Heb “they will stroke your face,” a picture drawn from the domestic scene of a child stroking the face of the parent. The verb is a Piel, meaning “stroke, make soft.” It is used in the Bible of seeking favor from God (supplication); but it may on the human level also mean seeking to sway people by flattery. See further D. R. Ap-Thomas, “Notes on Some Terms Relating to Prayer,” VT 6 (1956): 225-41.


The verb כָּלָה ( kalah ) means “to fail, cease, fade away.” The fading of the eyes, i.e., loss of sight, loss of life’s vitality, indicates imminent death.


Heb a “place of escape” (with this noun pattern). There is no place to escape to because they all perish.


The word is to be interpreted as a metonymy; it represents what is hoped for.


Heb “the breathing out of the soul”; cf. KJV, ASV “the giving up of the ghost.” The line is simply saying that the brightest hope that the wicked have is death.


The expression “you are the people” is a way of saying that the friends hold the popular opinion – they represent it. The line is sarcastic. Commentators do not think the parallelism is served well by this, and so offer changes for “people.” Some have suggested “you are complete” (based on Arabic), “you are the strong one” (based on Ugaritic), etc. J. A. Davies tried to solve the difficulty by making the second clause in the verse a paratactic relative clause: “you are the people with whom wisdom will die” (“Note on Job 12:2 ,” VT 25 [1975]: 670-71).


The word is literally “heart,” meaning a mind or understanding.


Because this line is repeated in 13:2 , many commentators delete it from this verse (as does the LXX). The Syriac translates נֹפֵל ( nofel ) as “little,” and the Vulgate “inferior.” Job is saying that he does not fall behind them in understanding.


Heb “With whom are not such things as these?” The point is that everyone knows the things that these friends have been saying – they are commonplace.


Some are troubled by the disharmony with “I am” and “to his friend.” Even though the difficulty is not insurmountable, some have emended the text. Some simply changed the verb to “he is,” which was not very compelling. C. D. Isbell argued that אֶהְיֶה (’ ehyeh , “I am”) is an orthographic variant of יִהְיֶה ( yihyeh , “he will”) – “a person who does not know these things would be a laughingstock” ( JANESCU 37 [1978]: 227-36). G. R. Driver suggests the meaning of the MT is something like “(One that is) a mockery to his friend I am to be.”


The word simply means “laughter”; but it can also mean the object of laughter (see Jer 20:7 ). The LXX jumps from one “laughter” to the next, eliminating everything in between, presumably due to haplography.


Heb “his friend.” A number of English versions (e.g., NASB, NIV, NRSV, NLT) take this collectively, “to my friends.”


Heb “one calling to God and he answered him.” H. H. Rowley ( Job [NCBC], 92) contends that because Job has been saying that God is not answering him, these words must be part of the derisive words of his friends.


The two words, צַדִּיק תָּמִים ( tsadiq tamim ), could be understood as a hendiadys (= “blamelessly just”) following W. G. E. Watson ( Classical Hebrew Poetry , 327).


The first word, לַפִּיד ( lapid ), could be rendered “a torch of scorn,” but this gives no satisfying meaning. The ל ( lamed ) is often taken as an otiose letter, and the noun פִּיד ( pid ) is “misfortune, calamity” (cf. Job 30:24; 31:29 ).


The noun עַשְׁתּוּת (’ ashtut , preferably עַשְׁתּוֹת , ’ ashtot ) is an abstract noun from עָשַׁת (’ ashat , “to think”). The word שַׁאֲנָן ( sha ’ anan ) means “easy in mind, carefree,” and “happy.”


The form has traditionally been taken to mean “is ready” from the verb כּוּן ( kun , “is fixed, sure”). But many commentators look for a word parallel to “calamity.” So the suggestion has been put forward that נָכוֹן ( nakhon ) be taken as a noun from נָכָה ( nakhah , “strike, smite”): “a blow” (Schultens, Dhorme, Gordis), “thrust” or “kick” ( HALOT 698 s.v. I נָכוֹן ).


The verse gives the other side of the coin now, the fact that the wicked prosper.


The plural is used to suggest the supreme degree of arrogant confidence (E. Dhorme, Job , 171).


The word in the MT means “to complain,” not simply “to speak,” and one would expect animals as the object here in parallel to the last verse. So several commentators have replaced the word with words for animals or reptiles – totally different words (cf. NAB, “reptiles”). The RSV and NRSV have here the word “plants” (see 30:4, 7 ; and Gen 21:15 ).


A. B. Davidson ( Job , 90) offers a solution by taking “earth” to mean all the lower forms of life that teem in the earth (a metonymy of subject).


This line could also be translated “by all these,” meaning “who is not instructed by nature?” (H. H. Rowley, Job [NCBC], 93). But D. J. A. Clines points out that the verses have presented the animals as having knowledge and communicating it, so the former reading would be best ( Job [WBC], 279).


Some commentators have trouble with the name “Yahweh” in this verse, which is not the pattern in the poetic section of Job. Three mss of Kennicott and two of de Rossi have “God.” If this is so the reminiscence of Isaiah 41:20 led the copyist to introduce the tetragrammaton. But one could argue equally that the few mss with “God” were the copyists’ attempt to correct the text in accord with usage elsewhere.


The construction with the relative clause includes a resumptive pronoun referring to God: “who in his hand” = “in whose hand.”


The two words נֶפֶשׁ ( nefesh ) and רוּחַ ( ruakh ) are synonymous in general. They could be translated “soul” and “spirit,” but “soul” is not precise for נֶפֶשׁ ( nefesh ), and so “life” is to be preferred. Since that is the case for the first half of the verse, “breath” will be preferable in the second part.


Human life is made of “flesh” and “spirit.” So here the line reads “and the spirit of all flesh of man.” If the text had simply said “all flesh,” that would have applied to all flesh in which there is the breath of life (see Gen 6:17; 7:15 ). But to limit this to human beings requires the qualification with “man.”


The ו ( vav ) introduces the comparison here (see 5:7; 11:12 ); see GKC 499 §161. a .


Heb “the palate.”


The final preposition with its suffix is to be understood as a pleonastic dativus ethicus and not translated (see GKC 439 §135. i ). sn In the rest of the chapter Job turns his attention away from creation to the wisdom of ancient men. In Job 13:1 when Job looks back to this part, he refers to both the eye and the ear. In vv. 13-25 Job refers to many catastrophes which he could not have seen, but must have heard about.


The statement in the Hebrew Bible simply has “among the aged – wisdom.” Since this seems to be more the idea of the friends than of Job, scholars have variously tried to rearrange it. Some have proposed that Job is citing his friends: “With the old men, you say, is wisdom” (Budde, Gray, Hitzig). Others have simply made it a question (Weiser). But others take לֹא ( lo ’) from the previous verse and make it the negative here, to say, “wisdom is not….” But Job will draw on the wisdom of the aged, only with discernment, for ultimately all wisdom is with God.


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


The use of הֵן ( hen , equivalent to הִנֵּה , hinneh , “behold”) introduces a hypothetical condition.


The verse employs antithetical ideas: “tear down” and “build up,” “imprison” and “escape.” The Niphal verbs in the sentences are potential imperfects. All of this is to say that humans cannot reverse the will of God.


The LXX has a clarification: “he will dry the earth.”


The verb הָפַךְ ( hafakh ) means “to overthrow; to destroy; to overwhelm.” It was used in Job 9:5 for “overturning” mountains. The word is used in Genesis for the destruction of Sodom.


The word תּוּשִׁיָּה ( tushiyyah ) is here rendered “prudence.” Some object that God’s power is intended here, and so a word for power and not wisdom should be included. But v. 13 mentioned wisdom. The point is that it is God’s efficient wisdom that leads to success. One could interpret this as a metonymy of cause, the intended meaning being victory or success.


The Hebrew text uses a wordplay here: שֹׁגֵג ( shogeg ) is “the one going astray,” i.e., the one who is unable to guard and guide his life. The second word is מַשְׁגֶּה ( mashgeh ), from a different but historically related root שָׁגָה ( shagah ), which here in the Hiphil means “the one who misleads, causes to go astray.” These two words are designed to include everybody – all are under the wisdom of God.


The personal pronoun normally present as the subject of the participle is frequently omitted (see GKC 381 §119. s ).


GKC 361-62 §116. x notes that almost as a rule a participle beginning a sentence is continued with a finite verb with or without a ו ( vav ). Here the participle (“leads”) is followed by an imperfect (“makes fools”) after a ו ( vav ).


The word שׁוֹלָל ( sholal ), from the root שָׁלַל ( shalal , “to plunder; to strip”), is an adjective expressing the state (and is in the singular, as if to say, “in the state of one naked” [GKC 375 §118. o ]). The word is found in military contexts (see Mic 1:8 ). It refers to the carrying away of people in nakedness and shame by enemies who plunder (see also Isa 8:1-4 ). They will go away as slaves and captives, deprived of their outer garments. Some (cf. NAB) suggest “barefoot,” based on the LXX of Mic 1:8 ; but the meaning of that is uncertain. G. R. Driver wanted to derive the word from an Arabic root “to be mad; to be giddy,” forming a better parallel.


Some translate this “makes mad” as in Isa 44:25 , but this gives the wrong connotation today; more likely God shows them to be fools.


The verb may be classified as a gnomic perfect, or possibly a potential perfect – “he can loosen.” The Piel means “to untie; to unbind” ( Job 30:11; 38:31; 39:5 ).


There is a potential textual difficulty here. The MT has מוּסַר ( musar , “discipline”), which might have replaced מוֹסֵר ( moser , “bond, chain”) from אָסַר (’ asar , “to bind”). Or מוּסַר might be an unusual form of אָסַר (an option noted in HALOT 557 s.v. * מוֹסֵר ). The line is saying that if the kings are bound, God can set them free, and in the second half, if they are free, he can bind them. Others take the view that this word “bond” refers to the power kings have over others, meaning that God can reduce kings to slavery.


Some commentators want to change אֵזוֹר (’ ezor , “girdle”) to אֵסוּר (’ esur , “bond”) because binding the loins with a girdle was an expression for strength. But H. H. Rowley notes that binding the king’s loins this way would mean so that he would do servitude, menial tasks. Such a reference would certainly indicate troubled times.


Except for “priests,” the phraseology is identical to v. 17 a.


The verb has to be defined by its context: it can mean “falsify” ( Exod 23:8 ), “make tortuous” ( Prov 19:3 ), or “plunge” into misfortune ( Prov 21:12 ). God overthrows those who seem to be solid.


The original meaning of אֵיתָן (’ eytan ) is “perpetual.” It is usually an epithet for a torrent that is always flowing. It carries the connotations of permanence and stability; here applied to people in society, it refers to one whose power and influence does not change. These are the pillars of society.


The Hebrew נֶאֱמָנִים ( ne ’ emanim ) is the Niphal participle; it is often translated “the faithful” in the Bible. The Rabbis rather fancifully took the word from נְאֻם ( nÿ ’ um , “oracle, utterance”) and so rendered it “those who are eloquent, fluent in words.” But that would make this the only place in the Bible where this form came from that root or any other root besides אָמַן (’ aman , “confirm, support”). But to say that God takes away the speech of the truthful or the faithful would be very difficult. It has to refer to reliable men, because it is parallel to the elders or old men. The NIV has “trusted advisers,” which fits well with kings and judges and priests.


Heb “he removes the lip of the trusted ones.”


Heb “taste,” meaning “opinion” or “decision.”


The expression in Hebrew uses מְזִיחַ ( mÿziakh , “belt”) and the Piel verb רִפָּה ( rippah , “to loosen”) so that “to loosen the belt of the mighty” would indicate “to disarm/incapacitate the mighty.” Others have opted to change the text: P. Joüon emends to read “forehead” – “he humbles the brow of the mighty.”


