Job 10:7-12:7 | KD | STEP | Doth it please Thee when Thou oppressest, That Thou rejectest the work of Thy hands, While Thou shinest upon the counsel of the wicked? 4 Hast Thou eyes of flesh, Or seest Thou as a mortal seeth? 5 Are Thy days as the days of a mortal, Or Thy years as man’s days, 6 That Thou seekest after my iniquity, And searchest after my sin? 7 Although Thou knowest that I am not a wicked man, And there is none that can deliver out of Thy hand. There are three questions by which Job seeks to exhaust every possible way of accounting for his sufferings as coming from God. These attempts at explanation, however, are at once destroyed, because they proceed upon conceptions which are unworthy of God, and opposed to His nature. Firstly , Whether it gives Him pleasure (טּוב, agreeable, as ) when He oppresses, when He despises, i.e., keeps down forcibly or casts from Him as hateful (מאס, as ; ) the work of His hand; while, on the contrary, He permits light to shine from above upon the design of the wicked, i.e., favours it? Man is called the יגיע of the divine hands, as though he were elaborated by them, because at his origin ( ), the continuation of which is the development in the womb ( ), he came into existence in a remarkable manner by the directly personal, careful, and, so to speak, skilful working of God. That it is the morally innocent which is here described, may be seen not only from the contrast ( ), but also from the fact that he only can be spoken of as oppressed and rejected. Moreover, “the work of Thy hands” involves a negative reply to the question. Such an unloving mood of self-satisfaction is contrary to the bounty and beneficence of that love to which man owes his existence. Secondly , Whether God has eyes of flesh, i.e., of sense, which regard only the outward appearance, without an insight into the inner nature, or whether He sees as mortals see, i.e., judges, κατὰ τῆν σάρκα (Joh 8:15)? Mercier correctly: num ex facie judicas, ut affectibus ducaris more hominum. This question also supplies its own negative; it is based upon the thought that God lookest on the heart ( ). Thirdly , Whether His life is like to the brevity of man’s life, so that He is not able to wait until a man’s sin manifests itself, but must institute such a painful course of investigation with him, in order to extort from him as quickly as possible a confession of it? Suffering appears here to be a means of inquisition, which is followed by the final judgment when the guilt is proved. What is added in puts this supposition aside also as inconceivable. Such a mode of proceeding may be conceived of in a mortal ruler, who, on account of his short-sightedness, seeks to bring about by severe measures that which was at first only conjecture, and who, from the apprehension that he may not witness that vengeance in which he delights, hastens forward the criminal process as much as possible, in order that his victim may not escape him. God, however, to whom belongs absolute knowledge and absolute power, would act thus, although, etc. על, although, notwithstanding (proceeding from the signification, besides, insuper ), as ( ), Job 34:6. God knows even from the first that he (Job) will not appear as a guilty person (רשׁע, as in ); and however that may be, He is at all events sure of him, for nothing escapes the hand of God. That operation of the divine love which is first echoed in “the labour of Thy hands,” is taken up in the following strophe, and, as Job contemplates it, his present lot seems to him quite incomprehensible.

‏ Job 10:7-22

Job 10:3-7 3 Doth it please Thee when Thou oppressest,

That Thou rejectest the work of Thy hands,

While Thou shinest upon the counsel of the wicked? 4 Hast Thou eyes of flesh,

Or seest Thou as a mortal seeth? 5 Are Thy days as the days of a mortal,

Or Thy years as man’s days, 6 That Thou seekest after my iniquity,

And searchest after my sin? 7 Although Thou knowest that I am not a wicked man,

And there is none that can deliver out of Thy hand.

