The Piel verb סִלֵּד ( silled ) is a hapax legomenon . BDB 698 s.v. סָלַד gives the meaning “to spring [i.e., jump] for joy,” which would certainly fit the passage. Others have emended the text, but unnecessarily. The LXX “I jumped” and Targum Job’s “exult” support the sense in the dictionaries, although the jumping is for joy and not over a wall (as the LXX has). D. J. A. Clines ( Job [WBC], 159) follows Driver in thinking this is untenable, choosing a meaning “recoiled in pain” for the line.


The word חִילָה ( khilah ) also occurs only here, but is connected to the verb חִיל / חוּל ( khil / khul , “to writhe in pain”). E. Dhorme says that by extension the meaning denotes the cause of this trembling or writhing – terrifying pain. The final clause, לֹא יַחְמוֹל ( lo ’ yakhmol , “it has no pity”), serves as a kind of epithet, modifying “pain” in general. If that pain has no pity or compassion, it is a ruthless pain (E. Dhorme, Job , 82).


The כִּי ( ki , “for”) functions here to explain “my comfort” in the first colon; the second colon simply strengthens the first.


Several commentators delete the colon as having no meaning in the verse, and because (in their view) it is probably the addition of an interpolator who wants to make Job sound more pious. But Job is at least consoling himself that he is innocent, and at the most anticipating a worth-while afterlife (see H. H. Rowley, Job [NCBC], 60).


The word translated “my end” is קִצִּי ( qitsi ). It refers to the termination of his life. In Ps 39:5 it is parallel to “the measure of my days.” In a sense, Job is asking what future he has. To him, the “end” of his affliction can only be death.


For the use of the particle אִם (’ im ) in this kind of interrogative clause, see GKC 475 §150. g , note.


The word means something like “recovery,” or the powers of recovery; it was used in Job 5:12 . In 11:6 it applies to a condition of the mind, such as mental resource. Job is thinking not so much of relief or rescue from his troubles, but of strength to bear them.


In this context חֶסֶד ( khesed ) could be taken as “loyalty” (“loyalty should be shown by his friend”).


The Hebrew of this verse is extremely difficult, and while there are many suggestions, none of them has gained a consensus. The first colon simply has “to the despairing // from his friend // kindness.” Several commentators prefer to change the first word לַמָּס ( lammas , “to the one in despair”) to some sort of verb; several adopt the reading “the one who withholds/he withholds mercy from his friend forsakes….” The point of the first half of the verse seems to be that one should expect kindness (or loyalty) from a friend in times of suffering.


The relationship of the second colon to the first is difficult. The line just reads literally “and the fear of the Almighty he forsakes.” The ו ( vav ) could be interpreted in several different ways: “else he will forsake…,” “although he forsakes…,” “even the one who forsakes…,” or “even if he forsakes…” – the reading adopted here. If the first colon receives the reading “His friend has scorned compassion,” then this clause would be simply coordinated with “and forsakes the fear of the Almighty.” The sense of the verse seems to say that kindness/loyalty should be shown to the despairing, even to the one who is forsaking the fear of the Lord , meaning, saying outrageous things, like Job has been doing.


The verb בָּגְדוּ ( bagÿdu , “dealt treacherously) has been translated “dealt deceitfully,” but it is a very strong word. It means “to act treacherously [or deceitfully].” The deception is the treachery, because the deception is not innocent – it is in the place of a great need. The imagery will compare it to the brook that may or may not have water. If one finds no water when one expected it and needed it, there is deception and treachery. The LXX softens it considerably: “have not regarded me.”


The Hebrew term used here is נָחַל ( nakhal ); this word differs from words for rivers or streams in that it describes a brook with an intermittent flow of water. A brook where the waters are not flowing is called a deceitful brook ( Jer 15:18 ; Mic 1:14 ); one where the waters flow is called faithful ( Isa 33:16 ).


Heb “and as a stream bed of brooks/torrents.” The word אָפִיק (’ afiq ) is the river bed or stream bed where the water flows. What is more disconcerting than finding a well-known torrent whose bed is dry when one expects it to be gushing with water (E. Dhorme, Job , 86)?


The verb is rather simple – יַעֲבֹרוּ ( ya ’ avoru ). But some translate it “pass away” or “flow away,” and others “overflow.” In the rainy season they are deep and flowing, or “overflow” their banks. This is a natural sense to the verb, and since the next verse focuses on this, some follow this interpretation (H. H. Rowley, Job [NCBC], 15). But this idea does not parallel the first part of v. 15 . So it makes better sense to render it “flow away” and see the reference to the summer dry spells when one wants the water but is disappointed.


The article on the participle joins this statement to the preceding noun; it can have the sense of “they” or “which.” The parallel sense then can be continued with a finite verb (see GKC 404 §126. b ).


The participle הַקֹּדְרים ( haqqodÿrim ), often rendered “which are black,” would better be translated “dark,” for it refers to the turbid waters filled with melting ice or melting snow, or to the frozen surface of the water, but not waters that are muddied. The versions failed to note that this referred to the waters introduced in v. 15 .


The verb יִתְעַלֶּם ( yit ’ allem ) has been translated “is hid” or “hides itself.” But this does not work easily in the sentence with the preposition “upon them.” Torczyner suggested “pile up” from an Aramaic root עֲלַם (’ alam ), and E. Dhorme ( Job , 87) defends it without changing the text, contending that the form we have was chosen for alliterative value with the prepositional phrase before it.


The LXX paraphrases the whole verse: “They who used to reverence me now come against me like snow or congealed ice.”


The verb יְזֹרְבוּ ( yÿzorÿvu , “burnt, scorched”) occurs only here. A good number of interpretations take the root as a by-form of צָרַב ( tsarav ) which means in the Niphal “to be burnt” ( Ezek 21:3 ). The expression then would mean “in the time they are burnt,” a reference to the scorching heat of the summer (“when the great heat comes”) and the rivers dry up. Qimchi connected it to the Arabic “canal,” and this has led to the suggestion by E. Dhorme ( Job , 88) that the root זָרַב ( zarav ) would mean “to flow.” In the Piel it would be “to cause to flow,” and in the passive “to be made to flow,” or “melt.” This is attractive, but it does require the understanding (or supplying) of “ice/snow” as the subject. G. R. Driver took the same meaning but translated it “when they (the streams) pour down in torrents, they (straightway) die down” ( ZAW 65 [1953]: 216-17). Both interpretations capture the sense of the brooks drying up.


The verb נִדְעֲכוּ ( nid ’ akhu ) literally means “they are extinguished” or “they vanish” (cf. 18:5-6; 21:17 ). The LXX, perhaps confusing the word with the verb יָדַע ( yada ’, “to know”) has “and it is not known what it was.”


This is the usual rendering of the Hebrew אָרְחוֹת (’ orkhot , “way, path”). It would mean that the course of the wadi would wind down and be lost in the sand. Many commentators either repoint the text to אֹרְחוֹת (’ orÿkhot ) when in construct (as in Isa 21:13 ), or simply redefine the existing word to mean “caravans” as in the next verse, and translate something like “caravans deviate from their route.” D. J. A. Clines ( Job [WBC], 160-61) allows that “caravans” will be introduced in the next verse, but urges retention of the usual sense here. The two verses together will yield the same idea in either case – the river dries up and caravans looking for the water deviate from their course looking for it.


The verb literally means “to go up,” but here no real ascent is intended for the wasteland. It means that they go inland looking for the water. The streams wind out into the desert and dry up in the sand and the heat. A. B. Davidson ( Job , 47) notes the difficulty with the interpretation of this verse as a reference to caravans is that Ibn Ezra says that it is not usual for caravans to leave their path and wander inland in search of water.


The word תֹּהוּ ( tohu ) was used in Genesis for “waste,” meaning without shape or structure. Here the term refers to the trackless, unending wilderness (cf. 12:24 ).


The verb נָבַט ( navat ) means “to gaze intently”; the looking is more intentional, more of a close scrutiny. It forms a fine parallel to the idea of “hope” in the second part. The NIV translates the second verb קִוּוּ ( qivvu ) as “look in hope.” In the previous verbs the imperfect form was used, expressing what generally happens (so the English present tense was used). Here the verb usage changes to the perfect form. It seems that Job is narrating a typical incident now – they looked, but were disappointed.


The words “for these streams” are supplied from context to complete the thought and make the connection with the preceding context.


In Ps 68:24 this word has the meaning of “processions”; here that procession is of traveling merchants forming convoys or caravans.


The verb בּוֹשׁ ( bosh ) basically means “to be ashamed”; however, it has a wider range of meaning such as “disappointed” or “distressed.” The feeling of shame or distress is because of their confidence that they knew what they were doing. The verb is strengthened here with the parallel חָפַר ( khafar , “to be confounded, disappointed”).


The perfect verb has the nuance of past perfect here, for their confidence preceded their disappointment. Note the contrast, using these verbs, in Ps 22:6 : “they trusted in you and they were not put to shame [i.e., disappointed].”


The LXX misread the prepositional phrase as the noun “their cities”; it gives the line as “They too that trust in cities and riches shall come to shame.”


There is a textual problem in this line, an issue of Kethib - Qere . Some read the form with the Qere as the preposition with a suffix referring to “the river,” with the idea “you are like it.” Others would read the form with the Kethib as the negative “not,” meaning “for now you are nothing.” The LXX and the Syriac read the word as “to me.” RSV follows this and changes כִּי ( ki , “for”) to כֵּן ( ken , “thus”). However, such an emendation is unnecessary since כִּי ( ki ) itself can be legitimately employed as an emphatic particle. In that case, the translation would be, “Indeed, now you are” in the sense of “At this time you certainly are behaving like those streams.” The simplest reading is “for now you have become [like] it.” The meaning seems clear enough in the context that the friends, like the river, proved to be of no use. But D. J. A. Clines ( Job [WBC], 161) points out that the difficulty with this is that all references so far to the rivers have been in the plural.


The perfect of הָיָה ( hayah ) could be translated as either “are” or “have been” rather than “have become” (cf. Joüon 2:373 §113. p with regard to stative verbs). “Like it” refers to the intermittent stream which promises water but does not deliver. The LXX has a paraphrase: “But you also have come to me without pity.”


The word חֲתַת ( khatat ) is a hapax legomenon . The word חַת ( khat ) means “terror” in 41:25 . The construct form חִתַּת ( khittat ) is found in Gen 35:5 ; and חִתִּית ( khittit ) is found in Ezek 26:17, 32:23 ). The Akkadian cognate means “terror.” It probably means that in Job’s suffering they recognized some dreaded thing from God and were afraid to speak any sympathy toward him.


The Hebrew הֲכִי ( hakhi ) literally says “Is it because….”


The word כֹּחַ ( koakh ) basically means “strength, force”; but like the synonym חַיִל ( khayil ), it can also mean “wealth, fortune.” E. Dhorme notes that to the Semitic mind, riches bring power ( Job , 90).


Or “bribes.” The verb שִׁחֲדוּ ( shikhadu ) means “give a שֹׁחַד ( shokhad , “bribe”).” The significance is simply “make a gift” (especially in the sense of corrupting an official [ Ezek 16:33 ]). For the spelling of the form in view of the guttural, see GKC 169 §64. a .


The verse now gives the ultimate reason why Job might have urged his friends to make a gift – if it were possible. The LXX, avoiding the direct speech in the preceding verse and this, does make this verse the purpose statement – “to deliver from enemies….”


Heb “hand,” as in the second half of the verse.