The word אָפַק (’ afaq , “to be strong”) is well-attested, and the form אָפִיק (’ afiq ) is a normal adjective formation. So a translation like “mighty” (KJV, NIV) or “powerful” is acceptable, and further emendations are unnecessary.


The Hebrew word is traditionally rendered “shadow of death” (so KJV, ASV); see comments at Job 3:3 .


The word מַשְׂגִּיא ( masgi ’, “makes great”) is a common Aramaic word, but only occurs in Hebrew here and in Job 8:11 and 36:24 . Some mss have a change, reading the form from שָׁגָה ( shagah , “leading astray”). The LXX omits the line entirely.


The difficulty with the verb נָחָה ( nakhah ) is that it means “to lead; to guide,” but not “to lead away” or “to disperse,” unless this passage provides the context for such a meaning. Moreover, it never has a negative connotation. Some vocalize it וַיַּנִּיחֶם ( vayyannikhem ), from נוּחַ ( nuakh ), the causative meaning of “rest,” or “abandon” (Driver, Gray, Gordis). But even there it would mean “leave in peace.” Blommerde suggests the second part is antithetical parallelism, and so should be positive. So Ball proposed וַיִּמְחֶם ( vayyimkhem ) from מָחָה ( makhah ): “and he cuts them off.”


Heb “the heads of the people of the earth.”


Heb “heart.”


The text has בְּתֹהוּ לֹא־דָרֶךְ ( bÿtohu lo ’ darekh ): “in waste – no way,” or “in a wasteland [where there is] no way,” thus, “trackless” (see the discussion of negative attributes using לֹא [ lo ’] in GKC 482 §152. u ).


The word is an adverbial accusative.


The verb is the same that was in v. 24 , “He makes them [the leaders still] wander” (the Hiphil of תָּעָה , ta ’ ah ). But in this passage some commentators emend the text to a Niphal of the verb and put it in the plural, to get the reading “they reel to and fro.” But even if the verse closes the chapter and there is no further need for a word of divine causation, the Hiphil sense works well here – causing people to wander like a drunken man would be the same as making them stagger.


Heb “Like your knowledge”; in other words Job is saying that his knowledge is like their knowledge.


The pronoun makes the subject emphatic and stresses the contrast: “I know – I also.”


The verb “fall” is used here as it was in Job 4:13 to express becoming lower than someone, i.e., inferior.


The verb is simply the Piel imperfect אֲדַבֵּר (’ adabber , “I speak”) . It should be classified as a desiderative imperfect, saying, “I desire to speak.” This is reinforced with the verb “to wish, desire” in the second half of the verse.


The Hebrew title for God here is אֶל־שַׁדַּי (’ el shadday , “El Shaddai”).


The infinitive absolute functions here as the direct object of the verb “desire” (see GKC 340 §113. b ).


The infinitive הוֹכֵחַ ( hokheakh ) is from the verb יָכַח ( yakhakh ), which means “to argue, plead, debate.” It has the legal sense here of arguing a case (cf. 5:17 ).


The טֹפְלֵי־שָׁקֶר ( tofÿle shaqer ) are “plasterers of lies” ( Ps 119:69 ). The verb means “to coat, smear, plaster.” The idea is that of imputing something that is not true. Job is saying that his friends are inventors of lies. The LXX was influenced by the next line and came up with “false physicians.”


The literal rendering of the construct would be “healers of worthlessness.” Ewald and Dillmann translated it “patchers” based on a meaning in Arabic and Ethiopic; this would give the idea “botchers.” But it makes equally good sense to take “healers” as the meaning, for Job’s friends came to minister comfort and restoration to him – but they failed. See P. Humbert, “Maladie et medicine dans l’AT,” RHPR 44 (1964): 1-29.


The construction is the imperfect verb in the wish formula preceded by the infinitive that intensifies it. The Hiphil is not directly causative here, but internally – “keep silent.”


The text literally reads, “and it would be for you for wisdom,” or “that it would become your wisdom.” Job is rather sarcastic here, indicating if they shut up they would prove themselves to be wise (see Prov 17:28 ).


The Hebrew word רִבוֹת ( rivot , “disputes, contentions”) continues the imagery of presenting a legal case. The term is used of legal disputations and litigation. See, also, v. 19 a.


The construction literally reads “speak iniquity.” The form functions adverbially. The noun עַוְלָה (’ avlah ) means “perversion; injustice; iniquity; falsehood.” Here it is parallel to רְמִיָּה ( rÿmiyyah , “fraud; deceit; treachery”).


The expression “for God” means “in favor of God” or “on God’s behalf.” Job is amazed that they will say false things on God’s behalf.


The same root is used here ( רִיב , riv , “dispute, contention”) as in v. 6 b (see note).


The verb חָפַר ( khafar ) means “to search out, investigate, examine.” In the conditional clause the imperfect verb expresses the hypothetical case.


Both the infinitive and the imperfect of תָּלַל ( talal , “deceive, mock”) retain the ה ( he ) (GKC 148 §53. q ). But for the alternate form, see F. C. Fensham, “The Stem HTL in Hebrew,” VT 9 (1959): 310-11. The infinitive is used here in an adverbial sense after the preposition.


The verbal idea is intensified with the infinitive absolute. This is the same verb used in v. 3 ; here it would have the sense of “rebuke, convict.” sn Peake’s observation is worth noting, namely, that as Job attacks the unrighteousness of God boldly he nonetheless has confidence in God’s righteousness that would not allow liars to defend him.


On this verb in the Piel, see 7:14 .


Heb “His dread”; the suffix is a subjective genitive.


The word is זִכְרֹנֵיכֶם ( zikhronekhem , “your remembrances”). The word זִכָּרֹן ( zikkaron ) not only can mean the act of remembering, but also what is remembered – what provokes memory or is worth being remembered. In the plural it can mean all the memorabilia, and in this verse all the sayings and teachings. H. H. Rowley ( Job [NCBC], 99) suggests that in Job’s speech it could mean “all your memorized sayings.”


The parallelism of “dust” and “ashes” is fairly frequent in scripture. But “proverbs of ashes” is difficult. The genitive is certainly describing the proverbs; it could be classified as a genitive of apposition, proverbs that are/have become ashes. Ashes represent something that at one time may have been useful, but now has been reduced to what is worthless.


There is a division of opinion on the source of this word. Some take it from “answer”, related to Arabic, Aramaic, and Syriac words for “answer,” and so translate it “responses” (JB). Others take it from a word for “back,” with a derived meaning of the “boss” of the shield, and translate it bulwark or “defenses” (NEB, RSV, NIV). The idea of “answers” may fit the parallelism better, but “defenses” can be taken figuratively to refer to verbal defenses.


The Hebrew has a pregnant construction: “be silent from me,” meaning “stand away from me in silence,” or “refrain from talking with me.” See GKC 384 §119. ff . The LXX omits “from me,” as do several commentators.


The verb is the Piel cohortative; following the imperative of the first colon this verb would show purpose or result. The inclusion of the independent personal pronoun makes the focus emphatic – “so that I (in my turn) may speak.”


The verb עָבַר (’ avar , “pass over”) is used with the preposition עַל (’ al , “upon”) to express the advent of misfortune, namely, something coming against him.


The interrogative pronoun מָה ( mah ) is used in indirect questions, here introducing a clause [with the verb understood] as the object – “whatever it be” (see GKC 443-44 §137. c ).


Most editors reject עַל־מָה (’ al mah ) as dittography from the last verse.


Heb “why do I take my flesh in my teeth?” This expression occurs nowhere else. It seems to be drawn from animal imagery in which the wild beast seizes the prey and carries it off to a place of security. The idea would then be that Job may be destroying himself. An animal that fights with its flesh (prey) in its mouth risks losing it. Other commentators do not think this is satisfactory, but they are unable to suggest anything better.


There is a textual difficulty here that factors into the interpretation of the verse. The Kethib is לֹא ( lo ’, “not”), but the Qere is לוֹ ( lo , “to him”). The RSV takes the former: “Behold, he will slay me, I have no hope.” The NIV takes it as “though he slay me, yet will I hope in him.” Job is looking ahead to death, which is not an evil thing to him. The point of the verse is that he is willing to challenge God at the risk of his life; and if God slays him, he is still confident that he will be vindicated – as he says later in this chapter. Other suggestions are not compelling. E. Dhorme ( Job , 187) makes a slight change of אֲיַחֵל (’ ayakhel , “I will hope”) to אַחִיל (’ akhil , “I will [not] tremble”). A. B. Davidson ( Job , 98) retains the MT, but interprets the verb more in line with its use in the book: “I will not wait” (cf. NLT).


On אַךְ (’ akh , “surely”) see GKC 483 §153 on intensive clauses.


The verb once again is יָכָה ( yakhah , in the Hiphil, “argue a case, plead, defend, contest”). But because the word usually means “accuse” rather than “defend,” I. L. Seeligmann proposed changing “my ways” to “his ways” (“Zur Terminologie für das Gerichtsverfahren im Wortschatz des biblischen Hebräisch,” VTSup 16 [1967]: 251-78). But the word can be interpreted appropriately in the context without emendation.


The infinitive absolute intensifies the imperative, which serves here with the force of an immediate call to attention. In accordance with GKC 342 §113. n , the construction could be translated, “Keep listening” (so ESV).


The verb has to be supplied in this line, for the MT has “and my explanation in your ears.” In the verse, both “word” and “explanation” are Aramaisms (the latter appearing in Dan 5:12 for the explanation of riddles).


The particle הִנֵּה ( hinneh ) functions almost as an imperative here, calling attention to what follows: “look” (archaic: behold).


The verb עָרַךְ (’ arakh ) means “to set in order, set in array [as a battle], prepare” in the sense here of arrange and organize a lawsuit.


The pronoun is added because this is what the verse means.


The word מִשְׁפָּט ( mishpat ) usually means “judgment; decision.” Here it means “lawsuit” (and so a metonymy of effect gave rise to this usage; see Num 27:5 ; 2 Sam 15:4 ).


The pronoun is emphatic before the verb: “I know that it is I who am right .” The verb means “to be right; to be righteous.” Some have translated it “vindicated,” looking at the outcome of the suit.


The interrogative is joined with the emphatic pronoun, stressing “who is he [who] will contend,” or more emphatically, “who in the world will contend.” Job is confident that no one can bring charges against him. He is certain of success.


The line reads “do not do two things.”


“God” is supplied to the verse, for the address is now to him. Job wishes to enter into dispute with God, but he first appeals that God not take advantage of him with his awesome power.


The imperative הַרְחַק ( harkhaq , “remove”; GKC 98 §29. q ) , from רָחַק ( rakhaq , “far, be far”) means “take away [far away]; to remove.”


See Job 9:34 .


The imperatives in the verse function like the future tense in view of their use for instruction or advice. The chiastic arrangement of the verb forms is interesting: imperative + imperfect, imperfect + imperative. The imperative is used for God, but the imperfect is used when Job is the subject. Job is calling for the court to convene – he will be either the defendant or the prosecutor.


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


The verb תַּעֲרוֹץ ( ta ’ arots , “you torment”) is from עָרַץ (’ arats ), which usually means “fear; dread,” but can also mean “to make afraid; to terrify” ( Isa 2:19,21 ). The imperfect is here taken as a desiderative imperfect: “why do you want to”; but it could also be a simple future: “will you torment.”


