While the sense of this line is clear, there is a small problem and a plausible solution. The last word is indeed סֶפֶר ( sefer , “book”), usually understood here to mean “scroll.” But the verb that follows it in the verse is יֻחָקוּ ( yukhaqu ), from חָקַק ( khaqaq , “to engrave; to carve”). While the meaning is clearly that Job wants his words to be retained, the idea of engraving in a book, although not impossible, is unusual. And so many have suggested that the Akkadian word siparru , “copper; brass,” is what is meant here (see Isa 30:8 ; Judg 5:14 ). The consonants are the same, and the vowel pattern is close to the original vowel pattern of this segholate noun. Writing on copper or bronze sheets has been attested from the 12th to the 2nd centuries, notably in the copper scroll, which would allow the translation “scroll” in our text (for more bibliography see D. J. A. Clines, Job [WBC], 432). But H. S. Gehman notes that in Phoenician our word can mean “inscription” (“ SEÝFER , an inscription, in the book of Job,” JBL 63 [1944]: 303-7), making the proposed substitution unnecessary.


Or “my Vindicator.” The word is the active participle from גָּאַל ( ga ’ al , “to redeem, protect, vindicate”). The word is well-known in the OT because of its identification as the kinsman-redeemer (see the Book of Ruth). This is the near kinsman who will pay off one’s debts, defend the family, avenge a killing, marry the widow of the deceased. The word “redeemer” evokes the wrong connotation for people familiar with the NT alone; a translation of “Vindicator” would capture the idea more. The concept might include the description of the mediator already introduced in Job 16:19 , but surely here Job is thinking of God as his vindicator. The interesting point to be stressed here is that Job has said clearly that he sees no vindication in this life, that he is going to die. But he knows he will be vindicated, and even though he will die, his vindicator lives. The dilemma remains though: his distress lay in God’s hiding his face from him, and his vindication lay only in beholding God in peace.


The word אַחֲרוּן (’ akharon , “last”) has triggered a good number of interpretations. Here it is an adjectival form and not adverbial; it is an epithet of the vindicator. Some commentators, followed by the RSV, change the form to make it adverbial, and translate it “at last.” T. H. Gaster translates it “even if he were the last person to exist” (“Short notes,” VT 4 [1954]: 78).


The Hebrew has “and he will rise/stand upon [the] dust.” The verb קוּם ( qum ) is properly “to rise; to arise,” and certainly also can mean “to stand.” Both English ideas are found in the verb. The concept here is that of God rising up to mete out justice. And so to avoid confusion with the idea of resurrection (which although implicit in these words which are pregnant with theological ideas yet to be revealed, is not explicitly stated or intended in this context) the translation “stand” has been used. The Vulgate had “I will rise,” which introduced the idea of Job’s resurrection. The word “dust” is used as in 41:33 . The word “dust” is associated with death and the grave, the very earthly particles. Job assumes that God will descend from heaven to bring justice to the world. The use of the word also hints that this will take place after Job has died and returned to dust. Again, the words of Job come to mean far more than he probably understood.


This verse on the whole has some serious interpretation problems that have allowed commentators to go in several directions. The verbal clause is “they strike off this,” which is then to be taken as a passive in view of the fact that there is no expressed subject. Some have thought that Job was referring to this life, and that after his disease had done its worst he would see his vindication (see T. J. Meek, “ Job 19:25-27 ,” VT 6 [1956]: 100-103; E. F. Sutcliffe, “Further notes on Job, textual and exegetical,” Bib 31 [1950]: 377; and others). But Job has been clear – he does not expect to live and see his vindication in this life. There are a host of other interpretations that differ greatly from the sense expressed in the MT. Duhm, for example, has “and another shall arise as my witness.” E. Dhorme ( Job , 284-85) argues that the vindication comes after death; he emends the verb to get a translation: “and that, behind my skin, I shall stand up.” He explains this to mean that it will be Job in person who will be present at the ultimate drama. But the interpretation is forced, and really unnecessary.


The Hebrew phrase is “and from my flesh.” This could mean “without my flesh,” i.e., separated from my flesh, or “from my flesh,” i.e., in or with my flesh. The former view is taken by those who think Job’s vindication will come in this life, and who find the idea of a resurrection unlikely to be in Job’s mind. The latter view is taken by those who interpret the preceding line as meaning death and the next verse underscoring that it will be his eye that will see. This would indicate that Job’s faith rises to an unparalleled level at this point.


H. H. Rowley ( Job [NCBC], 140) says, “The text of this verse is so difficult, and any convincing reconstruction is so unlikely, that it seems best not to attempt it.” His words have gone unheeded, even by himself, and rightly so. There seem to be two general interpretations, the details of some words notwithstanding. An honest assessment of the evidence would have to provide both interpretations, albeit still arguing for one. Here Job says he will see God. This at the least means that he will witness his vindication, which it seems clear from the other complaints of Job will occur after his death (it is his blood that must be vindicated). But in what way, exactly, Job will see God is not clarified. In this verse the verb that is used is often used of prophetic visions; but in the next verse the plain word for seeing – with his eye – is used. The fulfillment will be more precise than Job may have understood. Rowley does conclude: “Though there is no full grasping of a belief in a worthwhile Afterlife with God, this passage is a notable landmark in the program toward such a belief.” The difficulty is that Job expects to die – he would like to be vindicated in this life, but is resolved that he will die. (1) Some commentators think that vv. 25 and 26 follow the wish for vindication now; (2) others (traditionally) see it as in the next life. Some of the other interpretations that take a different line are less impressive, such as Kissane’s, “did I but see God…were I to behold God”; or L. Waterman’s translation in the English present, making it a mystic vision in which Job already sees that God is his vindicator (“Note on Job 19:23-27 : Job’s Triumph of Faith,” JBL 69 [1950]: 379-80).


The emphasis is on “I” and “for myself.” No other will be seeing this vindication, but Job himself will see it. Of that he is confident. Some take לִי ( li , “for myself”) to mean favorable to me, or on my side (see A. B. Davidson, Job , 143). But Job is expecting (not just wishing for) a face-to-face encounter in the vindication.


Hitzig offered another interpretation that is somewhat forced. The “other” ( זָר , zar ) or “stranger” would refer to Job. He would see God, not as an enemy, but in peace.


Heb “kidneys,” a poetic expression for the seat of emotions.


Heb “fail/grow faint in my breast.” Job is saying that he has expended all his energy with his longing for vindication.


The MT reads “in me.” If that is retained, then the question would be in the first colon, and the reasoning of the second colon would be Job’s. But over 100 mss have “in him,” and so this reading is accepted by most editors. The verse is a little difficult, but it seems to form a warning by Job that God’s appearance which will vindicate Job will bring judgment on those who persecute him and charge him falsely.


The word “wrath” probably refers to divine wrath for the wicked. Many commentators change this word to read “they,” or more precisely, “these things.”


The word is “iniquities”; but here as elsewhere it should receive the classification of the punishment for iniquity (a category of meaning that developed from a metonymy of effect).


The last word is problematic because of the textual variants in the Hebrew. In place of שַׁדִּין ( shaddin , “judgment”) some have proposed שַׁדַּי ( shadday , “Almighty”) and read it “that you may know the Almighty” (Ewald, Wright). Some have read it יֵשׁ דַּיָּן ( yesh dayyan , “there is a judge,” Gray, Fohrer). Others defend the traditional view, arguing that the שׁ ( shin ) is the abbreviated relative particle on the word דִּין ( din , “judgment”).


The ordinary meaning of לָכֵן ( lakhen ) is “therefore,” coming after an argument. But at the beginning of a speech it is an allusion to what follows.


The verb is שׁוּב ( shuv , “to return”), but in the Hiphil , “bring me back,” i.e., prompt me to make another speech. The text makes good sense as it is, and there is no reason to change the reading to make a closer parallel with the second half – indeed, the second part explains the first.


The word is normally taken from the root “to hasten,” and rendered “because of my haste within me.” But K&D 11:374 proposed another root, and similarly, but closer to the text, E. Dhorme ( Job , 289-90) found an Arabic word with the meaning “feeling, sensation.” He argues that from this idea developed the meanings in the cognates of “thoughts” as well. Similarly, Gordis translates it “my feeling pain.” See also Eccl 2:25 .


There is no indication that this clause is to be subordinated to the next, other than the logical connection, and the use of the ו ( vav ) in the second half.


See Job 19:3 .


The phrase actually has רוּחַ מִבִּינָתִי ( ruakh mibbinati , “a spirit/wind/breath/impulse from my understanding”). Some translate it “out of my understanding a spirit answers me.” The idea is not that difficult, and so the many proposals to rewrite the text can be rejected. The spirit of his understanding prompts the reply.


To take this verb as a simple Qal and read it “answers me,” does not provide a clear idea. The form can just as easily be taken as a Hiphil, with the sense “causes me to answer.” It is Zophar who will “return” and who will “answer.”


The MT has “Do you not know?” The question can be interpreted as a rhetorical question affirming that Job must know this. The question serves to express the conviction that the contents are well-known to the audience (see GKC 474 §150. e ).


Heb “from the putting of man on earth.” The infinitive is the object of the preposition, which is here temporal. If “man” is taken as the subjective genitive, then the verb would be given a passive translation. Here “man” is a generic, referring to “mankind” or “the human race.”


The expression in the text is “quite near.” This indicates that it is easily attained, and that its end is near.


For the discussion of חָנֵף ( khanef , “godless”) see Job 8:13 .


The phrase is “until a moment,” meaning it is short-lived. But see J. Barr, “Hebrew ’ad , especially at Job 1:18 and Neh 7:3 ,” JSS 27 (1982): 177-88.


The word שִׂיא ( si ’) has been connected with the verb נָשָׂא ( nasa ’, “to lift up”), and so interpreted here as “pride.” The form is parallel to “head” in the next part, and so here it refers to his stature, the part that rises up and is crowned. But the verse does describe the pride of such a person, with his head in the heavens.


There have been attempts to change the word here to “like a whirlwind,” or something similar. But many argue that there is no reason to remove a coarse expression from Zophar.


Heb “and they do not find him.” The verb has no expressed subject, and so here is equivalent to a passive. The clause itself is taken adverbially in the sentence.


Heb “the eye that had seen him.” Here a part of the person (the eye, the instrument of vision) is put by metonymy for the entire person.


The early versions confused the root of this verb, taking it from רָצַץ ( ratsats , “mistreat”) and not from רָצָה ( ratsah , “be please with”). So it was taken to mean, “Let inferiors destroy his children.” But the verb is רָצָה ( ratsah ). This has been taken to mean “his sons will seek the favor of the poor.” This would mean that they would be reduced to poverty and need help from even the poor. Some commentators see this as another root רָצָה ( ratsah ) meaning “to compensate; to restore” wealth their father had gained by impoverishing others. This fits the parallelism well, but not the whole context that well.


Some commentators are surprised to see “his hands” here, thinking the passage talks about his death. Budde changed it to “his children,” by altering one letter. R. Gordis argued that “hand” can mean offspring, and so translated it that way without changing anything in the text (“A note on YAD,” JBL 62 [1943]: 343).


“Bones” is often used metonymically for the whole person, the bones being the framework, meaning everything inside, as well as the body itself.


The conjunction אִם (’ im ) introduces clauses that are conditional or concessive. With the imperfect verb in the protasis it indicates what is possible in the present or future. See GKC 496 §159. q ).


Heb “in the middle of his palate.”