The עָרִיצִים (’ aritsim ) are tyrants, the people who inspire fear ( Job 15:20; 27:13 ); the root verb עָרַץ (’ arats ) means “to terrify” ( Job 13:25 ).


The verb now is the imperfect; since it is parallel to the imperative in the first half of the verse it is imperfect of instruction, much like English uses the future for instruction. The verb פָּדָה ( padah ) means “to ransom, redeem,” often in contexts where payment is made.


The verb “teach” or “instruct” is the Hiphil הוֹרוּנִי ( horuni ), from the verb יָרָה ( yarah ); the basic idea of “point, direct” lies behind this meaning. The verb is cognate to the noun תּוֹרָה ( torah , “instruction, teaching, law”).


The independent personal pronoun makes the subject of the verb emphatic: “and I will be silent.”


The verb is הָבִינוּ ( havinu , “to cause someone to understand”); with the ל ( lamed ) following, it has the sense of “explain to me.”


The verb שָׁגָה ( shagah ) has the sense of “wandering, getting lost, being mistaken.”


The word נִּמְרְצוּ ( nimrÿtsu , “[they] painful are”) may be connected to מָרַץ ( marats , “to be ill”). This would give the idea of “how distressing,” or “painful” in this stem. G. R. Driver ( JTS 29 [1927/28]: 390-96) connected it to an Akkadian cognate “to be ill” and rendered it “bitter.” It has also been linked with מָרַס ( maras ), meaning “to be hard, strong,” giving the idea of “how persuasive” (see N. S. Doniach and W. E. Barnes, “Job 4:25: The Root Maras ,” JTS [1929/30]: 291-92). There seems more support for the meaning “to be ill” (cf. Mal 2:10 ). Others follow Targum Job “how pleasant [to my palate are your words]”; E. Dhorme ( Job , 92) follows this without changing the text but noting that the word has an interchange of letter with מָלַץ ( malats ) for מָרַץ ( marats ).


The וּ ( vav ) here introduces the antithesis (GKC 484-85 §154. a ).


The infinitive הוֹכֵחַ ( hokheakh , “reproof,” from יָכַח [ yakhakh , “prove”]) becomes the subject of the verb from the same root, יוֹכִיהַ ( yokhiakh ), and so serves as a noun (see GKC 340 §113. b ). This verb means “to dispute, quarrel, argue, contend” (see BDB 406-7 s.v. יָכַח ). Job is saying, “What does reproof from you prove?”


The LXX again paraphrases this line: “But as it seems, the words of a true man are vain, because I do not ask strength of you.” But the rest of the versions are equally divided on the verse.


This, in the context, is probably the meaning, although the Hebrew simply has the line after the first half of the verse read: “and as/to wind the words of a despairing man.” The line could be translated “and the words of a despairing man, [which are] as wind.” But this translation follows the same approach as RSV, NIV, and NAB, which take the idiom of the verb (“think, imagine”) with the preposition on “wind” to mean “reckon as wind” – “and treat the words of a despairing man as wind.”


The word “lots” is not in the text; the verb is simply תַּפִּילוּ ( tappilu , “you cast”). But the word “lots” is also omitted in 1 Sam 14:42 . Some commentators follow the LXX and repoint the word and divide the object of the preposition to read “and fall upon the blameless one.” Fohrer deletes the verse. Peake transfers it to come after v. 23 . Even though it does not follow quite as well here, it nonetheless makes sense as a strong invective against their lack of sympathy, and the lack of connection could be the result of emotional speech. He is saying they are the kind of people who would cast lots over the child of a debtor, who, after the death of the father, would be sold to slavery.


The verb תִכְרוּ ( tikhru ) is from כָּרָה ( karah ), which is found in 40:30 with עַל (’ al ), to mean “to speculate” on an object. The form is usually taken to mean “to barter for,” which would be an expression showing great callousness to a friend (NIV). NEB has “hurl yourselves,” perhaps following the LXX “rush against.” but G. R. Driver thinks that meaning is very precarious. As for the translation, “to speculate about [or “over”] a friend” could be understood to mean “engage in speculation concerning,” so the translation “auction off” has been used instead.


The second verb, the imperative “turn,” is subordinated to the first imperative even though there is no vav present (see GKC 385-87 §120. a , g ).


The line has “and now, be pleased, turn to me [i.e., face me].” The LXX reverses the idea, “And now, having looked upon your countenances, I will not lie.” The expression “turn to me” means essentially to turn the eyes toward someone to look at him.


The construction uses אִם (’ im ) as in a negative oath to mark the strong negative. He is underscoring his sincerity here. See M. R. Lehmann, “Biblical Oaths,” ZAW 81 (1969): 74-92.


The Hebrew verb שֻׁבוּ ( shuvu ) would literally be “return.” It has here the sense of “to begin again; to adopt another course,” that is, proceed on another supposition other than my guilt (A. B. Davidson, Job , 49). The LXX takes the word from יָשַׁב ( yashav , “sit, dwell”) reading “sit down now.”


The word עַוְלָה (’ avlah ) is sometimes translated “iniquity.” The word can mean “perversion, wickedness, injustice” (cf. 16:11 ). But here he means in regard to words. Unjust or wicked words would be words that are false and destroy.


The verb here is also שֻׁבוּ ( shuvu ), although there is a Kethib - Qere reading. See R. Gordis, “Some Unrecognized Meanings of the Root Shub, ” JBL 52 (1933): 153-62.


The text has simply “yet my right is in it.” A. B. Davidson ( Job , 49, 50) thinks this means that in his plea against God, Job has right on his side. It may mean this; it simply says “my righteousness is yet in it.” If the “in it” does not refer to Job’s cause, then it would simply mean “is present.” It would have very little difference either way.


The word עַוְלָה (’ avlah ) is repeated from the last verse. Here the focus is clearly on wickedness or injustice spoken. sn These words make a fitting transition to ch. , which forms a renewed cry of despair from Job. Job still feels himself innocent, but in the hands of cruel fate which is out to destroy him.


Heb “my palate.” Here “palate” is used not so much for the organ of speech (by metonymy) as of discernment. In other words, what he says indicates what he thinks.


The final word, הַוּוֹת ( havvot ) is usually understood as “calamities.” He would be asking if he could not discern his misfortune. But some argue that the word has to be understood in the parallelism to “wickedness” of words (D. J. A. Clines, Job [WBC], 162). Gordis connects it to Mic 7:3 and Ps 5:10 [9] where the meaning “deceit, falsehood” is found. The LXX has “and does not my throat meditate understanding?”


The word צָבָא ( tsava ’) is actually “army”; it can be used for the hard service of military service as well as other toil. As a military term it would include the fixed period of duty (the time) and the hard work (toil). Job here is considering the lot of all humans, not just himself.


The שָׂכִיר ( sakhir ) is a hired man, either a man who works for wages, or a mercenary soldier ( Jer 46:21 ). The latter sense may be what is intended here in view of the parallelism, although the next verse seems much broader.


This term עֶבֶד (’ eved ) is the servant or the slave. He is compelled to work through the day, in the heat; but he longs for evening, when he can rest from the slavery.


The expression יִשְׁאַף־צֵל ( yish ’ af tsel , “longing for the evening shadow”) could also be taken as a relative clause (without the relative pronoun): “as a servant [who] longs for the evening shadow” (see GKC 487 §155. g ). In either case, the expressions in v. 2 emphasize the point of the comparison, which will be summed up in v. 3 .


The two verbs in this verse stress the eager expectation and waiting. The first, שָׁאַף ( sha ’ af ), means “to long for; to desire”; and the second, קָוָה ( qavah ), has the idea of “to hope for; to look for; to wait.” The words would give the sense that the servant or hired man had the longing on his mind all day.


The word פֹּעַל ( po ’ al ) means “work.” But here the word should be taken as a metonymy, meaning the pay for the work that he has done (compare Jer 22:13 ).


“Thus” indicates a summary of vv. 1 and 2 : like the soldier, the mercenary, and the slave, Job has labored through life and looks forward to death.


The form is the Hophal perfect of נָחַל ( nakhal ): “I have been made to inherit,” or more simply, “I have inherited.” The form occurs only here. The LXX must have confused the letters or sounds, a ו ( vav ) for the ן ( nun ), for it reads “I have endured.” As a passive the form technically has two accusatives (see GKC 388 §121. c ). Job’s point is that his sufferings have been laid on him by another, and so he has inherited them.


The word is שָׁוְא ( shav ’, “vanity, deception, nothingness, futility”). His whole life – marked here in months to show its brevity – has been futile. E. Dhorme ( Job , 98) suggests the meaning “disillusionment,” explaining that it marks the deceptive nature of mortal life. The word describes life as hollow, insubstantial.


“Sorrow” is עָמָל (’ amal ), used in 3:10 . It denotes anxious toil, labor, troublesome effort. It may be that the verse expresses the idea that the nights are when the pains of his disease are felt the most. The months are completely wasted; the nights are agonizing.


The verb is literally “they have appointed”; the form with no expressed subject is to be interpreted as a passive (GKC 460 §144. g ). It is therefore not necessary to repoint the verb to make it passive. The word means “to number; to count,” and so “to determine; to allocate.”


This is the main clause, and not part of the previous conditional clause; it is introduced by the conjunction אִם (’ im ) (see GKC 336 §112. gg ).


The verb מָדַד ( madad ) normally means “to measure,” and here in the Piel it has been given the sense of “to extend.” But this is not well attested and not widely accepted. There are many conjectural emendations. Of the most plausible one might mention the view of Gray, who changes מִדַּד ( middad , Piel of מָדַּד ) to מִדֵּי ( midde , comprising the preposition מִן [ min ] plus the noun דַּי [ day ], meaning “as often as”): “as often as evening comes.” Dhorme, following the LXX to some extent, adds the word “day” after “when/if” and replaces מִדַּד ( middad ) with מָתַי ( matay , “when”) to read “If I lie down, I say, ‘When comes the morning?’ If I rise up, I say, ‘How long till evening?’” The LXX, however, may be based more on a recollection of Deut 28:67 . One can make just as strong a case for the reading adopted here, that the night seems to drag on (so also NIV).


The Hebrew term נְדֻדִים ( nÿdudim , “tossing”) refers to the restless tossing and turning of the sick man at night on his bed. The word is a hapax legomenon derived from the verb נָדַד ( nadad , “to flee; to wander; to be restless”). The plural form here sums up the several parts of the actions (GKC 460 §144. f ). E. Dhorme ( Job , 99) argues that because it applies to both his waking hours and his sleepless nights, it may have more of the sense of wanderings of the mind. There is no doubt truth to the fact that the mind wanders in all this suffering; but there is no need to go beyond the contextually clear idea of the restlessness of the night.


Heb “my flesh.”


The implied comparison is vivid: the dirty scabs cover his entire body like a garment – so he is clothed with them.


The text has “clods of dust.” The word גִּישׁ ( gish , “dirty scabs”) is a hapax legomenon from גּוּשׁ ( gush , “clod”). Driver suggests the word has a medical sense, like “pustules” (G. R. Driver, “Problems in the Hebrew text of Job,” VTSup 3 [1955]: 73) or “scabs” (JB, NEB, NAB, NIV). Driver thinks “clods of dust” is wrong; he repoints “dust” to make a new verb “to cover,” cognate to Arabic, and reads “my flesh is clothed with worms, and scab covers my skin.” This refers to the dirty scabs that crusted over the sores all over his body. The LXX links this with the second half of the verse: “And my body has been covered with loathsome worms, and I waste away, scraping off clods of dirt from my eruption.”