The word נִדָּף ( niddaf ) is “driven” from the root נָדַף ( nadaf , “drive”) . The words “by the wind” or the interpretation “windblown” has to be added for the clarification. Job is comparing himself to this leaf (so an implied comparison, called hypocatastasis) – so light and insubstantial that it is amazing that God should come after him. Guillaume suggests that the word is not from this root, but from a second root נָדַף ( nadaf) , cognate to Arabic nadifa, “to dry up” (A. Guillaume, “A Note on Isaiah 19:7 ,” JTS 14 [1963]: 382-83). But as D. J. A. Clines notes ( Job [WBC], 283), a dried leaf is a driven leaf – a point Guillaume allows as he says there is ambiguity in the term.


The word קַשׁ ( qash ) means “chaff; stubble,” or a wisp of straw. It is found in Job 41:20-21 for that which is so worthless and insignificant that it is hardly worth mentioning. If dried up or withered, it too will be blown away in the wind.


The meaning is that of writing down a formal charge against someone (cf. Job 31:15 ).


The word occurs here and in Job 33:11 . It could be taken as “stocks,” in which the feet were held fast; or it could be “shackles,” which allowed the prisoner to move about. The parallelism favors the latter, if the two lines are meant to be referring to the same thing.


The word means “ways; roads; paths,” but it is used here in the sense of the “way” in which one goes about his activities.


The verb תִּתְחַקֶּה ( titkhaqqeh ) is a Hitpael from the root חָקָה ( khaqah , parallel to חָקַק , khaqaq ). The word means “to engrave” or “to carve out.” This Hitpael would mean “to imprint something on oneself” (E. Dhorme [ Job , 192] says on one’s mind, and so derives the meaning “examine.”). The object of this is the expression “on the roots of my feet,” which would refer to where the feet hit the ground. Since the passage has more to do with God’s restricting Job’s movement, the translation “you set a boundary to the soles of my feet” would be better than Dhorme’s view. The image of inscribing or putting marks on the feet is not found elsewhere. It may be, as Pope suggests, a reference to marking the slaves to make tracking them easier. The LXX has “you have penetrated to my heels.”


Heb “and he.” Some of the commentators move the verse and put it after Job 14:2, 3 or 6.


The word רָקָב ( raqav ) is used elsewhere in the Bible of dry rot in a house, or rotting bones in a grave. It is used in parallelism with “moth” both here and in Hos 5:12 . The LXX has “like a wineskin.” This would be from רֹקֶב ( roqev , “wineskin”). This word does not occur in the Hebrew Bible, but is attested in Sir 43:20 and in Aramaic. The change is not necessary.


The first of the threefold apposition for אָדָם (’ adam , “man”) is “born of a woman.” The genitive (“woman”) after a passive participle denotes the agent of the action (see GKC 359 §116. l ).


The second description is simply “[is] short of days.” The meaning here is that his life is short (“days” being put as the understatement for “years”).


The third expression is “consumed/full/sated – with/of – trouble/restlessness.” The latter word, רֹגֶז ( rogez ), occurred in Job 3:17 ; see also the idea in 10:15 .


Heb יָצָא ( yatsa ’, “comes forth”). The perfect verb expresses characteristic action and so is translated by the present tense (see GKC 329 §111. s ).


The verb וַיִּמָּל ( vayyimmal ) is from the root מָלַל ( malal , “to languish; to wither”) and not from a different root מָלַל ( malal , “to cut off”).


The verb is “and he does not stand.” Here the verb means “to stay fixed; to abide.” The shadow does not stay fixed, but continues to advance toward darkness.


Heb “open the eye on,” an idiom meaning to prepare to judge someone.


The verse opens with אַף־עַל־זֶה (’ af- ’ al-zeh ), meaning “even on such a one!” It is an exclamation of surprise.


The text clearly has “me” as the accusative; but many wish to emend it to say “him” ( אֹתוֹ , ’ oto ). But D. J. A. Clines rightly rejects this in view of the way Job is written, often moving back and forth from his own tragedy and others’ tragedies ( Job [WBC], 283).


The expression is מִי־יִתֵּן ( mi-yitten , “who will give”; see GKC 477 §151. b ). Some commentators (H. H. Rowley and A. B. Davidson) wish to take this as the optative formula: “O that a clean might come out of an unclean!” But that does not fit the verse very well, and still requires the addition of a verb. The exclamation here simply implies something impossible – man is unable to attain purity.


Heb “his days.”


The passive participle is from חָרַץ ( kharats ), which means “determined.” The word literally means “cut” ( Lev 22:22 , “mutilated”). E. Dhorme, ( Job , 197) takes it to mean “engraved” as on stone; from a custom of inscribing decrees on tablets of stone he derives the meaning here of “decreed.” This, he argues, is parallel to the way חָקַק ( khaqaq , “engrave”) is used. The word חֹק ( khoq ) is an “ordinance” or “statute”; the idea is connected to the verb “to engrave.” The LXX has “if his life should be but one day on the earth, and his months are numbered by him, you have appointed him for a time and he shall by no means exceed it.”


Heb “[is] with you.” This clearly means under God’s control.


The word חֹק ( khoq ) has the meanings of “decree, decision, and limit” (cf. Job 28:26; 38:10 ). sn Job is saying that God foreordains the number of the days of man. He foreknows the number of the months. He fixes the limit of human life which cannot be passed.


The verb חָדַל ( khadal ) means “to desist; to cease.” The verb would mean here “and let him desist,” which some take to mean “and let him rest.” But since this is rather difficult in the line, commentators have suggested other meanings. Several emend the text slightly to make it an imperative rather than an imperfect; this is then translated “and desist.” The expression “from him” must be added. Another suggestion that is far-fetched is that of P. J. Calderone (“CHDL-II in poetic texts,” CBQ 23 [1961]: 451-60) and D. W. Thomas (VTSup 4 [1957]: 8-16), having a new meaning of “be fat.”


There are two roots רָצַה ( ratsah ). The first is the common word, meaning “to delight in; to have pleasure in.” The second, most likely used here, means “to pay; to acquit a debt” (cf. Lev 26:34, 41, 43 ). Here with the mention of the simile with the hired man, the completing of the job is in view.


The genitive after the construct is one of advantage – it is hope for the tree.


The Hiphil of זָקַן ( zaqan , “to be old”) is here an internal causative, “to grow old.”


The Hiphil is here classified as an inchoative Hiphil (see GKC 145 §53. e ), for the tree only begins to die. In other words, it appears to be dead, but actually is not completely dead.


The LXX translates “dust” [soil] with “rock,” probably in light of the earlier illustration of the tree growing in the rocks. sn Job is thinking here of a tree that dies or decays because of a drought rather than being uprooted, because the next verse will tell how it can revive with water.


The personification adds to the comparison with people – the tree is credited with the sense of smell to detect the water.


The sense of “flourish” for this verb is found in Ps 92:12,13 [13,14], and Prov 14:11 . It makes an appropriate parallel with “bring forth boughs” in the second half.


Heb “and will make.”


There are two words for “man” in this verse. The first ( גֶּבֶר , gever ) can indicate a “strong” or “mature man” or “mighty man,” the hero; and the second ( אָדָם , ’ adam ) simply designates the person as mortal.


The word חָלַשׁ ( khalash ) in Aramaic and Syriac means “to be weak” (interestingly, the Syriac OT translated חָלַשׁ [ khalash ] with “fade away” here). The derived noun “the weak” would be in direct contrast to “the mighty man.” In the transitive sense the verb means “to weaken; to defeat” ( Exod 17:13 ); here it may have the sense of “be lifeless, unconscious, inanimate” (cf. E. Dhorme, Job , 199). Many commentators emend the text to יַחֲלֹף ( yakhalof , “passes on; passes away”). A. Guillaume tries to argue that the form is a variant of the other, the letters שׁ ( shin ) and פ ( pe ) being interchangeable (“The Use of halas in Exod 17:13 , Isa 14:12 , and Job 14:10 ,” JTS 14 [1963]: 91-92). G. R. Driver connected it to Arabic halasa , “carry off suddenly” (“The Resurrection of Marine and Terrestrial Creatures,” JSS 7 [1962]: 12-22). But the basic idea of “be weak, powerless” is satisfactory in the text. H. H. Rowley ( Job [NCBC], 105) says, “Where words are so carefully chosen, it is gratuitous to substitute less expressive words as some editors do.”


This break to a question adds a startling touch to the whole verse. The obvious meaning is that he is gone. The LXX weakens it: “and is no more.”


The comparative clause may be signaled simply by the context, especially when facts of a moral nature are compared with the physical world (see GKC 499 §161. a ).


The Hebrew word יָם ( yam ) can mean “sea” or “lake.”


The Hebrew construction is “until not,” which is unusual if not impossible; it is found in only one other type of context. In its six other occurrences ( Num 21:35 ; Deut 3:3 ; Josh 8:22; 10:33; 11:8 ; 2 Kgs 10:11 ) the context refers to the absence of survivors. Aquila, Symmachus, Theodotion, Syriac, and Vulgate all have “till the heavens wear out.” Most would emend the text just slightly from עַד־בִּלְתִּי (’ ad-bilti , “are no more”) to עַד בְּלוֹת (’ ad bÿlot , “until the wearing out of,” see Ps 102:26 [27]; Isa 51:6 ). Gray rejects emendation here, finding the unusual form of the MT in its favor. Orlinsky (p. 57) finds a cognate Arabic word meaning “will not awake” and translates it “so long as the heavens are not rent asunder” (H. M. Orlinsky, “The Hebrew and Greek Texts of Job 14:12 ,” JQR 28 [1937/38]: 57-68). He then deletes the last line of the verse as a later gloss.


The verb is plural because the subject, אִישׁ (’ ish ), is viewed as a collective: “mankind.” The verb means “to wake up; to awake”; another root, קוּץ ( quts , “to split open”) cognate to Arabic qada and Akkadian kasu , was put forward by H. M. Orlinsky (“The Hebrew and Greek Texts of Job 14:12 ,” JQR 28 [1937-38]: 57-68) and G. R. Driver (“Problems in the Hebrew Text of Job,” VTSup 3 [1955]: 72-93).


The optative mood is introduced here again with מִי יִתֵּן ( mi yitten ), literally, “who will give?” sn After arguing that man will die without hope, Job expresses his desire that there be a resurrection, and what that would mean. The ancients all knew that death did not bring existence to an end; rather, they passed into another place, but they continued to exist. Job thinks that death would at least give him some respite from the wrath of God; but this wrath would eventually be appeased, and then God would remember the one he had hidden in Sheol just as he remembered Noah. Once that happened, it would be possible that Job might live again.


The construction used here is the preposition followed by the infinitive construct followed by the subjective genitive, forming an adverbial clause of time.


This is the same word used in v. 5 for “limit.”


The verb זָכַר ( zakhar ) means more than simply “to remember.” In many cases, including this one, it means “to act on what is remembered,” i.e., deliver or rescue (see Gen 8:1 , “and God remembered Noah”). In this sense, a prayer “remember me” is a prayer for God to act upon his covenant promises.


The LXX removes the interrogative and makes the statement affirmative, i.e., that man will live again. This reading is taken by D. H. Gard (“The Concept of the Future Life according to the Greek Translator of the Book of Job,” JBL 73 [1954]: 137-38). D. J. A. Clines follows this, putting both of the expressions in the wish clause: “if a man dies and could live again…” ( Job [WBC], 332). If that is the way it is translated, then the verbs in the second half of the verse and in the next verse would all be part of the apodosis, and should be translated “would.” The interpretation would not greatly differ; it would be saying that if there was life after death, Job would long for his release – his death. If the traditional view is taken and the question was raised whether there was life after death (the implication of the question being that there is), then Job would still be longing for his death. The point the line is making is that if there is life after death, that would be all the more reason for Job to eagerly expect, to hope for, his death.


See Job 7:1 .


The verb אֲיַחֵל (’ ayakhel ) may be rendered “I will/would wait” or “I will/would hope.” The word describes eager expectation and longing hope.