There are three questions by which Job seeks to exhaust every possible way of accounting for his sufferings as coming from God. These attempts at explanation, however, are at once destroyed, because they proceed upon conceptions which are unworthy of God, and opposed to His nature. Firstly, Whether it gives Him pleasure (טּוב, agreeable, as Job 13:9) when He oppresses, when He despises, i.e., keeps down forcibly or casts from Him as hateful (מאס, as Psa 89:39; Isa 54:6) the work of His hand; while, on the contrary, He permits light to shine from above upon the design of the wicked, i.e., favours it? Man is called the יגיע of the divine hands, as though he were elaborated by them, because at his origin (Gen 2:7), the continuation of which is the development in the womb (Psa 139:15), he came into existence in a remarkable manner by the directly personal, careful, and, so to speak, skilful working of God. That it is the morally innocent which is here described, may be seen not only from the contrast (Job 10:3), but also from the fact that he only can be spoken of as oppressed and rejected. Moreover, “the work of Thy hands” involves a negative reply to the question. Such an unloving mood of self-satisfaction is contrary to the bounty and beneficence of that love to which man owes his existence. Secondly, Whether God has eyes of flesh, i.e., of sense, which regard only the outward appearance, without an insight into the inner nature, or whether He sees as mortals see, i.e., judges, κατὰ τῆν σάρκα (Joh 8:15)? Mercier correctly: num ex facie judicas, ut affectibus ducaris more hominum. This question also supplies its own negative; it is based upon the thought that God lookest on the heart (1Sa 16:7). Thirdly, Whether His life is like to the brevity of man’s life, so that He is not able to wait until a man’s sin manifests itself, but must institute such a painful course of investigation with him, in order to extort from him as quickly as possible a confession of it? Suffering appears here to be a means of inquisition, which is followed by the final judgment when the guilt is proved. What is added in Job 10:7 puts this supposition aside also as inconceivable. Such a mode of proceeding may be conceived of in a mortal ruler, who, on account of his short-sightedness, seeks to bring about by severe measures that which was at first only conjecture, and who, from the apprehension that he may not witness that vengeance in which he delights, hastens forward the criminal process as much as possible, in order that his victim may not escape him. God, however, to whom belongs absolute knowledge and absolute power, would act thus, although, etc. על, although, notwithstanding (proceeding from the signification, besides, insuper), as Job 17:16 (Isa 53:9), Job 34:6. God knows even from the first that he (Job) will not appear as a guilty person (רשׁע, as in Job 9:29); and however that may be, He is at all events sure of him, for nothing escapes the hand of God.

That operation of the divine love which is first echoed in “the labour of Thy hands,” is taken up in the following strophe, and, as Job contemplates it, his present lot seems to him quite incomprehensible. Job 10:8-12 8 Thy hands have formed and perfected me

Altogether round about, and Thou hast now swallowed me up! 9 Consider now, that Thou has perfected me as clay,

And wilt Thou turn me again into dust? 10 Hast Thou not poured me out as milk,

And curdled me as curd? 11 With skin and flesh hast Thou clothed me,

And Thou hast intertwined me with bones and sinews; 12 Life and favour Thou hast shown me,

And thy care hath guarded my breath.

The development of the embryo was regarded by the Israelitish Chokma as one of the greatest mysteries (Ecc 11:5; 2 Macc. 7:22f.). There are two poetical passages which treat explicitly of this mysterious existence: this strophe of the book of Job, and the Psalm by David, Psa 139:13-16 (Psychol. S. 210). The assertion of Scheuchzer, Hoffmann, and Oetinger, that these passages of Scripture “include, and indeed go beyond, all recent systemata generationis,” attributes to Scripture a design of imparting instruction, - a purpose which is foreign to it. Scripture nowhere attempts an analysis of the workings of nature, but only traces them back to their final cause. According to the view of Scripture, a creative act similar to the creation of Adam is repeated at the origin of each individual; and the continuation of development according to natural laws is not less the working of God than the creative planting of the very beginning. Thy hands, says Job, have formed (עצּב, to cut, carve, fashion; cognate are חצב, קצב, without the accompanying notion of toil, which makes this word specially appropriate, as describing the fashioning of the complicated nature of man) and perfected me. We do not translate: made; for עשׂה stands in the same relation to ברא and יצר as perficere to creare and fingere (Gen 2:2; Isa 43:7). יחד refers to the members of the body collectively, and סביב to the whole form. The perfecting as clay implies three things: the earthiness of the substance, the origin of man without his knowledge and co-operation, and the moulding of the shapeless substance by divine power and wisdom. The primal origin of man, de limo terrae (Job 33:6; Psa 139:15), is repeated in the womb. The figures which follow (Job 10:10) describe this origin, which being obscure is all the more mysterious, and glorifies the power of God the more. The sperma is likened to milk; the חתּיך (used elsewhere of smelting), which Seb. Schmid rightly explains rem colliquatam fundere et immittere in formam aliquam, refers to the nisus formativus which dwells in it. The embryo which is formed from the sperma is likened to גּבינה, which means in all the Semitic dialects cheese (curd). “As whey” (Ewald, Hahn) is not suitable; whey does not curdle; in making cheese it is allowed to run off from the curdled milk. “As cream” (Schlottm.) is not less incorrect; cream is not lac coagulatum, which the word signifies. The embryo forming itself from the sperma is like milk which is curdled and beaten into shape.