The meaning of רָגַע ( raga ’) is also debated here. D. J. A. Clines ( Job [WBC], 163) does not think the word can mean “cracked” because scabs show evidence of the sores healing. But E. Dhorme ( Job , 100) argues that the usage of the word shows the idea of “splitting, separating, making a break,” or the like. Here then it would mean “my skin splits” and as a result festers. This need not be a reference to the scabs, but to new places. Or it could mean that the scabbing never heals, but is always splitting open.


The verb קָלַל ( qalal ) means “to be light” ( 40:4 ), and then by extension “to be swift; to be rapid” ( Jer 4:13 ; Hab 1:8 ).


The text includes a wonderful wordplay on this word. The noun is תִּקְוָה ( tiqvah , “hope”). But it can also have the meaning of one of its cognate nouns, קַו ( qav , “thread, cord,” as in Josh 2:18,21 ). He is saying that his life is coming to an end for lack of thread/for lack of hope (see further E. Dhorme, Job , 101).


The word “that” is supplied in the translation.


The verb with the infinitive serves as a verbal hendiadys: “return to see” means “see again.”


This verse is omitted in the LXX and so by several commentators. But the verb שׁוּר ( shur , “turn, return”) is so characteristic of Job (10 times) that the verse seems appropriate here.


The comparison is implied; “as” is therefore supplied in the translation.


The two verbs כָּלַה ( kalah ) and הָלַךְ ( halakh ) mean “to come to an end” and “to go” respectively. The picture is of the cloud that breaks up, comes to an end, is dispersed so that it is no longer a cloud; it then fades away or vanishes. This line forms a good simile for the situation of a man who comes to his end and disappears.


The noun שְׁאוֹל ( shÿ ’ ol ) can mean “the grave,” “death,” or “Sheol” – the realm of departed spirits. In Job this is a land from which there is no return ( 10:21 and here). It is a place of darkness and gloom ( 10:21-22 ), a place where the dead lie hidden ( 14:13 ); as a place appointed for all no matter what their standing on earth might have been ( 30:23 ). In each case the precise meaning has to be determined. Here the grave makes the most sense, for Job is simply talking about death.


M. Dahood suggests the meaning is the same as “his abode” (“Hebrew-Ugaritic Lexicography V,” Bib 48 [1967]: 421-38).


The verb means “to recognize” by seeing. “His place,” the place where he was living, is the subject of the verb. This personification is intended simply to say that the place where he lived will not have him any more. The line is very similar to Ps 103:16 b – when the wind blows the flower away, its place knows it no more.


“Also I” has been rendered frequently as “therefore,” introducing a conclusion. BDB 168-69 s.v. גַמּ lists Ps 52:7 [5] as a parallel, but it also could be explained as an adversative.


h, siha, ” ST 15 [1961]: 1-10).


The word תַּנִּין ( tannin ) could be translated “whale” as well as the more mythological “dragon” or “monster of the deep” (see E. Dhorme, Job , 105). To the Hebrews this was part of God’s creation in ; in the pagan world it was a force to be reckoned with, and so the reference would be polemical. The sea is a symbol of the tumultuous elements of creation; in the sea were creatures that symbolized the powerful forces of chaos – Leviathan, Tannin, and Rahab. They required special attention.


The imperfect verb here receives the classification of obligatory imperfect. Job wonders if he is such a threat to God that God must do this.


The word מִשְׁמָר ( mishmar ) means “guard; barrier.” M. Dahood suggested “muzzle” based on Ugaritic, but that has proven to be untenable (“ Mismar , ‘Muzzle,’ in Job 7:12 ,” JBL 80 [1961]: 270-71).


The particle כִּי ( ki ) could also be translated “when,” but “if” might work better to introduce the conditional clause and to parallel the earlier reasoning of Job in v. 4 (using אִם , ’ im ). See GKC 336-37 §112. hh .


The verb literally means “say,” but here the connotation must be “think” or “say to oneself” – “when I think my bed….”


The verb means “to lift up; to take away” ( נָשָׂא , nasa ’). When followed by the preposition בּ ( bet ) with the complement of the verb, the idea is “to bear a part; to take a share,” or “to share in the burden” (cf. Num 11:7 ). The idea then would be that the sleep would ease the complaint. It would not end the illness, but the complaining for a while.


The Piel of חָתַת ( khatat ) occurs only here and in Jer 51:56 (where it is doubtful). The meaning is clearly “startle, scare.” The perfect verb with the ו ( vav ) is fitting in the apodosis of the conditional sentence. sn Here Job is boldly saying that it is God who is behind the horrible dreams that he is having at night.


The Piel of בָּעַת ( ba ’ at , “terrify”) is one of the characteristic words in the book of Job; it occurs in 3:5; 9:34; 13:11, 21; 15:24; 18:11; and 33:7 .


The prepositions בּ ( bet ) and מִן ( min ) interchange here; they express the instrument of causality. See N. Sarna, “The Interchange of the Prepositions bet and min in Biblical Hebrew,” JBL 78 (1959): 310-16. Emphasis on the instruments of terror in this verse is highlighted by the use of chiasm in which the prepositional phrases comprise the central elements (ab//b’a’). Verse 18 contains another example.


The word נֶפֶשׁ ( nefesh ) is often translated “soul.” But since Hebrew thought does not make such a distinction between body and soul, it is usually better to translate it with “person.” When a suffix is added to the word, then that pronoun would serve as the better translation, as here with “my soul” = “I” (meaning with every fiber of my being).


The verb בָּחַר ( bakhar , “choose”) followed by the preposition בּ ( bet ) can have the sense of “prefer.”


The meaning of the term מַחֲנָק ( makhanaq , “strangling”), a hapax legomenon , is clear enough; the verb חָנַק ( khanaq ) in the Piel means “to strangle” ( Nah 2:13 ), and in the Niphal “to strangle oneself” ( 2 Sam 17:23 ). This word has tempted some commentators to take נֶפֶשׁ ( nefesh ) in a very restricted sense of “throat.”


The conjunction “and” is supplied in the translation. “Death” could also be taken in apposition to “strangling,” providing the outcome of the strangling.


This is one of the few words recognizable in the LXX: “You will separate life from my spirit, and yet keep my bones from death.”


The comparative min ( מִן ) after the verb “choose” will here have the idea of preferring something before another (see GKC 429-30 §133. b ).


The word מֵעַצְמוֹתָי ( me ’ atsmotay ) means “more than my bones” (= life or being). The line is poetic; “bones” is often used in scripture metonymically for the whole living person, so there is no need here for conjectural emendation. Nevertheless, there have been several suggestions made. The simplest and most appealing for those who desire a change is the repointing to מֵעַצְּבוֹתָי ( me ’ atsÿvotay , “my sufferings,” adopted by NAB, JB, Moffatt, Driver-Gray, E. Dhorme, H. H. Rowley, and others). Driver obtains this idea by positing a new word based on Arabic without changing the letters; it means “great” – but he has to supply the word “sufferings.”


E. Dhorme ( Job , 107-8) thinks the idea of loathing or despising is problematic since there is no immediate object. He notes that the verb מָאַס ( ma ’ as , “loathe”) is parallel to מָסַס ( masas , “melt”) in the sense of “flow, drip” ( Job 42:6 ). This would give the idea “I am fading away” or “I grow weaker,” or as Dhorme chooses, “I am pining away.”


There is no object for the verb in the text. But the most likely object would be “my life” from the last verse, especially since in this verse Job will talk about not living forever. Some have thought the object should be “death,” meaning that Job despised death more than the pains. But that is a forced meaning; besides, as H. H. Rowley points out, the word here means to despise something, to reject it. Job wanted death.


Heb “cease from me.” This construction means essentially “leave me in peace.”


This word הֶבֶל ( hevel ) is difficult to translate. It means “breath; puff of air; vapor” and then figuratively, “vanity.” Job is saying that his life is but a breath – it is brief and fleeting. Compare Ps 144:4 for a similar idea.


The verse is a rhetorical question; it is intended to mean that man is too little for God to be making so much over him in all this.


The Piel verb is a factitive meaning “to magnify.” The English word “magnify” might not be the best translation here, for God, according to Job, is focusing inordinately on him. It means to magnify in thought, appreciate, think highly of. God, Job argues, is making too much of mankind by devoting so much bad attention on them.


The expression “set your heart on” means “concentrate your mind on” or “pay attention to.”


The verb פָּקַד ( paqad ) is a very common one in the Bible; while it is frequently translated “visit,” the “visit” is never comparable to a social call. When God “visits” people it always means a divine intervention for blessing or cursing – but the visit always changes the destiny of the one visited. Here Job is amazed that God Almighty would be so involved in the life of mere human beings.


Now the verb “to test” is introduced and gives further explanation to the purpose of the “visit” in the parallel line (see the same parallelism in Ps 17:3 ). The verb בָּחַן ( bakhan ) has to do with passing things through the fire or the crucible to purify the metal (see Job 23:10 ; Zech 13:3 ); metaphorically it means “to examine carefully” and “to purify by testing.”


Heb “according to what [= how long] will you not look away from me.”


The verb שָׁעָה ( sha ’ ah , “to look”) with the preposition מִן ( min ) means “to look away from; to avert one’s gaze.” Job wonders if God would not look away from him even briefly, for the constant vigilance is killing him.


The Hiphil of רָפָה ( rafah ) means “to leave someone alone.”


The simple perfect verb can be used in a conditional sentence without a conditional particle present (see GKC 494 §159. h ).


This word is a hapax legomenon from the verb פָּגָע ( paga ’, “meet, encounter”); it would describe what is hit or struck (as nouns of this pattern can indicate the place of the action) – the target.


In the prepositional phrase עָלַי (’ alay ) the results of a scribal change is found (these changes were called tiqqune sopherim, “corrections of the scribes” made to avoid using improper language about God). The prepositional phrase would have been עָלֶךָ (’ alekha , “to you,” as in the LXX). But it offended the Jews to think of Job’s being burdensome to God. Job’s sin could have repercussions on him, but not on God.


The LXX has, “for now I will depart to the earth.”


The verb שָׁחַר ( shakhar ) in the Piel has been translated “to seek early in the morning” because of the possible link with the word “dawn.” But the verb more properly means “to seek diligently” (by implication).


The second colon of the verse simply says “and a strong wind the words of your mouth.” The simplest way to treat this is to make it an independent nominal sentence: “the words of your mouth are a strong wind.” Some have made it parallel to the first by apposition, understanding “how long” to do double duty. The line beginning with the ו ( vav ) can also be subordinated as a circumstantial clause, as here.


The word כַּבִּיר ( kabbir , “great”) implies both abundance and greatness. Here the word modifies “wind”; the point of the analogy is that Job’s words are full of sound but without solid content.


See, however, G. R. Driver’s translation, “the breath of one who is mighty are the words of your mouth” (“Hebrew Studies,” JRAS 1948: 170).


The Piel verb יְעַוֵּת ( yÿ ’ avvet ) means “to bend; to cause to swerve from the norm; to deviate; to pervert.” The LXX renders the first colon as “will the Lord be unjust when he judges?”


The first word is מִשְׁפָּת ( mishpat , “justice”). It can mean an act of judgment, place of judgment, or what is just, that is, the outcome of the decision. It basically describes an umpire’s decision. The parallel word is צֶדֶק ( tsedeq , “righteousness,” or “what is right”). The basic idea here is that which conforms to the standard, what is right. See S. H. Scholnick, “The Meaning of Mishpat in the Book of Job,” JBL 101 (1982): 521-29.