The construction is the same as that found in the last verse: a temporal preposition עַד (’ ad ) followed by the infinitive construct followed by the subjective genitive “release/relief.” Due, in part, to the same verb ( חָלַף , khalaf ) having the meaning “sprout again” in v. 7 , some take “renewal” as the meaning here (J. E. Hartley, Alden, NIV, ESV).


The independent personal pronoun is emphatic, as if to say, “and I on my part will answer.”


The word כָּסַף ( kasaf ) originally meant “to turn pale.” It expresses the sentiment that causes pallor of face, and so is used for desire ardently, covet. The object of the desire is always introduced with the ל ( lamed ) preposition (see E. Dhorme, Job , 202).


Heb “long for the work of your hands.”


If v. 16 a continues the previous series, the translation here would be “then” (as in RSV). Others take it as a new beginning to express God’s present watch over Job, and interpret the second half of the verse as a question, or emend it to say God does not pass over his sins.


The passive participle חָתֻם ( khatum ), from חָתַם ( khatam , “seal”), which is used frequently in the Bible, means “sealed up.” The image of sealing sins in a bag is another of the many poetic ways of expressing the removal of sin from the individual (see 1 Sam 25:29 ). Since the term most frequently describes sealed documents, the idea here may be more that of sealing in a bag the record of Job’s sins (see D. J. A. Clines, Job [WBC], 334).


The idea has been presented that the background of putting tally stones in a bag is intended (see A. L. Oppenheim, “On an Operational Device in Mesopotamian Bureaucracy,” JNES 18 [1959]: 121-28).


This verb was used in Job 13:4 for “plasterers of lies.” The idea is probably that God coats or paints over the sins so that they are forgotten (see Isa 1:18 ). A. B. Davidson ( Job , 105) suggests that the sins are preserved until full punishment is exacted. But the verse still seems to be continuing the thought of how the sins would be forgotten in the next life.


The indication that this is a simile is to be obtained from the conjunction beginning 19c (see GKC 499 §161. a ).


The word יִבּוֹל ( yibbol ) usually refers to a flower fading and so seems strange here. The LXX and the Syriac translate “and will fall”; most commentators accept this and repoint the preceding word to get “and will surely fall.” Duhm retains the MT and applies the image of the flower to the falling mountain. The verb is used of the earth in Isa 24:4 , and so NIV, RSV, and NJPS all have the idea of “crumble away.”


Heb “the overflowings of it”; the word סְפִיחֶיהָ ( sÿfikheyha ) in the text is changed by just about everyone. The idea of “its overflowings” or more properly “its aftergrowths” ( Lev 25:5 ; 2 Kgs 19:29 ; etc.) does not fit here at all. Budde suggested reading סְחִפָה ( sÿkhifah ), which is cognate to Arabic sahifeh , “torrential rain, rainstorm” – that which sweeps away” the soil. The word סָחַף ( sakhaf ) in Hebrew might have a wider usage than the effects of rain.


Heb “[the] dust of [the] earth.”


D. W. Thomas took נֵצַח ( netsakh ) here to have a superlative meaning: “You prevail utterly against him” (“Use of netsach as a superlative in Hebrew,” JSS 1 [1956]: 107). Death would be God’s complete victory over him.


The subject of the participle is most likely God in this context. Some take it to be man, saying “his face changes.” Others emend the text to read an imperfect verb, but this is not necessary.


The clause may be interpreted as a conditional clause, with the second clause beginning with the conjunction serving as the apodosis.


There is no expressed subject for the verb “they honor,” and so it may be taken as a passive.


The verb is בִּין ( bin , “to perceive; to discern”). The parallelism between “know” and “perceive” stress the point that in death a man does not realize what is happening here in the present life.


The prepositional phrases using עָלָיו (’ alayv , “for him[self]”) express the object of the suffering. It is for himself that the dead man “grieves.” So this has to be joined with אַךְ (’ akh ), yielding “only for himself.” Then, “flesh” and “soul/person” form the parallelism for the subjects of the verbs.


The Hebrew is דַעַת־רוּחַ ( da ’ at-ruakh ). This means knowledge without any content, vain knowledge.


The image is rather graphic. It is saying that he puffs himself up with the wind and then brings out of his mouth blasts of this wind.


The word for “east wind,” קָדִים ( qadim ), is parallel to “spirit/wind” also in Hos 12:2 . The east wind is maleficent, but here in the parallelism it is so much hot air.


The infinitive absolute in this place is functioning either as an explanatory adverb or as a finite verb. sn Eliphaz draws on Job’s claim with this word (cf. Job 13:3 ), but will declare it hollow.


The verb סָכַן ( sakhan ) means “to be useful, profitable.” It is found 5 times in the book with this meaning. The Hiphil of יָעַל ( ya ’ al ) has the same connotation. E. LipinÃski offers a new meaning on a second root, “incur danger” or “run risks” with words, but this does not fit the parallelism ( FO 21 [1980]: 65-82).


The word פָּרַר ( parar ) in the Hiphil means “to annul; to frustrate; to destroy; to break,” and this fits the line quite well. The NEB reflects G. R. Driver’s suggestion of an Arabic cognate meaning “to expel; to banish” (“Problems in the Hebrew text of Job,” VTSup 3 [1955]: 77).


Heb “fear,” “reverence.”


The word גָּרַע ( gara ’) means “to diminish,” regard as insignificant, occasionally with the sense of “pull down” ( Deut 4:2; 13:1 ). It is here that Eliphaz is portraying Job as a menace to the religion of society because they dissuade people from seeking God.


The word שִׂיחָה ( sikhah ) is “complaint; cry; meditation.” Job would be influencing people to challenge God and not to meditate before or pray to him.


The verb אַלֵּף (’ allef ) has the meaning of “to teach; to instruct,” but it is unlikely that the idea of revealing is intended. If the verb is understood metonymically, then “to inspire; to prompt” will be sufficient. Dahood and others find another root, and render the verb “to increase,” reversing subject and object: “your mouth increases your iniquity.”


Heb “tongue.”


The word means “shrewd; crafty; cunning” (see Gen 3:1 ). Job uses clever speech that is misleading and destructive.


The Hiphil of this root means “declare wicked, guilty” (a declarative Hiphil), and so “condemns.”


The verb עָנָה (’ anah ) with the ל ( lamed ) preposition following it means “to testify against.” For Eliphaz, it is enough to listen to Job to condemn him.


The meaning of סוֹד ( sod ) is “confidence.” In the context the implication is “secret counsel” of the Lord God (see Jer 23:18 ). It is a question of confidence on the part of God, that only wisdom can know (see Prov 8:30,31 ). Job seemed to them to claim to have access to the mind of God.


In v. 4 the word meant “limit”; here it has a slightly different sense, namely, “to reserve for oneself.”


The last clause simply has “and it is not with us.” It means that one possesses something through knowledge. Note the parallelism of “know” and “with me” in Ps 50:11 .


The participle שָׂב ( sav ), from שִׂיב ( siv , “to have white hair”; 1 Sam 12:2 ), only occurs elsewhere in the Bible in the Aramaic sections of Ezra. The word יָשִׁישׁ ( yashish , “aged”) occurred in 12:12 .


Heb “with us.”


The line reads: “[men] greater than your father [in] days.” The expression “in days” underscores their age – they were older than Job’s father, and therefore wiser.


The formula “is it too little for you” or “is it too slight a matter for you” is also found in Isa 7:13 (see GKC 430 §133. c ).


The word “spoken” is not in the Hebrew text, but has been supplied in the translation.


The interrogative מָה ( mah ) here has the sense of “why?” (see Job 7:21 ).


The verb simply means “to take.” The RSV has “carry you away.” E. Dhorme ( Job , 212-13) goes further, saying that it implies being unhinged by passion, to be carried away by the passions beyond good sense (pp. 212-13). Pope and Tur-Sinai suggest that the suffix on the verb is datival, and translate it, “What has taken from you your mind?” But the parallelism shows that “your heart” and “your eyes” are subjects.


Here is another word that occurs only here, and in the absence of a completely convincing suggestion, probably should be left as it is. The verb is רָזַם ( razam , “wink, flash”). Targum Job and the Syriac equate it with a verb found in Aramaic and postbiblical Hebrew with the same letters but metathesized – רָמַז ( ramaz ). It would mean “to make a sign” or “to wink.” Budde, following the LXX probably, has “Why are your eyes lofty?” Others follow an Arabic root meaning “become weak.”


The Hebrew is רוּחֶךָ ( rukhekha , “your spirit” or “your breath”). But the fact that this is turned “against God,” means that it must be given a derived meaning, or a meaning that is metonymical. It is used in the Bible in the sense of anger – what the spirit vents (see Judg 8:3 ; Prov 16:32 ; and Job 4:9 with “blast”).


The verb is a Hiphil perfect of yasa ’ , “to go out, proceed, issue forth.”


Eliphaz here reiterates the point made in Job 4:18 .


The two descriptions here used are “abominable,” meaning “disgusting” (a Niphal participle with the value of a Latin participle [see GKC 356-57 §116. e ]), and “corrupt” (a Niphal participle which occurs only in Pss 14:3 and 53:4 ), always in a moral sense. On the significance of the first description, see P. Humbert, “Le substantif toáe„ba„ et le verbe táb dans l’Ancien Testament,” ZAW 72 [1960]: 217ff.). On the second word, G. R. Driver suggests from Arabic, “debauched with luxury, corrupt” (“Some Hebrew Words,” JTS 29 [1927/28]: 390-96).


The demonstrative pronoun is used here as a nominative, to introduce an independent relative clause (see GKC 447 §138. h ).


Here the vav ( ו ) apodosis follows with the cohortative (see GKC 458 §143. d ).


The word “tradition” is not in the Hebrew text, but has been supplied in the translation.


Heb “their fathers.” Some commentators change one letter and follow the reading of the LXX: “and their fathers have not hidden.” Pope tries to get the same reading by classifying the מ ( mem ) as an enclitic mem . The MT on first glance would read “and did not hide from their fathers.” Some take the clause “and they did not hide” as adverbial and belonging to the first part of the verse: “what wise men declare, hiding nothing, according to the tradition of their fathers.”


Heb “all the days of the wicked, he suffers.” The word “all” is an adverbial accusative of time, stating along with its genitives (“of the days of a wicked man”) how long the individual suffers. When the subject is composed of a noun in construct followed by a genitive, the predicate sometimes agrees with the genitive (see GKC 467 §146. a ).


The Hebrew term מִתְחוֹלֵל ( mitkholel ) is a Hitpolel participle from חִיל ( khil , “to tremble”). It carries the idea of “torment oneself,” or “be tormented.” Some have changed the letter ח ( khet ) for a letter ה ( he ), and obtained the meaning “shows himself mad.” Theodotion has “is mad.” Syriac (“behave arrogantly,” apparently confusing Hebrew חול with חלל ; Heidi M. Szpek, Translation Technique in the Peshitta to Job [SBLDS], 277), Symmachus, and Vulgate have “boasts himself.” But the reading of the MT is preferable.


It is necessary, with Rashi, to understand the relative pronoun before the verb “they are stored up/reserved.”


This has been translated with the idea of “oppressor” in Job 6:23; 27:13 .


The word “fill” is not in the Hebrew text, but has been supplied in the translation.


The word שׁוֹדֵד ( shoded ) means “a robber; a plunderer” (see Job 12:6 ). With the verb bo ’ the sentence means that the robber pounces on or comes against him (see GKC 373 §118. f ). H. H. Rowley observes that the text does not say that he is under attack, but that the sound of fears is in his ears, i.e., that he is terrified by thoughts of this.


