This line can either mean that Job is wasting away (i.e., his life is being poured out), or it can mean that he is grieving. The second half of the verse gives the subordinate clause of condition for this.


The subject of the verb “pierces” can be the night (personified), or it could be God (understood), leaving “night” to be an adverbial accusative of time – “at night he pierces.”


The MT concludes this half-verse with “upon me.” That phrase is not in the LXX, and so many commentators delete it as making the line too long.


Heb “my gnawers,” which is open to several interpretations. The NASB and NIV take it as “gnawing pains”; cf. NRSV “the pain that gnaws me.” Some suggest worms in the sores ( 7:5 ). The LXX has “my nerves,” a view accepted by many commentators.


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


This whole verse is difficult. The first problem is that this verb in the MT means “is disguised [or disfigured],” indicating that Job’s clothes hang loose on him. But many take the view that the verb is a phonetic variant of חָבַשׁ ( khavash , “to bind; to seize”) and that the Hitpael form is a conflation of the third and second person because of the interchange between them in the passage (R. Gordis, Job , 335). The commentaries list a number of conjectural emendations, but the image in the verse is probably that God seizes Job by the garment and throws him down.


The phrase “like the collar” is difficult, primarily because their tunics did not have collars. A translation of “neck” would suit better. Some change the preposition to בּ ( bet ), getting a translation “by the neck of my tunic.”


If the idea of prayer is meant, then a pejorative sense to the verb is required. Some supply a negative and translate “you do not pay heed to me.” This is supported by one Hebrew ms and the Vulgate. The Syriac has the whole colon read with God as the subject, “you stand and look at me.”


The idiom uses the Niphal verb “you are turned” with “to cruelty.” See Job 41:20 b, as well as Isa 63:10 .


The LXX reads this verb as “you scourged/whipped me.” But there is no reason to adopt this change.


The verb means “to melt.” The imagery would suggest softening the ground with the showers (see Ps 65:10 [11]). The translation “toss…about” comes from the Arabic cognate that is used for the surging of the sea.


The Qere is תּוּשִׁיָּה ( tushiyyah , “counsel”), which makes no sense here. The Kethib is a variant orthography for תְּשֻׁאָה ( tÿshu ’ ah , “storm”).


The imperfect verb would be a progressive imperfect, it is future, but it is also already underway.


Here is another very difficult verse, as is attested by the differences among commentaries and translations. The MT has “surely not against a ruinous heap will he [God] put forth his [God’s] hand.” But A. B. Davidson takes Job as the subject, reading “does not one stretch out his hand in his fall?” The RSV suggests a man walking in the ruins and using his hand for support. Dillmann changed it to “drowning man” to say “does not a drowning man stretch out his hand?” Beer has “have I not given a helping hand to the poor?” Dhorme has, “I did not strike the poor man with my hand.” Kissane follows this but retains the verb form, “one does not strike the poor man with his hand.”


The second colon is also difficult; it reads, “if in his destruction to them he cries.” E. Dhorme ( Job , 425-26) explains how he thinks “to them” came about, and he restores “to me.” This is the major difficulty in the line, and Dhorme’s suggestion is the simplest resolution.


Heb “for the hard of day.”


Heb “my loins,” “my bowels” (archaic), “my innermost being.” The latter option is reflected in the translation; some translations take the inner turmoil to be literal (NIV: “The churning inside me never stops”).


Heb “boils.”


The last clause reads “and they [it] are not quiet” or “do not cease.” The clause then serves adverbially for the sentence – “unceasingly.”


The construction uses the word קֹדֵר ( qoder ) followed by the Piel perfect of הָלַךְ ( halakh , “I go about”). The adjective “blackened” refers to Job’s skin that has been marred by the disease. Adjectives are often used before verbs to describe some bodily condition (see GKC 374-75 §118. n ).


The MT has “become dark from upon me,” prompting some editions to supply the verb “falls from me” (RSV, NRSV), or “peels” (NIV).


The word “my bones” may be taken as a metonymy of subject, the bony framework indicating the whole body.


The word חֹרֶב ( khorev ) also means “heat.” The heat in this line is not that of the sun, but obviously a fever.


The verb הָיָה ( hayah , “to be”) followed by the preposition ל ( lamed ) means “to serve the purpose of” (see Gen 1:14 ff., 17:7 , etc.).


The idea of cutting a covenant for something may suggest a covenant that is imposed, except that this construction elsewhere argues against it (see 2 Chr 29:10 ).


This half-verse is the effect of the covenant. The interrogative מָה ( mah ) may have the force of the negative, and so be translated “not to pay attention.”


Heb “lot of Shaddai,” which must mean “the lot from Shaddai,” a genitive of source.


The normal approach is to take this as the protasis, and then have it resumed in v. 7 after a parenthesis in v. 6 . But some take v. 6 as the apodosis and a new protasis in v. 7 .


The “if” is understood by the use of the consecutive verb.


“God” is undoubtedly the understood subject of this jussive. However, “him” is retained in the translation at this point to avoid redundancy since “God” occurs in the second half of the verse.


The word צֶדֶךְ ( tsedeq , “righteousness”) forms a fitting genitive for the scales used in trade or justice. The “scales of righteousness” are scales that conform to the standard (see the illustration in Deut 25:13-15 ). They must be honest scales to make just decisions.


The verb is וְיֵדַע ( vÿyeda ’, “and [then] he [God] will know”). The verb could also be subordinated to the preceding jussive, “so that God may know.” The meaning of “to know” here has more the idea of “to come to know; to discover.”


The word מֻאוּם ( mu ’ um ) could be taken in one of two ways. One reading is to represent מוּם ( mum , “blemish,” see the Masorah); the other is for מְאוּמָה ( mÿ ’ umah , “anything,” see the versions and the Kethib ). Either reading fits the passage.


The cohortative is often found in the apodosis of the conditional clause (see GKC 320 §108. f ).


The word means “what sprouts up” (from יָצָא [ yatsa ’] with the sense of “sprout forth”). It could refer metaphorically to children (and so Kissane and Pope), as well as in its literal sense of crops. The latter fits here perfectly.


Gordis notes that the word פֶּתַח ( petakh , “door”) has sexual connotations in rabbinic literature, based on Prov 7:6 ff. (see b. Ketubbot 9b). See also the use in Song 4:12 using a synonym.


Targum Job interpreted the verb טָחַן ( takhan , “grind”) in a sexual sense, and this has influenced other versions and commentaries. But the literal sense fits well in this line. The idea is that she would be a slave for someone else. The second line of the verse then might build on this to explain what kind of a slave – a concubine (see A. B. Davidson, Job , 215).


Heb “bow down over her,” an idiom for sexual relations. sn The idea is that if Job were guilty of adultery it would be an offense against the other woman’s husband, and so by talionic justice another man’s adultery with Job’s wife would be an offense against him. He is not wishing something on his wife; rather, he is simply looking at what would be offenses in kind.


Heb “for that [would be].” In order to clarify the referent of “that,” which refers to v. 9 rather than v. 10 , the words “I have committed” have been supplied in the translation.


The word for “shameful act” is used especially for sexual offenses (cf. Lev 18:27 ).


Some have deleted this verse as being short and irrelevant, not to mention problematic. But the difficulties are not insurmountable, and there is no reason to delete it. There is a Kethib - Qere reading in each half verse; in the first the Kethib is masculine for the subject but the Qere is feminine going with “shameless deed.” In the second colon the Kethib is the feminine agreeing with the preceding noun, but the Qere is masculine agreeing with “iniquity.” tn The expression עָוֹן פְּלִילִים (’ avon pÿlilim ) means “an iniquity of the judges.” The first word is not spelled as a construct noun, and so this has led some to treat the second word as an adjective (with enclitic mem [ ם ]). The sense is similar in either case, for the adjective occurs in Job 31:28 meaning “calling for judgment” (See GKC 427 §131. s ).


Heb “to Abaddon.”


The verb means “to root out,” but this does not fit the parallelism with fire. Wright changed two letters and the vowels in the verb to get the root צָרַף ( tsaraf , “to burn”). The NRSV has “burn to the root.”


This construction is an adverbial clause using the temporal preposition, the infinitive from רִיב ( riv , “contend”), and the suffix which is the subjective genitive.


Heb “arises.” The LXX reads “takes vengeance,” an interpretation that is somewhat correct but unnecessary. The verb “to rise” would mean “to confront in judgment.”


The verb פָקַד ( paqad ) means “to visit,” but with God as the subject it means any divine intervention for blessing or cursing, anything God does that changes a person’s life. Here it is “visit to judge.”


Heb “him,” but the plural pronoun has been used in the translation to indicate that the referent is the servants mentioned in v. 13 (since the previous “him” in v. 14 refers to God).


Heb “kept the poor from [their] desire.”


Heb “and an orphan did not eat from it.”


Heb “he grew up with me.” Several commentators have decided to change the pronoun to “I,” and make it causative.


The expression “from my mother’s womb” is obviously hyperbolic. It is a way of saying “all his life.”


Heb “I guided her,” referring to the widow mentioned in v. 16 .


The MT has simply “if his loins did not bless me.” In the conditional clause this is another protasis. It means, “if I saw someone dying and if he did not thank me for clothing them.” It is Job’s way of saying that whenever he saw a need he met it, and he received his share of thanks – which prove his kindness. G. R. Driver has it “without his loins having blessed me,” taking “If…not” as an Aramaism, meaning “except” ( AJSL 52 [1935/36]: 164f.).


This clause is interpreted here as a subordinate clause to the first half of the verse. It could also be a separate clause: “was he not warmed…?”


The expression “raised my hand” refers to a threatening manner or gesture in the court rather than a threat of physical violence in the street. Thus the words “to vote” are supplied in the translation to indicate the setting.


Heb “gate,” referring to the city gate where judicial decisions were rendered in the culture of the time. The translation uses the word “court” to indicate this to the modern reader, who might not associate a city gate complex with judicial functions.


The point is that if he has raised his arm against the oppressed it should be ripped off at the joint. The MT has “let fall my shoulder [ כְּתֵפִי , kÿtefi ] from the nape of the neck [or shoulder blade ( מִשִּׁכְמָה , mishikhmah )].”


The word קָנֶה ( qaneh ) is “reed; shaft; beam,” and here “shoulder joint.” All the commentaries try to explain how “reed” became “socket; joint.” This is the only place that it is used in such a sense. Whatever the exact explanation – and there seems to be no convincing view – the point of the verse is nonetheless clear.


The LXX has “For the terror of God restrained me.” Several commentators changed it to “came upon me.” Driver had “The fear of God was burdensome.” I. Eitan suggested “The terror of God was mighty upon me” (“Two unknown verbs: etymological studies,” JBL 42 [1923]: 22-28). But the MT makes clear sense as it stands.


The form is וּמִשְּׂאֵתוֹ ( umissÿ ’ eto ); the preposition is causal. The form, from the verb נָשָׂא ( nasa ’, “to raise; to lift high”), refers to God’s exalted person, his majesty (see Job 13:11 ).


Heb “light”; but parallel to the moon it is the sun. This section speaks of false worship of the sun and the moon.