Some commentators think that the second verb should be changed in order to avoid the repetition of the same word and to reflect the different words in the versions. The suggestion is to read יְעַוֵּה ( yÿ ’ avveh ) instead; this would mean “to cause someone to deviate,” for the root means “to bend.” The change is completely unwarranted; the LXX probably chose different words for stylistic reasons (see D. J. A. Clines, Job [WBC], 198). The repetition in the Hebrew text is a common type; it strengthens the enormity of the charge Job seems to be making.


The AV and RV take the protasis down to the middle of v. 6 . The LXX changes the “if” at the beginning of v. 5 to “then” and makes that verse the apodosis. If the apodosis comes in the second half of v. 4 , then v. 4 would be a complete sentence (H. H. Rowley, Job [NCBC], 71; A. B. Davidson, Job , 60). The particle אִם (’ im ) has the sense of “since” in this section.


The verb is a Piel preterite with a vav ( ו ) consecutive. The ו ( vav ) need not be translated if the second half of the verse is the apodosis of the first – since they sinned…he did this. The verb שִׁלֵּחַ ( shilleakh ) means “to expel; to thrust out” normally; here the sense of “deliver up” or “deliver over” fits the sentence well. The verse is saying that sin carries its own punishment, and so God merely delivered the young people over to it.


Heb “into the hand of their rebellion.” The word “hand” often signifies “power.” The rebellious acts have the power to destroy, and so that is what happened – according to Bildad. Bildad’s point is that Job should learn from what happened to his family.


“But” is supplied to show the contrast between this verse and the preceding line.


The verb שִׁחַר ( shikhar ) means “to seek; to seek earnestly” (see 7:21 ). With the preposition אֶל (’ el ) the verb may carry the nuance of “to address; to have recourse to” (see E. Dhorme, Job , 114). The LXX connected it etymologically to “early” and read, “Be early in prayer to the Lord Almighty.”


The verb תִּתְחַנָּן ( titkhannan ) means “to make supplication; to seek favor; to seek grace” (from חָנַן , khanan ). Bildad is saying that there is only one way for Job to escape the same fate as his children – he must implore God’s mercy. Job’s speech had spoken about God’s seeking him and not finding him; but Bildad is speaking of the importance of Job’s seeking God.


A verb form needs to be supplied here. Bildad is not saying to Job, “If you are pure [as you say you are].” Bildad is convinced that Job is a sinner. Therefore, “If you become pure” makes more sense here.


Or “innocent” (i.e., acquitted).


Many commentators delete this colon as a moralizing gloss on v. 5 ; but the phrase makes good sense, and simply serves as another condition. Besides, the expression is in the LXX.


The verb יָעִיר ( ya ’ ir , “rouse, stir up”) is a strong anthropomorphism. The LXX has “he will answer your prayer” (which is probably only the LXX’s effort to avoid the anthropomorphism [D. J. A. Clines, Job (WBC), 198]). A reading of “watch over you” has been adopted because of parallel texts (see H. L. Ginsberg, “Two North Canaanite Letters from Ugarit,” BASOR 72 [1938]: 18-19; and H. N. Richardson, “A Ugaritic Letter of a King to His Mother,” JBL 66 [1947]: 321-24). Others suggest “his light will shine on you” or “he will bestow health on you.” But the idea of “awake” is common enough in the Bible to be retained here.


The Piel of שָׁלַם ( shalam ) means “to make good; to repay; to restore something to its wholeness; to reestablish.” The best understanding here would be “restore [Job] to his place.” Some take the verb in the sense of “reward [Job himself] with a righteous habitation.”


The construct נְוַת ( nÿvat ) is feminine; only the masculine occurs in Hebrew. But the meaning “abode of your righteousness” is clear enough. The righteousness of Job is pictured as inhabiting an estate, or it pictures the place where Job lives as a righteous man. A translation “rightful habitation” would mean “the habitation that you deserve” – if you are righteous.


The reference to “your beginning” is a reference to Job’s former estate of wealth and peace. The reference to “latter end” is a reference to conditions still in the future. What Job had before will seem so small in comparison to what lies ahead.


The verb has the idea of “to grow”; here it must mean “to flourish; to grow considerably” or the like. The statement is not so much a prophecy; rather Bildad is saying that “if Job had recourse to God, then….” This will be fulfilled, of course, at the end of the book.


The verb כוֹנֵן ( khonen , from כּוּן , kun ) normally would indicate “prepare yourself” or “fix” one’s heart on something, i.e., give attention to it. The verb with the ל ( lamed ) preposition after it does mean “to think on” or “to meditate” ( Isa 51:13 ). But some commentators wish to change the כּ ( kaf ) to a בּ ( bet ) in the verb to get “to consider” (from בִּין , bin ). However, M. Dahood shows a connection between כּנן ( knn ) and שׁאל ( sh ’ l ) in Ugaritic (“Hebrew-Ugaritic Lexicography,” Bib 46 [1965]: 329).


The Hebrew has “the search of their fathers,” but the word is probably intended to mean what that observation or search yielded (so “search” is a metonymy of cause).


Heb “fathers.”


The Hebrew has “we are of yesterday,” the adverb functioning as a predicate. Bildad’s point is that they have not had time to acquire great knowledge because they are recent.


E. Dhorme ( Job , 116) observes that the shadow is the symbol of ephemeral things ( 14:2; 17:7 ; Ps 144:4 ). The shadow passes away quickly (116).


The sentence begins emphatically: “Is it not they.”


The “and” is not present in the line. The second clause seems to be in apposition to the first, explaining it more thoroughly: “Is it not they [who] will instruct you, [who] will speak to you.”


The noun may have been left indeterminate for the sake of emphasis (GKC 401-2 §125. c ), meaning “important words.”


Heb “from their heart.”


The two verbs, גָּאָה ( ga ’ ah ) and שָׂגָה ( sagah ), have almost the same meanings of “flourish, grow, become tall.”


The word has been traditionally translated “greenness” (so KJV, ASV), but some modern commentators argue for “in flower.” The word is found only in Song 6:11 (where it may be translated “blossoms”). From the same root is אָבִיב (’ aviv , “fresh young ears of barley”). Here the word refers to the plant that is still in its early stages of flowering. It should not be translated to suggest the plant is flowering (cf. NRSV), but translating as if the plant is green (so NASB) is also problematic.


The imperfect verb here is the modal use of potential, “can wither away” if the water is not there.


Heb “before.”


The LXX interprets the line: “does not any herb wither before it has received moisture?”


The word אָרְחוֹת (’ orkhot ) means “ways” or “paths” in the sense of tracks of destiny or fate. The word דֶּרֶךְ ( derekh , “way, road, path”) is used in a similar way ( Isa 40:27 ; Ps 37:5 ). However, many commentators emend the text to read אַחֲרִית (’ akharit , “end”) in harmony with the LXX. But Prov 1:19 (if not emended as well) confirms the primary meaning here without changing the text (see D. J. A. Clines, Job [WBC], 199).


The word חָנֵף ( khanef ) is often translated “hypocrite.” But the root verb means “to be profane,” and this would be done by idolatry or bloodshed. It describes an irreligious person, a godless person. In Dan 11:32 the word seems to mean “make someone pagan.” The word in this verse is parallel to “those who forget God.”


The relative pronoun introduces the verse as a relative clause, working with the “godless person” of the preceding verse. The relative pronoun is joined to the resumptive pronoun in the translation: “who + his trust” = “whose trust.”


The noun כֶּסֶל ( kesel ) in this half of the verse must correspond to “his security” in the second half. The meaning must be “his trust” (see 4:6 ). The two words will again be parallel in 31:24 .


The word יָקוֹט ( yaqot ) is not known anywhere else; here it looks like it should be a noun to parallel “spider’s house” in the next colon. But scholars have tried to identify it as a verb, perhaps an imperfect of קוֹט ( qot , BDB 876 s.v.), or related to an Arabic qatta , “to cut.” Some versions have “break in sunder” (KJV, RV); others “cut off” (RSV). Apart from verbs, some commentators follow Sa`adia’s Arabic translation “sun cords,” meaning “gossamer.” Accordingly, there are emendations like “threads,” “threads of summer,” “spider threads,” and the like. D. J. A. Clines agrees with those who conclude that emendations based on Sa`adia’s translation lack a sound philological basis. E. Dhorme “somewhat timidly” suggests יַלְקוּט ( yalqut ), the shepherd’s bag or scrip ( 1 Sam 17:40 ). He suggests that an empty bag would be a symbol of something unstable and futile. It seems impossible to determine exactly what the word meant. One can only conclude that it means something like “fragile” or “futile.” The LXX is of no help: “for his house shall be without inhabitants.”


The verb עָמַד (’ amad , “to stand”) is almost synonymous with the parallel קוּם ( qum , “to rise; to stand”). The distinction is that the former means “to remain standing” (so it is translated here “hold up”), and the latter “rise, stand up.”


The figure now changes to a plant that is flourishing and spreading and then suddenly cut off. The word רָטַב ( ratav ) means “to be moist; to be watered.” The word occurs in Arabic, Aramaic, and Akkadian, but only twice in the Bible: here as the adjective and in 24:8 as the verb.


The Hebrew is לִפְנֵי ( lifne , “before”). Does this mean “in the presence of the sun,” i.e., under a sweltering sun, or “before” the sun rises? It seems more natural to take לִפְנֵי ( lifne ) as “in the presence of” or “under.”


Heb “its shoot goes out.”


Some have emended this phrase to obtain “over the roofs.” The LXX has “out of his corruption.” H. M. Orlinsky has shown that this reading arose from an internal LXX change, saprias having replaced prasias , “garden” ( JQR 26 [1935/36]: 134-35).


Cheyne reads “spring” or “well” rather than “heap.” However, this does not fit the parallelism very well, and so he emends the second half as well. Nevertheless the Hebrew text needs no emending here.


The expression “of stones” is added for clarification of what the heap would be. It refers to the object around which the roots would grow. The parallelism with “house of stones” makes this reading highly probable.


The idea is that the plant grows, looking for a place to grow among the stones. Some trees grow so tightly around the rocks and stones that they are impossible to uproot. The rocky ground where it grows forms “a house of stones.” The LXX supports an emendation from יְחֱזֶה ( yÿkhezeh , “it looks”) to יִחְיֶה ( yikhyeh , “it lives”). Others have tried to emend the text in a variety of ways: “pushes” (Budde), “cleave” (Gordis), “was opposite” (Driver), or “run against” (NEB, probably based on G. R. Driver). If one were to make a change, the reading with the LXX would be the easiest to defend, but there is no substantial reason to do that. The meaning is about the same without such a change.


Ball reads אֵל (’ el , “God”) instead of אִם (’ im , “if”): “God destroys it” – but there is no reason for this. The idea would be implied in the context. A. B. Davidson rightly points out that who destroys it is not important, but the fact that it is destroyed. tn The Hebrew has “if one destroys it”; the indefinite subject allows for a passive interpretation. The verb means “swallow” in the Qal, but in the Piel it means “to engulf; to destroy; to ruin” ( 2:3; 10:8 ). It could here be rendered “removed from its place” (the place where it is rooted); since the picture is that of complete destruction, “uprooted” would be a good rendering.