The perfect verb in the apodosis might express the suddenness of the change (see S. R. Driver, Tenses in Hebrew , 204), or it might be a constative perfect looking at the action as a whole without reference to inception, progress, or completion (see IBHS 480-81 §30.1d). The Niphal perfect simply means “is turned” or “turns”; “sour is supplied in the translation to clarify what is meant.


The word is “in his loins” or “within him.” Some translate more specifically “bowels.”


Heb “swallowed.”


The choice of words is excellent. The verb יָרַשׁ ( yarash ) means either “to inherit” or “to disinherit; to dispossess.” The context makes the figure clear that God is administering the emetic to make the wicked throw up the wealth (thus, “God will make him throw it out…”); but since wealth is the subject there is a disinheritance meant here.


The word is a homonym for the word for “head,” which has led to some confusion in the early versions.


Heb “tongue.”


Some have thought this verse is a gloss on v. 14 and should be deleted. But the word for “viper” ( אֶפְעֶה , ’ ef ’ eh ) is a rare word, occurring only here and in Isa 30:6 and 59:5 . It is unlikely that a rarer word would be used in a gloss. But the point is similar to v. 14 – the wealth that was greedily sucked in by the wicked proves to be their undoing. Either this is totally irrelevant to Job’s case, a general discussion, or the man is raising questions about how Job got his wealth.


The word פְּלַגּוֹת ( pÿlaggot ) simply means “streams” or “channels.” Because the word is used elsewhere for “streams of oil” (cf. 29:6 ), and that makes a good parallelism here, some supply “oil” (cf. NAB, NLT). But the second colon of the verse is probably in apposition to the first. The verb “see” followed by the preposition bet , “to look on; to look over,” means “to enjoy as a possession,” an activity of the victor.


The construct nouns here have caused a certain amount of revision. It says “rivers of, torrents of.” The first has been emended by Klostermann to יִצְהָר ( yitshar , “oil”) and connected to the first colon. Older editors argued for a נָהָר ( nahar ) that meant “oil” but that was not convincing. On the other hand, there is support for having more than one construct together serving as apposition (see GKC 422 §130. e ). If the word “streams” in the last colon is a construct, that would mean three of them; but that one need not be construct. The reading would be “He will not see the streams, [that is] the rivers [which are] the torrents of honey and butter.” It is unusual, but workable.


The idea is the fruit of his evil work. The word יָגָע ( yaga ’) occurs only here; it must mean ill-gotten gains. The verb is in 10:3 .


Heb “and he does not swallow.” In the context this means “consume” for his own pleasure and prosperity. The verbal clause is here taken adverbially.


The verb indicates that after he oppressed the poor he abandoned them to their fate. But there have been several attempts to improve on the text. Several have repointed the text to get a word parallel to “house.” Ehrlich came up with עֹזֵב (’ ozev , “mud hut”), Kissane had “hovel” (similar to Neh 3:8 ). M. Dahood did the same (“The Root ’zb II in Job,” JBL 78 [1959]: 306-7). J. Reider came up with עֶזֶב (’ ezev , the “leavings”), what the rich were to leave for the poor (“Contributions to the Scriptural text,” HUCA 24 [1952/53]: 103-6). But an additional root עָזַב (’ azav ) is questionable. And while the text as it stands is general and not very striking, there is absolutely nothing wrong with it. Dhorme reverses the letters to gain בְּעֹז ( bÿ ’ oz , “with force [or violence]”).


The last clause says, “and he did not build it.” This can be understood in an adverbial sense, supplying the relative pronoun to the translation.


Heb “belly,” which represents his cravings, his desires and appetites. The “satisfaction” is actually the word for “quiet; peace; calmness; ease.” He was driven by greedy desires, or he felt and displayed an insatiable greed.


The verb is the passive participle of the verb חָמַד ( khamad ) which is one of the words for “covet; desire.” This person is controlled by his desires; there is no escape. He is a slave.


The verb is difficult to translate in this line. It basically means “to cause to escape; to rescue.” Some translate this verb as “it is impossible to escape”; this may work, but is uncertain. Others translate the verb in the sense of saving something else: N. Sarna says, “Of his most cherished possessions he shall save nothing” (“The Interchange of the Preposition bet and min in Biblical Hebrew,” JBL 78 [1959]: 315-16). The RSV has “he will save nothing in which he delights”; NIV has “he cannot save himself by his treasure.”


Heb “for his eating,” which is frequently rendered “for his gluttony.” It refers, of course, to all the desires he has to take things from other people.


The word שָׂפַק ( safaq ) occurs only here; it means “sufficiency; wealth; abundance (see D. W. Thomas, “The Text of Jesaia 2:6 and the Word sapaq, ” ZAW 75 [1963]: 88-90).


Heb “there is straightness for him.” The root צָרַר ( tsarar ) means “to be narrowed in straits, to be in a bind.” The word here would have the idea of pressure, stress, trouble. One could say he is in a bind.


Heb “every hand of trouble comes to him.” The pointing of עָמֵל (’ amel ) indicates it would refer to one who brings trouble; LXX and Latin read an abstract noun עָמָל (’ amal , “trouble”) here.


D. J. A. Clines observes that to do justice to the three jussives in the verse, one would have to translate “May it be, to fill his belly to the full, that God should send…and rain” ( Job [WBC], 477). The jussive form of the verb at the beginning of the verse could also simply introduce a protasis of a conditional clause (see GKC 323 §109. h , i ). This would mean, “if he [God] is about to fill his [the wicked’s] belly to the full, he will send….” The NIV reads “when he has filled his belly.” These fit better, because the context is talking about the wicked in his evil pursuit being cut down.


“God” is understood as the subject of the judgment.


Heb “the anger of his wrath.”


Heb “rain down upon him, on his flesh.” Dhorme changes עָלֵימוֹ (’ alemo , “upon him”) to “his arrows”; he translates the line as “he rains his arrows upon his flesh.” The word בִּלְחוּמוֹ ( bilkhumo ,“his flesh”) has been given a wide variety of translations: “as his food,” “on his flesh,” “upon him, his anger,” or “missiles or weapons of war.”


Heb “a bronze bow pierces him.” The words “an arrow from” are implied and are supplied in the translation; cf. “pulls it out” in the following verse.


The MT has “he draws out [or as a passive, “it is drawn out/forth”] and comes [or goes] out of his back.” For the first verb שָׁלַף ( shalaf , “pull, draw”), many commentators follow the LXX and use שֶׁלַח ( shelakh , “a spear”). It then reads “and a shaft comes out of his back,” a sword flash comes out of his liver.” But the verse could also be a continuation of the preceding.


Possibly a reference to lightnings.


Heb “all darkness is hidden for his laid up things.” “All darkness” refers to the misfortunes and afflictions that await. The verb “hidden” means “is destined for.”


Heb “not blown upon,” i.e., not kindled by man. But G. R. Driver reads “unquenched” (“Hebrew notes on the ‘Wisdom of Jesus Ben Sirach’,” JBL 53 [1934]: 289).


For the word אִמְרוֹ (’ imro ) some propose reading “his appointment,” and the others, “his word.” Driver shows that “the heritage of his appointment” means “his appointed heritage” (see GKC 440 §135. n ).


The intensity of the appeal is again expressed by the imperative followed by the infinitive absolute for emphasis. See note on “listen carefully” in 13:17 .


The LXX negates the sentence, “that I may not have this consolation from you.”


The word תַּנְחוּמֹתֵיכֶם ( tankhumotekhem ) is literally “your consolations,” the suffix being a subjective genitive. The friends had thought they were offering Job consolation ( Job 14:11 ), but the consolation he wants from them is that they listen to him and respond accordingly.


The verb נָשָׂא ( nasa ’) means “to lift up; to raise up”; but in this context it means “to endure; to tolerate” (see Job 7:21 ).


The conjunction and the independent personal pronoun draw emphatic attention to the subject of the verb: “and I on my part will speak.”


The adverbial clauses are constructed of the preposition “after” and the Piel infinitive construct with the subjective genitive suffix: “my speaking,” or “I speak.”


The verb is the imperfect of לָעַג ( la ’ ag ). The Hiphil has the same basic sense as the Qal, “to mock; to deride.” The imperfect here would be modal, expressing permission. The verb is in the singular, suggesting that Job is addressing Zophar; however, most of the versions put it into the plural. Note the singular in 16:3 between the plural in 16:1 and 16:4 .


The addition of the independent pronoun at the beginning of the sentence (“Is it I / against a man / my complaint”) strengthens the pronominal suffix on “complaint” (see GKC 438 §135. f ).


On disjunctive interrogatives, see GKC 475 §150. g .


Heb “why should my spirit/breath not be short” (see Num 21:4 ; Judg 16:16 ).


The verb פְּנוּ ( pÿnu ) is from the verb “to turn,” related to the word for “face.” In calling for them to turn toward him, he is calling for them to look at him. But here it may be more in the sense of their attention rather than just a looking at him.


The idiom is “put a hand over a mouth,” the natural gesture for keeping silent and listening (cf. Job 29:9; 40:4 ; Mic 7:16 ).


The verb is זָכַר ( zakhar , “to remember”). Here it has the sense of “to keep in memory; to meditate; to think upon.”


The main clause is introduced here by the conjunction, following the adverbial clause of time.


Some commentators take “shudder” to be the subject of the verb, “a shudder seizes my body.” But the word is feminine (and see the usage, especially in Job 9:6 and 18:20 ). It is the subject in Isa 21:4 ; Ps 55:6 ; and Ezek 7:18 .


The verb עָתַק (’ ataq ) means “to move; to proceed; to advance.” Here it is “to advance in years” or “to grow old.” This clause could serve as an independent clause, a separate sentence; but it more likely continues the question of the first colon and is parallel to the verb “live.”


Heb “their seed.”


The text uses לִפְנֵיהֶם עִמָּם ( lifnehem ’ immam , “before them, with them”). Many editors think that these were alternative readings, and so omit one or the other. Dhorme moved עִמָּם (’ immam) to the second half of the verse and emended it to read עֹמְדִים (’ omÿdim , “abide”). Kissane and Gordis changed only the vowels and came up with עַמָּם (’ ammam , “their kinfolk”). But Gordis thinks the presence of both of them in the line is evidence of a conflated reading (p. 229).


The word שָׁלוֹם ( shalom , “peace, safety”) is here a substantive after a plural subject (see GKC 452 §141. c , n. 3).


The form מִפָּחַד ( mippakhad ) is translated “without fear,” literally “from fear”; the preposition is similar to the alpha privative in Greek. The word “fear, dread” means nothing that causes fear or dread – they are peaceful, secure. See GKC 382 §119. w .


Heb “no rod of God.” The words “punishment from” have been supplied in the translation to make the metaphor understandable for the modern reader by stating the purpose of the rod.


Heb “his bull,” but it is meant to signify the bulls of the wicked.


The verb used here means “to impregnate,” and not to be confused with the verb עָבַר (’ avar , “to pass over”).


The use of the verb גָּעַר ( ga ’ ar ) in this place is interesting. It means “to rebuke; to abhor; to loathe.” In the causative stem it means “to occasion impurity” or “to reject as loathsome.” The rabbinic interpretation is that it does not emit semen in vain, and so the meaning is it does not fail to breed (see E. Dhorme, Job , 311; R. Gordis, Job , 229).


The verb שָׁלַח ( shalakh ) means “to send forth,” but in the Piel “to release; to allow to run free.” The picture of children frolicking in the fields and singing and dancing is symbolic of peaceful, prosperous times.


The verb is simply “they take up [or lift up],” but the understood object is “their voices,” and so it means “they sing.”