The consecutio temporum, moreover, must be observed here. It is, for example, incorrect to translate, with Ewald: Dost Thou not let me flow away like milk, etc. Job looks back to the beginning of his life; the four clauses, Job 10:10, Job 10:11, under the control of the first two verbs (Job 10:8), which influence the whole strophe, are also retrospective in meaning. The futt. are consequently like synchronous imperff.; as, then, Job 10:12 returns to perff., Job 10:11 describes the development of the embryo to the full-grown infant, on which Grotius remarks: Hic ordo est in genitura: primum pellicula fit, deinde in ea caro, duriora paulatim accedunt, and by Job 10:12, the manifestations of divine goodness, not only in the womb, but from the beginning of life and onwards, are intended. The expression “Life and favour (this combination does not occur elsewhere) hast Thou done to me” is zeugmatic: He has given him life, and sustained that life amidst constant proofs of favour; His care has guarded the spirit (רוּח), by which his frame becomes a living and self-conscious being. This grateful retrospect is interspersed with painful reflections, in which Job gives utterance to his feeling of the contrast between the manifestation of the divine goodness which he had hitherto experienced and his present condition. As in Job 10:8., ותּבלּעני, which Hirzel wrongly translates: and wilt now destroy me; it is rather: and hast now swallowed me up, i.e., drawn me down into destruction, as it were brought me to nought; or even, if in the fut. consec., as is frequently the case, the consecutive and not the aorist signification preponderates: and now swallowest me up; and in Job 10:9 (where, though not clear from the syntax, it is clear from the substance that תשׁיבני is not to be understood as an imperfect, like the futt. in Job 10:10.): wilt Thou cause me to become dust again? The same tone is continued in the following strophe. Thus graciously has he been brought into being, and his life sustained, in order that he may come to such a terrible end. Job 10:13-17 13 And such Thou hast hidden in Thy heart,

I perceive that this was in Thy mind: 14 If I should sin, Thou wouldst take note of it,

And not acquit me of my iniquity. 15 If I should act wickedly, woe unto me!

And were I righteous, I should not lift up my head,

Being full of shame and conscious of my misery. 16 And were I to raise it, Thou wouldst hunt me as a lion,

And ever display on me Thy wondrous power, 17 Thou wouldst ever bring fresh witnesses against me,

And increase Thy wrath against me,

I should be compelled to withstand continuously advancing troops and a host.

This manifestation of divine goodness which Job has experienced from the earliest existence seems to him, as he compares his present lot of suffering with it, to have served as a veil to a hidden purpose of a totally opposite character. That purpose - to make this life, which has been so graciously called into existence and guarded thus far, the object of the severest and most condemning visitation - is now manifest. Both אלּה and זאת refer to what is to follow: עמּך זאת used of the thought conceived, the purpose cherished, as Job 23:14; Job 27:11. All that follows receives a future colouring from this principal clause, “This is what Thou hadst designed to do,” which rules the strophe. Thus Job 10:14 is to be rendered: If I had sinned, Thou wouldst have kept me in remembrance, properly custodies me, which is here equivalent to custoditurus eras me. שׁמר, with the acc. of the person, according to Psa 130:3 (where it is followed by the acc. of the sin), is to be understood: to keep any one in remembrance, i.e., to mark him as sinful (Hirzel). This appears more appropriate than rigide observaturus eras me (Schlottm.). ושׁמרתני, according to Ges. §121, 4, might be taken for לי ושׁמרת (viz., חטּאתי); but this is unnecessary, and we have merely translated it thus for the sake of clearness. His infirmities must not be passed by unpunished; and if he should act wickedly (רשׁע, of malignant sin, in distinction from חטא), woe unto him (comp. οἰαί μοι, 1Co 9:16). According to the construction referred to above, וצדקתי is praet. hypotheticum (Ges. §155, 4, a); and the conclusion follows without waw apodosis: If I had acted rightly, I should not have raised my head, being full of shame and conscious of my misery. The adjectives are not in apposition to ראשׁי (Böttcher), but describe the condition into which he would be brought, instead of being able (according to the ethical principle, Gen 4:7) to raise his head cheerfully. ראה constr. of ראה, as שׂבע or שׂבע. It is needless, with Pisc., Hirz., Böttch., and Ewald, to alter it to ראה, since ראה is verbal adjective like יפה, נכה, קשׁה. Moreover, וּראה cannot be imperative (Rosenm., De Wette); for although imperatives, joined by waw to sentences of a different construction, do occur (Psa 77:2; 2Sa 21:3), such an exclamation would destroy the connection and tone of the strophe in the present case. Job 10:18-22 18 And wherefore hast Thou brought me forth out of the womb?