Heb “it”; the referent (“his place” in the preceding line) has been specified in the translation for clarity. sn The place where the plant once grew will deny ever knowing it. Such is the completeness of the uprooting that there is not a trace left.


Here “saying” is supplied in the translation.


This line is difficult. If the MT stands as it is, the expression must be ironic. It would be saying that the joy (all the security and prosperity) of its way (its life) is short-lived – that is the way its joy goes. Most commentators are not satisfied with this. Dhorme, for one, changes מְשׂוֹשׂ ( mÿsos , “joy”) to מְסוֹס ( mÿsos , “rotting”), and gets “behold him lie rotting on the path.” The sibilants can interchange this way. But Dhorme thinks the MT was written the way it was because the word was thought to be “joy,” when it should have been the other way. The word “way” then becomes an accusative of place. The suggestion is rather compelling and would certainly fit the context. The difficulty is that a root סוּס ( sus , “to rot”) has to be proposed. E. Dhorme does this by drawing on Arabic sas , “to be eaten by moths or worms,” thus “worm-eaten; decaying; rotting.” Cf. NIV “its life withers away”; also NAB “there he lies rotting beside the road.”


Heb “dust.”


The word עַד (’ ad , “until”) would give the reading “until he fills your mouth with laughter,” subordinating the verse to the preceding with some difficulty in interpretation. It would be saying that God will not reject the blameless man until he filled Job with joy. Almost all commentators and modern versions change the pointing to עוֹד (’ od , “yet”), forming a hope for the future blessing of joy for Job.


“Shame” is compared to a garment that can be worn. The “shame” envisioned here is much more than embarrassment or disgrace – it is utter destruction. For parallels in the Psalms, see Pss 35:26; 132:18; 109:29 .


The adverb אָמְנָם (’ omnam , “in truth”) is characteristic of the Book of Job ( 12:2; 19:4; 34:12; 36:4 ). The friends make commonplace statements, general truths, and Job responds with “truly I know this is so.” Job knows as much about these themes as his friends do.


The attempt to define אֱנוֹשׁ (’ enosh ) as “weak” or “mortal” man is not compelling. Such interpretations are based on etymological links without the clear support of usage (an issue discussed by J. Barr, Comparative Philology and the Text of the Old Testament ). This seems to be a poetic word for “human” (the only nonpoetic use is in 2 Chr 14:10 ).


The preposition is אִם (’ im , “with, before, in the presence of”). This is more specific than מִן ( min ) in 4:17 .


Some commentators take God to be the subject of this verb, but it is more likely that it refers to the mortal who tries to challenge God in a controversy. The verb is used of Job in 13:3 .


The verb רִיב ( riv ) is a common one; it has the idea of “contention; dispute; legal dispute or controversy; go to law.” With the preposition אִם (’ im ) the idea must be “to contend with” or “to dispute with.” The preposition reflects the prepositional phrase “with God” in v. 2 , supporting the view that man is the subject.


This use of the imperfect as potential imperfect assumes that the human is the subject, that in a dispute with God he could not answer one of God’s questions (for which see the conclusion of the book when God questions Job). On the other hand, if the interpretation were that God does not answer the demands of mortals, then a simple progressive imperfect would be required. In support of this is the frustration of Job that God does not answer him.


The genitive phrase translated “in heart” would be a genitive of specification, specifying that the wisdom of God is in his intelligent decisions. sn The heart is the seat of intelligence and understanding, the faculty of decision making.


The first half of the verse simply has “wise of heart and mighty of strength.” The entire line is a casus pendens that will refer to the suffix on אֵלָיו (’ elayv ) in the second colon. So the question is “Who has resisted the one who is wise of heart and mighty of strength?” Again, the rhetorical question is affirming that no one has done this.


The verb is the Hiphil of the verb קָשָׁה ( qashah , “to be hard”). It frequently is found with the word for “neck,” describing people as “stiff-necked,” i.e., stubborn, unbending. So the idea of resisting God fits well. The fact that this word occurs in Exodus with the idea of hardening the heart against God may indicate that there is an allusion to Pharaoh here.


The use of שָׁלֵם ( shalem ) in the Qal is rare. It has been translated “remain safe” by E. Dhorme, “survived” by the NEB, “remained unscathed” by the NAB and NIV, or “succeeded” by KJV, G. R. Driver.


The verb is plural: “they do not know it.” This suggests that the mountains would not know it. Some follow the Syriac with a singular verb, i.e., God does not know it, meaning, it is so trifling to God that he can do it without thinking. But the better interpretation may be “suddenly.” This would be interpreted from the MT as it stands; it would imply “before they know anything,” thus “suddenly” (Gray, Dhorme, Buttenwieser, et. al.). D. W. Thomas connects the meaning to another verb based on Arabic and translates it, “ so that they are no longer still” (“Additional Notes on the Root yada` in Hebrew,” JTS 15 [1964]: 54-57). J. A. Emerton works with a possible root יָדַע ( yada ’) meaning “be still” (“A Consideration of Some Alleged Meanings of yada` in Hebrew,” JSS 15 [1970]: 145-80).


The verb הִתְפַלָּצ ( hitfallats ) is found only here, but the root seems clearly to mean “to be tossed; to be thrown about,” and so in the Hitpael “quiver; shake; tremble.” One of the three nouns from this root is פַּלָּצוּת ( pallatsut ), the “shudder” that comes with terror (see Job 21:6 ; Isa 21:4 ; Ezek 7:18 ; and Ps 55:6 ).


The form could also be subordinated, “that it shine not” (see further GKC 323 §109. g ).


The verb זָרַח ( zarakh ) means “rise.” This is the ordinary word for the sunrise. But here it probably has the idea of “shine; glisten,” which is also attested in Hebrew and Aramaic. sn There are various views on the meaning of this line in this verse. Some think it refers to some mysterious darkness like the judgment in Egypt ( Exod 10:21-23 ), or to clouds building ( 3:5 ), often in accompaniment of earthquakes (see Joel 2:10, 3:15-16 ; Isa 13:10-13 ). It could also refer to an eclipse. All this assumes that the phenomenon here is limited to the morning or the day; but it could simply be saying that God controls light and darkness.


The verb חָתַם ( khatam ) with בְּעַד ( bÿ ’ ad ) before its complement, means “to seal; to wall up; to enclose.” This is a poetic way of saying that God prevents the stars from showing their light.


Or “marches forth.”


The reference is probably to the waves of the sea. This is the reading preserved in NIV and NAB, as well as by J. Crenshaw, “ W ÿ dorek `al-bamote ‘ ares ,” CBQ 34 (1972): 39-53. But many see here a reference to Canaanite mythology. The marginal note in the RSV has “the back of the sea dragon.” The view would also see in “sea” the Ugaritic god Yammu .


Heb “and the chambers of the south.”


Only slight differences exist between this verse and 5:9 which employs the simple ו ( vav ) conjunction before אֵין (’ eyn ) in the first colon and omits the ו ( vav ) conjunction before נִפְלָאוֹת ( nifla ’ ot , “wonderful things”) in the second colon. sn There is probably great irony in Job’s using this same verse as in 5:9 . But Job’s meaning here is different than Eliphaz.


The NIV has “when” to form a temporal clause here. For the use of “if,” see GKC 497 §159. w .


The imperfect verbs in this verse are consistent with the clauses. In the conditional clauses a progressive imperfect is used, but in the following clauses the verbs are potential imperfects.


The pronoun “him” is supplied here; it is not in MT, but the Syriac and Vulgate have it (probably for translation purposes as well).


E. Dhorme ( Job , 133) surveys the usages and concludes that the verb חָתַף ( khataf ) normally describes the wicked actions of a man, especially by treachery or trickery against another. But a verb חָתַף ( khataf ) is found nowhere else; a noun “robber” is found in Prov 23:28 . Dhorme sees no reason to emend the text, because he concludes that the two verbs are synonymous. Job is saying that if God acts like a plunderer, there is no one who can challenge what he does.


The verb is the Hiphil imperfect (potential again) from שׁוּב ( shuv ). In this stem it can mean “turn back, refute, repel” (BDB 999 s.v. Hiph.5).


The verb שָׁחַח ( shakhakh ) means “to be prostrate” or “to crouch.” Here the enemies are prostrate under the feet of God – they are crushed.


The construction אַף כִּי־אָנֹכִי (’ af ki ’ anokhi ) is an expression that means either “how much more” or “how much less.” Here it has to mean “how much less,” for if powerful forces like Rahab are crushed beneath God’s feet, how could Job contend with him?


The imperfect verb here is to be taken with the nuance of a potential imperfect. The idea of “answer him” has a legal context, i.e., answering God in a court of law. If God is relentless in his anger toward greater powers, then Job realizes it is futile for him.


The verb is supplied in this line.


The preposition אִם (’ im , “with”) carries the idea of “in contest with” in a number of passages (compare vv. 2, 3; 16:21 ).


The LXX goes a different way after changing the first person to the third: “Oh then that he would hearken to me, or judge my cause.”


The line begins with אֲשֶׁר (’ asher , “which”), which is omitted in the LXX and the Syriac. The particle אִם (’ im ) can introduce a concessive clause (GKC 498 §160. a ) or a conditional clause (GKC 495 §159. n ). The idea here seems to be “even if I were…I could not….”


The verb is צָדַקְתִּי ( tsadaqti , “I am right [or “righteous”]”). The term here must be forensic, meaning “in the right” or “innocent” (see 11:2; 13:18; 33:12; 40:8 ). Job is claiming to be in the right, but still has difficulty speaking to God.


The form is the Qal imperfect of the verb “answer.” As the text stands, Job is saying that he cannot answer or could not answer (contend with) God if given a chance. Some commentators think a Niphal fits better here: “I am not answered,” meaning God does not reply to him. This has the LXX, the Syriac, and Theodotion in support of it. The advantage would be to avoid the repetition of the same word from v. 14 . But others rightly reject this, because all Job is saying here is that he would be too overwhelmed by God to answer him in court. The LXX change to a passive is understandable in that it would be seeking a different idea in this verse and without vocalization might have assumed a passive voice here.


The verb אֶתְחַנָּן (’ etkhannan ) is the Hitpael of חָנַן ( khanan ), meaning “seek favor,” make supplication,” or “plead for mercy.” The nuance would again be a modal nuance; if potential, then the translation would be “I could [only] plead for mercy.”


The word מְשֹׁפְטִי ( mÿshofti ) appears to be simply “my judge.” But most modern interpretations take the po‘el participle to mean “my adversary in a court of law.” Others argue that the form is at least functioning as a noun and means “judge” (see 8:5 ). This would fit better with the idea of appealing for mercy from God. The dilemma of Job, of course, is that the Lord would be both his adversary in the case and his judge.


The Hiphil imperfect in the apodosis of this conditional sentence expresses what would (not) happen if God answered the summons.


The relative pronoun indicates that this next section is modifying God, the Judge. Job does not believe that God would respond or listen to him, because this is the one who is crushing him.


The verb יְשׁוּפֵנִי ( yÿshufeni ) is the same verb that is used in Gen 3:15 for the wounding of the serpent. The Targum to Job, the LXX, and the Vulgate all translate it “to crush; to pound,” or “to bruise.” The difficulty for many exegetes is that this is to be done “with a tempest.” The Syriac and Targum Job see a different vocalization and read “with a hair.” The text as it stands is understandable and so no change is needed. The fact that the word “tempest” is written with a different sibilant in other places in Job is not greatly significant in this consideration.