The Kethib has “they wear out” but the Qere and the versions have יְכַלּוּ ( yÿkhallu , “bring to an end”). The verb כָּלָה ( kalah ) means “to finish; to complete,” and here with the object “their days,” it means that they bring their life to a (successful) conclusion. Both readings are acceptable in the context, with very little difference in the overall meaning (which according to Gordis is proof the Qere does not always correct the Kethib ).


The MT has יֵחָתּוּ ( yekhattu , “they are frightened [or broken]”), taking the verb from חָתַת ( khatat , “be terrified”). But most would slightly repoint it to יֵחָתוּ ( yekhatu ), an Aramaism, “they go down,” from נָחַת ( nakhat , “go down”). See Job 17:16 .


The word רֶגַע ( rega ’) has been interpreted as “in a moment” or “in peace” (on the basis of Arabic raja`a , “return to rest”). Gordis thinks this is a case of talhin – both meanings present in the mind of the writer.


The absence of the preposition before the complement adds greater vividness to the statement: “and knowing your ways – we do not desire.”


The interrogative clause is followed by ki , similar to Exod 5:2 , “Who is Yahweh, that I should obey him?”


The verb פָּגַע ( paga ’) means “to encounter; to meet,” but also “to meet with request; to intercede; to interpose.” The latter meaning is a derived meaning by usage.


The verse is not present in the LXX. It may be that it was considered too blasphemous and therefore omitted.


Heb “is not in their hand.” sn The implication of this statement is that their well-being is from God, which is the problem Job is raising in the chapter. A number of commentators make it a question, interpreting it to mean that the wicked enjoy prosperity as if it is their right. Some emend the text to say “his hands” – Gordis reads it, “Indeed, our prosperity is not in his hands.”


The interrogative “How often” occurs only with the first colon; it is supplied for smoother reading in the next two.


The pronominal suffix is objective; it re-enforces the object of the preposition, “upon them.” The verb in the clause is בּוֹא ( bo ’) followed by עַל (’ al ), “come upon [or against],” may be interpreted as meaning attack or strike.


חֲבָלִים ( khavalim ) can mean “ropes” or “cords,” but that would not go with the verb “apportion” in this line. The meaning of “pangs (as in “birth-pangs”) seems to fit best here. The wider meaning would be “physical agony.”


The phrase “to them” is understood and thus is supplied in the translation for clarification.


To retain the sense that the wicked do not suffer as others, this verse must either be taken as a question or a continuation of the question in v. 17 .


The verb used actually means “rob.” It is appropriate to the image of a whirlwind suddenly taking away the wisp of straw.


These words are supplied. The verse records an idea that Job suspected they might have, namely, that if the wicked die well God will make their children pay for the sins (see Job 5:4; 20:10 ; as well as Exod 20:5 ).


The text simply has אוֹנוֹ (’ ono , “his iniquity”), but by usage, “the punishment for the iniquity.”


Heb “his sons.”


The verb שָׁלַם ( shalam ) in the Piel has the meaning of restoring things to their normal, making whole, and so reward, repay (if for sins), or recompense in general.


The text simply has “let him repay [to] him.”


The imperfect verb after the jussive carries the meaning of a purpose clause, and so taken as a final imperfect: “in order that he may know [or realize].”


This word occurs only here. The word כִּיד ( kid ) was connected to Arabic kaid , “fraud, trickery,” or “warfare.” The word is emended by the commentators to other ideas, such as פִּיד ( pid , “[his] calamity”). Dahood and others alter it to “cup”; Wright to “weapons.” A. F. L. Beeston argues for a meaning “condemnation” for the MT form, and so makes no change in the text ( Mus 67 [1954]: 315-16). If the connection to Arabic “warfare” is sustained, or if such explanations of the existing MT can be sustained, then the text need not be emended. In any case, the sense of the line is clear.


Heb “his desire.” The meaning is that after he is gone he does not care about what happens to his household (“house” meaning “family” here).


Heb “after him,” but clearly the meaning is “after he is gone.”


The rare word חֻצָּצוּ ( khutsatsu ) is probably a cognate of hassa in Arabic, meaning “to cut off.” There is also an Akkadian word “to cut in two” and “to break.” These fit the context here rather well. The other Hebrew words that are connected to the root חָצַצ ( khatsats ) do not offer any help.


The imperfect verb in this question should be given the modal nuance of potential imperfect. The question is rhetorical – it is affirming that no one can teach God.


The clause begins with the disjunctive vav ( ו ) and the pronoun, “and he.” This is to be subordinated as a circumstantial clause. See GKC 456 §142. d .


The Hebrew has רָמִים ( ramim ), a plural masculine participle of רוּם ( rum , “to be high; to be exalted”). This is probably a reference to the angels. But M. Dahood restores an older interpretation that it refers to “the Most High” (“Some Northwest Semitic words in Job,” Bib 38 [1957]: 316-17). He would take the word as a singular form with an enclitic mem ( ם ). He reads the verse, “will he judge the Most High?”


The line has “in the bone of his perfection.” The word עֶצֶם (’ etsem ), which means “bone,” is used pronominally to express “the same, very”; here it is “in the very fullness of his strength” (see GKC 449 §139. g ). The abstract תֹּם ( tom ) is used here in the sense of physical perfection and strengths.


The verb עָטַן (’ atan ) has the precise meaning of “press olives.” But because here it says “full of milk,” the derived meaning for the noun has been made to mean “breasts” or “pails” (although in later Hebrew this word occurs – but with olives, not with milk). Dhorme takes it to refer to “his sides,” and repoints the word for “milk” ( חָלָב , khalav ) to get “fat” ( חֶלֶב , khelev ) – “his sides are full of fat,” a rendering followed by NASB. However, this weakens the parallelism.


This interpretation, adopted by several commentaries and modern translations (cf. NAB, NIV), is a general rendering to capture the sense of the line.


The verb שָׁקָה ( shaqah ) means “to water” and here “to be watered thoroughly.” The picture in the line is that of health and vigor.


The expression “this (v. 23 )…and this” (v. 25 ) means “one…the other.”


The text literally has “and this [man] dies in soul of bitterness.” Some simply reverse it and translate “in the bitterness of soul.” The genitive “bitterness” may be an attribute adjective, “with a bitter soul.”


Heb “eaten what is good.” It means he died without having enjoyed the good life.


The word is “your thoughts.” The word for “thoughts” (from חָצַב [ khatsav , “to think; to reckon; to plan”]) has more to do with their intent than their general thoughts. He knows that when they talked about the fate of the wicked they really were talking about him.


For the meaning of this word, and its root זָמַם ( zamam ), see Job 17:11 . It usually means the “plans” or “schemes” that are concocted against someone.


E. Dhorme ( Job , 321) distinguishes the verb חָמַס ( khamas ) from the noun for “violence.” He proposes a meaning of “think, imagine”: “and the ideas you imagined about me.”


Heb “And where is the tent, the dwellings of the wicked.” The word “dwellings of the wicked” is in apposition to “tent.” A relative pronoun must be supplied in the translation.


The LXX reads, “Ask those who go by the way, and do not disown their signs.” tn The idea is that the merchants who travel widely will talk about what they have seen and heard. These travelers give a different account of the wicked; they tell how he is spared. E. Dhorme ( Job , 322) interprets “signs” concretely: “Their custom was to write their names and their thoughts somewhere at the main cross-roads. The main roads of Sinai are dotted with these scribblings made by such passers of a day.”


The verb means “to be led forth.” To be “led forth in the day of trouble” means to be delivered.


The expression “and he has done” is taken here to mean “what he has done.”


Heb “Who declares his way to his face? // Who repays him for what he has done?” These rhetorical questions, which expect a negative answer (“No one!”) have been translated as indicative statements to bring out their force clearly.


The verb says “he will watch.” The subject is unspecified, so the translation is passive.


The Hebrew word refers to the tumulus, the burial mound that is erected on the spot where the person is buried.


The clods are those that are used to make a mound over the body. And, for a burial in the valley, see Deut 34:6 . The verse here sees him as participating in his funeral and enjoying it. Nothing seems to go wrong with the wicked.


The word מָעַל ( ma ’ al ) is used for “treachery; deception; fraud.” Here Job is saying that their way of interpreting reality is dangerously unfaithful.


Some do not take this to be parallel to the first colon, taking this line as a statement, but the parallel expressions here suggest the question is repeated.


The word חֵפֶץ ( khefets ) in this passage has the nuance of “special benefit; favor.” It does not just express the desire for something or the interest in it, but the profit one derives from it.


The verb תַתֵּם ( tattem ) is the Hiphil imperfect of תָּמַם ( tamam , “be complete, finished”), following the Aramaic form of the geminate verb with a doubling of the first letter.


The word “your fear” or “your piety” refers to Job’s reverence – it is his fear of God (thus a subjective genitive). When “fear” is used of religion, it includes faith and adoration on the positive side, fear and obedience on the negative.


The adjective רַבָּה ( rabbah ) normally has the idea of “great” in quantity (“abundant,” ESV) rather than “great” in quality.


The verb חָבַל ( khaval ) means “to take pledges.” In this verse Eliphaz says that Job not only took as pledge things the poor need, like clothing, but he did it for no reason.


The “naked” here refers to people who are poorly clothed. Otherwise, a reading like the NIV would be necessary: “you stripped the clothes…[leaving them] naked.” So either he made them naked by stripping their garments off, or they were already in rags.


The term עָיֵף (’ ayef ) can be translated “weary,” “faint,” “exhausted,” or “tired.” Here it may refer to the fainting because of thirst – that would make a good parallel to the second part.


The idiom is “a man of arm” (= “powerful”; see Ps 10:15 ). This is in comparison to the next line, “man of face” (= “dignity; high rank”; see Isa 3:5 ).


Heb “and a man of arm, to whom [was] land.” The line is in contrast to the preceding one, and so the vav here introduces a concessive clause.


The expression is unusual: “the one lifted up of face.” This is the “honored one,” the one to whom the dignity will be given.


Many commentators simply delete the verse or move it elsewhere. Most take it as a general reference to Job, perhaps in apposition to the preceding verse.


The “arms of the orphans” are their helps or rights on which they depended for support.


The verb in the text is Pual: יְדֻכָּא ( yÿdukka ’, “was [were] crushed”). GKC 388 §121. b would explain “arms” as the complement of a passive imperfect. But if that is too difficult, then a change to Piel imperfect, second person, will solve the difficulty. In its favor is the parallelism, the use of the second person all throughout the section, and the reading in all the versions. The versions may have simply assumed the easier reading, however.


Heb “or dark you cannot see.” Some commentators and the RSV follow the LXX in reading אוֹ (’ o , “or”) as אוֹר (’ or , “light”) and translate it “The light has become dark” or “Your light has become dark.” A. B. Davidson suggests the reading “Or seest thou not the darkness.” This would mean Job does not understand the true meaning of the darkness and the calamities.


The word שִׁפְעַת ( shif ’ at ) means “multitude of.” It is used of men, camels, horses, and here of waters in the heavens.


This reading preserves the text as it is. The nouns “high” and “heavens” would then be taken as adverbial accusatives of place (see GKC 373-74 §118. g ).


The parallel passage in Isa 40:26-27 , as well as the context here, shows that the imperative is to be retained here. The LXX has “he sees.”


Heb “head of the stars.”


Heb “and he does not see.” The implied object is “us.”


The “old path” here is the way of defiance to God. The text in these two verses is no doubt making reference to the flood in Genesis, one of the perennial examples of divine judgment.