I should have expired, that no eye had seen me, 19 I should have been as though I had never been,

Carried from the womb to the grave. 20 Are not my days few? then cease

And turn from me, that I may become a little cheerful, 21 Before I go to return no more

Into the land of darkness and of the shadow of death, 22 The land of deep darkness like to midnight,

Of the shadow of death and of confusion,

And which is bright like midnight.

The question Wherefore? Job 10:18, is followed by futt. as modi conditionales (Ges. §127, 5) of that which would and should have happened, if God had not permitted him to be born alive: I should have expired, prop. I ought to have expired, being put back to the time of birth (comp. Job 3:13, where the praet. more objectively expressed what would then have happened). These modi condit. are continued in Job 10:19 : I should have been (sc. in the womb) as though I had not been (comp. the short elliptical ^{▼▼כלא is there = לא כאשׁר, like ללא, Isa 65:1 = לא לאשׁר [vid. Ges. §123, 3], and כּ is used as a conjunction as little as ל (vid., on Psa 38:14).} expression, Oba 1:16), i.e., as one who had scarcely entered upon existence, and that only of the earliest (as at conception); I should have been carried (הוּבל, as Job 21:32) from the womb (without seeing the light as one born alive) to the grave. This detestation of his existence passes into the wish, Job 10:20, that God would be pleased at least somewhat to relieve him ere he is swallowed up by the night of Hades. We must neither with the Targ. translate: are not my days few, and vanishing away? nor with Oetinger: will not my fewness of days cease? Both are contrary to the correct accentuation. Olshausen thinks it remarkable that there is not a weaker pausal accent to ימי; but such a one is really indirectly there, for Munach is here equivalent to Dechî, from which it is formed (vid., the rule in Comm. über den Psalter, ii. 504). Accordingly, Seb. Schmid correctly translates: nonne parum dies mei? ideo cessa. The Keri substitutes the precative form of expression for the optative: cease then, turn away from me then (imper. consec. with waw of the result, Ewald, §235, a); comp. the precative conclusion to the speech, Job 7:16., but there is no real reason for changing the optative form of the text. ישׁית (voluntative for ישׁת, Job 9:33) may be supplemented by ידו, פניו, עיניו ,פ, or לבו (Job 7:17) (not, however, with Hirz., שׁבטו, after Job 9:34, which is too far-fetched for the usage of the language, or with Böttch., מחנהו, copias suas); שׁית can however, like שׂים, Job 4:20, signify to turn one’s self to, se disponere = to attend to, consequently מן שׁית, to turn the attention from, as מן שׁעה, Job 7:19, Ps. 39:14 (where, as here, ואבליגה follows).