Heb “and my hand kissed my mouth.” The idea should be that of “my mouth kissed my hand.” H. H. Rowley suggests that the hand was important in waving or throwing the kisses of homage to the sun and the moon, and so it receives the focus. This is the only place in the OT that refers to such a custom. Outside the Bible it was known, however.


Heb “it.”


See v. 11 for the construction. In Deut 17:2 ff. false worship of heavenly bodies is a capital offense. In this passage, Job is talking about just a momentary glance at the sun or moon and the brief lapse into a pagan thought. But it is still sin.


The verb כָּחַשׁ ( kakhash ) in the Piel means “to deny.” The root meaning is “to deceive; to disappoint; to grow lean.” Here it means that he would have failed or proven unfaithful because his act would have been a denial of God.


The problem with taking this as “if,” introducing a conditional clause, is finding the apodosis, if there is one. It may be that the apodosis is understood, or summed up at the end. This is the view taken here. But R. Gordis ( Job , 352) wishes to take this word as the indication of the interrogative, forming the rhetorical question to affirm he has never done this. However, in that case the parenthetical verses inserted become redundant.


The Hitpael of עוּר (’ ur ) has the idea of “exult.”


The word is רָע ( ra ’, “evil”) in the sense of anything that harms, interrupts, or destroys life.


This verse would then be a parenthesis in which he stops to claim his innocence.


Heb “I have not given my palate.”


The infinitive construct with the ל ( lamed ) preposition (“by asking”) serves in an epexegetical capacity here, explaining the verb of the first colon (“permitted…to sin”). To seek a curse on anyone would be a sin.


Now Job picks up the series of clauses serving as the protasis.


Heb “the men of my tent.” In context this refers to members of Job’s household.


The optative is again expressed with “who will give?”


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


This verse forms another parenthesis. Job stops almost at every point now in the conditional clauses to affirm his purity and integrity.


The word in the MT, אֹרחַ (’ orakh , “way”), is a contraction from אֹרֵחַ (’ oreakh , “wayfarer”); thus, “traveler.” The same parallelism is found in Jer 14:8 . The reading here “on/to the road” is meaningless otherwise.


Now the protasis continues again.


The infinitive is epexegetical, explaining the first line.


The MT has “in my bosom.” This is the only place in the OT where this word is found. But its meaning is well attested from Aramaic.


Here too the verb will be the customary imperfect – it explains what he continually did in past time.


Heb “the great multitude.” But some commentators take רַבָּה ( rabbah ) adverbially: “greatly” (see RSV).


The optative is again introduced with “who will give to me hearing me? – O that someone would listen to me!”


Heb “here is my ‘ tav ’” ( הֵן תָּוִי , hen tavi ). The letter ת ( tav ) is the last letter of the alphabet in Hebrew. In paleo-Hebrew the letter was in the form of a cross or an “X,” and so used for one making a mark or a signature. In this case Job has signed his statement and delivered it to the court – but he has yet to be charged. Kissane thought that this being the last letter of the alphabet, Job was saying, “This is my last word.” Others take the word to mean “desire” – “this is my desire, that God would answer me” (see E. F. Sutcliffe, “Notes on Job, textual and exegetical,” Bib 30 [1949]: 71-72; G. R. Driver, AJSL 3 [1935/36]: 166; P. P. Saydon, “Philological and Textual Notes to the Maltese Translation of the Old Testament,” CBQ 23 [1961]: 252). R. Gordis ( Job , 355) also argues strongly for this view.


Heb “a scroll,” in the context referring to a scroll containing the accusations of Job’s legal adversary (see the next line).


The last line is very difficult; it simply says, “a scroll [that] my [legal] adversary had written.” The simplest way to handle this is to see it as a continuation of the optative (RSV).


The clause begins with the positive oath formula, אִם־לֹא (’ im-lo ’).


The word “proudly” is not in the Hebrew text, but is implied (note the following line).


This verb is only found in Prov 6:21 . But E. Dhorme ( Job , 470) suggests that (with metathesis) we have a derivative מַעֲדַנּוֹת ( ma ’ adannot , “bonds; ties”) in 38:31 .


Heb “without silver.”


The versions have the verb “grieved” here. The Hebrew verb means “to breathe,” but the form is Hiphil. This verb in that stem could mean something of a contemptuous gesture, like “sniff” in Mal 1:13 . But with נֶפֶשׁ ( nefesh ) in Job 11:20 it means “to cause death,” i.e., “to cause to breathe out; to expire.” This is likely the meaning here, although it is possible that it only meant “to cause suffering” to the people.


There is some debate over the meaning of בְּעָלֶיהָ ( bÿ ’ aleyha ), usually translated “its owners.” Dahood, following others (although without their emendations), thought it referred to “laborers” (see M. Dahood, Bib 41 [1960]: 303; idem, Bib 43 [1962]: 362).


The word בָּאְשָׁה ( bo ’ shah , from בָּאַשׁ [ ba ’ as , “to have a foul smell”]) must refer to foul smelling weeds.


The form is the infinitive construct (“answer”) functioning as the object of the preposition; the phrase forms the complement of the verb “they ceased to answer” (= “they refused to answer further”).


The verse begins with וַיִּחַר אַף ( vayyikhar ’ af , “and the anger became hot”), meaning Elihu became very angry.


The second comment about Elihu’s anger comes right before the statement of its cause. Now the perfect verb is used: “he was angry.”


The explanation is the causal clause עַל־צַדְּקוֹ נַפְשׁוֹ (’ al-tsaddÿqo nafsho , “because he justified himself”). It is the preposition with the Piel infinitive construct with a suffixed subjective genitive.


The LXX and Latin versions soften the expression slightly by saying “before God.”


Heb “his”; the referent (Job) has been specified in the translation to indicate whose friends they were.


The perfect verb should be given the category of potential perfect here.


This is one of the eighteen “corrections of the scribes” ( tiqqune sopherim ); it originally read, “and they declared God [in the wrong].” The thought was that in abandoning the debate they had conceded Job’s point.


This reading requires repointing the word בִּדְבָרִים ( bidbarim , “with words”) to בְּדָבְּרָם ( bÿdabbÿram , “while they spoke [with Job]”). If the MT is retained, it would mean “he waited for Job with words,” which while understandable is awkward.


Heb “they”; the referent (the other friends) has been specified in the translation for clarity.


The first clause beginning with a vav ( ו ) consecutive and the preterite can be subordinated to the next similar verb as a temporal clause.


Heb “that there was no reply in the mouth of the three men.”


Heb “answered and said.”


The text has “small in days.”


The verb זָחַלְתִּי ( zakhalti ) is found only here in the OT, but it is found in a ninth century Aramaic inscription as well as in Biblical Aramaic. It has the meaning “to be timid” (see H. H. Rowley, Job [NCBC], 208).


The Piel infinitive with the preposition ( מֵחַוֹּת , mekhavvot ) means “from explaining.” The phrase is the complement: “explain” what Elihu feared.


Heb “days.”


The imperfect here is to be classified as an obligatory imperfect.


Heb “abundance of years.”


This is the word נְשָׁמָה ( nÿshamah , “breath”); according to Gen 2:7 it was breathed into Adam to make him a living person (“soul”). With that divine impartation came this spiritual understanding. Some commentators identify the רוּחַ ( ruakh ) in the first line as the Spirit of God; this “breath” would then be the human spirit. Whether Elihu knew that much, however, is hard to prove.


The MT has “the great” or “the many,” meaning great in years according to the parallelism.


In most Hebrew mss this imperative is singular, and so addressed to Job. But two Hebrew mss and the versions have the plural. Elihu was probably addressing all of them.


Heb “for your words.”


The word means “understanding.” It refers to the faculty of perception and comprehension; but it also can refer to what that produces, especially when it is in the plural (see Ps 49:4 ). See R. Gordis, Job , 368. Others translate it “reasonings,” “arguments,” etc.


The verb again is from בִּין ( bin , “to perceive; to understand”); in this stem it means to “to pay close attention.”


The particle הִנֵּה ( hinneh , “behold”) has a deictic force here, calling attention to the thought that is now presented.


The participle מוֹכִיחַ ( mokhiakh ) is from the verb יָכַח ( yakhakh ) that has been used frequently in the book of Job. It means “to argue; to contend; to debate; to prove; to dispute.” The usage of the verb shows that it can focus on the beginning of an argument, the debating itself, or the resolution of the conflict. Here the latter is obviously meant, for they did argue and contend and criticize – but could not prove Job wrong.


Heb “lest you say.” R. Gordis ( Job , 368) calls this a breviloquence: “beware lest [you say].” He then suggests the best reading for their quote to be, “We have attained wisdom, but only God can refute him, not man.” H. H. Rowley ( Job [NCBC], 209) suggests the meaning is a little different, namely, that they are saying they have found wisdom in Job, and only God can deal with it. Elihu is in effect saying that they do not need God, for he is quite capable for this.


The root is נָדַף ( nadaf , “to drive away; to drive off”). Here it is in the abstract sense of “succeed in doing something; confound,” and so “refute; rebut.” Dhorme wants to change the meaning of the word with a slight emendation in the text, deriving it from אָלַף (’ alaf , “instruct”) the form becoming יַלְּפֶנוּ ( yallÿfenu ) instead of יִדְּפֶנּוּ ( yiddÿfenu ), obtaining the translation “God will instruct us.” This makes a smoother reading, but does not have much support for it.


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


The verb עַרַךְ (’ arakh ) means “to arrange in order; to set forth; to direct; to marshal.” It is used in military contexts for setting the battle array; it is used in legal settings for preparing the briefs.


Heb “your words.”


The verb חַתּוּ ( khattu ) is from חָתַת ( khatat ) which means “to be terrified.” But here it stresses the resulting dilemma. R. Gordis ( Job , 369) renders it, “they are shattered, beaten in an argument.”


Some commentators take this as a question: “And shall [or must] I wait because they do not speak?” (A. B. Davidson, R. Gordis). But this is not convincing because the silence of the friends is the reason for him to speak, not to wait.


Heb “the spirit of my belly.”


The verb צוּק ( tsuq ) means “to constrain; to urge; to press.” It is used in Judg 14:17; 16:16 with the sense of wearing someone down with repeated entreaties. Elihu cannot withhold himself any longer.


Heb “in my belly I am like wine that is not opened” (a Niphal imperfect), meaning sealed up with no place to escape.


The Hebrew text has כְּאֹבוֹת חֲדָשִׁים ( kÿ ’ ovot khadashim ), traditionally rendered “like new wineskins.” But only here does the phrase have this meaning. The LXX has “smiths” for “new,” thus “like smith’s bellows.” A. Guillaume connects the word with an Arabic word for a wide vessel for wine shaped like a cup (“Archaeological and philological note on Job 32:19 ,” PEQ 93 [1961]: 147-50). Some have been found in archaeological sites. The poor would use skins, the rich would use jars. The key to putting this together is the verb at the end of the line, יִבָּקֵעַ ( yibbaqea ’, “that are ready to burst”). The point of the statement is that Elihu is bursting to speak, and until now has not had the opening.


The cohortative expresses Elihu’s resolve to speak.


The idiom is “I will not lift up the face of a man.” Elihu is going to show no favoritism, but speak his mind.


The verb means “to confer an honorary title; to give a mark of distinction,” but it is often translated with the verb “flatter.” Elihu will not take sides, he will not use pompous titles.