The word “men” is not in the Hebrew text, but has been supplied to clarify the relative pronoun “who.”


The verb קָמַט ( qamat ) basically means “to seize; to tie together to make a bundle.” So the Pual will mean “to be bundled away; to be carried off.”


The clause has “and [it was] not the time.” It may be used adverbially here.


The word is נָהַר ( nahar , “river” or “current”); it is taken here in its broadest sense of the waters on the earth that formed the current of the flood ( Gen 7:6, 10 ).


The verb יָצַק ( yatsaq ) means “to pour out; to shed; to spill; to flow.” The Pual means “to be poured out” (as in Lev 21:10 and Ps 45:3 ).


This word is then to be taken as an adverbial accusative of place. Another way to look at this verse is what A. B. Davidson ( Job , 165) proposes “whose foundation was poured away and became a flood.” This would mean that that on which they stood sank away.


The form in the text is “to them.” The LXX and the Syriac versions have “to us.”


The pronoun is added for this emphasis; it has “but he” before the verb.


See Job 10:3 .


The LXX has “from him,” and this is followed by several commentators. But the MT is to be retained, for Eliphaz is recalling the words of Job. Verses 17 and 18 are deleted by a number of commentators as a gloss because they have many similarities to 21:14-16 . But Eliphaz is recalling what Job said, in order to say that the prosperity to which Job alluded was only the prelude to a disaster he denied (H. H. Rowley, Job [NCBC], 156).


The line is talking about the rejoicing of the righteous when judgment falls on the wicked. An object (“destruction”) has to be supplied here to clarify this (see Pss 52:6 [8]; 69:32 [33]; 107:42 ).


The word translated “our enemies” is found only here. The word means “hostility,” but used here as a collective for those who are hostile – “enemies.” Some commentators follow the LXX and read “possessions,” explaining its meaning and derivation in different ways. Gordis simply takes the word in the text and affirms that this is the meaning. On the other hand, to get this, E. Dhorme ( Job , 336) repoints קִימָנוּ ( qimanu ) of the MT to יְקוּמַם ( yÿqumam ), arguing that יְקוּם ( yÿqum ) means “what exists [or has substance]” (although that is used of animals). He translates: “have not their possessions been destroyed.”


The verb סָכַן ( sakhan ) meant “to be useful; to be profitable” in v. 2 . Now, in the Hiphil it means “to be accustomed to” or “to have experience with.” Joined by the preposition “with” it means “to be reconciled with him.” W. B. Bishai cites Arabic and Ugaritic words to support a meaning “acquiesce” (“Notes on hskn in Job 22:21 ,” JNES 20 [1961]: 258-59).


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


The two imperatives in this verse imply a relationship of succession and not consequence.


The Hebrew word here is תּוֹרָה ( torah ), its only occurrence in the book of Job.


M. Dahood has “write his words” (“Metaphor in Job 22:22 ,” Bib 47 [1966]: 108-9).


The MT has “you will be built up” ( תִּבָּנֶה , tibbaneh ). But the LXX has “humble yourself” (reading תְּעַנֶּה [ tÿ ’ anneh ] apparently). Many commentators read this; Dahood has “you will be healed.”


The form is the imperative. Eliphaz is telling Job to get rid of his gold as evidence of his repentance. Many commentators think that this is too improbable for Eliphaz to have said, and that Job has lost everything anyway, and so they make proposals for the text. Most would follow Theodotion and the Syriac to read וְשָׁתָּ ( vÿshatta , “and you will esteem….”). This would mean that he is promising Job restoration of his wealth. tn Heb “place.”


The word for “gold” is the rare בֶּצֶר ( betser ), which may be derived from a cognate of Arabic basara , “to see; to examine.” If this is the case, the word here would refer to refined gold. The word also forms a fine wordplay with בְצוּר ( bÿtsur , “in the rock”).


The Hebrew text simply has “Ophir,” a metonymy for the gold that comes from there.


The form for “gold” here is plural, which could be a plural of extension. The LXX and Latin versions have “The Almighty will be your helper against your enemies.”


E. Dhorme ( Job , 339) connects this word with an Arabic root meaning “to be elevated, steep.” From that he gets “heaps of silver.”


This is the same verb as in Ps 37:4 . G. R. Driver suggests the word comes from another root that means “abandon oneself to, depend on” (“Problems in the Hebrew text of Job,” VTSup 3 [1955]: 84).


The words “to him” are not in the Hebrew text, but are implied.


The word is גָּזַר ( gazar , “to cut”), in the sense of deciding a matter.


There is no expressed subject here, and so the verb is taken as a passive voice again.


The word גֵּוָה ( gevah ) means “loftiness; pride.” Here it simply says “up,” or “pride.” The rest is paraphrased. Of the many suggestions, the following provide a sampling: “It is because of pride” (ESV), “he abases pride” (H. H. Rowley); “[he abases] the lofty and the proud” (Beer); “[he abases] the word of pride” [Duhm]; “[he abases] the haughtiness of pride” [Fohrer and others]; “[he abases] the one who speaks proudly” [Weiser]; “[he abases] the one who boasts in pride” [Kissane]; and “God [abases] pride” [Budde, Gray].


Or “humble”; Heb “the lowly of eyes.”


The Hebrew has אִי־נָקִי (’ i naqi ), which could be taken as “island of the innocent” (so Ibn-Ezra), or “him that is not innocent” (so Rashi). But some have changed אִי (’ i ) to אִישׁ (’ ish , “the innocent man”). Others differ: A. Guillaume links אִי (’ i ) to Arabic ‘ ayya “whosoever,” and so leaves the text alone. M. Dahood secures the same idea from Ugaritic, but reads it אֵי (’ e ).


The MT has “he will escape [or be delivered].” Theodotion has the second person, “you will be delivered.”


The MT reads here מְרִי ( mÿri , “rebellious”). The word is related to the verb מָרָה ( marah , “to revolt”). Many commentators follow the Vulgate, Targum Job, and the Syriac to read מַר ( mar , “bitter”). The LXX offers no help here.


The MT (followed by the Vulgate and Targum) has “my hand is heavy on my groaning.” This would mean “my stroke is heavier than my groaning” (an improbable view from Targum Job). A better suggestion is that the meaning would be that Job tries to suppress his groans but the hand with which he suppresses them is too heavy (H. H. Rowley, Job [NCBC], 159). Budde, E. Dhorme, J. E. Hartley, and F. I. Andersen all maintain the MT as the more difficult reading. F. I. Andersen ( Job [TOTC], 208) indicates that the ִי ( i ) suffix could be an example of an unusual third masculine singular. Both the LXX and the Syriac versions have “his hand,” and many modern commentators follow this, along with the present translation. In this case the referent of “his” would be God, whose hand is heavy upon Job in spite of Job’s groaning.


The preposition can take this meaning; it could be also translated simply “upon.” R. Gordis ( Job , 260) reads the preposition “more than,” saying that Job had been defiant (he takes that view) but God’s hand had been far worse.


The optative here is again expressed with the verbal clause, “who will give [that] I knew….”


The form in Hebrew is וְאֶמְצָאֵהוּ ( vÿ ’ emtsa ’ ehu ), simply “and I will find him.” But in the optative clause this verb is subordinated to the preceding verb: “O that I knew where [and] I might find him.” It is not unusual to have the perfect verb followed by the imperfect in such coordinate clauses (see GKC 386 §120. e ). This could also be translated making the second verb a complementary infinitive: “knew how to find him.” sn H. H. Rowley ( Job [NCBC], 159) quotes Strahan without reference: “It is the chief distinction between Job and his friends that he desires to meet God and they do not.”


This verb also depends on מִי־יִתֵּן ( mi-yitten , “who will give”) of the first part, forming an additional clause in the wish formula.


Or “his place of judgment.” The word is from כּוּן ( kun , “to prepare; to arrange”) in the Polel and the Hiphil conjugations. The noun refers to a prepared place, a throne, a seat, or a sanctuary. A. B. Davidson ( Job , 169) and others take the word to mean “judgment seat” or “tribunal” in this context.


The word מִשְׁפָּט ( mishpat ) is normally “judgment; decision.” But in these contexts it refers to the legal case that Job will bring before God. With the verb עָרַךְ (’ arakh , “to set in order; to lay out”) the whole image of drawing up a lawsuit is complete.


Heb “the words he would answer me.”


The verb is now רִיב ( riv ) and not יָכַח ( yakhakh , “contend”); רִיב ( riv ) means “to quarrel; to dispute; to contend,” often in a legal context. Here it is still part of Job’s questioning about this hypothetical meeting – would God contend with all his power?


The verbal clause יָשִׂם בִּי ( yasim bi ) has been translated “he would pay [attention] to me.” Job is saying that God will not need all his power – he will just have pay attention to Job’s complaint. Job does not need the display of power – he just wants a hearing.


The adverb “there” has the sense of “then” – there in the future.


The form of the verb is the Niphal נוֹכָח ( nokkakh , “argue, present a case”). E. Dhorme ( Job , 346) is troubled by this verbal form and so changes it and other things in the line to say, “he would observe the upright man who argues with him.” The Niphal is used for “engaging discussion,” “arguing a case,” and “settling a dispute.”


The form בַּעֲשֹׂתוֹ ( ba ’ asoto ) would be the temporal clause using the infinitive construct with a pronoun (subject genitive). This would be “when he works.” Several follow the Syriac with “I seek him.” The LXX has “[when] he turns.” R. Gordis ( Job , 261) notes that there is no need to emend the text; he shows a link to the Arabic cognate ghasa , “to cover.” To him this is a perfect parallel to יַעְטֹף ( ya ’ tof , “covers himself”).


The verb is the apocopated form of the imperfect. The object is supplied.


The MT has “he turns,” but the Syriac and Vulgate have “I turn.”


The expression דֶּרֶךְ עִמָּדִי ( derekh ’ immadi ) means “the way with me,” i.e., “the way that I take.” The Syriac has “my way and my standing.” Several commentators prefer “the way of my standing,” meaning where to look for me. J. Reider offers “the way of my life” (“Some notes to the text of the scriptures,” HUCA 3 [1926]: 115). Whatever the precise wording, Job knows that God can always find him.


There is a perfect verb followed by an imperfect in this clause with the protasis and apodosis relationship (see GKC 493 §159. b ).


Heb “my foot.”


Heb “held fast.”


The last clause, “and I have not turned aside,” functions adverbially in the sentence. The form אָט (’ at ) is a pausal form of אַתֶּה (’ atteh ), the Hiphil of נָטָה ( natah , “stretch out”).


The form in the MT ( מֵחֻקִּי , mekhuqqi ) means “more than my portion” or “more than my law.” An expanded meaning results in “more than my necessary food” (see Ps 119:11 ; cf. KJV, NASB, ESV). HALOT 346 s.v. חֹק 1 indicates that חֹק ( khoq ) has the meaning of “portion” and is here a reference to “what is appointed for me.” The LXX and the Latin versions, along with many commentators, have בְּחֵקִי ( bÿkheqi , “in my bosom”).


The MT has “But he [is] in one.” Many add the word “mind” to capture the point that God is resolute and unchanging. Some commentators find this too difficult, and so change the text from בְאֶחָד ( bÿ ’ ekhad , here “unchangeable”) to בָחָר ( bakhar , “he has chosen”). The wording in the text is idiomatic and should be retained. R. Gordis ( Job , 262) translates it “he is one, i.e., unchangeable, fixed, determined.” The preposition בּ ( bet ) is a bet essentiae – “and he [is] as one,” or “he is one” (see GKC 379 §119. i ).