He desires a momentary alleviation of his sufferings and ease before his descent to Hades, which seems so near at hand. He calls Hades the land of darkness and of the shadow of death. צלמות, which occurs for the first time in the Old Testament in Psa 23:4, is made into a compound from סלמוּת, and is the proper word for the obscurity of the region of the dead, and is accordingly repeated later on. Further, he calls it the land of encircling darkness (עפתה, defective for עיפתה, from עוף, caligare, and with He parag. intensive for עיפה, in Amo 4:13, who also uses הבליג, Job 5:9, in common with Job), like midnight darkness. אפל cannot mean merely the grey of twilight, it is the entire absence of sunlight, Job 3:6; Job 28:3; Psa 91:6; comp. ex. Job 10:22, where the Egyptian darkness is called אפלה חשׁך. Böttch. correctly compares אפל and נפל: mersa ad imum h.e. profunda nox (the advancing night). Still further he calls it (the land) of the shadow of death, and devoid of order (סדרים, ἅπ. λεγ. in the Old Testament, but a common word in the later Hebrew), i.e., where everything is so encompassed by the shadow of death that it seems a chaos, without any visible or distinct outline. It is difficult to determine whether ותּפע is to be referred to ארץ: and which lights (fut. consec. as the accent on the penult. indicates, the syntax like Job 3:21, Job 3:23; Isa 57:3); or is to be taken as neuter: and it shines there (= and where it shines) like midnight darkness. Since ותּפע (from יפע = ופע, to rise, shine forth; vid., on Psa 95:4), as also האיר, does not occur elsewhere as neuter, we prefer, with Hirzel, to refer it to ארץ ot, as being more certain. Moreover, אפל is here evidently the intensest darkness, ipsum medullitium umbrae mortis ejusque intensissimum, as Oetinger expresses it. That which is there called light, i.e., the faintest degree of darkness, is like the midnight of this world; “not light, but darkness visible,” as Milton says of hell.

The maxim of the friends is: God does not pervert right, i.e., He deals justly in all that He does. They conclude from this, that no man, no sufferer, dare justify himself: it is his duty to humble himself under the just hand of God. Job assents to all this, but his assent is mere sarcasm at what they say. He admits that everything that God does is right, and must be acknowledged as right; not, however, because it is right in itself, but because it is the act of the absolute God, against whom no protest uttered by the creature, though with the clearest conviction of innocence, can avail. Job separates goodness from God, and regards that which is part of His very being as a produce of His arbitrary will. What God says and does must be true and right, even if it be not true and right in itself. The God represented by the friends is a God of absolute justice; the God of Job is a God of absolute power. The former deals according to the objective rule of right; the latter according to a freedom which, because removed from all moral restraint, is pure caprice.

How is it that Job entertains such a cheerless view of the matter? The friends, by the strong view which they have taken up, urge him into another extreme. On their part, they imagine that in the justice of God they have a principle which is sufficient to account for all the misfortunes of mankind, and Job’s in particular. They maintain, with respect to mankind in general (Eliphaz by an example from his own observation, and Bildad by calling to his aid the wisdom of the ancients), that the ungodly, though prosperous for a time, come to a fearful end; with respect to Job, that his affliction is a just chastisement from God, although designed for his good. Against the one assertion Job’s own experience of life rebels; against the other his consciousness rises up with indignation. Job’s observation is really as correct as that of the friends; for the history of the past and of the present furnishes as many illustrations of judgments which have suddenly come upon the godless in the height of their prosperity, as of general visitations in which the innocent have suffered with the guilty, by whom these judgments have been incurred. But with regard to his misfortune, Job cannot and ought not to look at it from the standpoint of the divine justice. For the proposition, which we will give in the words of Brentius, quidquid post fidei justificationem pio acciderit, innocenti accidit, is applicable to our present subject.

If, then, Job’s suffering were not so severe, and his faith so powerfully shaken, he would comfort himself with the thought that the divine ways are unsearchable; since, on the one hand, he cannot deny the many traces of the justice of the divine government in the world (he does not deny them even here), and on the other hand, is perplexed by the equally numerous incongruities of human destiny with the divine justice. (This thought is rendered more consolatory to us by the revelation which we possess of the future life; although even in the later Old Testament times the last judgment is referred to as the adjustment of all these incongruities; vid., the conclusion of Ecclesiastes.) His own lot might have remained always inexplicable to him, without his being obliged on that account to lose the consciousness of the divine love, and that faith like Asaph’s, which, as Luther says, struggles towards God through wrath and disfavour, as through thorns, yea, even through spears and swords.