The construction uses a perfect verb followed by the imperfect. This is a form of subordination equivalent to a complementary infinitive (see GKC 385-86 §120. c ).


The words “if I did” are supplied in the translation to make sense out of the two clauses.


Heb “quickly carry me away.”


Heb “give ear,” the Hiphil denominative verb from “ear.”


Heb “hear all my words.”


The perfect verbs in this verse should be classified as perfects of resolve: “I have decided to open…speak.”


This expression is unusual; R. Gordis ( Job , 371) says it can be translated, “the purity of my heart [is reflected] in my words,” but that is far-fetched and awkward. So there have been suggestions for emending יֹשֶׁר ( yosher , “uprightness”). Kissane’s makes the most sense if a change is desired: “shall reveal” (an Arabic sense of yasher ), although Holscher interpreted “shall affirm” ( yasher , with a Syriac sense). Dhorme has “my heart will repeat” ( יָשׁוּר , yashur ), but this is doubtful. If Kissane’s view is taken, it would say, “my heart will reveal my words.” Some commentators would join “and knowledge” to this colon, and read “words of knowledge” – but that requires even more emendations.


More literally, “and the knowledge of my lips they will speak purely.”


Some commentators want to put this verse after v. 6 , while others omit the verse entirely. Elihu is claiming here that he is inspired by God. tn The verb תְּחַיֵּנִי ( tÿkhayyeni ) is the Piel imperfect of the verb “to live.” It can mean “gives me life,” but it can also me “quickens me, enlivens me.”


The Hebrew text does not contain the term “arguments,” but this verb has been used already for preparing or arranging a defense.


The verb means “nipped off,” as a potter breaks off a piece of clay when molding a vessel.


The noun means “my pressure; my burden” in the light of the verb אָכֲף (’ akhaf , “to press on; to grip tightly”). In the parallel passages the text used “hand” and “rod” in the hand to terrify. The LXX has “hand” here for this word. But simply changing it to “hand” is ruled out because the verb is masculine.


See Job 9:34 and 13:21 .


Heb “in my ears.”


The word is a hapax legomenon ; hap is from חָפַף ( khafaf ). It is used in New Hebrew in expressions like “to wash” the head. Cognates in Syriac and Akkadian support the meaning “to wash; to clean.”


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


The Hebrew means “frustrations” or “oppositions.” The RSV has “displeasure,” NIV “faults,” and NRSV “occasions.” Rashi chose the word found in Judg 14:4 – with metathesis – meaning “pretexts” ( תֹּאֲנוֹת , to ’ anot ); this is followed by NAB, NASB.


The meaning of this verb is “this is my answer to you.”


The LXX has “he that is above men is eternal.” Elihu is saying that God is far above Job’s petty problems.


The MT has “all his words.” This must refer to “man” in the previous verse. But many wish to change it to “my words,” since it would be summarizing Job’s complaint to God.


The Syriac and the Vulgate have “and he does not repeat it,” a reading of the text as it is, according to E. Dhorme ( Job , 403). But his argument is based on another root with this meaning – a root which does not exist (see L. Dennefeld, RB 48 [1939]: 175). The verse is saying that God does speak to man.


The idiom is “he uncovers the ear of men.” This expression means “inform” in Ruth 4:4 ; 1 Sam 20:2 , etc. But when God is the subject it means “make a revelation” (see 1 Sam 9:15 ; 2 Sam 7:27 ).


Heb “and seals their bonds.” The form of the present translation, “and terrifies them with warnings,” is derived only by emending the text. Aquila, the Vulgate, Syriac, and Targum Job have “their correction” for “their bond,” which is what the KJV used. But the LXX, Aquila, and the Syriac have “terrifies” for the verb. This involves a change in pointing from יָחְתֹּם ( yakhtom ) to יְחִתֵּם ( yÿkhittem ). The LXX has “appearances of fear” instead of “bonds.” The point of the verse seems to be that by terrifying dreams God makes people aware of their ways.


The MT simply has מַעֲשֶׂה ( ma ’ aseh , “deed”). The LXX has “from his iniquity” which would have been מֵעַוְלָה ( me ’ avlah ). The two letters may have dropped out by haplography. The MT is workable, but would have to mean “[evil] deeds.”


Here too the sense of the MT is difficult to recover. Some translations took it to mean that God hides pride from man. Many commentators changed יְכַסֶּה ( yÿkhasseh , “covers”) to יְכַסֵּחַ ( yÿkhasseakh , “he cuts away”), or יְכַלֶּה ( yÿkhalleh , “he puts an end to”). The various emendations are not all that convincing.


A number of interpreters and translations take this as “the pit” (see Job 17:14 ; cf. NAB, NASB, NIV, NRSV).


Here is another difficult line. The verb normally means “to pass through; to pass over,” and so this word would normally mean “from passing through [or over].” The word שֶׁלַח ( shelakh ) does at times refer to a weapon, but most commentators look for a parallel with “the pit [or corruption].” One suggestion is שְׁאוֹלָה ( shÿ ’ olah , “to Sheol”), proposed by Duhm. Dhorme thought it was שַׁלַח ( shalakh ) and referred to the passageway to the underworld (see M. Tsevat, VT 4 [1954]: 43; and Svi Rin, BZ 7 [1963]: 25). See discussion of options in HALOT 1517-18 s.v. IV שֶׁלַח . The idea of crossing the river of death fits the idea of the passage well, although the reading “to perish by the sword” makes sense and was followed by the NIV.


The MT has the passive form, and so a subject has to be added: “[a man] is chastened.” The LXX has the active form, indicating “[God] chastens,” but the object “a man” has to be added. It is understandable why the LXX thought this was active, within this sequence of verbs; and that is why it is the inferior reading.


The Kethib “the strife of his bones is continual,” whereas the Qere has “the multitude of his bones are firm.” The former is the better reading in this passage. It indicates that the pain is caused by the ongoing strife.


Heb “food of desire.” The word “rejects” is not in the Hebrew text, but is supplied in the translation for clarity.


Heb “are laid bare.” This is the Qere reading; the Kethib means “bare height.” Gordis reverses the word order: “his bones are bare [i.e., crushed] so that they cannot be looked upon.” But the sense of that is not clear.


Heb “his soul [ נֶפֶשׁ , nefesh , “life”] draws near.”


The MT uses the Hiphil participle, “to those who cause death.” This seems to be a reference to the belief in demons that brought about death, an idea not mentioned in the Bible itself. Thus many proposals have been made for this expression. Hoffmann and Budde divide the word into לְמוֹ מֵתִּים ( lÿmo metim ) and simply read “to the dead.” Dhorme adds a couple of letters to get לִמְקוֹם מֵתִּים ( limqom metim , “to the place [or abode] of the dead”).


This is a smoother reading. The MT has “to tell to a man his uprightness,” to reveal what is right for him. The LXX translated this word “duty”; the choice is adopted by some commentaries. However, that is too far from the text, which indicates that the angel/messenger is to call the person to uprightness.


This verse seems to continue the protasis begun in the last verse, with the apodosis coming in the next verse.


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


The verb is either taken as an anomalous form of פָּדַע ( pada ’, “to rescue; to redeem,” or “to exempt him”), or it is emended to some similar word, like פָּרַע ( para ’, “to let loose,” so Wright).


The word רֻטֲפַשׁ ( rutafash ) is found nowhere else. One suggestion is that it should be יִרְטַב ( yirtav , “to become fresh”), connected to רָטַב ( ratav , “to be well watered [or moist]”). It is also possible that it was a combination of רָטַב ( ratav , “to be well watered”) and טָפַשׁ ( tafash , “to grow fat”). But these are all guesses in the commentaries.


The word describes the period when the man is healthy and vigorous, ripe for what life brings his way.


Heb “his face”; the referent (God) has been specified in the translation for clarity. sn This is usually taken to mean that as a worshiper this individual comes into the presence of the Lord in prayer, and in the sanctuary he sees God’s face , i.e., he sees the evidence of God’s presence.


Many commentators think this line is superfluous and so delete it. The RSV changed the verb to “he recounts,” making the idea that the man publishes the news of his victory or salvation (taking “righteousness” as a metonymy of cause).


The verb יָשֹׁר ( yashor ) is unusual. The typical view is to change it to יָשִׁיר ( yashir , “he sings”), but that may seem out of harmony with a confession. Dhorme suggests a root שׁוּר ( shur , “to repeat”), but this is a doubtful root. J. Reider reads it יָשֵׁיר ( yasher ) and links it to an Arabic word “confesses” ( ZAW 24 [1953]: 275).


Heb “to men.”


The verb שָׁוָה ( shavah ) has the impersonal meaning here, “it has not been requited to me.” The meaning is that the sinner has not been treated in accordance with his deeds: “I was not punished according to what I deserved.”


Heb “if there are words.”


The infinitive construct serves as the complement or object of “I desire.” It could be rendered “to justify you” or “your justification, “namely, “that you be justified.”


Heb “give ear to me.”


The Hebrew word means “the men who know,” and without a complement it means “to possess knowledge.”


Or “examines; tests; tries; discerns.”


Or “palate”; the Hebrew term refers to the tongue or to the mouth in general.


The word is מִשְׁפָּט ( mishpat ) again, with the sense of what is right or just.


Heb “righteous,” but in this context it means to be innocent or in the right.


The verb is the Piel imperfect of כָּזַב ( kazav ), meaning “to lie.” It could be a question: “Should I lie [against my right?] – when I am innocent. If it is repointed to the Pual , then it can be “I am made to lie,” or “I am deceived.” Taking it as a question makes good sense here, and so emendations are unnecessary.


The Hebrew text has only “my arrow.” Some commentators emend that word slightly to get “my wound.” But the idea could be derived from “arrows” as well, the wounds caused by the arrows. The arrows are symbolic of God’s affliction.


Heb “without transgression”; but this is parallel to the first part where the claim is innocence.


Heb “he drinks,” but coming after the question this clause may be subordinated.


The scorn or derision mentioned here is not against Job, but against God. Job scorns God so much, he must love it. So to reflect this idea, Gordis has translated it “blasphemy” (cf. NAB).


The perfect verb with the vav ( ו ) consecutive carries the sequence forward from the last description.


The word חֶבְרַה ( khevrah , “company”) is a hapax legomenon . But its meaning is clear enough from the connections to related words and this context as well.


The infinitive construct with the ל ( lamed ) preposition may continue the clause with the finite verb (see GKC 351 §114. p ).


Heb “men of wickedness”; the genitive is attributive (= “wicked men”).


Gordis, however, takes this expression in the sense of “being in favor with God.”


Heb “men of heart.” The “heart” is used for the capacity to understand and make the proper choice. It is often translated “mind.”


For this construction, see Job 27:5 .


Heb “for the work of man, he [= God] repays him.”


Heb “he causes it to find him.” The text means that God will cause a man to find (or receive) the consequences of his actions.


The verb פָּקַד ( paqad ) means “to visit; to appoint; to number.” Here it means “to entrust” for care and governing. The implication would be that there would be someone higher than God – which is what Elihu is repudiating by the rhetorical question. No one entrusted God with this.


The preposition is implied from the first half of the verse.