Heb “cause him to return.”


Or “his soul.”


The text has “my decree,” which means “the decree [plan] for/against me.” The suffix is objective, equivalent to a dative of disadvantage. The Syriac and the Vulgate actually have “his decree.” R. Gordis ( Job , 262) suggests taking it in the same sense as in Job 14:5 : “my limit.”.


Heb “and many such [things] are with him.” sn The text is saying that many similar situations are under God’s rule of the world – his plans are infinite.


The verb הֵרַךְ ( kherakh ) means “to be tender”; in the Piel it would have the meaning “to soften.” The word is used in parallel constructions with the verbs for “fear.” The implication is that God has made Job fearful.


This is a very difficult verse. The Hebrew text literally says: “for I have not been destroyed because of darkness, and because of my face [which] gloom has covered.” Most commentators omit the negative adverb, which gives the meaning that Job is enveloped in darkness and reduced to terror. The verb נִצְמַתִּי ( nitsmatti ) means “I have been silent” (as in Arabic and Aramaic), and so obviously the negative must be retained – he has not been silent.


The preposition מִן ( min ) is used to express the cause (see GKC 389 §121. f ).


The LXX reads “Why are times hidden from the Almighty?” as if to say that God is not interested in the events on the earth. The MT reading is saying that God fails to set the times for judgment and vindication and makes good sense as it stands.


The line is short: “they move boundary stones.” So some commentators have supplied a subject, such as “wicked men.” The reason for its being wicked men is that to move the boundary stone was to encroach dishonestly on the lands of others ( Deut 19:14; 27:17 ).


The LXX reads “and their shepherd.” Many commentators accept this reading. But the MT says that they graze the flocks that they have stolen. The difficulty with the MT reading is that there is no suffix on the final verb – but that is not an insurmountable difference.


The verse begins with הֵן ( hen ); but the LXX, Vulgate, and Syriac all have “like.” R. Gordis ( Job , 265) takes הֵן ( hen ) as a pronoun “they” and supplies the comparative. The sense of the verse is clear in either case.


That is, “the poor.”


The MT has “in the working/labor of them,” or “when they labor.” Some commentators simply omit these words. Dhorme retains them and moves them to go with עֲרָבָה (’ aravah ), which he takes to mean “evening”; this gives a clause, “although they work until the evening.” Then, with many others, he takes לוֹ ( lo ) to be a negative and finishes the verse with “no food for the children.” Others make fewer changes in the text, and as a result do not come out with such a hopeless picture – there is some food found. The point is that they spend their time foraging for food, and they find just enough to survive, but it is a day-long activity. For Job, this shows how unrighteous the administration of the world actually is.


The verb is not included in the Hebrew text but is supplied in the translation.


The word בְּלִילוֹ ( bÿlilo ) means “his fodder.” It is unclear to what this refers. If the suffix is taken as a collective, then it can be translated “they gather/reap their fodder.” The early versions all have “they reap in a field which is not his” (taking it as בְּלִי לוֹ , bÿli lo ). A conjectural emendation would change the word to בַּלַּיְלָה ( ballaylah , “in the night”). But there is no reason for this.


The verbs in this verse are uncertain. In the first line “reap” is used, and that would be the work of a hired man (and certainly not done at night). The meaning of this second verb is uncertain; it has been taken to mean “glean,” which would be the task of the poor.


Heb “embrace” or “hug.”


The verb with no expressed subject is here again taken in the passive: “they snatch” becomes “[child] is snatched.”


This word is usually defined as “violence; ruin.” But elsewhere it does mean “breast” ( Isa 60:16; 66:11 ), and that is certainly what it means here.


The MT has a very brief and strange reading: “they take as a pledge upon the poor.” This could be taken as “they take a pledge against the poor” (ESV). Kamphausen suggested that instead of עַל (’ al , “against”) one should read עוּל (’ ul , “suckling”). This is supported by the parallelism. “They take as pledge” is also made passive here.


The Hebrew term is שׁוּרֹתָם ( shurotam ), which may be translated “terraces” or “olive rows.” But that would not be the proper place to have a press to press the olives and make oil. E. Dhorme ( Job , 360-61) proposes on the analogy of an Arabic word that this should be read as “millstones” (which he would also write in the dual). But the argument does not come from a clean cognate, but from a possible development of words. The meaning of “olive rows” works well enough.


The final verb, a preterite with the ו ( vav ) consecutive, is here interpreted as a circumstantial clause.


The MT as pointed reads “from the city of men they groan.” Most commentators change one vowel in מְתִים ( mÿtim ) to get מֵתִים ( metim ) to get the active participle, “the dying.” This certainly fits the parallelism better, although sense could be made out of the MT.


Heb “the souls of the wounded,” which here refers to the wounded themselves.


The MT has the noun תִּפְלָה ( tiflah ) which means “folly; tastelessness” (cf. 1:22 ). The verb, which normally means “to place; to put,” would then be rendered “to impute; to charge.” This is certainly a workable translation in the context. Many commentators have emended the text, changing the noun to תְּפִלָּה ( tÿfillah , “prayer”), and so then also the verb יָשִׂים ( yasim , here “charges”) to יִשְׁמַע ( yishma ’, “hears”). It reads: “But God does not hear the prayer” – referring to the groans.


Heb “They are among those who.”


The text simply has לָאוֹר ( la ’ or , “at light” or “at daylight”), probably meaning just at the time of dawn.


In a few cases the jussive is used without any real sense of the jussive being present (see GKC 323 §109. k ).


Heb “saying.”


The phrase “the robber” has been supplied in the English translation for clarification.


This is not the idea of the adulterer, but of the thief. So some commentators reverse the order and put this verse after v. 14 .


The verb חִתְּמוּ ( khittÿmu ) is the Piel from the verb חָתַם ( khatam , “to seal”). The verb is now in the plural, covering all the groups mentioned that work under the cover of darkness. The suggestion that they “seal,” i.e., “mark” the house they will rob, goes against the meaning of the word “seal.”


Some commentators join this very short colon to the beginning of v. 17 : “they do not know the light. For together…” becomes “for together they have not known the light.”


Heb “together.”


Many commentators find vv. 18-24 difficult on the lips of Job, and so identify this unit as a misplaced part of the speech of Zophar. They describe the enormities of the wicked. But a case can also be made for retaining it in this section. Gordis thinks it could be taken as a quotation by Job of his friends’ ideas.


The verb “say” is not in the text; it is supplied here to indicate that this is a different section.


Or “is swift.”


The text reads, “he does not turn by the way of the vineyards.” This means that since the land is cursed, he/one does not go there. Bickell emended “the way of the vineyards” to “the treader of the vineyard” (see RSV, NRSV). This would mean that “no wine-presser would turn towards” their vineyards.


Heb “the waters of the snow.”


Or “so Sheol.”


This is the meaning of the verse, which in Hebrew only has “The grave / they have sinned.”


Here “womb” is synecdoche, representing one’s mother.


The form in the text is the active participle, “feed; graze; shepherd.” The idea of “prey” is not natural to it. R. Gordis ( Job , 270) argues that third he ( ה ) verbs are often by-forms of geminate verbs, and so the meaning here is more akin to רָעַע ( ra ’ a ’, “to crush”). The LXX seems to have read something like הֵרַע ( hera ’, “oppressed”).


Heb “the childless [woman], she does not give birth.” The verbal clause is intended to serve as a modifier here for the woman. See on subordinate verbal clauses GKC 490 §156. d , f .


God has to be the subject of this clause. None is stated in the Hebrew text, but “God” has been supplied in the translation for clarity.


Heb “he”; the referent (God) has been specified in the translation for clarity. See the note on the word “life” at the end of the line.


This line has been given a number of interpretations due to its cryptic form. The verb יָקוּם ( yaqum ) means “he rises up.” It probably is meant to have God as the subject, and be subordinated as a temporal clause to what follows. The words “against him” are not in the Hebrew text, but have been supplied in the translation to specify the object and indicate that “rise up” is meant in a hostile sense. The following verb וְלֹא־יַאֲמִין ( vÿlo ’ -ya ’ amin ), by its very meaning of “and he does not believe,” cannot have God as the subject, but must refer to the wicked.


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


The expression לָבֶטַח ( lavetakh , “in security”) precedes the verb that it qualifies – God “allows him to take root in security.” For the meaning of the verb, see Job 8:15 .


Heb “his eyes are on.”


The Hebrew throughout this section (vv. 18-24 ) interchanges the singular and the plural. Here again we have “they are exalted…but he is not.” The verse is clear nonetheless: the wicked rise high, and then suddenly they are gone.


The verb is the Hophal of the rare verb מָכַךְ ( makhakh ), which seems to mean “to bend; to collapse.” The text would read “they are made to collapse like all others.” There is no reason here to change “like others” just because the MT is banal. But many do, following the LXX with “like mallows.” The LXX was making a translation according to sense. R. Gordis ( Job , 271) prefers “like grass.”


The verb קָפַץ ( qafats ) actually means “to shut in,” which does not provide exactly the idea of being gathered, not directly at least. But a change to קָטַף ( qataf , “pluck”) while attractive, is not necessary.


The word אַל (’ al , “not”) is used here substantivally (“nothing”).


The word הַמְשֵׁל ( hamshel ) is a Hiphil infinitive absolute used as a noun. It describes the rulership or dominion that God has, that which gives power and authority.


The word פָּחַד ( pakhad ) literally means “fear; dread,” but in the sense of what causes the fear or the dread.


Heb “[are] with him.”


Heb “Is there a number to his troops?” The question is rhetorical: there is no number to them!


In place of “light” here the LXX has “his ambush,” perhaps reading אֹרְבוֹ (’ orÿvo ) instead of אוֹרֵהוּ (’ orehu , “his light”). But while that captures the idea of troops and warfare, the change should be rejected because the armies are linked with stars and light. The expression is poetic; the LXX interpretation tried to make it concrete.


Heb “not pure in his eyes.”


The text just has “maggot” and in the second half “worm.” Something has to be added to make it a bit clearer. The terms “maggot” and “worm” describe man in his lowest and most ignominious shape.


The interrogative clause is used here as an exclamation, and sarcastic at that. Job is saying “you have in no way helped the powerless.” The verb uses the singular form, for Job is replying to Bildad.


The “powerless” is expressed here by the negative before the word for “strength; power” – “him who has no power” (see GKC 482 §152. u , v ).


Heb “the arm [with] no strength.” Here too the negative expression is serving as a relative clause to modify “arm,” the symbol of strength and power, which by metonymy stands for the whole person. “Man of arm” denoted the strong in 22:8 .


The phrase לָרֹב ( larov ) means “to abundance” or “in a large quantity.” It is also used ironically like all these expressions. This makes very good sense, but some wish to see a closer parallel and so offer emendations. Reiske and Kissane thought “to the tender” for the word. But the timid are not the same as the ignorant and unwise. So Graetz supplied “to the boorish” by reading לְבָעַר ( lÿba ’ ar ). G. R. Driver did the same with less of a change: לַבּוֹר ( labbor ; HTR 29 [1936]: 172).


The verse begins with the preposition and the interrogative: אֶת־מִי (’ et-mi , “with who[se help]?”). Others take it as the accusative particle introducing the indirect object: “for whom did you utter…” (see GKC 371 §117. gg ). Both are possible.


Heb “has gone out from you.”