Job is passing through conflict and temptation. He does not perceive the divine motive and purpose of his suffering, nor has he that firm and unshaken faith which will keep him from mistaken views of God, although His dispensations are an enigma to him; but, as his first speech (ch. 3) shows, he is tormented by thoughts which form part of the conflict of temptation. The image of the gracious God is hidden from him, he feels only the working of the divine wrath, and asks, Wherefore doth God give light to the suffering ones? - a question which must not greatly surprise us, for, as Luther says, “There has never been any one so holy that he has not been tormented with this quare, quare, Wherefore? wherefore should it be so?” And when the friends, who know as little as Job himself about the right solution of this mystery, censure him for his inquiry, and think that in the propositions: man has no righteousness which he can maintain before God, and God does not pervert the right, they have found the key to the mystery, the conflict becomes fiercer for Job, because the justice of God furnishes him with no satisfactory explanation of his own lot, or of the afflictions of mankind generally. The justice of God, which the friends consider to be sufficient to explain everything that befalls man, Job can only regard as the right of the Supreme Being; and while it appears to the friends that every act of God is controlled by His justice, it seems to Job that whatever God does must be right, by virtue of His absolute power.

This principle, devoid of consolation, drives Job to the utterances so unworthy of him, that, in spite of his conviction of his innocence, he must appear guilty before God, because he must be speechless before His terrible majesty, - that if, however, God would only for once so meet him that he could fearlessly address Him, he would know well enough how to defend himself (ch. 9). After these utterances of his feeling, from which all consciousness of the divine love is absent, he puts forth the touching prayer: Condemn me not without letting me know why Thou dost condemn me! (Job 10:1-7).

As he looks back, he is obliged to praise God, as his Creator and Preserver, for what He has hitherto done for him (Job 10:8-12); but as he thinks of his present condition, he sees that from the very beginning God designed to vent His wrath upon him, to mark his infirmities, and to deprive him of all joy in the consciousness of his innocence (Job 10:13-17). He is therefore compelled to regard God as his enemy, and this thought overpowers the remembrance of the divine goodness. If, however, God were his enemy, he might well ask, Wherefore then have I come into being? And while he writhes as a worm crushed beneath the almighty power of God, he prays that God would let him alone for a season ere he passes away into the land of darkness, whence there is no return (Job 10:18-22).

Brentius remarks that this speech of Job contains inferni blasphemias, and explains them thus: non enim in tanto judicii horrore Deum patrem, sed carnificem sentit; but also adds, that in passages like Job 10:8-12 faith raises its head even in the midst of judgment; for when he praises the mercies of God, he does so spiritu fidei, and these he would not acknowledge were there not a fidei scintilla still remaining. This is true. The groundwork of Job’s faith remains even in the fiercest conflict of temptation, and is continually manifest; we should be unable to understand the book unless we could see this fidei scintilla, the extinction of which would be the accomplishment of Satan’s design against him, glimmering everywhere through the speeches of Job. The unworthy thoughts he entertains of God, which Brentius calls inferni blasphemias, are nowhere indulged to such a length that Job charges God with being his enemy, although he fancies Him to be an enraged foe. In spite of the imagined enmity of God against him, Job nowhere goes so far as to declare enmity on his part against God, so far as אלהים ברך. He does not turn away from God, but inclines to Him in prayer. His soul is filled with adoration of God, and with reverence of His power and majesty; he can clearly discern God’s marvellous works in nature and among men, and His creative power and gracious providence, the workings of which he has himself experienced. But that mystery, which the friends have made still more mysterious, has cast a dark cloud over his vision, so that he can no longer behold the loving countenance of God. His faith is unable to disperse this cloud, and so he sees but one side of the divine character - His Almightiness. Since he consequently looks upon God as the Almighty and the Wrathful One, his felling alternately manifests itself under two equally tragical phases. At one time he exalts himself in his consciousness of the justice of his cause, to sink back again before the majesty of God, to whom he must nevertheless succumb; at another time his feeling of self-confidence is overpowered by the severity of his suffering, and he betakes himself to importunate supplication.

It is true that Job, so long as he regards his sufferings as a dispensation of divine judgment, is as unjust towards God as he believes God to be unjust towards him; but if we bear in mind that this state of conflict and temptation does not preclude the idea of a temporal withdrawal of faith, and that, as Baumgarten (Pentat. i. 209) aptly expresses it, the profound secret of prayer is this, that man can prevail with the Divine Being, then we shall understand that this dark cloud need only be removed, and Job again stands before the God of love as His saint.