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


This is the reading following the Qere . The Kethib and the Syriac and the LXX suggest a reading יָשִׂים ( yasim , “if he [God] recalls”). But this would require leaving out “his heart,” and would also require redividing the verse to make “his spirit” the object. It makes better parallelism, but may require too many changes.


The phrase “you have” is not in the Hebrew text, but is implied.


Heb “the sound of my words.”


The force of הַאַף ( ha ’ af ) is “Is it truly the case?” The point is being made that if Job were right God could not be judging the world.


The verb חָבַשׁ ( khavash ) has the basic idea of “to bind,” as in binding on the yoke, and then in the sense of subduing people under authority (cf. Assyrian absanu ) . The imperfect verb here is best expressed with the potential nuance.


The two words could be taken separately, but they seem to form a fine nominal hendiadys, because the issue is God’s justice. So the word for power becomes the modifier.


Heb “Does one say,” although some smooth it out to say “Is it fit to say?” For the reading “who says,” the form has to be repointed to הַאֹמֵר ( ha ’ omer ) meaning, “who is the one saying.” This reading is supported by the LXX, Vulgate, and Syriac. Also it seems to flow better with the following verse. It would be saying that God is over the rulers and can rebuke them. The former view is saying that no one rebukes kings, much less Job rebuking God.


The word בְּלִיָּעַל ( bÿliyya ’ al ) means both “worthless” and “wicked.” It is common in proverbial literature, and in later writings it became a description of Satan. It is usually found with “son of.”


The verb means “to give recognition; to take note of” and in this passage with לִפְנֵי ( lifne , “before”) it means to show preferential treatment to the rich before the poor. The word for “rich” here is an unusual word, found parallel to “noble” ( Isa 32:2 ). P. Joüon thinks it is a term of social distinction ( Bib 18 [1937]: 207-8).


Dhorme transposes “in the middle of the night” with “they pass away” to get a smoother reading. But the MT emphasizes the suddenness by putting both temporal ideas first. E. F. Sutcliffe leaves the order as it stands in the text, but adds a verb “they expire” after “in the middle of the night” (“Notes on Job, textual and exegetical,” Bib 30 [1949]: 79ff.).


R. Gordis ( Job , 389) thinks “people” here mean the people who count, the upper class.


The verb means “to be violently agitated.” There is no problem with the word in this context, but commentators have made suggestions for improving the idea. The proposal that has the most to commend it, if one were inclined to choose a new word, is the change to יִגְוָעוּ ( yigva ’ u , “they expire”; so Ball, Holscher, Fohrer, and others).


Heb “not by hand.” This means without having to use force.


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


The construction of this colon uses the Niphal infinitive construct from סָתַר ( satar , “to be hidden; to hide”). The resumptive adverb makes this a relative clause in its usage: “where the evildoers can hide themselves.”


Heb “for he does not put upon man yet.” This has been given a wide variety of interpretations, all of which involve a lot of additional thoughts. The word עוֹד (’ od , “yet, still”) has been replaced with מוֹעֵד ( mo ’ ed , “an appointed time,” Reiske and Wright), with the ם ( mem ) having dropped out by haplography. This makes good sense. If the MT is retained, the best interpretation would be that God does not any more consider (from “place upon the heart”) man, that he might appear in judgment.


Heb “[with] no investigation.”


The direct object “them” is implied and has been supplied in the translation for clarity.


The Hebrew term “night” is an accusative of time.


Heb “under wicked men,” or “under wickednesses.” J. C. Greenfield shows that the preposition can mean “among” as well (“Prepositions B Tachat in Jes 57:5,” ZAW 32 [1961]: 227). That would allow “among wicked men.” It could also be “instead of” or even “in return for [their wickedness]” which is what the RSV does.


The text simply uses רֹאִים ( ro ’ im ): “[in the place where there are] seers,” i.e., spectators.


The verb הִשְׂכִּילוּ ( hiskilu ) means “to be prudent; to be wise.” From this is derived the idea of “be wise in understanding God’s will,” and “be successful because of prudence” – i.e., successful with God.


The verse begins with the infinitive construct of בּוֹא ( bo ’, “go”), showing the result of their impious actions.


The verb here is an imperfect; the clause is circumstantial to the preceding clause, showing either the result, or the concomitant action.


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


The verb in this position is somewhat difficult, although it does make good sense in the sentence – it is just not what the parallelism would suggest. So several emendations have been put forward, for which see the commentaries.


The line simply reads “and over a nation and over a man together.” But it must be the qualification for the points being made in the previous lines, namely, that even if God hides himself so no one can see, yet he is still watching over them all (see H. H. Rowley, Job [NCBC], 222).


The word translated “alike” ( Heb “together”) has bothered some interpreters. In the reading taken here it is acceptable. But others have emended it to gain a verb, such as “he visits” (Beer), “he watches over” (Duhm), “he is compassionate” (Kissane), etc. But it is sufficient to say “he is over.”


This last verse is difficult because it is unbalanced and cryptic. Some have joined the third line of v. 29 with this entire verse to make a couplet. But the same result is achieved by simply regarding this verse as the purpose of v. 29 . But there still are some words that must be added. In the first colon, “[he is over the nations]… preventing from ruling.” And in the second colon, “laying” has to be supplied before “snares.”


The Hebrew text has only “I lift up” or “I bear” (= I endure). The reading “I have been led astray” is obtained by changing the vowels to read a passive. If the MT is retained, an object has to be supplied, such as “chastisement” (so RSV, NASB) or “punishment” (NRSV). If not, then a different reading would be followed (e.g., “I was misguided” [NAB]; “I am guilty” [NIV]).


Heb “what I do not see,” more specifically, “apart from [that which] I see.”


Heb “is it from with you,” an idiomatic expression meaning “to suit you” or “according to your judgment.”


There is no object on the verb, and the meaning is perhaps lost. The best guess is that Elihu is saying Job has rejected his teaching.


Adding “that” in the translation clarifies Elihu’s indirect citation of the wise individuals’ words.


The Hiphil infinitive construct is here functioning as a substantive. The word means “prudence; understanding.”


The MT reads אָבִי (’ avi , “my father”), which makes no sense. Some follow the KJV and emend the word to make a verb “I desire” or use the noun “my desire of it.” Others follow an Arabic word meaning “entreat, I pray” (cf. ESV, “Would that Job were tried”). The LXX and the Syriac versions have “but” and “surely” respectively. Since this is the only ms support, albeit weak, it may be the best choice. In this sense Elihu would be saying that because of Job’s attitude God will continue to test him.


Although frequently translated “rebellion,” the basic meaning of this Hebrew term is “transgression.”


If this reading stands, it would mean that Job shows contempt, meaning that he mocks them and accuses God. It is a bold touch, but workable. Of the many suggested emendations, Dhorme alters some of the vowels and obtains a reading “and casts doubt among us,” and then takes “transgression” from the first colon for the complement. Some commentators simply delete the line.


The line could be read as “do you reckon this for justice? Here “to be” is understood.


The word “when” is not in the Hebrew text, but is implied.


The brief line could be interpreted in a number of ways. The MT simply has “my right from God.” It could be “I am right before God,” “I am more just/right than God” (identifying the preposition as a comparative min ( מִן ); cf. J. E. Hartley, Job [NICOT], 463), “I will be right before God,” or “My just cause against God.”


The referent of “you” is usually understood to be God.


The Hebrew text merely says, “What do I gain from my sin?” But Job has claimed that he has not sinned, and so this has to be elliptical: “more than if I had sinned” (H. H. Rowley, Job [NCBC], 224). It could also be, “What do I gain without sin?”


The emphatic pronoun calls attention to Elihu who will answer these questions.


The Hebrew text adds, “with words,” but since this is obvious, for stylistic reasons it has not been included in the translation.


The preposition is taken here as a comparative min ( מִן ). The line could also read “that are high above you.” This idea has appeared in the speech of Eliphaz ( 22:12 ), Zophar ( 11:7 ff.), and even Job ( 9:8 ff.).


Heb “him” (also in v. 7 ); the referent (God) has been specified in the translation for clarity.


See Job 7:20 .


The phrase “affects only” is supplied in the translation of this nominal sentence. sn According to Strahan, “Elihu exalts God’s greatness at the cost of His grace, His transcendence at the expense of His immanence. He sets up a material instead of a spiritual stand of profit and loss. He does not realize that God does gain what He desires most by the goodness of men, and loses what He most loves by their evil.”


Heb “and to [or for] a son of man, your righteousness.”


The word “people” is supplied, because the sentence only has the masculine plural verb.


The final noun is an abstract plural, “oppression.” There is no reason to change it to “oppressors” to fit the early versions. The expression is literally “multitude of oppression.”


Heb “the arm,” a metaphor for strength or power.


Or “of the many” (see HALOT 1172 s.v. I רַב 6.a).


There have been several attempts to emend the line, none of which are particularly helpful or interesting. H. H. Rowley ( Job [NCBC], 225) says, “It is a pity to rob Elihu of a poetic line when he creates one.”


The form in the text, the Piel participle from אָלַף (’ alaf , “teach”) is written in a contracted form; the full form is מְאַלְּפֵנוּ ( mÿ ’ allÿfenu ).


Some would render this “teaches us by the beasts.” But Elihu is stressing the unique privilege humans have.


The adverb שָׁם ( sham , “there”) connects this verse to v. 11 . “There” can be locative or temporal – and here it is temporal (= “then”).


Heb “surely – vanity, he does not hear.” The cry is an empty cry, not a prayer to God. Dhorme translates it, “It is a pure waste of words.”


The expression “and now” introduces a new complaint of Elihu – in addition to the preceding. Here the verb of v. 14 , “you say,” is understood after the temporal ki ( כִּי ).


The verb פָקַד ( paqad ) means “to visit” (also “to appoint; to muster; to number”). When God visits, it means that he intervenes in one’s life for blessing or cursing (punishing, destroying).


The word פַּשׁ ( pash ) is a hapax legomenon . K&D 12:275 derived it from an Arabic word meaning “belch,” leading to the idea of “overflow.” BDB 832 s.v. defines it as “folly.” Several define it as “transgression” on the basis of the versions (Theodotion, Symmachus, Vulgate). The RSV took it as “greatly heed,” but that is not exactly “greatly know,” when the text beyond that requires “not know at all.” The NIV has “he does not take the least notice of wickedness.”


The word הֶבֶל ( hevel ) means “vanity; futility; to no purpose.”


The verb כָּתַּר ( kattar ) is the Piel imperative; in Hebrew the word means “to surround” and is related to the noun for crown. But in Syriac it means “to wait.” This section of the book of Job will have a few Aramaic words.


The Hebrew text simply has “for yet for God words.”


Heb “I will carry my knowledge to-from afar.” The expression means that he will give a wide range to knowledge, that he will speak comprehensively.


This line gives the essence of all of Elihu’s speech – to give or ascribe righteousness to God against the charges of Job. Dhorme translates this “I will justify my Maker,” and that is workable if it carries the meaning of “declaring to be right.”


The word is תְּמִים ( tÿmim ), often translated “perfect.” It is the same word used of Job in 2:3 . Elihu is either a complete stranger to modesty or is confident regarding the knowledge that he believes God has revealed to him for this situation. See the note on the heading before 32:1 .