The text has הָרְפָאִים ( harÿfa ’ im , “the shades”), referring to the “dead,” or the elite among the dead (see Isa 14:9; 26:14 ; Ps 88:10 [11]). For further discussion, start with A. R. Johnson, The Vitality of the Individual , 88ff.


The verb is a Polal from חִיל ( khil ) which means “to tremble.” It shows that even these spirits cannot escape the terror.


Heb “Sheol.”


Heb “before him.”


The line has “and there is no covering for destruction.” “Destruction” here is another name for Sheol: אֲבַדּוֹן (’ avaddon , “Abaddon”).


The verb means “to hold; to seize,” here in the sense of shutting up, enshrouding, or concealing.


The MT has כִסֵּה ( khisseh ), which is a problematic vocalization. Most certainly כֵּסֶה ( keseh ), alternative for כֶּסֶא ( kese ’, “full moon”) is intended here. The MT is close to the form of “throne,” which would be כִּסֵּא ( kisse ’, cf. NLT “he shrouds his throne with his clouds”). But here God is covering the face of the moon by hiding it behind clouds.


The expression חֹק־חָג ( khoq-khag ) means “he has drawn a limit as a circle.” According to some the form should have been חָק־חוּג ( khaq-khug , “He has traced a circle”). But others argues that the text is acceptable as is, and can be interpreted as “a limit he has circled.” The Hebrew verbal roots are חָקַק ( khaqaq , “to engrave; to sketch out; to trace”) and חוּג ( khug , “describe a circle”) respectively.


The verb רָגַע ( raga ’) has developed a Semitic polarity, i.e., having totally opposite meanings. It can mean “to disturb; to stir up” or “to calm; to still.” Gordis thinks both meanings have been invoked here. But it seems more likely that “calm” fits the context better.


Heb “Rahab” ( רָהַב ), the mythical sea monster that represents the forces of chaos in ancient Near Eastern literature. In the translation the words “the great sea monster” have been supplied appositionally in order to clarify “Rahab.”


Or “wind”; or perhaps “Spirit.” The same Hebrew word, רוּחַ ( ruakh ), may be translated as “wind,” “breath,” or “spirit/Spirit” depending on the context.


Heb “the ends of his ways,” meaning “the fringes.”


Heb “how little is the word.” Here “little” means a “fraction” or an “echo.”


The Hebrew word מָשָׁל ( mashal ) is characteristically “proverb; by-word.” It normally refers to a brief saying, but can be used for a discourse (see A. R. Johnson, “ MasŒal ,” VTSup 3 [1955]: 162ff.).


The expression חַי־אֵל ( khay- ’ el ) is the oath formula: “as God lives.” In other words, the speaker is staking God’s life on the credibility of the words. It is like saying, “As truly as God is alive.”


“My judgment” would here, as before, be “my right.” God has taken this away by afflicting Job unjustly (A. B. Davidson, Job , 187).


The verb הֵמַר ( hemar ) is the Hiphil perfect from מָרַר ( marar , “to be bitter”) and hence, “to make bitter.” The object of the verb is “my soul,” which is better translated as “me” or “my life.”


The adverb עוֹד (’ od ) was originally a noun, and so here it could be rendered “all the existence of my spirit.” The word comes between the noun in construct and its actual genitive (see GKC 415 §128. e ).


The word נְשָׁמָה ( nÿshamah ) is the “breath” that was breathed into Adam in Gen 2:7 . Its usage includes the animating breath, the spiritual understanding, and the functioning conscience – so the whole spirit of the person. The other word in this verse, רוּחַ ( ruakh ), may be translated as “wind,” “breath,” or “spirit/Spirit” depending on the context. Here, since it talks about the nostrils, it should be translated “breath.”


The verse begins with אִם (’ im ), the formula used for the content of the oath (“God lives…if I do/do not…”). Thus, the content of the oath proper is here in v. 4 .


The verb means “to utter; to mumble; to meditate.” The implication is that he will not communicate deceitful things, no matter how quiet or subtle.


The text uses חָלִילָה לִּי ( khalilah li ) meaning “far be it from me,” or more strongly, something akin to “sacrilege.”


In the Hebrew text “you” is plural – a reference to Eliphaz, Zophar, and Bildad. To make this clear, “three” is supplied in the translation.


Heb “my heart.”


The prepositional phrase “from my days” probably means “from the days of my birth,” or “all my life.”


The form is the Hitpolel participle from קוּם ( qum ): “those who are rising up against me,” or “my adversary.”


The LXX made a free paraphrase: “No, but let my enemies be as the overthrow of the ungodly, and they that rise up against me as the destruction of transgressors.”


The verb יִבְצָע ( yivtsa ’) means “to cut off.” It could be translated transitively or intransitively – the latter is better here (“when he is cut off”). Since the next line speaks of prayer, some have thought this verse should be about prayer. Mandelkern, in his concordance (p. 228b), suggested the verb should be “when he prays” (reading יִפְגַּע [ yifga ’] in place of יִבְצָע [ yivtsa ’]).


The verb יֵשֶׁל ( yeshel ) is found only here. It has been related spoils [or sheaves]”); שָׁאַל ( sha ’ al , “to ask”); נָשָׂא ( nasa ’, “to lift up” [i.e., pray]); and a host of others.


See the note on 22:26 where the same verb is employed.


The object suffix is in the plural, which gives some support to the idea Job is speaking to them.


Heb “the hand of.”


Heb “[what is] with Shaddai.”


The interrogative uses the demonstrative pronoun in its emphatic position: “Why in the world…?” ( IBHS 312-13 §17.4.3c).


The text has the noun “vain thing; breath; vapor,” and then a denominative verb from the same root: “to become vain with a vain thing,” or “to do in vain a vain thing.” This is an example of the internal object, or a cognate accusative (see GKC 367 §117. q ). The LXX has “you all know that you are adding vanity to vanity.”


The expression “allotted by God” interprets the simple prepositional phrase in the text: “with/from God.”


R. Gordis ( Job , 294) identifies this as a breviloquence. Compare Ps 92:8 where the last two words also constitute the apodosis.


Heb “will not be satisfied with bread/food.”


The text says “will be buried in/by death.” A number of passages in the Bible use “death” to mean the plague that kills (see Jer 15:2 ; Isa 28:3 ; and BDB 89 s.v. בְּ 2.a). In this sense it is like the English expression for the plague, “the Black Death.”


The LXX has “their widows” to match the plural, and most commentators harmonize in the same way.


The text simply repeats the verb from the last clause. It could be treated as a separate short clause: “He may store it up, but the righteous will wear it. But it also could be understood as the object of the following verb, “[what] he stores up the righteous will wear.” The LXX simply has, “All these things shall the righteous gain.”


Heb כָעָשׁ ( kha ’ ash , “like a moth”), but this leaves room for clarification. Some commentators wanted to change it to “bird’s nest” or just “nest” (cf. NRSV) to make the parallelism; see Job 4:14 . But the word is not found. The LXX has a double expression, “as moths, as a spider.” So several take it as the spider’s web, which is certainly unsubstantial (cf. NAB, NASB, NLT; see Job 8:14 ).


The Hebrew word is the word for “booth,” as in the Feast of Booths. The word describes something that is flimsy; it is not substantial at all.


The verb is the Niphal יֵאָסֵף ( ye ’ asef ), from אָסַף (’ asaf , “to gather”). So, “he lies down rich, but he is not gathered.” This does not make much sense. It would mean “he will not be gathered for burial,” but that does not belong here. Many commentators accept the variant יֹאסִף ( yo ’ sif ) stood for יוֹסִיף ( yosif , “will [not] add”). This is what the LXX and the Syriac have. This leads to the interpretive translation that “he will do so no longer.”


Heb “and he is not.” One view is that this must mean that he dies, not that his wealth is gone. R. Gordis ( Job , 295) says the first part should be made impersonal: “when one opens one’s eyes, the wicked is no longer there.” E. Dhorme ( Job , 396) has it more simply: “He has opened his eyes, and it is for the last time.” But the other view is that the wealth goes overnight. In support of this is the introduction into the verse of the wealthy. The RSV, NRSV, ESV, and NLT take it that “wealth is gone.”


Many commentators want a word parallel to “in the night.” And so we are offered בַּיּוֹם ( bayyom , “in the day”) for כַמַּיִם ( khammayim , “like waters”) as well as a number of others. But “waters” sometimes stand for major calamities, and so may be retained here. Besides, not all parallel structures are synonymous.


The verb is once again functioning in an adverbial sense. The text has “it hurls itself against him and shows no mercy.”


If the same subject is to be carried through here, it is the wind. That would make this a bold personification, perhaps suggesting the force of the wind. Others argue that it is unlikely that the wind claps its hands. They suggest taking the verb with an indefinite subject: “he claps” means “one claps. The idea is that of people rejoicing when the wicked are gone. But the parallelism is against this unless the second line is changed as well. R. Gordis ( Job , 296) has “men will clap their hands…men will whistle upon him.”


Or “hisses at him from its place” (ESV).


The poem opens with כִּי ( ki ). Some commentators think this should have been “for,” and that the poem once stood in another setting. But there are places in the Bible where this word occurs with the sense of “surely” and no other meaning (cf. Gen 18:20 ).


The word מוֹצָא ( motsa ’, from יָצָא [ yatsa ’, “go out”]) is the word for “mine,” or more simply, “source.” Mining was not an enormous industry in the land of Canaan or Israel; mined products were imported. Some editors have suggested alternative readings: Dahood found in the word the root for “shine” and translated the MT as “smelter.” But that is going too far. P. Joüon suggested “place of finding,” reading מִמְצָא ( mimtsa ’) for מוֹצָא ( motsa ’; see Bib 11 [1930]: 323).


Heb “from dust.”


The verb יָצוּק ( yatsuq ) is usually translated as a passive participle “is smelted” (from יָצַק [ yatsaq , “to melt”]): “copper is smelted from the ore” (ESV) or “from the stone, copper is poured out” (as an imperfect from צוּק [ tsuq ]). But the rock becomes the metal in the process. So according to R. Gordis ( Job , 304) the translation should be: “the rock is poured out as copper.” E. Dhorme ( Job , 400), however, defines the form in the text as “hard,” and simply has it “hard stone becomes copper.”


The verse ends with “the stone of darkness and deep darkness.” The genitive would be location, describing the place where the stones are found.


The first part of this verse, “He cuts a shaft far from the place where people live,” has received a lot of attention. The word for “live” is גָּר ( gar ). Some of the proposals are: “limestone,” on the basis of the LXX; “far from the light,” reading נֵר ( ner ); “by a foreign people,” taking the word to means “foreign people”; “a foreign people opening shafts”; or taking gar as “crater” based on Arabic. Driver puts this and the next together: “a strange people who have been forgotten cut shafts” (see AJSL 3 [1935]: 162). L. Waterman had “the people of the lamp” (“Note on Job 28:4 ,” JBL 71 [1952]: 167ff). And there are others. Since there is really no compelling argument in favor of one of these alternative interpretations, the MT should be preserved until shown to be wrong.


Heb “forgotten by the foot.” This means that there are people walking above on the ground, and the places below, these mines, are not noticed by the pedestrians above.


It is probably best to take “place” in construct to the rest of the colon, with an understood relative clause: “a place, the rocks of which are sapphires.” sn The modern stone known as sapphire is thought not to have been used until Roman times, and so some other stone is probably meant here, perhaps lapis lazuli.


The “path” could refer to the mine shaft or it could refer to wisdom. The former seems more likely in the present context; the word “hidden is supplied in the translation to indicate the mines are “hidden” from sharp-eyed birds of prey above.