This is the meaning of the Hiphil imperfect negated: “he does not believe” or “he has no confidence.” It is followed by the infinitive construct functioning as the direct object – he does not expect to return (to escape) from darkness. sn The meaning of this line is somewhat in question. H. H. Rowley ( Job [NCBC], 111) thinks it could mean that he is afraid he will not wake up from the night, or he dreads misfortune, thinking it will be final for him.


Heb “he is watched [or waited for] by the sword.” G. R. Driver reads it, “he is marked down for the sword” (“Problems in the Hebrew text of Job,” VTSup 3 [1955]: 78). Ewald suggested “laid up for the sword.” Ball has “looks for the sword.” The MT has a passive participle from צָפָה ( tsafah , “to observe, watch”) which can be retained in the text; the meaning of the form can then be understood as the result of the inspection (E. Dhorme, Job , 217).


The MT has “he wanders about for food – where is it?” The LXX has “he has been appointed for food for vultures,” reading אַיָּה (’ ayyah , “vulture”) for אַיֵּה (’ ayyeh , “where is it?”). This would carry on the thought of the passage – he sees himself destined for the sword and food for vultures. Many commentators follow this reading while making a number of smaller changes in נֹדֵד ( noded , “wandering”) such as נִתַּן ( nittan , “is given”), נוֹעַד ( no ’ ad , “is appointed”), נוֹדַע ( noda ’, “is known”), or something similar. The latter involves no major change in consonants. While the MT “wandering” may not be as elegant as some of the other suggestions, it is not impossible. But there is no reading of this verse that does not involve some change. The LXX has “and he has been appointed for food for vultures.”


This line is fraught with difficulties (perceived or real), which prompt numerous suggestions. The reading of the MT is “he knows that a day of darkness is fixed in his hand,” i.e., is certain. Many commentators move “day of darkness” to the next verse, following the LXX. Then, suggestions have been offered for נָכוֹן ( nakhon , “ready”), such as נֵכֶר ( nekher , “disaster”); and for בְּיָדוֹ ( bÿyado , “in his hand”) a number of ideas – לְאֵיד ( lÿ ’ ed , “calamity”) or פִּידוֹ ( pido , “his disaster”). Wright takes this last view and renders it “he knows that misfortune is imminent,” leaving the “day of darkness” to the next verse.


If “day and darkness” are added to this line, then this verse is made into a tri-colon – the main reason for transferring it away from the last verse. But the newly proposed reading follows the LXX structure precisely, as if that were the approved construction. The Hebrew of MT has “distress and anguish terrify him.”


This last colon is deleted by some, moved to v. 26 by others, and the NEB puts it in brackets. The last word (translated here as “launch an attack”) occurs only here . HALOT 472 s.v. כִּידוֹר links it to an Arabic root kadara , “to rush down,” as with a bird of prey. J. Reider defines it as “perturbation” from the same root (“Etymological Studies in Biblical Hebrew,” VT 2 [1952]: 127).


The Hitpael of גָּבַר ( gavar ) means “to act with might” or “to behave like a hero.” The idea is that the wicked boldly vaunts himself before the Lord .


Heb “he runs against [or upon] him with the neck.” The RSV takes this to mean “with a stiff neck.” Several commentators, influenced by the LXX’s “insolently,” have attempted to harmonize with some idiom for neck (“outstretched neck,” for example). Others have made more extensive changes. Pope and Anderson follow Tur-Sinai in accepting “with full battle armor.” But the main idea seems to be that of a headlong assault on God.


Heb “with the thickness of the bosses of his shield.” The bosses are the convex sides of the bucklers, turned against the foe. This is a defiant attack on God.


D. W. Thomas defends a meaning “cover” for the verb עָשָׂה (’ asah ). See “Translating Hebrew `asah ,” BT 17 [1966]: 190-93.


The term פִּימָה ( pimah ), a hapax legomenon , is explained by the Arabic fa ’ ima , “to be fat.” Pope renders this “blubber.” Cf. KJV “and maketh collops of fat on his flanks.”


The verbal idea serves here to modify “houses” as a relative clause; so a relative pronoun is added.


The Hebrew has simply “they are made ready for heaps.” The LXX translates it, “what they have prepared, let others carry away.” This would involve a complete change of the last word.


This word מִנְלָם ( minlam ) also is a hapax legomenon , although almost always interpreted to mean “possession” (with Arabic manal ) and repointed as מְנֹלָם ( mÿnolam ). M. Dahood further changes “earth” to the netherworld, and interprets it to mean “his possessions will not go down to the netherworld (“Value of Ugaritic for Textual Criticism,” Bib 40 [1959]: 164-66). Others suggest it means “ear of grain,” either from the common word for “ears of grain” or a hapax legomenon in Deuteronomy 23:26 [25].


Some editions and commentators delete the first line of this verse, arguing that it is simply a paraphrase of v. 22 a, and that it interrupts the comparison with a tree that falls (although that comparison only starts next).


This last line in the verse is the difficult one. The MT has “he shall depart by the breath of his mouth.” If this reading stands, then it must be understood that it is the breath of God’s mouth that is intended. In place of “his mouth” the LXX has “flower” (reading פִּרהוֹ [ pirho , properly, “his fruit”] instead of פִּיו piv ), and “fall” instead of “depart.” Modern commentators and a number of English versions (e.g., RSV, NRSV, TEV) alter יָסוּר ( yasur , “depart”) to something like יְסֹעַר ( yÿso ’ ar , from סָעַר [ sa ’ ar , “to drive away”]), or the like, to get “will be swept away.” The result is a reading: “and his blossom will be swept away by the wind.” The LXX may have read the Hebrew exactly, but harmonized it with v. 33 (see H. Heater, A Septuagint Translation Technique in the Book of Job [CBQMS]: 61-62).


The word, although difficult in its form, is “vanity,” i.e., that which is worthless. E. Dhorme ( Job , 224) thinks that the form שָׁוְא ( shav ’) conceals the word שִׁיאוֹ ( shi ’ o , “his stature”). But Dhorme reworks most of the verse. He changes נִתְעָה ( nit ’ ah , “deceived”) to נֵדַע ( neda ’, “we know”) to arrive at “we know that it is vanity.” The last two words of the verse are then moved to the next. The LXX has “let him not think that he shall endure, for his end shall be vanity.”


This word is found in Job 20:18 with the sense of “trading.” It can mean the exchange of goods or the profit from them. Some commentators change תְמוּרָתוֹ ( tÿmurato , “his reward”) because they wish to put it with the next verse as the LXX seems to have done (although the LXX does not represent this). Suggestions include תִּמֹרָתוֹ ( timorato , “his palm tree”) and זְמֹרָתוֹ ( zÿmorato , “his vine shoot”). A number of writers simply delete all of v. 31 . H. H. Rowley ( Job [NCBC], 115) suggests the best reading (assuming one were going to make changes) would be, “Let him not trust in his stature, deceiving himself, for it is vanity.” And then put “his palm tree” with the next verse, he thinks that achieves the proper balance.


Heb “before his day.”


Those who put the last colon of v. 31 with v. 32 also have to change the verb תִּמָּלֵא ( timmale ’, “will be fulfilled”). E. Dhorme ( Job , 225) says, “a mere glance at the use of yimmal …abundantly proves that the original text had timmal (G, Syr., Vulg), which became timmale ’ through the accidental transposition of the ‘ alep of b ÿ si ’ o …in verse 31 ….” This, of course, is possible, if all the other changes up to now are granted. But the meaning of a word elsewhere in no way assures it should be the word here. The LXX has “his harvest shall perish before the time,” which could translate any number of words that might have been in the underlying Hebrew text. A commercial metaphor is not out of place here, since parallelism does not demand that the same metaphor appear in both lines.


Now, in the second half of the verse, the metaphor of a tree with branches begins.


The verb means “to treat violently” or “to wrong.” It indicates that the vine did not nourish the grapes well enough for them to grow, and so they dry up and drop off.


The LXX renders this line: “for death is the witness of an ungodly man. “Death” represents “barren/sterile,” and “witness” represents “assembly.”


Heb “the tents of bribery.” The word “bribery” can mean a “gift,” but most often in the sense of a bribe in court. It indicates that the wealth and the possessions that the wicked man has gained may have been gained unjustly.


Infinitives absolute are used in this verse in the place of finite verbs. They lend a greater vividness to the description, stressing the basic meaning of the words.


At the start of the speech Eliphaz said Job’s belly was filled with the wind; now it is there that he prepares deception. This inclusio frames the speech.


The expression uses the Piel participle in construct: מְנַחֲמֵי עָמָל ( mÿnahame ’ amal , “comforters of trouble”), i.e., comforters who increase trouble instead of relieving it. D. W. Thomas translates this “breathers out of trouble” (“A Note on the Hebrew Root naham, ” ExpTim 44 [1932/33]: 192).


Disjunctive questions are introduced with the sign of the interrogative; the second part is introduced with אוֹ (’ o , see GKC 475 §150. g ).


In v. 3 the second person singular is employed rather than the plural as in vv. 2 and 4 . The singular might be an indication that the words of v. 3 were directed at Eliphaz specifically.


Heb “words of wind.”


The Hiphil of מָרַץ ( marats ) does not occur anywhere else. The word means “to compel; to force” (see 6:25 ).


The LXX seems to have gone a different way: “What, is there any reason in vain words, or what will hinder you from answering?”


For the use of the cohortative in the apodosis of conditional sentences, see GKC 322 §109. f .


The conjunction לוּ ( lu ) is used to introduce the optative, a condition that is incapable of fulfillment (see GKC 494-95 §159. l ).


This verb אַחְבִּירָה (’ akhbirah ) is usually connected to חָבַר ( khavar , “to bind”). There are several suggestions for this word. J. J. Finkelstein proposed a second root, a homonym, meaning “to make a sound,” and so here “to harangue” (“Hebrew habar and Semitic HBR, ” JBL 75 [1956]: 328-31; see also O. Loretz, “ HBR in Job 16:4 ,” CBQ 23 [1961]: 293-94, who renders it “I could make noisy speeches”). Other suggestions have been for new meanings based on cognate studies, such as “to make beautiful” (i.e., make polished speeches).


“But” has been added in the translation to strengthen the contrast.


The Piel of אָמַץ (’ amats ) means “to strengthen, fortify.”


Heb “my mouth.”


The verb יַחְשֹׂךְ ( yakhsokh ) means “to restrain; to withhold.” There is no object, so many make it first person subject, “I will not restrain.” The LXX and the Syriac have a different person – “I would not restrain.” G. R. Driver, arguing that the verb is intransitive here, made it “the solace of my lips would not [added] be withheld” (see JTS 34 [1933]: 380). D. J. A. Clines says that what is definitive is the use of the verb in the next line, where it clearly means “soothed, assuaged.”


“But” is supplied in the translation to strengthen the contrast.


The Niphal יֵחָשֵׂךְ ( yekhasekh ) means “to be soothed; to be assuaged.”


Some argue that מָה ( mah ) in the text is the Arabic ma, the simple negative. This would then mean “it does not depart far from me.” The interrogative used rhetorically amounts to the same thing, however, so the suggestion is not necessary.


In poetic discourse there is often an abrupt change from person to another. See GKC 462 §144. p . Some take the subject of this verb to be God, others the pain (“surely now it has worn me out”).


The verb is קָמַט ( qamat ) which is used only here and in 22:16 ; it means “to seize; to grasp.” By God’s seizing him, Job means his afflictions.


The subject is “my calamity.”


The verb is used in Ps 109:24 to mean “to be lean”; and so “leanness” is accepted here for the noun by most. Otherwise the word is “lie, deceit.” Accordingly, some take it here as “my slanderer” or “my liar” (gives evidence against me).