The object “people” is not in the Hebrew text but is implied.


The text simply repeats “mighty.”


The last two words are simply כֹּחַ לֵב ( koakh lev , “strong in heart”), meaning something like “strong; firm in his decisions.”


There are several problems in this verse: the repetition of “mighty,” the lack of an object for “despise,” and the meaning of “strength of heart.” Many commentators reduce the verse to a single line, reading something like “Lo, God does not reject the pure in heart” (Kissane). Dhorme and Pope follow Nichols with: “Lo, God is mighty in strength, and rejects not the pure in heart.” This reading moved “mighty” to the first line and took the second to be בַּר ( bar , “pure”).


Or “he does not keep the wicked alive.”


Many commentators accept the change of “his eyes” to “his right” (reading דִּינוֹ [ dino ] for עֵינָיו [’ enayv ]). There is no compelling reason for the change; it makes the line commonplace.


Heb “them”; the referent (the righteous) has been repeated from the first part of the verse for clarity.


Heb “he seats them forever and exalts them.” The last verb can be understood as expressing a logical consequence of the preceding action (cf. GKC 328 §111. l = “he seats them forever so that he exalts them”). Or the two verbs can be taken as an adverbial hendiadys whereby the first modifies the second adverbially: “he exalts them by seating them forever” or “when he seats them forever” (cf. GKC 326 §111. d ). Some interpret this verse to say that God seats kings on the throne, making a change in subject in the middle of the verse. But it makes better sense to see the righteous as the subject matter throughout – they are not only protected, but are exalted.


Dhorme thinks that the verse is still talking about kings, who may be in captivity. But this diverts attention from Elihu’s emphasis on the righteous.


The verb נָגַד ( nagad ) means “to declare; to tell.” Here it is clear that God is making known the sins that caused the enslavement or captivity, so “reveal” makes a good interpretive translation.


Heb “their work.”


The idiom once again is “he uncovers their ear.”


The revelation is in the preceding verse, and so a pronoun must be added to make the reference clear.


The verb שׁוּב ( shuv , “to turn; to return”) is one of the two major words in the OT for “repent” – to return from evil. Here the imperfect should be obligatory – they must do it.


Some commentators delete this last line for metrical considerations. But there is no textual evidence for the deletion; it is simply the attempt by some to make the meter rigid.


This is a similar expression to the one in Job 33:18 , where the suggestion was made by many that it means crossing over the canal or river of death. Some retain the earlier interpretation of “perish by the sword” (cf. NIV).


The expression “godless [or hypocrite] in heart” is an intensification of the description. It conveys that they are intentionally godless. See Matt 23:28 .


Heb “they put anger.” This is usually interpreted to mean they lay up anger, or put anger in their hearts.


The text expresses this with “their soul dies.”


Heb “among the male prostitutes” who were at the temple – the “holy ones,” with “holy” being used in that sense of “separated to that form of temple service.” So uncleanness and shame are some of the connotations of the reference. Some modern translations give the general sense only: “their life ends in shame” (NRSV); “and perish among the reprobate” (NAB); “die…after wasting their lives in immoral living” (NLT).


The preposition בּ ( bet ) in these two lines is not location but instrument, not “in” but “by means of.” The affliction and the oppression serve as a warning for sin, and therefore a means of salvation.


Heb “his.”


Heb “he uncovers their ear.”


The Hebrew verb means “to entice; to lure; to allure; to seduce,” but these have negative connotations. The English “to persuade; to draw” might work better. The verb is the Hiphil perfect of סוּת ( sut ). But the nuance of the verb is difficult. It can be equivalent to an English present expressing what God is doing (Peake). But the subject is contested as well. Since the verb usually has an evil connotation, there have been attempts to make the “plaza” the subject – “the wide place has led you astray” (Ewald).


Heb “a broad place where there is no cramping beneath [or under] it.”


The word נַחַת ( nakhat ) could be translated “set” if it is connected with the verb נוּחַ ( nuakh , “to rest,” but then “to lay to rest, to set”). Kissane translates it “comfort.” Dhorme thinks it could come from נוּחַ ( nuakh , “to rest”) or נָחַת ( nakhat , “to descend”). But his conclusion is that it is a dittography after “under it” (p. 545).


Heb “filled with fat.”


The first expression is idiomatic: the text says, “because wrath lest it entice you” – thus, beware.


The word is כֹּפֶר ( kofer ), often translated “ransom,” but frequently in the sense of a bribe.


The form in the MT is “your cry (for help).” See J. E. Hartley ( Job [NICOT], 472-73) and E. Dhorme ( Job , 547-48) on the difficulties.


This part has only two words לֹא בְצָר ( lo ’ bÿtsar , “not in distress”). The negated phrase serves to explain the first colon.


For the many suggestions and the reasoning here, see the commentaries.


The meaning of this line is difficult. There are numerous suggestions for emending the text. Kissane takes the first verb in the sense of “oppress,” and for “the night” he has “belonging to you,” meaning “your people.” This reads: “Oppress not them that belong not to you, that your kinsmen may mount up in their place.”


Normally “tested” would be the translation for the Niphal of בָּחַר ( bakhar ). Although the Qal is employed here, the context favors “tested” rather than “chose.”


The word מוֹרֶה ( moreh ) is the Hiphil participle from יָרַה ( yarah ). It is related to the noun תּוֹרָה ( torah , “what is taught” i.e., the law).


The expression is “that you extol,” serving as an object of the verb.


The last part has the verbal construction, “and we do not know.” This clause is to be used adverbially: “beyond our understanding.”


The verb means “to filter; to refine,” and so a plural subject with the drops of water as the subject will not work. So many read the singular, “he distills.”


This word עֵד (’ ed ) occurs also in Gen 2:6 . The suggestion has been that instead of a mist it represents an underground watercourse that wells up to water the ground.


Heb “his booth.”


The word actually means “to spread,” but with lightning as the object, “to scatter” appears to fit the context better.


The word is “light,” but taken to mean “lightning.” Theodotion had “mist” here, and so most commentators follow that because it is more appropriate to the verb and the context.


Heb “roots.”


The verb is יָדִין ( yadin , “he judges”). Houbigant proposed יָזוּן ( yazun , “he nourishes”). This has found wide acceptance among commentators (cf. NAB). G. R. Driver retained the MT but gave a meaning “enriches” to the verb (“Problems in the Hebrew text of Job,” VTSup 3 [1955]: 88ff.).


R. Gordis ( Job , 422) prefers to link this word with the later Hebrew word for “arch,” not “hands.”


Because the image might mean that God grabs the lightning and hurls it like a javelin (cf. NLT), some commentators want to change “covers” to other verbs. Dhorme has “lifts” ( נִשָּׂא [ nissa ’] for כִּסָּה [ kissah ]). This fit the idea of God directing the lightning bolts.


Peake knew of over thirty interpretations for this verse. The MT literally says, “He declares his purpose [or his shout] concerning it; cattle also concerning what rises.” Dhorme has it: “The flock which sniffs the coming storm has warned the shepherd.” Kissane: “The thunder declares concerning him, as he excites wrath against iniquity.” Gordis translates it: “His thunderclap proclaims his presence, and the storm his mighty wrath.” Many more could be added to the list.


The imperative is followed by the infinitive absolute from the same root to express the intensity of the verb.


The word is the usual word for “to meditate; to murmur; to groan”; here it refers to the low building of the thunder as it rumbles in the sky. The thunder is the voice of God (see ).


Heb “wings,” and then figuratively for the extremities of garments, of land, etc.


The verb simply has the pronominal suffix, “them.” The idea must be that when God brings in all the thunderings he does not hold back his lightning bolts either.


The form is the Niphal participle, “wonders,” from the verb פָּלָא ( pala ’, “to be wonderful; to be extraordinary”). Some commentators suppress the repeated verb “thunders,” and supply other verbs like “shows” or “works,” enabling them to make “wonders” the object of the verb rather than leaving it in an adverbial role. But as H. H. Rowley ( Job [NCBC], 236) notes, no change is needed, for one is not surprised to find repetition in Elihu’s words.


Heb “and we do not know.”


The verb actually means “be” (found here in the Aramaic form). The verb “to be” can mean “to happen, to fall, to come about.”


Heb “and [to the] shower of rain and shower of rains, be strong.” Many think the repetition grew up by variant readings; several Hebrew mss delete the second pair, and so many editors do. But the repetition may have served to stress the idea that the rains were heavy.


Heb “Be strong.”


Heb “by the hand of every man he seals.” This line is intended to mean with the heavy rains God suspends all agricultural activity.


This reading involves a change in the text, for in MT “men” is in the construct. It would be translated, “all men whom he made” (i.e., all men of his making”). This is the translation followed by the NIV and NRSV. Olshausen suggested that the word should have been אֲנָשִׁים (’ anashim ) with the final ם ( mem ) being lost to haplography.


D. W. Thomas suggested a meaning of “rest” for the verb, based on Arabic. He then reads אֱנוֹשׁ (’ enosh ) for man, and supplies a ם ( mem ) to “his work” to get “that every man might rest from his work [in the fields].”


The “driving winds” reflects the Hebrew “from the scatterers.” This refers to the north winds that bring the cold air and the ice and snow and hard rains.


The word “moisture” is drawn from רִי ( ri ) as a contraction for רְוִי ( rÿvi ). Others emended the text to get “hail” (NAB) or “lightning,” or even “the Creator.” For these, see the various commentaries. There is no reason to change the reading of the MT when it makes perfectly good sense.


The words “the clouds” are supplied from v. 11 ; the sentence itself actually starts: “and it goes round,” referring to the cloud.


Heb “that it may do.”


Heb “rod,” i.e., a rod used for punishment.


This is interpretive; Heb “he makes find it.” The lightning could be what is intended here, for it finds its mark. But R. Gordis ( Job , 429) suggests man is the subject – let him find what it is for, i.e., the fate appropriate for him.


The verb is בְּשׂוּם ( bÿsum , from שִׂים [ sim , “set”]), so the idea is how God lays [or sets] [a command] for them. The suffix is proleptic, to be clarified in the second colon.


Dhorme reads this “and how his stormcloud makes lightning to flash forth?”


As indicated by HALOT 618 s.v. מִפְלָשׂ , the concept of “balancing” probably refers to “floating” or “suspension” (cf. NIV’s “how the clouds hang poised” and J. E. Hartley, Job [NICOT], 481-82, n. 2).


The verb means “to beat out; to flatten,” and the analogy in the next line will use molten metal. From this verb is derived the word for the “firmament” in Gen 1:6-8 , that canopy-like pressure area separating water above and water below.


The imperfect verb here carries the obligatory nuance, “what we should say?”


The verb means “to arrange; to set in order.” From the context the idea of a legal case is included.


This imperfect works well as a desiderative imperfect.


The light here must refer to the sun in the skies that had been veiled by the storm. Then, when the winds blew the clouds away, it could not be looked at because it was so dazzling. Elihu’s analogy will be that God is the same – in his glory one cannot look at him or challenge him.


The verb has an indefinite subject, and so should be a passive here.