‏ Job 11

Job 11:1-6 1 Then began Zophar the Naamathite, and said: 2 Shall the torrent of words remain unanswered,

And shall the prater be in the right? 3 Shall thy vain talking silence the people,

So that thou mockest without any one putting thee to shame, 4 And sayest: my doctrine is pure,

And I am guiltless in Thine eyes? 5 But oh that Eloah would speak,

And open His lips against thee, 6 And make known to thee the secrets of wisdom,

That she is twofold in her nature -

Know then that Eloah forgetteth much of thy guilt.

When Job has concluded his long speech, Zophar, the third and most impetuous of the friends, begins. His name, if it is to be explained according to the Arabic Esauitish name el - assfar, ^{▼▼Vid., Abulfeda’s Historia anteislamica ed. Fleischer, p. 168.} signifies the yellow one (flavedo), and the name of the place whence he comes, pleasantness (amaenitas). The very beginning of his speech is impassioned. He calls Job’s speech דברים רב, a multitude of words (besides here, Pro 10:19; Ecc 5:2), and asks whether he is to remain unanswered; יענה לא, responsum non feret, from נענה, not the sense of being humbled, but: to be answered (of the suppliant: to be heard = to receive an answer). He calls Job שׂפתים אישׁ, a prater (distinct from דברים איש, a ready speaker, Exo 4:10), who is not in the right, whom one must not allow to have the last word. The questions, Job 11:2, are followed by another which is not denoted by the sign of a question, but is only known by the accent: Shall not thy בּדּים, meaningless speeches (from בדד = בטא, βαττολογεῖν), put men (מתים, like other archaisms, e.g., תּבל, always without the article) to silence, so that thou darest mock without any one making thee ashamed, i.e., leading thee on ad absurdum? Thou darest mock God (Hirzel); better Rosenmüller: nos et Deum. The mockery here meant is that which Zophar has heard in Job’s long speech; mockery at his opponents, in the belief that he is right because they remain silent. The futt. consec., Job 11:3., describe the conduct of Job which results from this absence of contradiction. Zophar, in v. 4, does not take up Job’s own words, but means, that one had better have nothing more to do with Job, as he would some day say and think so and so, he would consider his doctrine blameless, and himself in relation to God pure. לקח occurs only here in this book; it is a word peculiar to the book of Proverbs (also only Deu 32:2; Isa 29:24), and properly signifies the act of appropriating, then that which is presented for appropriation, i.e., for learning: the doctrine (similar to שׁמועה, the hearing, ἀκοή, and then the discourse); we see from the words “my doctrine is pure,” which Zophar puts into the mouth of Job, that the controversy becomes more and more a controversy respecting known principles. Job 11:7-9 7 Canst thou find out the nature of Eloah,

And penetrate to the foundation of the existence of the Almighty? 8 It is as the heights of heaven-what wilt thou do?

Deeper than Hades-what canst thou know? 9 The measure thereof is longer than the earth,

And broader than the sea.

The majority of modern commentators erroneously translate חקר searching = comprehension, and תּכלית perfection, a meaning which this word never has. The former, indeed, signifies first in an active sense: finding out by search; and then also objectively: the object sought after: “the hidden ground” (Ewald), the depth (here and Job 38:16; also, according to Ew., Job 8:8, of the deep innermost thought). The latter denotes penetrating to the extreme, and then the extreme, πέρας, itself (Job 26:10; Job 28:3). In other words: the nature that underlies that which is visible as an object of search is called חקר; and the extreme of a thing, i.e., the end, without which the beginning and middle cannot be understood, is called תכלית. The nature of God may be sought after, but cannot be found out; and the end of God is unattainable, for He is both: the Perfect One, absolutus; and the Endless One, infinitus. Job 11:10-12 10 When He passes by and arrests

And calls to judgment, who will oppose Him? 11 For He knoweth the men devoid of principle,

And seeth wickedness without observing it. 12 But before an empty head gaineth understanding,

A wild ass would become a man.