Heb “the sons of pride.” In Job 41:26 the expression refers to carnivorous wild beasts.


The Hebrew verb is simply “to stretch out; to send” ( שָׁלח , shalakh ). With יָדוֹ ( yado , “his hand”) the idea is that of laying one’s hand on the rock, i.e., getting to work on the hardest of rocks.


The Hebrew מִשֹּׁרֶשׁ ( mishoresh ) means “from/at [their] root [or base].” In mining, people have gone below ground, under the mountains, and overturned rock and dirt. It is also interesting that here in a small way humans do what God does – overturn mountains (cf. 9:5 ).


Or “tunnels.” The word is יְאֹרִים ( yÿ ’ orim ), the word for “rivers” and in the singular, the Nile River. Here it refers to tunnels or channels through the rocks.


Heb “his eye sees.”


The translation “searched” follows the LXX and Vulgate; the MT reads “binds up” or “dams up.” This latter translation might refer to the damming of water that might seep into a mine ( HALOT 289 s.v. חבשׁ ; cf. ESV, NJPS, NASB, REB, NLT).


The older translations had “he binds the streams from weeping,” i.e., from trickling ( מִבְּכִי , mibbÿkhi ). But the Ugaritic parallel has changed the understanding, reading “toward the spring of the rivers” ( `m mbk nhrm ). Earlier than that discovery, the versions had taken the word as a noun as well. Some commentators had suggested repointing the Hebrew. Some chose מַבְּכֵי ( mabbÿkhe , “sources”). Now there is much Ugaritic support for the reading (see G. M. Landes, BASOR 144 [1956]: 32f.; and H. L. Ginsberg, “The Ugaritic texts and textual criticism,” JBL 62 [1943]: 111).


The LXX has “its way, apparently reading דַּרְכָה ( darkhah ) in place of עֶרְכָּהּ (’ erkah , “place”). This is adopted by most modern commentators. But R. Gordis ( Job , 308) shows that this change is not necessary, for עֶרֶךְ (’ erekh ) in the Bible means “order; row; disposition,” and here “place.” An alternate meaning would be “worth” (NIV, ESV).


The בּ ( bet ) preposition is taken here to mean “with” in the light of the parallel preposition.


The word actually means “weighed,” that is, lifted up on the scale and weighed, in order to purchase.


The exact identification of these stones is uncertain. Many recent English translations, however, have “onyx” and “sapphires.”


The word is from זָכַךְ ( zakhakh , “clear”). It describes a transparent substance, and so “glass” is an appropriate translation. In the ancient world it was precious and so expensive.


The MT has “vase”; but the versions have a plural here, suggesting jewels of gold.


The word מֶשֶׁךְ ( meshekh ) comes from a root meaning “to grasp; to seize; to hold,” and so the derived noun means “grasping; acquiring; taking possession,” and therefore, “price” (see the discussion in R. Gordis, Job , 309). Gray renders it “acquisition” (so A. Cohen, AJSL 40 [1923/24]: 175).


In Lam 4:7 these are described as red, and so have been identified as rubies (so NIV) or corals.


Or “Ethiopia.” In ancient times this referred to the region of the upper Nile, rather than modern Ethiopia (formerly known as Abyssinia).


The refrain is repeated, except now the verb is תָּבוֹא ( tavo ’, “come”).


The vav on the verb is unexpressed in the LXX. It should not be overlooked, for it introduces a subordinate clause of condition (R. Gordis, Job , 310).


Heb “Abaddon.”


Heb “heard a report of it,” which means a report of its location, thus “where it can be found.”


Heb “he gave weight to the wind.” The form is the infinitive construct with the ל ( lamed ) preposition. Some have emended it to change the preposition to the temporal בּ ( bet ) on the basis of some of the versions (e.g., Latin and Syriac) that have “who made.” This is workable, for the infinitive would then take on the finite tense of the previous verbs. An infinitive of purpose does not work well, for that would be saying God looked everywhere in order to give wind its proper weight (see R. Gordis, Job , 310).


The verb is the Piel perfect, meaning “to estimate the measure” of something. In the verse, the perfect verb continues the function of the infinitive preceding it, as if it had a ו ( vav ) prefixed to it. Whatever usage that infinitive had, this verb is to continue it (see GKC 352 §114. r ).


Or “decree.”


Or “thunderbolt,” i.e., lightning. Heb “the roaring of voices/sounds,” which describes the nature of the storm.


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


The verb סָפַר ( safar ) in the Piel basically means “to tell; to declare; to show” or “to count; to number.” Many commentators offer different suggestions for the translation. “Declared” (as in the RSV, NASB, and NRSV) would be the simplest – but to whom did God declare it? Besides “appraised” which is the view of Pope, Dhorme and others (cf. NAB, NIV), J. Reider has suggested “probed” (“Etymological studies in biblical Hebrew,” VT 2 [1952]: 127), Strahan has “studied,” and Kissane has “reckoned.” The difficulty is that the line has a series of verbs, which seem to build to a climax; but without more details it is hard to know how to translate them when they have such a range of meaning.


The verb כּוּן ( kun ) means “to establish; to prepare” in this stem. There are several mss that have the form from בִּין ( bin , “discern”), giving “he discerned it,” making more of a parallel with the first colon. But the weight of the evidence supports the traditional MT reading.


The verb חָקַר ( khaqar ) means “to examine; to search out.” Some of the language used here is anthropomorphic, for the sovereign Lord did not have to research or investigate wisdom. The point is that it is as if he did this human activity, meaning that as in the results of such a search God knows everything about wisdom.


A number of medieval Hebrew manuscripts have YHWH (“ Lord ”); BHS has אֲדֹנָי (’ adonay , “Lord”). As J. E. Hartley ( Job [NICOT], 383) points out, this is the only occurrence of אֲדֹנָי (’ adonay , “Lord”) in the book of Job, creating doubt for retaining it. Normally, YHWH is avoided in the book. “Fear of” ( יִרְאַת , yir ’ at ) is followed by שַׁדַּי ( shadday , “Almighty”) in 6:14 – the only other occurrence of this term for “fear” in construct with a divine title.


Many commentators delete this verse because (1) many read the divine name Yahweh (translated “ Lord” ) here, and (2) it is not consistent with the argument that precedes it. But as H. H. Rowley ( Job [NCBC], 185) points out, there is inconsistency in this reasoning, for many of the critics have already said that this chapter is an interpolation. Following that line of thought, then, one would not expect it to conform to the rest of the book in this matter of the divine name. And concerning the second difficulty, the point of this chapter is that wisdom is beyond human comprehension and control. It belongs to God alone. So the conclusion that the fear of the Lord is wisdom is the necessary conclusion. Rowley concludes: “It is a pity to rob the poem of its climax and turn it into the expression of unrelieved agnosticism.”


The optative is here expressed with מִי־יִתְּנֵנִי ( mi-yittÿneni , “who will give me”), meaning, “O that I [could be]…” (see GKC 477 §151. b ).


The preposition כּ ( kaf ) is used here in an expression describing the state desired, especially in the former time (see GKC 376 §118. u ).


The expression is literally “months of before [or of old; or past].” The word קֶדֶם ( qedem ) is intended here to be temporal and not spatial; it means days that preceded the present.


The construct state (“days of”) governs the independent sentence that follows (see GKC 422 §130. d ): “as the days of […] God used to watch over me.”


The imperfect verb here has a customary nuance – “when God would watch over me” (back then), or “when God used to watch over me.”


This clause is in apposition to the preceding (see GKC 426 §131. o ). It offers a clarification.


The form בְּהִלּוֹ ( bÿhillo ) is unusual; it should be parsed as a Hiphil infinitive construct with the elision of the ה ( he ). The proper spelling would have been with a ַ ( patakh ) under the preposition, reflecting הַהִלּוֹ ( hahillo ). If it were Qal, it would just mean “when his light shone.”


Here too the imperfect verb is customary – it describes action that was continuous, but in a past time.


The accusative (“darkness”) is here an adverbial accusative of place, namely, “in the darkness,” or because he was successfully led by God’s light, “through the darkness” (see GKC 374 §118. h ).


Heb “in the days of my ripeness.” The word חֹרֶף ( khoref ) denotes the time when the harvest is gathered in because the fruit is ripe. Since this is the autumn, many translate that way here – but “autumn” has a different connotation now. The text is pointing to a time when the righteous reaps what he has sown, and can enjoy the benefits. The translation “most productive time” seems to capture the point better than “autumn” or even “prime.”


The word סוֹד ( sod ) in this verse is an infinitive construct, prefixed with the temporal preposition and followed by a subjective genitive. It forms a temporal clause. There is some disagreement about the form and its meaning. The confusion in the versions shows that they were paraphrasing to get the general sense. In the Bible the derived noun (from יָסַד , yasad ) means (a) a circle of close friends; (b) intimacy. Others follow the LXX and the Syriac with a meaning of “protect,” based on a change from ד ( dalet ) to כּ ( kaf ), and assuming the root was סָכַךְ ( sakhakh ). This would mean, “when God protected my tent” (cf. NAB). D. W. Thomas tries to justify this meaning without changing the text (“The Interpretation of BSOÝD in Job 29:4 ,” JBL 65 [1946]: 63-66).


Heb “Shaddai.”


Some commentators suggest that עִמָּדִי (’ immadi , “with me”) of the second colon of v. 6 (which is too long) belongs to the second colon of v. 5 , and should be pointed as the verb עָמָדוּ (’ amadu , “they stood”), meaning the boys stood around him (see, e.g., E. Dhorme, Job , 417). But as R. Gordis ( Job , 319) notes, there is a purpose for the imbalance of the metric pattern at the end of a section.


The word is a hapax legomenon , but the meaning is clear enough. It refers to the walking, the steps, or even the paths where one walks. It is figurative of his course of life.


The Hebrew word means “to wash; to bathe”; here it is the infinitive construct in a temporal clause, “my steps” being the genitive: “in the washing of my steps in butter.”


Again, as in Job 21:17 , “curds.”


The MT reads literally, “and the rock was poured out [passive participle] for me as streams of oil.” There are some who delete the word “rock” to shorten the line because it seems out of place. But olive trees thrive in rocky soil, and the oil presses are cut into the rock; it is possible that by metonymy all this is intended here (H. H. Rowley, Job [NCBC], 186).


The verb means “to hide; to withdraw.” The young men out of respect would withdraw or yield the place of leadership to Job (thus the translation “step aside”). The old men would rise and remain standing until Job took his seat – a sign of respect.


The verb here is “hidden” as well as in v. 8 . But this is a strange expression for voices. Several argue that the word was erroneously inserted from 8a and needs to be emended. But the word “hide” can have extended meanings of “withdraw; be quiet; silent” (see Gen 31:27 ). A. Guillaume relates the Arabic habi ’ a, “the fire dies out,” applying the idea of “silent” only to v. 10 (it is a form of repetition of words with different senses, called jinas ). The point here is that whatever conversation was going on would become silent or hushed to hear what Job had to say.


The words “these things” and “them” in the next colon are not in the Hebrew text, but have been supplied in the translation for clarity.


The main clause is introduced by the preterite with the vav ( ו ) consecutive (see GKC 327 §111. h ); the clause before it is therefore temporal and circumstantial to the main clause.


The negative introduces a clause that serves as a negative attribute; literally the following clause says, “and had no helper” (see GKC 482 §152. u ).


The verb is simply בּוֹא ( bo ’, “to come; to enter”). With the preposition עַל (’ al , “upon”) it could mean “came to me,” or “came upon me,” i.e., descended (see R. Gordis, Job , 320).