Heb “and cleaned them.” The referent is the clouds (v. 18 ), which has been supplied in the translation for clarity. There is another way of reading this verse: the word translated “bright” means “dark; obscured” in Syriac. In this interpretation the first line would mean that they could not see the sun, because it was darkened by the clouds, but then the wind came and blew the clouds away. Dhorme, Gray, and several others take it this way, as does the NAB.


The MT has “out of the north comes gold.” Left in that sense the line seems irrelevant. The translation “golden splendor” (with RV, RSV, NRSV, NIV) depends upon the context of theophany. Others suggest “golden rays” (Dhorme), the aurora borealis (Graetz, Gray), or some mythological allusion (Pope), such as Baal’s palace. Golden rays or splendor is what is intended, although the reference is not to a natural phenomenon – it is something that would suggest the glory of God.


The name “Almighty” is here a casus pendens , isolating the name at the front of the sentence and resuming it with a pronoun.


The MT places the major disjunctive accent (the atnach ) under “power,” indicating that “and justice” as a disjunctive clause starting the second half of the verse (with ESV, NASB, NIV, NLT). Ignoring the Masoretic accent, NRSV has “he is great in power and justice.”


The demonstrative pronoun is used here to emphasize the interrogative pronoun (see GKC 442 §136. c ).


Heb “Gird up your loins.” This idiom basically describes taking the hem of the long garment or robe and pulling it up between the legs and tucking it into the front of the belt, allowing easier and freer movement of the legs. “Girding the loins” meant the preparation for some difficult task ( Jer 1:17 ), or for battle ( Isa 5:27 ), or for running ( 1 Kgs 18:46 ). C. Gordon suggests that it includes belt-wrestling, a form of hand-to-hand mortal combat (“Belt-wrestling in the Bible World,” HUCA 23 [1950/51]: 136).


The construction is the infinitive construct in a temporal clause, using the preposition and the subjective genitive suffix.


The verb is the imperative; it has no object “me” in the text.


The particle כּ ( ki ) is taken here for a conditional clause, “if you know” (see GKC 498 §159. dd ). Others take it as “surely” with a biting irony.


For the interrogative serving as a genitive, see GKC 442 §136. b .


The construction, an adverbial clause of time, uses רָנָן ( ranan ), which is often a ringing cry, an exultation. The parallelism with “shout for joy” shows this to be enthusiastic acclamation. The infinitive is then continued in the next colon with the vav ( ו ) consecutive preterite.


Heb “together.” This is Dhorme’s suggestion for expressing how they sang together.


See Job 1:6 .


The MT has “and he shut up.” The Vulgate has “Who?” and so many commentaries and editions adopt this reading, if not from the Vulgate, then from the sense of the sequence in the text itself.


The line uses two expressions, first the temporal clause with גִּיחַ ( giakh , “when it burst forth”) and then the finite verb יֵצֵא ( yetse ’, “go out”) to mark the concomitance of the two actions.


The temporal clause here uses the infinitive from שִׂים ( sim , “to place; to put; to make”). It underscores the sovereign placing of things.


This noun is found only here. The verb is in Ezek 16:4 , and a related noun is in Ezek 30:21 .


The MT has “and I broke,” which cannot mean “set, prescribed” or the like. The LXX and the Vulgate have such a meaning, suggesting a verb עֲשִׁית (’ ashiyt , “plan, prescribe”). A. Guillaume finds an Arabic word with a meaning “measured it by span by my decree.” Would God give himself a decree? R. Gordis simply argues that the basic meaning “break” develops the connotation of “decide, determine” ( 2 Sam 5:24 ; Job 14:3 ; Dan 11:36 ).


Dhorme suggested reversing the two verbs, making this the first, and then “shatter” for the second colon.


The imperfect verb receives the permission nuance here.


The text has תֹסִיף ( tosif , “and you may not add”), which is often used idiomatically (as in verbal hendiadys constructions).


The MT literally says, “here he will put on the pride of your waves.” The verb has no expressed subject and so is made a passive voice. But there has to be some object for the verb “put,” such as “limit” or “boundary”; the translations “confined; halted; stopped” all serve to paraphrase such an idea. The LXX has “broken” at this point, suggesting the verse might have been confused – but “breaking the pride” of the waves would mean controlling them. Some commentators have followed this, exchanging the verb in v. 11 with this one.


The Hebrew idiom is “have you from your days?” It means “never in your life” (see 1 Sam 25:28 ; 1 Kgs 1:6 ).


The verb is the Piel of יָדַע ( yada ’, “to know”) with a double accusative.


Heb “they”; the referent (the objects or features on the earth) has been specified in the translation for clarity.


The MT reads “they stand up like a garment” (NASB, NIV) or “its features stand out like a garment” (ESV). The reference could be either to embroidered decoration on a garment or to the folds of a garment (REB: “until all things stand out like the folds of a cloak”; cf. J. E. Hartley, Job [NICOT], 497, “the early light of day makes the earth appear as a beautiful garment, exquisite in design and glorious in color”). Since this is thought to be an odd statement, some suggest with Ehrlich that the text be changed to תִּצָּבַּע ( titsabba ’, “is dyed [like a garment]”). This reference would be to the colors appearing on the earth’s surface under daylight. The present translation follows the emendation.


Heb “the raised arm.” The words “in violence” are not in the Hebrew text, but are supplied in the translation to clarify the metaphor.


Heb “the springs of the sea.” The words “that fill” are supplied in the translation to clarify the meaning of the phrase.


Heb “uncovered to you.”


Some still retain the traditional phrase “shadow of death” in the English translation (cf. NIV). The reference is to the entrance to Sheol (see Job 10:21 ).


The interrogative with דֶרֶךְ ( derekh ) means “in what road” or “in what direction.”


The suffixes are singular (“that you may take it to its border…to its home”), referring to either the light or the darkness. Because either is referred to, the translation has employed plurals, since singulars would imply that only the second item, “darkness,” was the referent. Plurals are also employed by NAB and NIV.


The imperfect verb after the adverb אָז (’ az , “then”) functions as a preterite: “you were born.” The line is sarcastic.


The same Hebrew term ( אוֹצָר , ’ otsar ), has been translated “storehouse” in the first line and “armory” in the second. This has been done for stylistic variation, but also because “hail,” as one of God’s “weapons” (cf. the following verse) suggests military imagery; in this context the word refers to God’s “ammunition dump” where he stockpiles hail.


Because the parallel with “light” and “east wind” is not tight, Hoffmann proposed ‘ ed instead, “mist.” This has been adopted by many. G. R. Driver suggests “parching heat” (“Problems in the Hebrew text of Job,” VTSup 3 [1955]: 91-92).


Heb “on a land, no man.”


Heb “a desert, no man in it.”


Heb “to cause to sprout a source of vegetation.” The word מֹצָא ( motsa ’) is rendered “mine” in Job 28:1 . The suggestion with the least changes is Wright’s: צָמֵא ( tsame ’, “thirsty”). But others choose מִצִּיָּה ( mitsiyyah , “from the steppe”).


Or “heavens.” The Hebrew term שָׁמַיִם ( shamayim ) may be translated “heaven(s)” or “sky” depending on the context.


Several suggest that the verb is not from חָבָא ( khava ’, “to hide”) but from a homonym, “to congeal.” This may be too difficult to support, however.


This word is found here and in 1 Sam 15:32 . Dhorme suggests, with others, that there has been a metathesis (a reversal of consonants), and it is the same word found in Job 31:36 (“bind”). G. R. Driver takes it as “cluster” without changing the text (“Two astronomical passages in the Old Testament,” JTS 7 [1956] :3).


The word מַזָּרוֹת ( mazzarot ) is taken by some to refer to the constellations (see 2 Kgs 23:5 ), and by others as connected to the word for “crown,” and so “corona.”


The LXX has “answer you,” and some editors have adopted this. However, the reading of the MT makes better sense in the verse.


This verse is difficult because of the two words, טֻחוֹת ( tukhot , rendered here “heart”) and שֶׂכְוִי ( sekhvi , here “mind”). They have been translated a number of ways: “meteor” and “celestial appearance”; the stars “Procyon” and “Sirius”; “inward part” and “mind”; even as birds, “ibis” and “cock.” One expects them to have something to do with nature – clouds and the like. The RSV accordingly took them to mean “meteor” (from a verb “to wander”) and “a celestial appearance.” But these meanings are not well-attested.


The word actually means “to cause to lie down.”


The word means “to flow” or “to cast” (as in casting metals). So the noun developed the sense of “hard,” as in cast metal.


Heb “fill up the life of.”


The verse is difficult, making some suspect that a line has dropped out. The little birds in the nest hardly go wandering about looking for food. Dhorme suggest “and stagger for lack of food.”


The text uses the infinitive as the object: “do you know the giving birth of?”


Or “ibex.”


Here the infinitive is again a substantive: “the time of their giving birth.”


The Hebrew verb used here means “to cleave,” and this would not have the object “their young.” Olshausen and others after him change the ח ( khet ) to ט ( tet ) and get a verb “to drop,” meaning “drop [= give birth to] young” as used in Job 21:10 . G. R. Driver holds out for the MT, arguing it is an idiom, “to breach the womb” (“Problems in the Hebrew text of Job,” VTSup 3 [1955]: 92-93).


Heb “they cast forth their labor pains.” This word usually means “birth pangs” but here can mean what caused the pains (metonymy of effect). This fits better with the parallelism, and the verb (“cast forth”). The words “their offspring” are supplied in the translation for clarity; direct objects were often omitted when clear from the context, although English expects them to be included.


The idea is that of the open countryside. The Aramaism is found only here.


Some commentators think that the addition of the “wild ox” here is a copyist’s error, making the stich too long. They therefore delete it. Also, binding an animal to the furrow with ropes is unusual. So with a slight emendation Kissane came up with “Will you bind him with a halter of cord?” While the MT is unusual, the sense is understandable, and no changes, even slight ones, are absolutely necessary.


Heb “leave.”


The word is normally translated “believe” in the Bible. The idea is that of considering something dependable and acting on it. The idea of reliability is found also in the Niphal stem usages.


There is a textual problem here: יָשׁוּב ( yashuv ) is the Kethib , meaning “[that] he will return”; יָשִׁיב ( yashiv ) is the Qere , meaning “that he will bring in.” This is the preferred reading, since the object follows it. For commentators who think the line too unbalanced for this, the object is moved to the second colon, and the reading “returns” is taken for the first. But the MT is perfectly clear as it stands.


Heb “your seed”; this must be interpreted figuratively for what the seed produces.


Heb “gather it”; the referent (the grain) has been specified in the translation for clarity.


Simply, the MT has “and your threshing floor gather.” The “threshing floor” has to be an adverbial accusative of place.


This whole section on the ostrich is not included in the LXX. Many feel it is an interpolation and should therefore be deleted. The pattern of the chapter changes from the questions being asked to observations being made.


The word occurs only here and means “shrill cries.” If the MT is correct, this is a poetic name for the ostrich (see Lam 4:3 ).


Many proposals have been made here. The MT has a verb, “exult.” Strahan had “flap joyously,” a rendering followed by the NIV. The RSV uses “wave proudly.”