חִנָּם ( khinnam ) is adverbial, meaning “gratuitously, without a cause, for no reason, undeservedly.” See its use in 2:4 .


The verb נָתַן ( natan ) essentially means “to give”; but followed by the infinitive (without the ל [ lamed ] here) it means “to permit; to allow.”


The Hiphil of the verb means “to bring back”; with the object “my breath,” it means “get my breath” or simply “breathe.” The infinitive is here functioning as the object of the verb (see GKC 350 §114. m ).


The MT has only “if of strength.”


“Most certainly” translates the particle הִנֵּה ( hinneh ).


The question could be taken as “who will summon me?” (see Jer 49:19 and 50:44 ). This does not make immediate sense. Some have simply changed the suffix to “who will summon him.” If the MT is retained, then supplying something like “he will say” could make the last clause fit the whole passage. Another option is to take it as “Who will reveal it to me?” – i.e., Job could be questioning his friends’ qualifications for being God’s emissaries to bring God’s charges against him (cf. KJV, NKJV; and see 10:2 where Job uses the same verb in the Hiphil to request that God reveal what his sin has been that has led to his suffering). sn Job is saying that whether it is a trial of strength or an appeal to justice, he is unable to go against God.


The idea is the same as that expressed in v. 15 , although here the imperfect verb is used and not the perfect. Once again with the concessive clause (“although I am right”) Job knows that in a legal dispute he would be confused and would end up arguing against himself.


Some commentators wish to change this to “his mouth,” meaning God’s response to Job’s complaints. But the MT is far more expressive, and “my mouth” fits the context in which Job is saying that even though he is innocent, if he spoke in a court setting in the presence of God he would be overwhelmed, confused, and no doubt condemn himself.


The verb has the declarative sense in the Hiphil , “to declare guilty [or wicked]” or “to condemn.”


The verb עָקַשׁ (’ aqash ) means “to be twisted; to be tortuous.” The Piel has a meaning “to bend; to twist” ( Mic 3:9 ) and “to pervert” (Jer 59:8). The form here is classified as a Hiphil, with the softening of the vowel i (see GKC 147 §53. n ). It would then also be a declarative use of the Hiphil.


Dhorme, in an effort to avoid tautology, makes this a question: “Am I blameless?” The next clause then has Job answering that he does not know. But through the last section Job has been proclaiming his innocence. The other way of interpreting these verses is to follow NIV and make all of them hypothetical (“If I were blameless, he would pronounce me guilty”) and then come to this verse with Job saying, “I am blameless.” The second clause of this verse does not fit either view very well. In vv. 20, 21, and 22 Job employs the same term for “blameless” ( תָּם , tam ) as in the prologue ( 1:1 ). God used it to describe Job in 1:8 and 2:3 . Bildad used it in 8:20 . These are the final occurrences in the book.


The meaning of the expression “I do not know myself” seems to be, “I do not care.” NIV translates it, “I have no concern for my life.” sn Job believes he is blameless and not deserving of all this suffering; he will hold fast to that claim, even if the future is uncertain, especially if that future involved a confrontation with God.


The LXX omits the phrase “It is all one.” Modern scholars either omit it or transpose it for clarity. sn The expression “it is one” means that God’s dealings with people is undiscriminating. The number “one” could also be taken to mean “the same” – “it is all the same.” The implication is that it does not matter if Job is good or evil, if he lives or dies. This is the conclusion of the preceding section.


The relationships of these clauses is in some question. Some think that the poet has inverted the first two, and so they should read, “That is why I have said: ‘It is all one.’” Others would take the third clause to be what was said.


The LXX contains a paraphrase: “for the worthless die, but the righteous are laughed to scorn.” sn The point of these verses is to show – rather boldly – that God does not distinguish between the innocent and the guilty.


The term מַסַּת ( massat ), a hapax legomenon , was translated “trial” in the older versions; but it is not from נָסָה ( nasah , “to tempt; to test; to try”), but from מָסַס ( masas , “to flow”). It is used in the Niphal to speak of the heart “melting” in suffering. So the idea behind this image is that of despair. This is the view that most interpreters adopt; it requires no change of the text whatsoever.


Some would render this “earth,” meaning the whole earth, and having the verse be a general principle for all mankind. But Job may have in mind the more specific issue of individual land.


The subject of the verb is God. The reasoning goes this way: it is the duty of judges to make sure that justice prevails, that restitution and restoration are carried through; but when the wicked gain control of the land of other people, and the judges are ineffective to stop it, then God must be veiling their eyes.


This seems to be a broken-off sentence (anacoluthon), and so is rather striking. The scribes transposed the words אֵפוֹא (’ efo ’) and הוּא ( hu ’) to make the smoother reading: “If it is not he, who then is it?”


The text has “and my days” following the thoughts in the previous section.


Heb “they flee.”


The word אֵבֶה (’ eveh ) means “reed, papyrus,” but it is a different word than was in 8:11 . What is in view here is a light boat made from bundles of papyrus that glides swiftly along the Nile (cf. Isa 18:2 where papyrus vessels and swiftness are associated).


The verb יָטוּשׂ ( yatus ) is also a hapax legomenon ; the Aramaic cognate means “to soar; to hover in flight.” The sentence here requires the idea of swooping down while in flight.


Heb “food.”


The construction here uses the infinitive construct with a pronominal suffix – “if my saying” is this, or “if I say.” For the conditional clause using אִם (’ im ) with a noun clause, see GKC 496 §159. u .


The verbal form is a cohortative of resolve: “I will forget” or “I am determined to forget.” The same will be used in the second colon of the verse.


Heb “I will abandon my face,” i.e., change my expression. The construction here is unusual; G. R. Driver connected it to an Arabic word ‘adaba , “made agreeable” (IV), and so interpreted this line to mean “make my countenance pleasant” (“Problems in the Hebrew text of Job,” VTSup 3 [1955]: 76). M. Dahood found a Ugaritic root meaning “make, arrange” (“The Root ’zb II in Job,” JBL 78 [1959]: 303-9), and said, “I will arrange my face.” But see H. G. Williamson, “A Reconsideration of `azab II in Ugaritic,” ZAW 87 (1985): 74-85; Williamson shows it is probably not a legitimate cognate. D. J. A. Clines ( Job [WBC], 219) observes that with all these suggestions there are too many homonyms for the root. The MT construction is still plausible.


In the Hiphil of בָּלַג ( balag ) corresponds to Arabic balija which means “to shine” and “to be merry.” The shining face would signify cheerfulness and smiling. It could be translated “and brighten [my face].”


The word was used in Job 3:25 ; it has the idea of “dread, fear, tremble at.” The point here is that even if Job changes his appearance, he still dreads the sufferings, because he knows that God is treating him as a criminal.


The conjunction “for” is supplied in the translation.


The clause simply has “I am guilty.” It is the same type of construction found in v. 24 . It is also the opposite of that in v. 20 . GKC 317 §107. n lists this as an example of the use of the imperfect to express an obligation or necessity according to the judgment of others; it would therefore mean “if I am to be guilty.”


The demonstrative pronoun is included to bring particular emphasis to the question, as if to say, “Why in the world…” (see R. J. Williams, Hebrew Syntax , 24, §118).


The verb means “tire oneself”; see 3:17 .


Here הֶבֶל ( hevel , “breath, vapor, vanity”) is used as an adverb (adverbial accusative).


The Syriac and Targum Job read with the Qere “with water of [ בְמֵי , bÿme ] snow.” The Kethib simply has “in [ בְמוֹ , bÿmo ] snow.” In Ps 51:9 and Isa 1:18 snow forms a simile for purification. Some protest that snow water is not necessarily clean; but if fresh melting snow is meant, then the runoff would be very clear. The image would work well here. Nevertheless, others have followed the later Hebrew meaning for שֶׁלֶג ( sheleg ) – “soap” (so NIV, NRSV, NLT). Even though that makes a nice parallelism, it is uncertain whether that meaning was in use at the time this text was written.


The word בֹּר ( bor , “lye, potash”) does not refer to purity (Syriac, KJV, ASV), but refers to the ingredient used to make the hands pure or clean. It has the same meaning as בֹּרִית ( borit ), the alkali or soda made from the ashes of certain plants.


The pointing in the MT gives the meaning “pit” or “ditch.” A number of expositors change the pointing to שֻׁחוֹת ( shukhot ) to obtain the equivalent of שֻׂחוֹת ( sukhot ) / סֻחוֹת ( sukhot ): “filth” ( Isa 5:25 ). This would make the contrast vivid – Job has just washed with pure water and soap, and now God plunges him into filth. M. H. Pope argues convincingly that the word “pit” in the MT includes the idea of “filth,” making the emendation unnecessary (“The Word sahat in Job 9:31 ,” JBL 83 [1964]: 269-78).


The personal pronoun that would be expected as the subject of a noun clause is sometimes omitted (see GKC 360 §116. s ). Here it has been supplied.


The consecutive clause is here attached without the use of the ו ( vav ), but only by simple juxtaposition (see GKC 504-5 §166. a ).


The sense of the verb “come” with “together in judgment” means “to confront one another in court.” See Ps 143:2 .


The participle מוֹכִיחַ ( mokhiakh ) is the “arbiter” or “mediator.” The word comes from the verb יָכַח ( yakhakh , “decide, judge”), which is concerned with legal and nonlegal disputes. The verbal forms can be used to describe the beginning of a dispute, the disputation in progress, or the settling of it (here, and in Isa 1:18 ). sn The old translation of “daysman” came from a Latin expression describing the fixing of a day for arbitration.


The relative pronoun is understood in this clause.


The jussive in conditional sentences retains its voluntative sense: let something be so, and this must happen as a consequence (see GKC 323 §109. i ).


The verse probably continues the description from the last verse, and so a relative pronoun may be supplied here as well.


According to some, the reference of this suffix would be to God. The arbiter would remove the rod of God from Job. But others take it as a separate sentence with God removing his rod.


“His terror” is metonymical; it refers to the awesome majesty of God that overwhelms Job and causes him to be afraid.


There is no conjunction with this cohortative; but the implication from the context is that if God’s rod were withdrawn, if the terror were removed, then Job would speak up without fear.


The last half of the verse is rather cryptic: “but not so I with me.” NIV renders it “but as it now stands with me, I cannot.” This is very smooth and interpretive. Others transpose the two halves of the verse to read, “Since it is not so, I with myself // will commune and not fear him.” Job would be saying that since he cannot contend with God on equal terms, and since there is no arbiter, he will come on his own terms. English versions have handled this differently: “for I know I am not what I am thought to be” (NEB); “since this is not the case with me” (NAB); “I do not see myself like that at all” (JB).


The Hebrew has נַפְשִׁי ( nafshi ), usually rendered “my soul.”


The verb is pointed like a Qal form but is originally a Niphal from קוּט ( qut ). Some wish to connect the word to Akkadian cognates for a meaning “I am in anguish”; but the meaning “I am weary” fits the passage well.


The verb עָזַב (’ azav ) means “to abandon.” It may have an extended meaning of “to let go” or “to let slip.” But the expression “abandon to myself” means to abandon all restraint and give free course to the complaint.


The negated jussive is the Hiphil jussive of רָשַׁע ( rasha ’); its meaning then would be literally “do not declare me guilty.” The negated jussive stresses the immediacy of the request.


The Hiphil imperative of יָדַע ( yada ’) would more literally be “cause me to know.” It is a plea for God to help him understand the afflictions.