The verb אַרְנִן (’ arnin ) is from רָנַן ( ranan , “to give a ringing cry”) but here “cause to give a ringing cry,” i.e., shout of joy. The rejoicing envisioned in this word is far greater than what the words “sing” or “rejoice” suggest.


Both verbs in this first half-verse are from לָבַשׁ ( lavash , “to clothe; to put on clothing”). P. Joüon changed the vowels to get a verb “it adorned me” instead of “it clothed me” ( Bib 11 [1930]: 324). The figure of clothing is used for the character of the person: to wear righteousness is to be righteous.


The word מִשְׁפָּטִי ( mishpati ) is simply “my justice” or “my judgment.” It refers to the decisions he made in settling issues, how he dealt with other people justly.


The word rendered “fangs” actually means “teeth,” i.e., the molars probably; it is used frequently of the teeth of wild beasts. Of course, the language is here figurative, comparing the oppressing enemy to a preying animal.


“I made [him] drop.” The verb means “to throw; to cast,” throw in the sense of “to throw away.” But in the context with the figure of the beast with prey in its mouth, “drop” or “cast away” is the idea. Driver finds another cognate meaning “rescue” (see AJSL 52 [1935/36]: 163).


The expression in the MT is “with my nest.” The figure is satisfactory for the context – a home with all the young together, a picture of unity and safety. In Isa 16:2 the word can mean “nestlings,” and with the preposition “with” that might be the meaning here, except that his children had grown up and lived in their own homes. The figure cannot be pushed too far. But the verse apparently has caused enormous problems, because the versions offer a variety of readings and free paraphrases. The LXX has “My age shall grow old as the stem of a palm tree, I shall live a long time.” The Vulgate has, “In my nest I shall die and like the palm tree increase my days.” G. R. Driver found an Egyptian word meaning “strength” (“Birds in the Old Testament,” PEQ 87 [1955]: 138-39). Several read “in a ripe old age” instead of “in my nest” (Pope, Dhorme; see P. P. Saydon, “Philological and Textual Notes to the Maltese Translation of the Old Testament,” CBQ 23 [1961]: 252). This requires the verb זָקַן ( zaqan , “be old”), i.e., בִּזְקוּנַי ( bizqunay , “in my old age”) instead of קִנִּי ( qinni , “my nest”). It has support from the LXX.


For חוֹל ( khol , “sand”) the LXX has a word that is “like the palm tree,” but which could also be translated “like the phoenix” (cf. NAB, NRSV). This latter idea was developed further in rabbinical teaching (see R. Gordis, Job , 321). See also M. Dahood, “Nest and phoenix in Job 29:18 ,” Bib 48 (1967): 542-44. But the MT yields an acceptable sense here.


The word is “my glory,” meaning his high respect and his honor. Hoffmann proposed to read כִּידוֹן ( kidon ) instead, meaning “javelin” (as in 1 Sam 17:6 ), to match the parallelism ( RQ 3 [1961/62]: 388). But the parallelism does not need to be so tight.


Heb “new.”


“People” is supplied; the verb is plural.


The last verb of the first half, “wait, hope,” and the first verb in the second colon, “be silent,” are usually reversed by the commentators (see G. R. Driver, “Problems in the Hebrew text of Job,” VTSup 3 [1955]: 86). But if “wait” has the idea of being silent as they wait for him to speak, then the second line would say they were silent for the reason of his advice. The reading of the MT is not impossible.


The verb simply means “dropped,” but this means like the rain. So the picture of his words falling on them like the gentle rain, drop by drop, is what is intended (see Deut 32:2 ).


The phrase “people wait for” is not in the Hebrew text, but has been supplied in the translation.


The כּ ( kaf ) preposition is to be supplied by analogy with the preceding phrase. This leaves a double proposition, “as for” (but see Job 29:2 ).


The connection of this clause with the verse is difficult. The line simply reads: “[if] I would smile at them, they would not believe.” Obviously something has to be supplied to make sense out of this. The view adopted here makes the most sense, namely, that when he smiled at people, they could hardly believe their good fortune. Other interpretations are strained, such as Kissane’s, “If I laughed at them, they believed not,” meaning, people rejected the views that Job laughed at.


The meaning, according to Gordis, is that they did nothing to provoke Job’s displeasure.


All of these imperfects describe what Job used to do, and so they all fit the category of customary imperfect.


Heb “their way.”


The text simply has “and I sat [as their] head.” The adverbial accusative explains his role, especially under the image of being seated. He directed the deliberations as a king directs an army.


Most commentators think this last phrase is odd here, and so they either delete it altogether, or emend it to fit the idea of the verse. Ewald, however, thought it appropriate as a transition to the next section, reminding his friends that unlike him, they were miserable comforters. Herz made the few changes in the text to get the reading “where I led them, they were willing to go” ( ZAW 20 [1900]: 163). The two key words in the MT are אֲבֵלִים יְנַחֵם (’ avelim yÿnakhem , “he [one who] comforts mourners”). Following Herz, E. Dhorme ( Job , 422) has these changed to אוֹבִילֵם יִנַּחוּ (’ ovilem yinnakhu ). R. Gordis has “like one leading a camel train” ( Job , 324). But Kissane also retains the line as a summary of the chapter, noting its presence in the versions.


Heb “smaller than I for days.”


Heb “who I disdained their fathers to set…,” meaning “whose fathers I disdained to set.” The relative clause modifies the young fellows who mock; it explains that Job did not think highly enough of them to put them with the dogs. The next verse will explain why.


The reference is to the fathers of the scorners, who are here regarded as weak and worthless.


The word כֶּלַח ( kelakh ) only occurs in Job 5:26 ; but the Arabic cognate gives this meaning “strength.” Others suggest כָּלַח ( kalakh , “old age”), ֹכּל־חַיִל ( kol-khayil , “all vigor”), כֹּל־לֵחַ ( kol-leakh , “all freshness”), and the like. But there is no reason for such emendation.


This word, גַּלְמוּד ( galmud ), describes something as lowly, desolate, bare, gaunt like a rock.


The form is the plural participle with the definite article – “who gnaw.” The article, joined to the participle, joins on a new statement concerning a preceding noun (see GKC 404 §126. b ).


The MT has “yesterday desolate and waste.” The word “yesterday” ( אֶמֶשׁ , ’ emesh ) is strange here. Among the proposals for אֶמֶשׁ (’ emesh ), Duhm suggested יְמַשְּׁשׁוּ ( yÿmashÿshu , “they grope”), which would require darkness; Pope renders “by night,” instead of “yesterday,” which evades the difficulty; and Fohrer suggested with more reason אֶרֶץ (’ erets ), “a desolate and waste land.” R. Gordis ( Job , 331) suggests יָמִישׁוּ / יָמֻשׁוּ ( yamishu/yamushu ), “they wander off.”


Or “the leaves of bushes” (ESV), a possibility dating back to Saadia and discussed by G. R. Driver and G. B. Gray ( Job [ICC], 2:209) in their philological notes.


Here too the form is the participle with the article.


Heb “gather mallow,” a plant which grows in salt marshes.


The word גֵּו ( gev ) is an Aramaic term meaning “midst,” indicating “midst [of society].” But there is also a Phoenician word that means “community” ( DISO 48).


The form simply is the plural verb, but it means those who drove them from society.


The text merely says “as thieves,” but it obviously compares the poor to the thieves.


This use of the infinitive construct expresses that they were compelled to do something (see GKC 348-49 §114. h , k ).


The adjectives followed by a partitive genitive take on the emphasis of a superlative: “in the most horrible of valleys” (see GKC 431 §133. h ).


The verb נָהַק ( nahaq ) means “to bray.” It has cognates in Arabic, Aramaic, and Ugaritic, so there is no need for emendation here. It is the sign of an animal’s hunger. In the translation the words “like animals” are supplied to clarify the metaphor for the modern reader.


The Pual of the verb סָפַח ( safakh , “to join”) also brings out the passivity of these people – “they were huddled together” (E. Dhorme, Job , 434).


The “sons of the senseless” ( נָבָל , naval ) means they were mentally and morally base and defective; and “sons of no-name” means without honor and respect, worthless (because not named).


Heb “they were whipped from the land” (cf. ESV) or “they were cast out from the land” ( HALOT 697 s.v. נכא ). J. E. Hartley ( Job [NICOT], 397) follows Gordis suggests that the meaning is “brought lower than the ground.”


The idea is that Job has become proverbial, people think of misfortune and sin when they think of him. The statement uses the ordinary word for “word” ( מִלָּה , millah ), but in this context it means more: “proverb; byword.”


Heb “they are far from me.”


The verb פָּתַח ( patakh ) means “to untie [or undo]” a rope or bonds. In this verse יִתְרוֹ ( yitro , the Kethib , LXX, and Vulgate) would mean “his rope” (see יֶתֶר [ yeter ] in Judg 16:7-9 ). The Qere would be יִתְרִי ( yitri , “my rope [or cord]”), meaning “me.” The word could mean “rope,” “cord,” or “bowstring.” If the reading “my cord” is accepted, the cord would be something like “my tent cord” (as in Job 29:20 ), more than K&D 12:147 “cord of life.” This has been followed in the present translation. If it were “my bowstring,” it would give the sense of disablement. If “his cord” is taken, it would signify that the restraint that God had in afflicting Job was loosened – nothing was held back.


This Hebrew word occurs only here. The word פִּרְחַח ( pirkhakh , “young rabble”) is a quadriliteral, from פָּרַח ( parakh , “to bud”) The derivative אֶפְרֹחַ (’ efroakh ) in the Bible refers to a young bird. In Arabic farhun means both “young bird” and “base man.” Perhaps “young rabble” is the best meaning here (see R. Gordis, Job , 333).


Heb “they cast off my feet” or “they send my feet away.” Many delete the line as troubling and superfluous. E. Dhorme ( Job , 438) forces the lines to say “they draw my feet into a net.”


Heb “paths of their destruction” or “their destructive paths.”


This verb נָתְסוּ ( natÿsu ) is found nowhere else. It is probably a variant of the verb in Job 19:10 . R. Gordis ( Job , 333-34) notes the Arabic noun natsun (“thorns”), suggesting a denominative idea “they have placed thorns in my path.” Most take it to mean they ruin the way of escape.


The MT has “they further my misfortune.” The line is difficult, with slight textual problems. The verb יֹעִילוּ ( yo ’ ilu ) means “to profit,” and so “to succeed” or “to set forward.” Good sense can be made from the MT as it stands, and many suggested changes are suspect.


The sense of “restraining” for “helping” was proposed by Dillmann and supported by G. R. Driver (see AJSL 52 [1935/36]: 163).


The MT has “under the crash,” with the idea that they rush in while the stones are falling around them (which is continuing the figure of the military attack). G. R. Driver took the expression to mean in a temporal sense “at the moment of the crash” ( AJSL 52 [1935/36]: 163-64). Guillaume, drawing from Arabic, has “where the gap is made.”


The verb, the Hitpalpel of גָּלַל ( galal ), means “they roll themselves.” This could mean “they roll themselves under the ruins” (Dhorme), “they roll on like a storm” (Gordis), or “they roll on” as in waves of enemy attackers (see H. H. Rowley). This particular verb form is found only here (but see Amos 5:24 ).


The passive singular verb (Hophal) is used with a plural subject (see GKC 388 §121. b ).


This translation assumes that “terrors” (in the plural) is the subject. Others emend the text in accordance with the LXX, which has, “my hope is gone like the wind.”