The referent of these pronouns in v. 9 (“his anger…he has gnashed…his teeth…his eyes”) is best taken as God.


The verb שָׂטַם ( satam ) is translated “hate” in the RSV, but this is not accepted by very many. Many emend it to שָׁמט ( shamat ), reading “and he dropped me” (from his mouth). But that suggests escape. D. J. A. Clines notes that usage shows it reflects ongoing hatred represented by an action such as persecution or attack ( Job [WBC], 370).


The verb is used of sharpening a sword in Ps 7:12 ; here it means “to look intently” as an animal looks for prey. The verse describes God’s relentless pursuit of Job.


“People” is supplied; the Hebrew verb is third plural. The colon reads, “they have opened against me with [the preposition is instrumental] their mouth.” The gestures here follow the animal imagery; they reflect destructive opposition and attack (see Ps 22:13 among others).


This is an “insult” or a “reproach.”


The verb יִתְמַלָּאוּן ( yitmalla ’ un ) is taken from מָלֵא ( male ’), “to be full,” and in this stem, “to pile up; to press together.” The term has a military connotation, such as “to mobilize” (see D. W. Thomas, “ ml'w in Jeremiah 4:5 : a military term,” JJS 3 [1952]: 47-52). Job sees himself surrounded by enemies who persecute him and mock him.


The word עֲוִיל (’ avil ) means “child,” and this cannot be right here. If it is read as עַוָּל (’ avval ) as in Job 27:7 it would be the unrighteous.


The verb פָּרַר ( parar ) means “to shake.” In the Hiphil it means “to break; to shatter” ( 5:12; 15:4 ). The Pilpel means “to break in pieces,” and in the Poel in Jer 23:29 “to smash up.” So Job was living at ease, and God shattered his life.


Here is another Pilpel, now from פָּצַץ ( patsats ) with a similar meaning to the other verb. It means “to dash into pieces” and even scatter the pieces. The LXX translates this line, “he took me by the hair of the head and plucked it out.”


The meaning of “his archers” is supported for רַבָּיו ( rabbayv ) in view of Jer 50:29 . The LXX, Syriac, Vulgate, Targum Job, followed by several translations and commentators prefer “arrows.” They see this as a more appropriate figure without raising the question of who the archers might be (see 6:4 ). The point is an unnecessary distinction, for the figure is an illustration of the affliction that God has brought on him.


Heb “and he does not pity,” but the clause is functioning adverbially in the line.


The verb פָּלַח ( palakh ) in the Piel means “to pierce” (see Prov 7:23 ). A fuller comparison should be made with Lam 3:12-13 .


This word מְרֵרָתִי ( mÿrerati , “my gall”) is found only here. It is close to the form in Job 13:26 , “bitter things.” In Job 20:14 it may mean “poison.” The thought is also found in Lam 2:11 .


The word פָּרַץ ( parats ) means “to make a breach” in a wall ( Isa 5:5 ; Ps 80:13 ). It is used figuratively in the birth and naming of Peres in Gen 38:29 . Here the image is now of a military attack that breaks through a wall. The text uses the cognate accusative, and then with the addition of עַל־פְּנֵי (’ al-pÿne , “in addition”) it repeats the cognate noun. A smooth translation that reflects the three words is difficult. E. Dhorme ( Job , 237) has “he batters me down, breach upon breach.”


Heb “runs.”


The Poel עֹלַלְתִּי (’ olalti ) from עָלַל (’ alal , “to enter”) has here the meaning of “to thrust in.” The activity is the opposite of “raising high the horn,” a picture of dignity and victory.


There is no English term that captures exactly what “horn” is meant to do. Drawn from the animal world, the image was meant to convey strength and pride and victory. Some modern commentators have made other proposals for the line. Svi Rin suggested from Ugaritic that the verb be translated “lower” or “dip” (“Ugaritic – Old Testament Affinities,” BZ 7 [1963]: 22-33).


An intensive form, a Qetaltal form of the root חָמַר ( khamar , “red”) is used here. This word has as probable derivatives חֹמֶר ( khomer , “[red] clay”) and חֲמוֹר ( khamor , “[red] ass”) and the like. Because of the weeping, his whole complexion has been reddened (the LXX reads “my belly”).


For the use of the preposition עַל (’ al ) to introduce concessive clauses, see GKC 499 §160. c .


The word is simply “a place,” but in the context it surely means a hidden place, a secret place that would never be discovered (see 18:21 ).


The parallelism now uses the Aramaic word “my advocate” – the one who testifies on my behalf. The word again appears in Gen 31:47 for Laban’s naming of the “heap of witness” in Aramaic – “Sahadutha.”


The first two words of this verse are problematic: מְלִיצַי רֵעָי ( mÿlitsay re ’ ay , “my scorners are my friends”). The word מֵלִיץ ( melits ), from or related to the word for “scorner” ( לִיץ , lits ) in wisdom literature especially, can also mean “mediator” ( Job 33:23 ), “interpreter” ( Gen 42:23 ). This gives the idea that “scorn” has to do with the way words are used. It may be that the word here should have the singular suffix and be taken as “my spokesman.” This may not be from the same root as “scorn” (see N. H. Richardson, “Some Notes on lis and Its Derivatives,” VT 5 [1955]: 434-36). This is the view of the NIV, NJPS, JB, NAB, as well as a number of commentators. The idea of “my friends are scorners” is out of place in this section, unless taken as a parenthesis. Other suggestions are not convincing. The LXX has “May my prayer come to the Lord, and before him may my eye shed tears.” Some have tried to change the Hebrew to fit this. The word “my friends” also calls for some attention. Instead of a plural noun suffix, most would see it as a singular, a slight vocalic change. But others think it is not the word “friend.” D. J. A. Clines accepts the view that it is not “friends” but “thoughts” ( רֵעַ , rea ’). E. Dhorme takes it as “clamor,” from רוּעַ ( rua ’) and so interprets “my claimant word has reached God.” J. B. Curtis tries “My intercessor is my shepherd,” from רֹעִי ( ro ’ i ). See “On Job’s Witness in Heaven,” JBL 102 [1983]: 549-62.


The Hebrew verb means “to drip; to stream; to flow”; the expression is cryptic, but understandable: “my eye flows [with tears as I cry out] to God.” But many suggestions have been made for this line too. Driver suggested in connection with cognate words that it be given the meaning “sleepless” ( JTS 34 [1933]: 375-85), but this would also require additional words for a smooth reading. See also E. A. Speiser, “The Semantic Range of dalapu, ” JCS 5 (1951): 64-66, for the Akkadian connection. But for the retention of “dripping eyes” based on the Talmudic use, see J. C. Greenfield, “Lexicographical Notes I,” HUCA 29 (1958): 203-28.


E. Dhorme ( Job , 240) alters this slightly to read “Would that” or “Ah! if only.”


This is the simple translation of the expression “son of man” in Job. But some commentators wish to change the word בֵּן ( ben , “son”) to בֵּין ( ben , “between”). It would then be “[as] between a man and [for] his friend.” Even though a few mss have this reading, it is to be rejected. But see J. Barr, “Some Notes on ‘ ben ’ in Classical Hebrew,” JSS 23 (1978): 1-22.


The verb is supplied from the parallel clause.


The expression is “years of number,” meaning that they can be counted, and so “the years are few.” The verb simply means “comes” or “lie ahead.”


The verbal expression “I will not return” serves here to modify the journey that he will take. It is “the road [of] I will not return.”


The verb חָבַל ( khaval , “to act badly”) in the Piel means “to ruin.” The Pual translation with “my spirit” as the subject means “broken” in the sense of finished (not in the sense of humbled as in ).


The verb זָעַךְ ( za ’ aq , equivalent of Aramaic דָעַק [ da ’ aq ]) means “to be extinguished.” It only occurs here in the Hebrew.


The plural “graves” could be simply an intensification, a plural of extension (see GKC 397 §124. c ), or a reference to the graveyard. Coverdale had: “I am harde at deathes dore.” The Hebrew expression simply reads “graves for me.” It probably means that graves await him.


The noun is the abstract noun, “mockery.” It indicates that he is the object of derision. But many commentators either change the word to “mockers” (Tur-Sinai, NEB), or argue that the form in the text is a form of the participle (Gordis).


E. Dhorme ( Job , 243) interprets the preposition to mean “aimed at me.”


The meaning of הַמְּרוֹתָם ( hammÿrotam ) is unclear, and the versions offer no help. If the MT is correct, it would probably be connected to מָרָה ( marah , “to be rebellious”) and the derived form something like “hostility; provocation.” But some commentators suggest it should be related to מָרֹרוֹת ( marorot , “bitter things”). Others have changed both the noun and the verb to obtain something like “My eye is weary of their contentiousness” (Holscher), or mine eyes are wearied by your stream of peevish complaints” (G. R. Driver, “Problems in the Hebrew text of Job,” VTSup 3 [1955]: 78). There is no alternative suggestion that is compelling.


The MT has two imperatives: “Lay down, pledge me, with me.” Most commentators think that the second imperative should be a noun, and take it to say, “Lay my pledge with/beside you.” A. B. Davidson ( Job , 126) suggests that the first verb means “give a pledge,” and so the two similar verbs would be emphatic: “Give a pledge, be my surety.” Other than such a change (which would involve changing the vowels) one would have to interpret similarly by seeing the imperatives as a kind of hendiadys, with the main emphasis being on the second imperative, “make a pledge.”


This half-verse gives the reason for the next half-verse.


The object “them” is supplied. This is the simplest reading of the line, taking the verb is an active Polel. Some suggest that the subject is “their hand” and the verb is to be translated “is not raised.” This would carry through the thought of the last verse, but it is not necessary to the point.


Heb “for a portion.” This verse is rather obscure. The words are not that difficult, but the sense of them in this context is. Some take the idea to mean “he denounces his friends for a portion,” and others have a totally different idea of “he invites his friends to share with him.” The former fits the context better, indicating that Job’s friends speak out against him for some personal gain. The second half of the verse then promises that his children will suffer loss for this attempt at gain. The line is surely proverbial. A number of other interpretations can be found in the commentaries.


The verb is the third person, and so God is likely the subject. The LXX has “you have made me.” So most commentators clarify the verb in some such way. However, without an expressed subject it can also be taken as a passive.


The word “byword” is related to the word translated “proverb” in the Bible ( מָשָׁל , mashal ). Job’s case is so well known that he is synonymous with afflictions and with abuse by people.


The word תֹפֶת ( tofet ) is a hapax legomenon . The expression is “and a spitting in/to the face I have become,” i.e., “I have become one in whose face people spit.” Various suggestions have been made, including a link to Tophet, but they are weak. The verse as it exists in the MT is fine, and fits the context well.


See the usage of this verb in Gen 27:1 and Deut 34:7 . Usually it is age that causes the failing eyesight, but here it is the grief.


The word יְצֻרִים ( yÿtsurim ), here with a suffix, occurs only here in the Bible. The word is related to יָצַר ( yatsar , “to form, fashion”). And so Targum Job has “my forms,” and the Vulgate “my members.” The Syriac uses “thoughts” to reflect יֵצֶר ( yetser ). Some have followed this to interpret, “all my thoughts have dissolved into shadows.” But the parallel with “eye” would suggest “form.” The plural “my forms, all of them” would refer to the whole body.


This verb שָׁמַם ( shamam , “appalled”) is the one found in Isa 52:14 , translated there “astonished.”


The verb means “to rouse oneself to excitement.” It naturally means “to be agitated; to be stirred up.”


The last two words are the imperfect verb יֹסִיף ( yosif ) which means “he adds,” and the abstract noun “energy, strength.” This noun is not found elsewhere; its Piel verb occurs in Job 4:4 and 16:5 . “he increases strength.”