The verb is רִיב ( riv ), meaning “to dispute; to contend; to strive; to quarrel” – often in the legal sense. The precise words chosen in this verse show that the setting is legal. The imperfect verb here is progressive, expressing what is currently going on.


Or “Does it give you pleasure?” The expression could also mean, “Is it profitable for you?” or “Is it fitting for you?”


The construction uses כִּי ( ki ) with the imperfect verb – “that you oppress.” Technically, this clause serves as the subject, and “good” is the predicate adjective. In such cases one often uses an English infinitive to capture the point: “Is it good for you to oppress?” The LXX changes the meaning considerably: “Is it good for you if I am unrighteous, for you have disowned the work of your hands.”


Heb “that you despise.”


Now, in the second half of the verse, there is a change in the structure. The conjunction on the preposition followed by the perfect verb represents a circumstantial clause.


The Hiphil of the verb יָפַע ( yafa ’) means “shine.” In this context the expression “you shine upon” would mean “have a glowing expression,” be radiant, or smile.


Here “flesh” is the sign of humanity. The expression “eyes of flesh” means essentially “human eyes,” i.e., the outlook and vision of humans.


The Hebrew has repeated here “like the days of,” but some scholars think that this was an accidental replacement of what should be here, namely, “like the years of.” D. J. A. Clines notes that such repetition is not uncommon in Job, but suggests that the change should be made for English style even if the text is not emended ( Job [WBC], 221). This has been followed in the present translation. sn The question Job asks concerns the mode of life and not just the length of it (see Job 7:1 ). Humans spend their days and years watching each other and defending themselves. But there is also the implication that if God is so limited like humans he may not uncover Job’s sins before he dies.


The clause seems to go naturally with v. 4 : do you have eyes of flesh…that you have to investigate? For that reason some like Duhm would delete v. 5 . But v. 5 adds to the premise: are you also like a human running out of time that you must try to find out my sin?


The imperfect verbs in this verse are best given modal nuances. Does God have such limitations that he must make such an investigation? H. H. Rowley observes that Job implies that God has not yet found the iniquity, or extracted a confession from him ( Job [NCBC], 84).


Heb עַל־דַּעְתְּךָ (’ al da ’ tÿkha , “upon your knowledge”). The use of the preposition means basically “in addition to your knowledge,” or “in spite of your knowledge,” i.e., “notwithstanding” or “although” (see GKC 383 §119. aa , n. 2).


Heb “and there is no deliverer.” sn The fact is that humans are the work of God’s hands. They are helpless in the hand of God. But it is also unworthy of God to afflict his people.


The root עָצַב (’ atsav ) is linked by some to an Arabic word meaning “to cut out, hew.” The derived word עֲצַבִּים (’ atsabbim ) means “idols.” Whatever the precise meaning, the idea is that God formed or gave shape to mankind in creation.


The verb in this part is a preterite with the vav ( ו ) consecutive. However, here it has merely an external connection with the preceding perfects, so that in reality it presents an antithesis (see GKC 327 §111. e ).


Heb “together round about and you destroy me.” The second half of this verse is very difficult. Most commentators follow the LXX and connect the first two words with the second colon as the MT accents indicate (NJPS, “then destroyed every part of me”), rather than with the first colon (“and made me complete,” J. E. Hartley, Job [NICOT], 185). Instead of “together” some read “after.” Others see in סָבִיב ( saviv ) not so much an adjectival use but a verbal or adverbial use: “you turn and destroy” or “you destroy utterly (all around).” This makes more sense than “turn.” In addition, the verb form in the line is the preterite with vav consecutive; this may be another example of the transposition of the copula (see 4:6 ). For yet another option (“You have engulfed me about altogether”), see R. Fuller, “ Exodus 21:22 : The Miscarriage Interpretation and the Personhood of the Fetus,” JETS 37 (1994): 178.


The preposition “like” creates a small tension here. So some ignore the preposition and read “clay” as an adverbial accusative of the material (GKC 371 §117. hh but cf. 379 §119. i with reference to beth essentiae : “as it were, by clay”). The NIV gets around the problem with a different meaning for the verb: “you molded me like clay.” Some suggest the meaning was “as [with] clay” (in the same manner that we have “as [in] the day of Midian” [ Isa 9:4 ]).


The text has a conjunction: “and to dust….”


The verb נָתַךְ ( natakh ) means “to flow,” and in the Hiphil, “to cause to flow.”


This verb קָפָא ( qafa ’) means “to coagulate.” In the Hiphil it means “to stiffen; to congeal.”


The verbs in v. 10 are prefixed conjugations; since the reference is to the womb, these would need to be classified as preterites. sn These verses figuratively describe the formation of the embryo in the womb.


The skin and flesh form the exterior of the body and so the image of “clothing” is appropriate. Once again the verb is the prefixed conjugation, expressing what God did.


This verb is found only here (related nouns are common) and in the parallel passage of Ps 139:13 . The word סָכַךְ ( sakhakh ), here a Poel prefixed conjugation (preterite), means “to knit together.” The implied comparison is that the bones and sinews form the tapestry of the person (compare other images of weaving the life).


Heb “you made with me.”


E. Dhorme ( Job , 150) suggests that the relation between these two words is like a hendiadys. In other words, “life,” which he says is made prominent by the shift of the copula, specifies the nature of the grace. He renders it “the favor of life.” D. J. A. Clines at least acknowledges that the expression “you showed loyal love with me” is primary. There are many other attempts to improve the translation of this unusual combination.


The noun פְּקָָֻדּה ( pÿquddah ), originally translated “visitation,” actually refers to any divine intervention for blessing on the life. Here it would include the care and overseeing of the life of Job. “Providence” may be too general for the translation, but it is not far from the meaning of this line. The LXX has “your oversight.”


The exclamation occurs only here and in Mic 7:1 .


The expression שְׂבַע קָלוֹן ( sÿva ’ qalon ) may be translated “full of shame.” The expression literally means “sated of ignominy” (or contempt [ קַלַל , qalal ]).


The last clause is difficult to fit into the verse. It translates easily enough: “and see my affliction.” Many commentators follow the suggestion of Geiger to read רְוֶה ( rÿveh , “watered with”) instead of רְאֵה ( rÿ ’ eh , “see”). This could then be interpreted adjectivally and parallel to the preceding line: “steeped/saturated with affliction.” This would also delete the final yod as dittography (E. Dhorme, Job , 152). But D. J. A. Clines notes more recent interpretations that suggest the form in the text is an orthographic variant of raweh meaning “satiated.” This makes any emendation unnecessary (and in fact that idea of “steeped” was not helpful any way because it indicated imbibing rather than soaking). The NIV renders it “and drowned in my affliction” although footnoting the other possibility from the MT, “aware of my affliction” (assuming the form could be adjectival). The LXX omits the last line.


The MT has the 3rd person of the verb, “and he lifts himself up.” One might assume that the subject is “my head” – but that is rather far removed from the verb. It appears that Job is talking about himself in some way. Some commentators simply emend the text to make it first person. This has the support of Targum Job, which would be expected since it would be interpreting the passage in its context (see D. M. Stec, “The Targum Rendering of WYG’H in Job X 16,” VT 34 [1984]: 367-8). Pope and Gordis make the word adjectival, modifying the subject: “proudly you hunt me,” but support is lacking. E. Dhorme thinks the line should be parallel to the two preceding it, and so suggests יָגֵּעַ ( yagea ’, “exhausted”) for יִגְאֶה ( yig ’ eh , “lift up”). The contextual argument is that Job has said that he cannot raise his head, but if he were to do so, God would hunt him down. God could be taken as the subject of the verb if the text is using enallage (shifting of grammatical persons within a discourse) for dramatic effect. Perhaps the initial 3rd person was intended with respect within a legal context of witnesses and a complaint, but was switched to 2nd person for direct accusation.


The text uses two verbs without a coordinating conjunction: “then you return, you display your power.” This should be explained as a verbal hendiadys, the first verb serving adverbially in the clause (see further GKC 386-87 §120. g ).


The form is the Hitpael of פָּלָא ( pala ’, “to be wonderful; to be surpassing; to be extraordinary”). Here in this stem it has the sense of “make oneself admirable, surpassing” or “render oneself powerful, glorious.” The text is ironic; the word that described God’s marvelous creation of Job is here used to describe God’s awesome destruction of Job.


The text has “you renew/increase your witnesses.” This would probably mean Job’s sufferings, which were witness to his sins. But some suggested a different word here, one that is cognate to Arabic ’ adiya , “to be an enemy; to be hostile”: thus “you renew your hostility against me.” Less convincing are suggestions that the word is cognate to Ugaritic “troops” (see W. G. E. Watson, “The Metaphor in Job 10,17 ,” Bib 63 [1982]: 255-57).


The Hebrew simply says “changes and a host are with me.” The “changes and a host” is taken as a hendiadys, meaning relieving troops (relief troops of the army). The two words appear together again in 14:14 , showing that emendation is to be avoided. The imagery depicts blow after blow from God – always fresh attacks.


The two imperfect verbs in this section are used to stress regrets for something which did not happen (see GKC 317 §107. n ).


Heb “are not my days few; cease/let it cease….” The versions have “the days of my life” (reading יְמֵי חֶלְדִי [ yÿme kheldi ] instead of יָמַי וַחֲדָל [ yamay vakhadal ]). Many commentators and the RSV, NAB, and NRSV accept this reading. The Kethib is an imperfect or jussive, “let it cease/ it will cease.” The Qere is more intelligible for some interpreters – “cease” (as in 7:16 ). For a discussion of the readings, see D. W. Thomas, “Some Observations on the Hebrew Root hadal, ” VTSup 4 [1057]: 14). But the text is not impossible as it stands.


Taking the form as the imperative with the ו ( vav ), the sentence follows the direct address to God (as in v. 18 as well as 7:16 ). This requires less changes. See the preceding note regarding the plausibility of the jussive. The point of the verse is clear in either reading – his life is short, and he wants the suffering to stop.


In the different suggestions for the line, the י ( yod ) of this word is believed to belong to the preceding word making “my life.” That would here leave an imperative rather than an imperfect. But if the Qere is read, then it would be an imperative anyway, and there would be no reason for the change.


Heb “put from me,” an expression found nowhere else. The Qere has a ו ( vav ) and not a י ( yod ), forming an imperative rather than an imperfect. H. H. Rowley suggests that there is an ellipsis here, “hand” needing to be supplied. Job wanted God to take his hand away from him. That is plausible, but difficult.


The verb בָּלַג ( balag ) in the Hiphil means “to have cheer [or joy]” (see 7:27; Ps 39:14). The cohortative following the imperatives shows the purpose or result – “in order that.”


See Job 3:5 .


The word סֵדֶר ( seder , “order”) occurs only here in the Bible. G. R. Driver found a new meaning in Arabic sadira , “dazzled by the glare” (“Problems in the Hebrew text of Job,” VTSup 3 [1955]: 76-77); this would mean “without a ray of light.” This is accepted by those who see chaos out of place in this line. But the word “order” is well-attested in later Hebrew (see J. Carmignac, “Précisions aportées au vocabulaire d’hébreu biblique par La guerre des fils de lumière contre les fils de ténèbres,” VT 5 [1955]: 345-65).


The Hebrew word literally means “it shines”; the feminine verb implies a subject like “the light” (but see GKC 459 §144. c ).