The point of this statement would be that the ostrich cannot compare to the stork. But there are many other proposals for this line – just about every commentator has a different explanation for it. Of the three words here, the first means “pinion,” the third “plumage,” and the second probably “stork,” although the LXX has “heron.” The point of this whole section is that the ostrich is totally lacking in parental care, whereas the stork is characterized by it. The Hebrew word for “stork” is the same word for “love”: חֲסִידָה ( khasidah ), an interpretation followed by the NASB. The most likely reading is “or are they the pinions and plumage of the stork?” The ostrich may flap about, but cannot fly and does not care for its young.


The meaning may have the connotation of “lays; places,” rather than simply abandoning (see M. Dahood, “The Root ’zb II in Job,” JBL 78 [1959]: 307f.).


Heb “an animal of the field.”


The colon poses a slight problem here. The literal meaning of the Hebrew verb translated “springs up” (i.e., “lifts herself on high”) might suggest flight. But some of the proposals involve a reading about readying herself to run.


The second half of the verse contains this hapax legomenon , which is usually connected with the word רַעְמָה ( ra ’ mah , “thunder”). A. B. Davidson thought it referred to the quivering of the neck rather than the mane. Gray thought the sound and not the movement was the point. But without better evidence, a reading that has “quivering mane” may not be far off the mark. But it may be simplest to translate it “mane” and assume that the idea of “quivering” is part of the meaning.


The word could mean “snorting” as well (see Jer 8:16 ). It comes from the root “to blow.” If the horse is running and breathing hard, this could be the sense here.


The Hebrew text has a plural verb, “they paw.” For consistency and for stylistic reasons this is translated as a singular.


The armies would prepare for battles that were usually fought in the valleys, and so the horse was ready to charge. But in Ugaritic the word `mk means “force” as well as “valley.” The idea of “force” would fit the parallelism here well (see M. Dahood, “Value of Ugaritic for textual criticism,” Bib 40 [1959]: 166).


Or “in strength.”


This may be the scimitar (see G. Molin, “What is a kidon?” JSS 1 [1956]: 334-37).


“Swallow the ground” is a metaphor for the horse’s running. Gray renders the line: “quivering and excited he dashes into the fray.”


The use of אָמַן (’ aman ) in the Hiphil in this place is unique. Such a form would normally mean “to believe.” But its basic etymological meaning comes through here. The verb means “to be firm; to be reliable; to be dependable.” The causative here would mean “to make firm” or “to stand firm.”


This word occurs only here. It is connected to “pinions” in v. 13 . Dhorme suggests “clad with feathers,” but the line suggests more the use of the wings.


Heb “your mouth.”


Heb “upon the tooth of a rock.”


The word could be taken as the predicate, but because of the conjunction it seems to be adding another description of the place of its nest.


The word means “search,” but can be used for a wide range of matters, including spying.


Heb “food.”


The word חֲלָלִים ( khalalim ) designates someone who is fatally wounded, literally the “pierced one,” meaning anyone or thing that dies a violent death.


The form רֹב ( rov ) is the infinitive absolute from the verb רִיב ( riv , “contend”). Dhorme wishes to repoint it to make it the active participle, the “one who argues with the Almighty.”


The verb יִסּוֹר ( yissor ) is found only here, but comes from a common root meaning “to correct; to reprove.” Several suggestions have been made to improve on the MT. Dhorme read it יָסוּר ( yasur ) in the sense of “to turn aside; to yield.” Ehrlich read this emendation as “to come to an end.” But the MT could be read as “to correct; to instruct.”


The word קַלֹּתִי ( qalloti ) means “to be light; to be of small account; to be unimportant.” From this comes the meaning “contemptible,” which in the causative stem would mean “to treat with contempt; to curse.” Dhorme tries to make the sentence a conditional clause and suggests this meaning: “If I have been thoughtless.” There is really no “if” in Job’s mind.


The perfect verb here should be classified as an instantaneous perfect; the action is simultaneous with the words.


The words “to silence myself” are supplied in the translation for clarity.


Heb “I will not add.”


See note on “task” in 38:3 .


The verb פָּרַר ( parar ) means “to annul; to break; to frustrate.” It was one thing for Job to claim his own integrity, but it was another matter altogether to nullify God’s righteousness in the process.


Heb “do you have an arm like God?” The words “as powerful as” have been supplied in the translation to clarify the metaphor.


The verb was used for scattering lightning ( Job 37:11 ). God is challenging Job to unleash his power and judge wickedness in the world.


Heb “the overflowings.”


The word was just used in the positive sense of excellence or majesty; now the exalted nature of the person refers to self-exaltation, or pride.


The expression translated “on the spot” is the prepositional phrase תַּחְתָּם ( takhtam , “under them”). “Under them” means in their place. But it can also mean “where someone stands, on the spot” (see Exod 16:29 ; Jos 6:5 ; Judg 7:21 , etc.).


The word “dust” can mean “ground” here, or more likely, “grave.”


The verb חָבַשׁ ( khavash ) means “to bind.” In Arabic the word means “to bind” in the sense of “to imprison,” and that fits here.


Heb “their faces.”


The word is “secret place,” the place where he is to hide them, i.e., the grave. The text uses the word “secret place” as a metonymy for the grave.


The verb is usually translated “praise,” but with the sense of a public declaration or acknowledgment. It is from יָדָה ( yadah , in the Hiphil, as here, “give thanks, laud”).


The imperfect verb has the nuance of potential imperfect: “can save; is able to save.”


In both of these verses הִנֶּה ( hinneh , “behold”) has the deictic force (the word is from Greek δείκνυμι , deiknumi , “to show”). It calls attention to something by pointing it out. The expression goes with the sudden look, the raised eye, the pointing hand – “O look!”


The verb חָפַץ ( khafats ) occurs only here. It may have the meaning “to make stiff; to make taut” (Arabic). The LXX and the Syriac versions support this with “erects.” But there is another Arabic word that could be cognate, meaning “arch, bend.” This would give the idea of the tail swaying. The other reading seems to make better sense here. However, “stiff” presents a serious problem with the view that the animal is the hippopotamus.


Heb “the ways of God.” sn This may be a reference to Gen 1:24 , where the first of the animal creation was the cattle – bÿhemah ( בְּהֵמָה ).


The literal reading of the MT is “let the one who made him draw near [with] his sword.” The sword is apparently a reference to the teeth or tusks of the animal, which cut vegetation like a sword. But the idea of a weapon is easier to see, and so the people who favor the mythological background see here a reference to God’s slaying the Beast. There are again many suggestions on how to read the line. The RV probably has the safest: “He that made him has furnished him with his sword” (the sword being a reference to the sharp tusks with which he can attack).


The word בּוּל ( bul ) probably refers to food. Many take it as an abbreviated form of יְבוּל ( yÿvul , “produce of the field”). The vegetation that is produced on the low hills is what is meant.


The suffix is singular, but must refer to the trees’ shade.


The word ordinarily means “to oppress.” So many commentators have proposed suitable changes: “overflows” (Beer), “gushes” (Duhm), “swells violently” (Dhorme, from a word that means “be strong”).


Or “he remains calm.”


The idea would be either (1) catch it while it is watching, or (2) in some way disabling its eyes before the attack. But others change the reading; Ball suggested “with hooks” and this has been adopted by some modern English versions (e.g., NRSV).


Ehrlich altered the MT slightly to get “with thorns,” a view accepted by Driver, Dhorme and Pope.


The verb מָשַׁךְ ( mashakh ) means “to extract from the water; to fish.” The question here includes the use of a hook to fish the creature out of the water so that its jaws can be tied safely.


The verb שָׁקַע ( shaqa ’) means “to cause to sink,” if it is connected with the word in Amos 8:8 and 9:5 . But it may have the sense of “to tie; to bind.” If the rope were put around the tongue and jaw, binding tightly would be the sense.


The line asks if the animal, when caught and tied and under control, would keep on begging for mercy. Absolutely not. It is not in the nature of the beast. The construction uses יַרְבֶּה ( yarbeh , “[will] he multiply” [= “make numerous”]), with the object, “supplications” i.e., prayers for mercy.


The rhetorical question again affirms the opposite. The poem is portraying the creature as powerful and insensitive.


Heb “will he cut a covenant.”


The imperfect verb serves to express what the covenant pact would cover, namely, “that you take.”


The Hebrew verb is שָׂחַק ( sakhaq , “to sport; to trifle; to play,” Ps 104:26 ).


The idea may include putting Leviathan on a leash. D. W. Thomas suggested on the basis of an Arabic cognate that it could be rendered “tie him with a string like a young sparrow” ( VT 14 [1964]: 114ff.).


The word חָבַּר ( khabbar ) is a hapax legomenon , but the meaning is “to associate” since it is etymologically related to the verb “to join together.” The idea is that fishermen usually work in companies or groups, and then divide up the catch when they come ashore – which involves bargaining.


The word כָּרַה ( karah ) means “to sell.” With the preposition עַל (’ al , “upon”) it has the sense “to bargain over something.”


The verb means “to cut up; to divide up” in the sense of selling the dead body (see Exod 21:35 ). This will be between them and the merchants ( כְּנַעֲנִים , kÿna ’ anim ).


The verse uses two imperatives which can be interpreted in sequence: do this, and then this will happen.


The line is difficult. “His hope [= expectation]” must refer to any assailant who hopes or expects to capture the creature. Because there is no antecedent, Dhorme and others transpose it with the next verse. The point is that the man who thought he was sufficient to confront Leviathan soon finds his hope – his expectation – false (a derivative from the verb כָּזַב [ kazab , “lie”] is used for a mirage).


There is an interrogative particle in this line, which most commentators ignore. But others freely emend the MT. Gunkel, following the mythological approach, has “his appearance casts down even a god.” Cheyne likewise has: “even divine beings the fear of him brings low” ( JQR 9 [1896/97]: 579). Pope has, “Were not the gods cast down at the sight of him?” There is no need to bring in this mythological element.


MT has “before me” and can best be rendered as “Who then is he that can stand before me?” (ESV, NASB, NIV, NLT, NJPS). The following verse (11) favors the MT since both express the lesson to be learned from Leviathan: If a man cannot stand up to Leviathan, how can he stand up to its creator? The translation above has chosen to read the text as “before him” (cf. NRSV, NJB).


The verb קָדַם ( qadam ) means “to come to meet; to come before; to confront” to the face.


This line also focuses on the sovereign God rather than Leviathan. H. H. Rowley, however, wants to change לִי־חוּא ( li-hu ’, “it [belongs] to me”) into לֹא הוּא ( lo ’ hu ’, “there is no one”). So it would say that there is no one under the whole heaven who could challenge Leviathan and live, rather than saying it is more dangerous to challenge God to make him repay.


Dhorme changes the noun into a verb, “I will tell,” and the last two words into אֵין עֶרֶךְ (’ en ’ erekh , “there is no comparison”). The result is “I will tell of his incomparable might.”


Heb “the face of his garment,” referring to the outer garment or covering. Some take it to be the front as opposed to the back.


The word רֶסֶן ( resen ) has often been rendered “bridle” (cf. ESV), but that leaves a number of unanswered questions. The LXX reads סִרְיוֹן ( siryon ), with the transposition of letters, but that means “coat of armor.” If the metathesis stands, there is also support from the cognate Akkadian.


Heb “his face.”