The form says “all of them.” Several editors would change it to “all of you,” but the lack of concord is not surprising; the vocative elsewhere uses the third person (see Mic 1:2 ; see also GKC 441 §135. r ).


The first verb, the jussive, means “to return”; the second verb, the imperative, means “to come.” The two could be taken as a hendiadys, the first verb becoming adverbial: “to come again.”


Instead of the exact correspondence between coordinate verbs, other combinations occur – here we have a jussive and an imperative (see GKC 386 §120. e ).


This term usually means “plans; devices” in a bad sense, although it can be used of God’s plans (see e.g., Zech 8:15 ).


Although not in the Hebrew text, “even” is supplied in the translation, because this line is in apposition to the preceding.


This word has been linked to the root יָרַשׁ ( yarash , “to inherit”) yielding a meaning “the possessions of my heart.” But it is actually to be connected to אָרַשׁ (’ arash , “to desire”) cognate to the Akkadian eresu , “desire.” The LXX has “limbs,” which may come from an Aramaic word for “ropes.” An emendation based on the LXX would be risky.


The verse simply has the plural, “they change.” But since this verse seems to be a description of his friends, a clarification of the referent in the translation is helpful.


The same verb שִׂים ( sim , “set”) is used this way in Isa 5:20 : “…who change darkness into light.”


The rest of the verse makes better sense if it is interpreted as what his friends say.


This expression is open to alternative translations: (1) It could mean that they say in the face of darkness, “Light is near.” (2) It could also mean “The light is near the darkness” or “The light is nearer than the darkness.”


The clause begins with אִם (’ im ) which here has more of the sense of “since.” E. Dhorme ( Job , 253) takes a rather rare use of the word to get “Can I hope again” (see also GKC 475 §150. f for the caveat).


This is understood because the conditional clauses seem to run to the apodosis in v. 15 .


The word שַׁחַת ( shakhat ) may be the word “corruption” from a root שָׁחַת ( shakhat , “to destroy”) or a word “pit” from שׁוּחַ ( shuakh , “to sink down”). The same problem surfaces in Ps 16:10 , where it is parallel to “Sheol.” E. F. Sutcliffe, The Old Testament and the Future Life , 76ff., defends the meaning “corruption.” But many commentators here take it to mean “the grave” in harmony with “Sheol.” But in this verse “worms” would suggest “corruption” is better.


The adverb אֵפוֹ (’ efo , “then”) plays an enclitic role here (see Job 4:7 ).


The repetition of “my hope” in the verse has thrown the versions off, and their translations have led commentators also to change the second one to something like “goodness,” on the assumption that a word cannot be repeated in the same verse. The word actually carries two different senses here. The first would be the basic meaning “hope,” but the second a metonymy of cause, namely, what hope produces, what will be seen.


The plural form of the verb probably refers to the two words, or the two senses of the word in the preceding verse. Hope and what it produces will perish with Job.


The Hebrew word בַּדִּים ( baddim ) describes the “bars” or “bolts” of Sheol, referring (by synecdoche) to the “gates of Sheol.” The LXX has “with me to Sheol,” and many adopt that as “by my side.”


The conjunction אִם (’ im ) confirms the interrogative interpretation.


The translation follows the LXX and the Syriac versions with the change of vocalization in the MT. The MT has the noun “rest,” yielding, “will our rest be together in the dust?” The verb נָחַת ( nakhat ) in Aramaic means “to go down; to descend.” If that is the preferred reading – and it almost is universally accepted here – then it would be spelled נֵחַת ( nekhat ). In either case the point of the verse is clearly describing death and going to the grave.


The verb is plural, and so most commentators make it singular. But it seems from the context that Bildad is addressing all of them, and not just Job.


The construction is קִנְצֵי לְמִלִּין ( qintse lÿmillin ), which is often taken to be “end of words,” as if the word was from קֵץ ( qets , “end”). But a plural of “end” is not found in the OT. Some will link the word to Arabic qanasa , “to hunt; to give chase,” to get an interpretation of “snares for words.” But E. Dhorme ( Job , 257) objects that this does not fit the speech of Bildad (as well as it might Job’s). He finds a cognate qinsu , “fetters, shackles,” and reads “how long will you put shackles on words.” But G. R. Driver had pointed out that this cognate does not exist (“Problems in the Hebrew text of Job,” VTSup 3 [1955]: 72-93). So it would be preferable to take the reading “ends” and explain the ן ( nun ) as from a Aramaizing by-form. This is supported by 11QtgJob that uses סוֹף ( sof , “end”). On the construction, GKC 421 §130. a explains this as a use of the construct in rapid narrative to connect the words; in such cases a preposition is on the following noun.


The imperfect verb, again plural, would be here taken in the nuance of instruction, or a modal nuance of obligation. So Bildad is telling his listeners to be intelligent. This would be rather cutting in the discourse.


Heb “afterward.”


The verb נִטְמִינוּ ( nitminu ) has been explained from different roots. Some take it from תָּמֵא ( tame ’, “to be unclean”), and translate it “Why should we be unclean in your eyes?” Most would connect it to טָמַם ( tamam , “to stop up”), meaning “to be stupid” in the Niphal . Another suggestion is to follow the LXX and read from דָּמַם ( damam , “to be reduced to silence”). Others take it from דָּמָּה ( damah ) with a meaning “to be like.” But what is missing is the term of comparison – like what? Various suggestions have been made, but all are simply conjectures.


The construction uses the participle and then 3rd person suffixes: “O tearer of himself in his anger.” But it is clearly referring to Job, and so the direct second person pronouns should be used to make that clear. The LXX is an approximation or paraphrase here: “Anger has possessed you, for what if you should die – would under heaven be desolate, or shall the mountains be overthrown from their foundations?”


There is a good deal of study on this word in this passage, and in Job in general. M. Dahood suggested a root עָזַב (’ azav ) meaning “to arrange; to rearrange” (“The Root ’zb II in Job,” JBL 78 [1959]: 303-9). But this is refuted by H. G. M. Williamson, “A Reconsideration of ’zb II in Biblical Hebrew,” ZAW 97 (1985): 74-85.


Hebrew גַּם ( gam , “also; moreover”), in view of what has just been said.


The expression is literally “the flame of his fire,” but the pronominal suffix qualifies the entire bound construction. The two words together intensify the idea of the flame.


The LXX interprets a little more precisely: “his lamp shall be put out with him.” sn This thesis of Bildad will be questioned by Job in 21:17 – how often is the lamp of the wicked snuffed out?


Heb “the steps of his vigor,” the genitive being the attribute.


The verb צָרַר ( tsarar ) means “to be cramped; to be straitened; to be hemmed in.” The trouble has hemmed him in, so that he cannot walk with the full, vigorous steps he had before. The LXX has “Let the meanest of men spoil his goods.”


The LXX has “causes him to stumble,” which many commentators accept; but this involves the transposition of the three letters. The verb is שָׁלַךְ ( shalakh , “throw”) not כָּשַׁל ( kashal , “stumble”).


See Ps 25:15 .


The word שְׂבָכָה ( sÿvakhah ) is used in scripture for the lattice window ( 2 Kgs 1:2 ). The Arabic cognate means “to be intertwined.” So the term could describe a net, matting, grating, or lattice. Here it would be the netting stretched over a pit.


This word פָּח ( pakh ) specifically refers to the snare of the fowler – thus a bird trap. But its plural seems to refer to nets in general (see Job 22:10 ).


This word does not occur elsewhere. But another word from the same root means “plait of hair,” and so this term has something to do with a net like a trellis or lattice.


Heb “his rope.” The suffix must be a genitive expressing that the trap was for him, to trap him, and so an objective genitive.


Heb “his trap.” The pronominal suffix is objective genitive here as well.


The verb פּוּץ ( puts ) in the Hiphil has the meaning “to pursue” and “to scatter.” It is followed by the expression “at his feet.” So the idea is easily derived: they chase him at his feet. But some commentators have other proposals. The most far-fetched is that of Ehrlich and Driver ( ZAW 24 [1953]: 259-60) which has “and compel him to urinate on his feet,” one of many similar readings the NEB accepted from Driver.


The jussive is occasionally used without its normal sense and only as an imperfect (see GKC 323 §109. k ).


There are a number of suggestions for אֹנוֹ (’ ono ). Some take it as “vigor”: thus “his strength is hungry.” Others take it as “iniquity”: thus “his iniquity/trouble is hungry.”


The expression means that misfortune is right there to destroy him whenever there is the opportunity.


The expression “the limbs of his skin” makes no sense, unless a poetic meaning of “parts” (or perhaps “layers”) is taken. The parallelism has “his skin” in the first colon, and “his limbs” in the second. One plausible suggestion is to take בַּדֵּי ( badde , “limbs of”) in the first part to be בִּדְוָי ( bidvay , “by a disease”; Dhorme, Wright, RSV). The verb has to be made passive, however. The versions have different things: The LXX has “let the branches of his feet be eaten”; the Syriac has “his cities will be swallowed up by force”; the Vulgate reads “let it devour the beauty of his skin”; and Targum Job has “it will devour the linen garments that cover his skin.”


The “firstborn of death” is the strongest child of death ( Gen 49:3 ), or the deadliest death (like the “firstborn of the poor, the poorest). The phrase means the most terrible death (A. B. Davidson, Job , 134).


Heb “from his tent, his security.” The apposition serves to modify the tent as his security.


The verb is the Hiphil of צָעַד ( tsa ’ ad , “to lead away”). The problem is that the form is either a third feminine (Rashi thought it was referring to Job’s wife) or the second person. There is a good deal of debate over the possibility of the prefix t- being a variant for the third masculine form. The evidence in Ugaritic and Akkadian is mixed, stronger for the plural than the singular. Gesenius has some samples where the third feminine form might also be used for the passive if there is no expressed subject (see GKC 459 §144. b ), but the evidence is not strong. The simplest choices are to change the prefix to a י ( yod ), or argue that the ת ( tav ) can be masculine, or follow Gesenius.


This line is difficult as well. The verb, again a third feminine form, says “it dwells in his tent.” But the next part ( מִבְּלִי לוֹ , mibbÿli lo ) means something like “things of what are not his.” The best that can be made of the MT is “There shall live in his tent they that are not his” (referring to persons and animals; see J. E. Hartley, Job [NICOT], 279). G. R. Driver and G. B. Gray ( Job [ICC], 2:161) refer “that which is naught of his” to weeds and wild animals. M. Dahood suggested a reading מַבֶּל ( mabbel ) and a connection to Akkadian nablu , “fire” (cf. Ugaritic nbl ). The interchange of m and n is not a problem, and the parallelism with the next line makes good sense (“Some Northwest Semitic words in Job,” Bib 38 [1957]: 312ff.). Others suggest an emendation to get “night-hag” or vampire. This suggestion, as well as Driver’s “mixed herbs,” are linked to the idea of exorcism. But if a change is to be made, Dahood’s is the most compelling.


Heb “outside.” Cf. ESV, “in the street,” referring to absence from his community’s memory.


The verbs in this verse are plural; without the expressed subject they should be taken in the passive sense.


The two words נִין ( nin , “offspring”) and נֶכֶד ( nekhed , “posterity”) are always together and form an alliteration. This is hard to capture in English, but some have tried: Moffatt had “son and scion,” and Tur-Sinai had “breed or brood.” But the words are best simply translated as “lineage and posterity” or as in the NIV “offspring or descendants.”


Heb “in his sojournings.” The verb גּוּר ( gur ) means “to reside; to sojourn” temporarily, without land rights. Even this word has been selected to stress the temporary nature of his stay on earth.