The verse multiplies images for the darkness in death. Several commentators omit “as darkness, deep darkness” ( כְּמוֹ אֹפֶל צַלְמָוֶת , kÿmo ’ ofel tsalmavet ) as glosses on the rare word עֵיפָתָה (’ efatah , “darkness”) drawn from v. 21 (see also RSV). The verse literally reads: “[to the] land of darkness, like the deep darkness of the shadow of death, without any order, and the light is like the darkness.”


The LXX, Targum Job, Symmachus, and Vulgate all assume that the vocalization of רֹב ( rov , “abundance”) should be רַב ( rav , “great”): “great of words.” This would then mean “one who is abundant of words,” meaning, “a man of many words,” and make a closer parallel to the second half. But the MT makes good sense as it stands. tn There is no article or demonstrative with the word; it has been added here simply to make a smoother connection between the chapters.


The Niphal verb יֵעָנֶה ( ye ’ aneh , “he answered”) would normally require a personal subject, but “abundance” functions as the subject in this sentence. The nuance of the imperfect is obligatory.


The word is supplied here also for clarification.


The bound construction “man of lips” means “a boaster” or “proud talker” (attributive genitive; and see GKC 417 §128. t ). Zophar is saying that Job pours out this stream of words, but he is still not right.


The word is literally “be right, righteous.” The idea of being right has appeared before for this word (cf. 9:15 ). The point here is that just because Job talks a lot does not mean he is right or will be shown to be right through it all.


The word means “chatter, pratings, boastings” (see Isa 16:6 ; Jer 48:30 ).


The verb חָרַשׁ ( kharash ) in the Hiphil means “to silence” ( 41:4 ); here it functions in a causative sense, “reduce to silence.”


The form מַכְלִם ( makhlim , “humiliating, mocking”) is the Hiphil participle. The verb כָּלַם ( kalam ) has the meaning “cover with shame, insult” ( Job 20:3 ).


The construction shows the participle to be in the circumstantial clause: “will you mock – and [with] no one rebuking.”


The word translated “teaching” is related etymologically to the Hebrew word “receive,” but that does not restrict the teaching to what is received.


The wish formula מִי־יִתֵּן ( mi yitten , “who will give”; see GKC 477 §151. b ) is followed here by an infinitive ( Exod 16:3 ; 2 Sam 19:1 ).


The text seems to be saying “that it [wisdom] is double in understanding.” The point is that it is different than Job conceived it – it far exceeded all perception. But some commentators have thought this still too difficult, and so have replaced the word כִפְלַיִם ( khiflayim , “two sides”) with כִפְלָאִים ( khifla ’ im , “like wonders,” or, more simply, “wonders” without the preposition). But it is still a little strange to talk about God’s wisdom being like wonders. Others have had more radical changes in the text; J. J. Slotki has “for sound wisdom is his. And know that double [punishment] shall God exact of you” (“ Job 11:6 ,” VT 35 [1985]: 229-30).


The verb is the imperative with a ו ( vav ). Following the jussive, this clause would be subordinated to the preceding (see GKC 325 §110. i ).


Heb “God causes to be forgotten for you part of your iniquity.” The meaning is that God was exacting less punishment from Job than Job deserved, for Job could not remember all his sins. This statement is fitting for Zophar, who is the cruelest of Job’s friends (see H. H. Rowley, Job [NCBC], 88). Others in an attempt to improve the text make too many unwarranted changes. Some would read יִשְׁאָלְךָ ( yish ’ alkha , “he asks of you”) instead of יַשֶּׂה לְךָ ( yasseh lÿka , “he causes to be forgotten for you”). This would mean that God demands an account of Job’s sin. But, as D. J. A. Clines says, this change is weak and needless ( Job [WBC], 254-55).


The verb is מָצָא ( matsa ’, “to find; to discover”). Here it should be given the nuance of potential imperfect. And, in the rhetorical question it is affirming that Job cannot find out the essence of God.


The word means “search; investigation”; but it here means what is discovered in the search (so a metonymy of cause for the effect).


The same verb is now found in the second half of the verse, with a slightly different sense – “attain, reach.” A. R. Ceresko notes this as an example of antanaclasis (repetition of a word with a lightly different sense – “find/attain”). See “The Function of Antanaclasis in Hebrew Poetry,” CBQ 44 (1982): 560-61.


The abstract תַּכְלִית ( takhlit ) from כָּלָה ( kalah , “to be complete; to be perfect”) may mean the end or limit of something, perhaps to perfection. So the NIV has “can you probe the limits of the Almighty?” The LXX has: “have you come to the end of that which the Almighty has made?”


The Hebrew says “heights of heaven, what can you do?” A. B. Davidson suggested this was an exclamation and should be left that way. But most commentators will repoint גָּבְהֵי שָׁמַיִם ( govhe shamayim , “heights of heaven”) to גְּבֹהָה מִשָּׁמַיִם ( gÿvohah mishamayim , “higher than the heavens”) to match the parallel expression. The LXX may have rearranged the text: “heaven is high.”


Or “deeper than hell.” The word “Sheol” always poses problems for translation. Here because it is the opposite of heaven in this merism, “hell” would be a legitimate translation. It refers to the realm of the dead – the grave and beyond. The language is excessive; but the point is that God’s wisdom is immeasurable – and Job is powerless before it.


The verb יַחֲלֹף ( yakhalof ) is literally “passes by/through” (NIV “comes along” in the sense of “if it should so happen”). Many accept the emendation to יַחְתֹּף ( yakhtof , “he seizes,” cf. Gordis, Driver), but there is not much support for these.


The verb is the Hiphil of סָגַר ( sagar , “to close; to shut”) and so here in this context it probably means something like “to shut in; to confine.” But this is a difficult meaning, and the sentence is cryptic. E. Dhorme ( Job , 162) thinks this word and the next have to be antithetical, and so he suggests from a meaning “to keep confined” the idea of keeping a matter secret; and with the next verb, “to convene an assembly,” he offers “to divulge it.”


The pronoun “you” is not in the Hebrew text but has been supplied in the translation.


The denominative Hiphil of קָהָל ( qahal , “an assembly”) has the idea of “to convene an assembly.” In this context there would be the legal sense of convening a court, i.e., calling Job to account (D. J. A. Clines, Job [WBC], 255). See E. Ullendorff, “The Meaning of QHLT ,” VT 12 (1962): 215; he defines the verb also as “argue, rebuke.”


The verb means “turn him back.” Zophar uses Job’s own words (see 9:12 ).


The pronoun is emphatic implying that Zophar indicates that God indeed knows Job’s sin even if Job does not.


The expression is literally “men of emptiness” (see Ps 26:4 ). These are false men, for שָׁוְא ( shavÿ ’) can mean “vain, empty, or false, deceitful.”


E. Dhorme ( Job , 162) reads the prepositional phrase “to him” rather than the negative; he translates the line as “he sees iniquity and observes it closely.”


Some commentators do not take this last clause as a question, but simply as a statement, namely, that when God sees evil he does not need to ponder or consider it – he knows it instantly. In that case it would be a circumstantial clause: “without considering it.” D. J. A. Clines lists quite an array of other interpretations for the line ( Job [WBC], 255); for example, “and he is himself unobserved”; taking the word לֹא ( lo ’) as an emphatic; taking the negative as a noun, “considering them as nothing”; and others that change the verb to “they do not understand it.” But none of these are compelling; they offer no major improvement.


As A. B. Davidson ( Job , 84) says, the one thing will happen when the other happens – which is never. The word “empty” נָבוּב ( navuv ) means “hollow; witless,” and “become wise” ( יִלָּבֵב , yillavev ) is “will get heart” (not to “lack heart” as Driver suggested”). Many commentators do not like the last line of the verse, and so offer even more emendations. E. F. Sutcliffe wanted to change פֶּרֶא ( pere ’, “donkey”) to פֶּרֶד ( pered , “stallion”), rendering “a witless wight may get wit when a mule is born a stallion” (“Notes on Job, textual and exegetical,” Bib 30 [1949]: 70-71); and others approached the verse by changing the verb from יִוָּלֵד ( yivvaled , “is born”) to יִלָּמֵד ( yillamed , “is taught”), resulting in “a hollow man may get understanding, and a wild donkey’s colt may be taught [= tamed]” (cf. NAB).


The pronoun is emphatic, designed to put Job in a different class than the hollow men – at least to raise the possibility of his being in a different class.


The Hebrew uses the perfect of כּוּן ( kun , “establish”) with the object “your heart.” The verb can be translated “prepare, fix, make firm” your heart. To fix the heart is to make it faithful and constant, the heart being the seat of the will and emotions. The use of the perfect here does not refer to the past, but should be given a future perfect sense – if you shall have fixed your heart, i.e., prove faithful. Job would have to make his heart secure, so that he was no longer driven about by differing views.


This half-verse is part of the protasis and not, as in the RSV, the apodosis to the first half. The series of “if” clauses will continue through these verses until v. 15 .


Verse 14 should be taken as a parenthesis and not a continuation of the protasis, because it does not fit with v. 13 in that way (D. J. A. Clines, Job [WBC], 256).


Many commentators follow the Vulgate and read the line “if you put away the sin that is in your hand.” They do this because the imperative comes between the protasis (v. 13 ) and the apodosis (v. 15 ) and does not appear to be clearly part of the protasis. The idea is close to the MT, but the MT is much more forceful – if you find sin in your hand, get rid of it.


The absolute certainty of the statement is communicated with the addition of כִּי ( ki ) (see GKC 498 §159. ee ).


For this use of the preposition מִן ( min ) see GKC 382 §119. w .


The word “lift up” is chosen to recall Job’s statement that he could not lift up his head ( 10:15 ); and the words “without spot” recall his words “filled with shame.” The sentence here says that he will lift up his face in innocence and show no signs of God’s anger on him.


The form מֻצָק ( mutsaq ) is a Hophal participle from יָצַק ( yatsaq , “to pour”). The idea is that of metal being melted down and then poured to make a statue, and so hard, firm, solid. The LXX reads the verse, “for thus your face shall shine again, like pure water, and you shall divest yourself of uncleanness, and shall not fear.”


For a second time (see v. 13 ) Zophar employs the emphatic personal pronoun. Could he be providing a gentle reminder that Job might have forgotten the sin that has brought this trouble? After all, there will come a time when Job will not remember this time of trial.


The perfect verb forms an abbreviated relative clause (without the pronoun) modifying “water.”


Some translations add the pronoun to make it specifically related to Job (“your life”), but this is not necessary. The word used here has the nuance of lasting life.


Heb “and more than the noonday life will arise.” The present translation is an interpretation in the context. The connotation of “arise” in comparison with the noonday, and in contrast with the darkness, supports the interpretation.


The form in the MT is the 3fsg imperfect verb, “[though] it be dark.” Most commentators revocalize the word to make it a noun ( תְּעֻפָה , tÿ ’ ufah ), giving the meaning “the darkness [of your life] will be like the morning.” The contrast is with Job 10:22 ; here the darkness will shine like the morning.


The Hebrew verb means “to dig”; but this does not provide a good meaning for the verse. A. B. Davidson offers an interpretation of “search,” suggesting that before retiring at night Job would search and find everything in order. Some offer a better solution, namely, redefining the word on the basis of Arabic hafara , “to protect” and repointing it to וְחֻפַרְתָּ ( vÿkhufarta , “you will be protected”). Other attempts to make sense of the line have involved the same process, but they are less convincing (for some of the more plausible proposals, see D. J. A. Clines, Job [WBC], 257).


The clause that reads “and there is no one making you afraid,” is functioning circumstantially here (see 5:4; 10:7 ).