The MT has גַּאֲוָה ( ga ’ avah , “his pride”), but the LXX, Aquila, and the Vulgate all read גַּוּוֹ ( gavvo , “his back”). Almost all the modern English versions follow the variant reading, speaking about “his [or its] back.”


Instead of צָר ( tsar , “closely”) the LXX has צֹר ( tsor , “stone”) to say that the seal was rock hard.


The expression “each one…to the next” is literally “one with one.”


Heb “a man with his brother.”


Heb “the eyelids,” but it represents the early beams of the dawn as the cover of night lifts.


The word “burning” is supplied. The Syriac and Vulgate have “a seething and boiling pot” (reading אֹגֵם [’ ogem ] for אַגְמֹן [’ agmon ]). This view is widely accepted.


This word, דְּאָבָה ( dÿ ’ avah ) is a hapax legomenon . But the verbal root means “to languish; to pine.” A related noun talks of dejection and despair in Deut 28:65 . So here “despair” as a translation is preferable to “terror.”


Heb “fallings.”


The last clause says “it cannot be moved.” But this part will function adverbially in the sentence.


The description of his heart being “hard” means that he is cruel and fearless. The word for “hard” is the word encountered before for molten or cast metal.


This verse has created all kinds of problems for the commentators. The first part is workable: “when he raises himself up, the mighty [the gods] are terrified.” The mythological approach would render אֵלִים (’ elim ) as “gods.” But the last two words, which could be rendered “at the breaking [crashing, or breakers] they fail,” receive much attention. E. Dhorme ( Job , 639) suggests “majesty” for “raising up” and “billows” ( גַּלִּים , gallim ) for אֵלִים (’ elim ), and gets a better parallelism: “the billows are afraid of his majesty, and the waves draw back.” But H. H. Rowley ( Job [NCBC], 263) does not think this is relevant to the context, which is talking about the creature’s defense against attack. The RSV works well for the first part, but the second part need some change; so Rowley adopts “in their dire consternation they are beside themselves.”


This is the clearest reading, following A. B. Davidson, Job , 285. The versions took different readings of the construction.


The verb קוּם ( qum , “stand”) with בְּלִי ( bÿli , “not”) has the sense of “does not hold firm,” or “gives way.”


Heb “the son of the bow.”


The verb is plural, but since there is no expressed subject it is translated as a passive here.


Heb “under him.”


Here only the word “sharp” is present, but in passages like Isa 41:15 it is joined with “threshing sledge.” Here and in Amos 1:3 and Isa 28:27 the word stands alone, but represents the “sledge.”


Heb “one who was made.”


Heb “the sons of pride.” Dhorme repoints the last word to get “all the wild beasts,” but this misses the point of the verse. This animal looks over every proud creature – but he is king of them all in that department.


The expression “you asked” is added here to clarify the presence of the line to follow. Many commentators delete it as a gloss from Job 38:2 . If it is retained, then Job has to be recalling God’s question before he answers it.


The word לָכֵן ( lakhen ) is simply “but,” as in Job 31:37 .


Heb “and I do not understand.” The expression serves here in an adverbial capacity. It also could be subordinated as a complement: “I have declared [things that] I do not understand.”


The last clause is “and I do not know.” This is also subordinated to become a dependent clause.


This phrase, “you said,” is supplied in the translation to introduce the recollection of God’s words.


Or “despise what I said.” There is no object on the verb; Job could be despising himself or the things he said (see L. J. Kuyper, “Repentance of Job,” VT 9 [1959]: 91-94).


Heb “the Lord .” The title has been replaced by the pronoun (“he”) in the translation for stylistic reasons.


Heb “is kindled.”


The form נְכוֹנָה ( nÿkhonah ) is from כּוּן ( kun , “to be firm; to be fixed; to be established”). Here it means “the right thing” or “truth.” The Akkadian word kenu (from כּוּן , kun ) connotes justice and truth.


The imperatives in this verse are plural, so all three had to do this together.


The verb “pray” is the Hitpael from the root פָּלַל ( palal ). That root has the main idea of arbitration; so in this stem it means “to seek arbitration [for oneself],” or “to pray,” or “to intercede.”


Heb “I will lift up his face,” meaning, “I will regard him.”


This clause is a result clause, using the negated infinitive construct.


The word “folly” can also be taken in the sense of “disgrace.” If the latter is chosen, the word serves as the direct object. If the former, then it is an adverbial accusative.


The expression “had respect for Job” means God answered his prayer.


The paragraph begins with the disjunctive vav , “Now as for the Lord , he….”


This is a temporal clause, using the infinitive construct with the subject genitive suffix. By this it seems that this act of Job was also something of a prerequisite for restoration – to pray for them.


The construction uses the verb “and he added” with the word “repeat” (or “twice”).


Heb “ate bread.”


The Hebrew word קְשִׂיטָה ( qÿsitah ) is generally understood to refer to a unit of money, but the value is unknown. sn The Hebrew word refers to a piece of silver, yet uncoined. It is the kind used in Gen 33:19 and Josh 24:32 . It is what would be expected of a story set in the patriarchal age.


The word for “seven” is spelled in an unusual way. From this some have thought it means “twice seven,” or fourteen sons. Several commentators take this view; but it is probably not warranted.


The Hebrew noun is an abstract plural. The word often refers metonymically to the happiness that God-given security and prosperity produce (see v. 3 ; Pss 2:12; 34:9; 41:1; 65:4; 84:12; 89:15; 106:3; 112:1; 127:5; 128:1; 144:15 ).


Heb “[Oh] the happiness [of] the man.” Hebrew wisdom literature often assumes and reflects the male-oriented perspective of ancient Israelite society. The principle of the psalm is certainly applicable to all people, regardless of their gender or age. To facilitate modern application, we translate the gender and age specific “man” with the more neutral “one.” (Generic “he” is employed in vv. 2-3 ). Since the godly man described in the psalm is representative of followers of God (note the plural form צַדִּיקִים [ tsadiqim , “righteous, godly”] in vv. 5-6 ), one could translate the collective singular with the plural “those” both here and in vv. 2-3 , where singular pronouns and verbal forms are utilized in the Hebrew text (cf. NRSV). However, here the singular form may emphasize that godly individuals are usually outnumbered by the wicked. Retaining the singular allows the translation to retain this emphasis.


Heb “walk in.” The three perfect verbal forms in v. 1 refer in this context to characteristic behavior. The sequence “walk–stand–sit” envisions a progression from relatively casual association with the wicked to complete identification with them.


The Hebrew noun translated “advice” most often refers to the “counsel” or “advice” one receives from others. To “walk in the advice of the wicked” means to allow their evil advice to impact and determine one’s behavior.


In the psalms the Hebrew term רְשָׁעִים ( rÿsha ’ im , “wicked”) describes people who are proud, practical atheists ( Ps 10:2, 4, 11 ) who hate God’s commands, commit sinful deeds, speak lies and slander ( Ps 50:16-20 ), and cheat others ( Ps 37:21 ).


“Pathway” here refers to the lifestyle of sinners. To “stand in the pathway of/with sinners” means to closely associate with them in their sinful behavior.


Here the Hebrew term מוֹשַׁב ( moshav ), although often translated “seat” (cf. NEB, NIV), appears to refer to the whole assembly of evildoers. The word also carries the semantic nuance “assembly” in Ps 107:32 , where it is in synonymous parallelism with קָהָל ( qahal , “assembly”).


Here the Hebrew expression כִּי־אִם ( ki- ’ im , “instead”) introduces a contrast between the sinful behavior depicted in v. 1 and the godly lifestyle described in v. 2 .


Heb “his delight [is] in the law of the Lord .” In light of the following line, which focuses on studying the Lord’s law, one might translate, “he finds pleasure in studying the Lord ’s commands.” However, even if one translates the line this way, it is important to recognize that mere study and intellectual awareness are not ultimately what bring divine favor. Study of the law is metonymic here for the correct attitudes and behavior that should result from an awareness of and commitment to God’s moral will; thus “obeying” has been used in the translation rather than “studying.”


The Hebrew imperfect verbal form draws attention to the characteristic behavior described here and lends support to the hyperbolic adverbial phrase “day and night.” The verb הָגָה ( hagag ) means “to recite quietly; to meditate” and refers metonymically to intense study and reflection.


Or “his law.”


The Hebrew perfect verbal form with vav ( ו ) consecutive here carries the same characteristic force as the imperfect in the preceding verse. According to the psalmist, the one who studies and obeys God’s commands typically prospers.


Heb “channels of water.”


Heb “which.”


The Hebrew imperfect verbal forms in v. 3 draw attention to the typical nature of the actions/states they describe.


Heb “in its season.”


Or “fade”; “wither.” sn The author compares the godly individual to a tree that has a rich water supply ( planted by flowing streams ), develops a strong root system, and is filled with leaves and fruit . The simile suggests that the godly have a continual source of life which in turn produces stability and uninterrupted prosperity.


Heb “and all which he does prospers”; or “and all which he does he causes to prosper.” (The simile of the tree does not extend to this line.) It is not certain if the Hiphil verbal form ( יַצְלִיחַ , yatsliakh ) is intransitive-exhibitive (“prospers”) or causative (“causes to prosper”) here. If the verb is intransitive, then כֹּל ( kol , “all, everything”) is the subject. If the verb is causative, then the godly individual or the Lord himself is the subject and כֹּל is the object. The wording is reminiscent of Josh 1:8 , where the Lord tells Joshua: “This law scroll must not leave your lips! You must memorize it day and night so you can carefully obey all that is written in it. Then you will prosper (literally, “cause your way to prosper”) and be successful.”


Here the Hebrew expression כִּי־אִם ( ki- ’ im , “instead,” cf. v. 2 ) introduces a contrast between the prosperity of the godly depicted in v. 3 and the destiny of the wicked described in v. 4 .


Heb “[they are] like the chaff which [the] wind blows about.” The Hebrew imperfect verbal form draws attention to the typical nature of the action described. sn Wind-driven chaff . In contrast to the well-rooted and productive tree described in v. 3 , the wicked are like a dried up plant that has no root system and is blown away by the wind. The simile describes the destiny of the wicked (see vv. 5-6 ).


Or “Therefore.”


Heb “arise in,” but the verb is used metonymically here in the sense of “stand”; “endure,” as in 1 Sam 13:14 and Job 8:15 . The negated Hebrew imperfect verbal form is here taken as indicating incapability or lack of potential, though one could understand the verb form as indicating what is typical (“do not withstand”) or what will happen (“will not withstand”).


Heb “the judgment.” The article indicates a judgment that is definite in the mind of the speaker. In the immediate context this probably does not refer to the “final judgment” described in later biblical revelation, but to a temporal/historical judgment which the author anticipates. Periodically during the OT period, God would come in judgment, removing the wicked from the scene, while preserving a godly remnant (see Gen 6-9 ; ; ).


Heb “and sinners in the assembly (or “circle”) of [the] godly.” The negative particle and verb from the preceding line are assumed by ellipsis here (“will not arise/stand”). sn The assembly of the godly is insulated from divine judgment ( Ps 37:12-17, 28-29 ).


The translation understands כי as asseverative. Another option is to translate “for,” understanding v. 6 as a theological explanation for vv. 3-5 , which contrasts the respective destinies of the godly and the wicked.