggans, “ Job 6:8-10 : Short Comments,” ExpTim 99 (1987): 45-46.


The verb יָאַל ( ya ’ al ) in the Hiphil means “to be willing, to consent, to decide.” It is here the jussive followed by the dependent verb with a ( ו ) vav : “that God would be willing and would crush me” means “to crush me.” Gesenius, however, says that the conjunction introduces coordination rather than subordination; he says the principal idea is introduced in the second verb, the first verb containing the definition of the manner of the action (see GKC 386 §120. d ).


The verb is used for loosening shoe straps in Isa 58:6 , and of setting prisoners free in Pss 105:20 and 146:7 . Job thinks that God’s hand has been restrained for some reason, and so desires that God be free to destroy him.


The final verb is an imperfect (or jussive) following the jussive (of נָתַר , natar ); it thus expresses the result (“and then” or “so that”) or the purpose (“in order that”). Job longs for death, but it must come from God.


Heb “and cut me off.” The LXX reads this verse as “Let the Lord begin and wound me, but let him not utterly destroy me.” E. Dhorme ( Job , 81) says the LXX is a paraphrase based on a pun with “free hand.” Targum Job has, “God has begun to make me poor; may he free his hand and make me rich,” apparently basing the reading on a metaphorical interpretation.


Heb “and it will/may be yet my comfort.” The comfort or consolation that he seeks, that he wishes for, is death. The next colon in the verse simply intensifies this thought, for he affirms if that should happen he would rejoice, in spite of what death involves. The LXX, apparently confusing letters (reading עִיר [’ ir , “city”] instead of עוֹד [’ od , “yet”], which then led to the mistake in the next colon, חֵילָה [ khelah , “its wall”] for חִילָה [ khilah , “suffering”]), has “Let the grave be my city, upon the walls of which I have leaped.”


In the apodosis of conditional clauses (which must be supplied from the context preceding), the cohortative expresses the consequence (see GKC 320 §108. d ).