The word אַחֲרֹנִים (’ akharonim ) means “those [men] coming after.” And the next word, קַדְמֹנִים ( qadmonim ), means “those [men] coming before.” Some commentators have tried to see here references to people who lived before and people who lived after, but that does not explain their being appalled at the fate of the wicked. So the normal way this is taken is in connection to the geography, notably the seas – “the hinder sea” refers to the Mediterranean, the West, and “the front sea” refers to the Dead Sea ( Zech 14:8 ), namely, the East. The versions understood this as temporal: “the last groaned for him, and wonder seized the first” (LXX).


Heb “his day.”


The expression has “they seize horror.” The RSV renders this “horror seizes them.” The same idiom is found in Job 21:6 : “laid hold on shuddering.” The idiom would solve the grammatical problem, and not change the meaning greatly; but it would change the parallelism.


The word “saying” is supplied in the translation to mark and introduce the following as a quotation of these people who are seized with horror. The alternative is to take v. 21 as Bildad’s own summary statement (cf. G. R. Driver and G. B. Gray, Job [ICC], 2:162; J. E. Hartley, Job [NICOT], 280).


The term is in the plural, “the tabernacles”; it should be taken as a plural of local extension (see GKC 397 §124. b ).


The word “place” is in construct; the clause following it replaces the genitive: “this is the place of – he has not known God.”


Heb “torment my soul,” with “soul” representing the self or individual. The MT has a verb from יָגָה ( yagah , “to afflict; to torment”). This is supported by the versions. But the LXX has “to tire” which is apparently from יָגַע ( yaga ’). The form in the MT is unusual because it preserves the final (original) yod in the Hiphil (see GKC 214 §75. gg ). So this unusual form has been preserved, and is the correct reading. A modal nuance for the imperfect fits best here: “How long do you intend to do this?”


The MT has דָּכָא ( dakha ’), “to crush” in the Piel. The LXX, however, has a more general word which means “to destroy.”


The LXX adds to the verse: “only know that the Lord has dealt with me thus.”


The Hiphil of the verb כָּלַם ( kalam ) means “outrage; insult; shame.” The verbs in this verse are prefixed conjugations, and may be interpreted as preterites if the reference is to the past time. But since the action is still going on, progressive imperfects work well.


The second half of the verse uses two verbs, the one dependent on the other. It could be translated “you are not ashamed to attack me” (see GKC 385-86 §120. c ), or “you attack me shamelessly.” The verb חָכַר ( hakhar ) poses some difficulties for both the ancient versions and the modern commentators. The verb seems to be cognate to Arabic hakara, “to oppress; to ill-treat.” This would mean that there has been a transformation of ח ( khet ) to ה ( he ). Three Hebrew mss actually have the ח ( khet ). This has been widely accepted; other suggestions are irrelevant.


Job has held to his innocence, so the only way that he could say “I have erred” ( שָׁגִיתִי , shagiti ) is in a hypothetical clause like this.


There is a long addition in the LXX: “in having spoken words which it is not right to speak, and my words err, and are unreasonable.”


The word מְשׁוּגָה ( mÿshugah ) is a hapax legomenon . It is derived from שׁוּג ( shug , “to wander; to err”) with root paralleling שָׁגַג ( shagag ) and שָׁגָה ( shagah ). What Job is saying is that even if it were true that he had erred, it did not injure them – it was solely his concern.


The introductory particles repeat אָמְנָם (’ amnam , “indeed”) but now with אִם (’ im , “if”). It could be interpreted to mean “is it not true,” or as here in another conditional clause.


The verb is the Hiphil of גָּדַל ( gadal ); it can mean “to make great” or as an internal causative “to make oneself great” or “to assume a lofty attitude, to be insolent.” There is no reason to assume another root here with the meaning of “quarrel” (as Gordis does).


The imperative is used here to introduce a solemn affirmation. This verse proves that Job was in no way acknowledging sin in v. 4 . Here Job is declaring that God has wronged him, and in so doing, perverted justice.


The Piel of עָוַת (’ avat ) means “to warp justice” (see 8:3 ), or here, to do wrong to someone (see Ps 119:78 ). The statement is chosen to refute the question that Bildad asked in his first speech.


The verb נָקַף ( naqaf ) means “to turn; to make a circle; to encircle.” It means that God has encircled or engulfed Job with his net.


The word מְצוּדוֹ ( mÿtsudo ) is usually connected with צוּד ( tsud , “to hunt”), and so is taken to mean “a net.” Gordis and Habel, however, interpret it to mean “siegeworks” thrown up around a city – but that would require changing the ד ( dalet ) to a ר ( resh ) (cf. NLT, “I am like a city under siege”). The LXX, though, has “bulwark.” Besides, the previous speech used several words for “net.”


The particle is used here as in 9:11 (see GKC 497 §159. w ).


The LXX has “I laugh at reproach.”


The same idea is expressed in Jer 20:8 and Hab 1:2 . The cry is a cry for help, that he has been wronged, that there is no justice.


The Niphal is simply “I am not answered.” See Prov 21:13 b.


The verb גָּדַר ( gadar ) means “to wall up; to fence up; to block.” God has blocked Job’s way so that he cannot get through. See the note on 3:23 . Cf. Lam 3:7 .


Some commentators take the word to be חָשַׁךְ ( hasak ), related to an Arabic word for “thorn hedge.”


The metaphors are changed now to a demolished building and an uprooted tree. The verb is נָתַץ ( natats , “to demolish”). Since it is Job himself who is the object, the meaning cannot be “demolish” (as of a house so that an inhabitant has to leave), but more of the attack or the battering.


The text has הָלַךְ ( halakh , “to leave”). But in view of Job 14:20 , “perish” or “depart” would be a better meaning here.


The verb נָסַע ( nasa ’) means “to travel” generally, but specifically it means “to pull up the tent pegs and move.” The Hiphil here means “uproot.” It is used of a vine in Ps 80:9 . The idea here does not contradict Job 14:7 , for there the tree still had roots and so could grow.


The NEB has “my tent rope,” but that seems too contrived here. It is absurd to pull up a tent-rope like a tree.


Heb “like a tree.” The words “one uproots” are supplied in the translation for clarity.


The verb is a nonpreterite vayyiqtol perhaps employed to indicate that the contents of v. 11 are a logical sequence to the actions described in v. 10 .


This second half of the verse is a little difficult. The Hebrew has “and he reckons me for him like his adversaries.” Most would change the last word to a singular in harmony with the versions, “as his adversary.” But some retain the MT pointing and try to explain it variously: Weiser suggests that the plural might have come from a cultic recitation of Yahweh’s deeds against his enemies; Fohrer thinks it refers to the primeval enemies; Gordis takes it as distributive, “as one of his foes.” If the plural is retained, this latter view makes the most sense.


Heb “they throw up their way against me.” The verb סָלַל ( salal ) means “to build a siege ramp” or “to throw up a ramp”; here the object is “their way.” The latter could be taken as an adverbial accusative, “as their way.” But as the object it fits just as well. Some delete the middle clause; the LXX has “Together his troops fell upon me, they beset my ways with an ambush.”


Heb “brothers.”


The LXX apparently took אַךְ־זָרוּ (’ akh , “even, only,” and zaru , “they turn away”) together as if it was the verb אַכְזָרוּ (’ akhzaru , “they have become cruel,” as in 20:21 ). But the grammar in the line would be difficult with this. Moreover, the word is most likely from זוּר ( zur , “to turn away”). See L. A. Snijders, “The Meaning of zar in the Old Testament,” OTS 10 (1964): 1-154 (especially p. 9).


The Pual participle is used for those “known” to him, or with whom he is “familiar,” whereas קָרוֹב ( qarov , “near”) is used for a relative.


Many commentators add the first part of v. 15 to this verse, because it is too loaded and this is too short. That gives the reading “My kinsmen and my familiar friends have disappeared, they have forgotten me (15) the guests I entertained.” There is not much support for this, nor is there much reason for it.


The Hebrew גָּרֵי בֵיתִי ( gare beti , “the guests of my house”) refers to those who sojourned in my house – not residents, but guests.


The form of the verb is a feminine plural, which would seem to lend support to the proposed change of the lines (see last note to v. 14 ). But the form may be feminine primarily because of the immediate reference. On the other side, the suffix of “their eyes” is a masculine plural. So the evidence lies on both sides.


This word נָכְרִי ( nokhri ) is the person from another race, from a strange land, the foreigner. The previous word, גֵּר ( ger ), is a more general word for someone who is staying in the land but is not a citizen, a sojourner.


The verb קָרָא ( qara ’) followed by the ל ( lamed ) preposition means “to summon.” Contrast Ps 123:2 .


Heb “plead for grace” or “plead for mercy” (ESV).


The Hebrew appears to have “my breath is strange to my wife.” This would be the meaning if the verb was from זוּר ( zur , “to turn aside; to be a stranger”). But it should be connected to זִיר ( zir ), cognate to Assyrian zaru , “to feel repugnance toward.” Here it is used in the intransitive sense, “to be repulsive.” L. A. Snijders, following Driver, doubts the existence of this second root, and retains “strange” (“The Meaning of zar in the Old Testament,” OTS 10 [1964]: 1-154).


The normal meaning here would be based on the root חָנַן ( khanan , “to be gracious”). And so we have versions reading “although I entreated” or “my supplication.” But it seems more likely it is to be connected to another root meaning “to be offensive; to be loathsome.” For the discussion of the connection to the Arabic, see E. Dhorme, Job , 278.


The text has “the sons of my belly [= body].” This would normally mean “my sons.” But they are all dead. And there is no suggestion that Job had other sons. The word “my belly” will have to be understood as “my womb,” i.e., the womb I came from. Instead of “brothers,” the sense could be “siblings” (both brothers and sisters; G. R. Driver and G. B. Gray, Job [ICC], 2:168).


The verb דִּבֵּר ( dibber ) followed by the preposition בּ ( bet ) indicates speaking against someone, namely, scoffing or railing against someone (see Ps 50:20; 78:19 ). Some commentators find another root with the meaning “to turn one’s back on; to turn aside from.” The argument is rendered weak philologically because it requires a definition “from” for the preposition bet . See among others I. Eitan, “Studies in Hebrew Roots,” JQR 14 (1923-24): 31-52 [especially 38-41].


Heb “men of my confidence,” or “men of my council,” i.e., intimate friends, confidants.


The pronoun זֶה ( zeh ) functions here in the place of a nominative (see GKC 447 §138. h ).


T. Penar translates this “turn away from me” (“ Job 19,19 in the Light of Ben Sira 6,11,” Bib 48 [1967]: 293-95).


The meaning would be “I am nothing but skin and bones” in current English idiom. Both lines of this verse need attention. The first half seems to say, “My skin and my flesh sticks to my bones.” Some think that this is too long, and that the bones can stick to the skin, or the flesh, but not both. Dhorme proposes “in my skin my flesh has rotted away” ( רָקַב , raqav ). This involves several changes in the line, however. He then changes the second line to read “and I have gnawed my bone with my teeth” (transferring “bone” from the first half and omitting “skin”). There are numerous other renderings of this; some of the more notable are: “I escape, my bones in my teeth” (Merx); “my teeth fall out” (Duhm); “my teeth fall from my gums” (Pope); “my bones protrude in sharp points” (Kissane). A. B. Davidson retains “the skin of my teeth,” meaning “gums. This is about the last thing that Job has, or he would not be able to speak. For a detailed study of this verse, D. J. A. Clines devotes two full pages of textual notes ( Job [WBC], 430-31). He concludes with “My bones hang from my skin and my flesh, I am left with only the skin of my teeth.”


Or “I am left.”


The word “alive” is not in the Hebrew text, but is supplied in the translation for clarity.


The optative is again expressed with the interrogative clause “Who will give that they be written?” Job wishes that his words be preserved long after his death.