In יחלף God is conceived as one who manifests himself by passing to and fro in the powers of nature (in the whirlwind, Isa 21:1). Should He meet with one who is guilty, and seize and bring him to judgment, who then (waw apod.) will turn Him back, i.e., restrain Him? הקהיל is used of bringing to judgment, with reference to the ancient form of trial which was in public, and in which the carrying out of the sentence was partly incumbent on the people (1Ki 21:9; Eze 16:40; Eze 23:46). One might almost imagine that Zophar looks upon himself and the other two friends as forming such an “assembly:” they cannot justify him in opposition to God, since He accounts him guilty. God’s mode of trial is summary, because infallible: He knows altogether שׁוא מתי, people who hypocritically disguise their moral nothingness (on this idea, vid., on Psa 26:4); and sees (looks through) און (from the root ân, to breathe), otherwise grief, with which one pants, in a moral sense worthlessness, without any trace whatever of worth or substance. He knows and sees this moral wretchedness at once, and need not first of all reflect upon it: non opus habet, as Abenezra has correctly explained, ut diu consideret (comp. the like thought, Job 34:23).

Job 11:12 has been variously misinterpreted. Gesenius in his Handwörterbuch ^{▼▼Vid., Lexicon, Engl. edition, s.v. לבב Niphal. - Tr.} translates: but man is empty and void of understanding; but this is contrary to the accentuation, according to which נבוב אישׁ together form the subject. Olshausen translates better: an empty man, on the other hand, is without heart; but the fut. cannot be exactly so used, and if we consider that Piel has never properly a privative meaning, though sometimes a privative idea (as e.g., סקּל, operam consumere in lapidos, scil. ejiciendos), we must regard a privative Niphal as likewise inadmissible. Stickel translates peculiarly: the man devoid of understanding is enraged against God; but this is opposed to the manifest correlation of נבוב and ילּבב, which does not indicate the antithesis of an empty and sulky person (Böttcher): the former rather signifies empty, and the latter to acquire heart or marrow (Heidenheim, לב יקנה), so that לב fills up the hollow space. Hirzel’s rendering partly bears out the requirement of this correlation: man has understanding like a hollow pate; but this explanation, like that of Gesenius, violates the accentuation, and produces an affected witticism. The explanation which regards Job 11:12 as descriptive of the wholesome effect of the discipline of the divine judgments (comp. Isa 26:9) is far better; it does not violate the accent, and moreover is more in accordance with the future form: the empty one becomes discerning thereby, the rough, humane (thus recently Ewald, Heiligst., Schlottm.); but according to this explanation, Job 11:12 is not connected with what immediately precedes, nor is the peculiarity of the expression fully brought out. Hupfeld opens up another way of interpreting the passage when he remarks, nil dicto facilius et simplicius; he understands Job 11:12 according to Job 11:12: But man is furnished with an empty heart, i.e., receives at his birth an empty undiscerning heart, and man is born as a wild ass’s colt, i.e., as stupid and obstinate. This thought is satisfactorily connected with the preceding; but here also נבוב is taken as predicate in violation of the accentuation, nor is justice done to the correlation above referred to, and the whole sentence is referred to the portion of man at his birth, in opposition to the impression conveyed by the use of the fut. Oehler appears to us to have recognised the right sense: But an empty man is as little endowed with sense, as that a wild ass should ever be born as man - be, so to speak, born again and become a man. ^{▼▼Wetzstein explains: “But a man that barks like a dog (i.e., rages shamelessly) can become sensible, and a young wild ass (i.e., the wildest and roughest creature) be born again as a man (i.e., become gentle and civilised),” from נבב = נבח, since נבח is the commoner word for “barking” in the Syrian towns and villages, and נבב, on the other hand, is used among those who dwelt in tents. But we must then point it נבּוּב, and the antithesis ילּבב is more favourable the Hebrew meaning, “hollowed out, empty.”}

The waw in ועיר is just like Job 5:7; Job 12:11, and brings into close connection the things that are to be compared, as in the form of emblematic proverbs (vid., Herzog’s Real Encyklopädie, xiv. 696): the one will happen not earlier than, and as little as, the other. The Niphal נולד, which in Pro 17:17 signifies to become manifest, here borders on the notion of regenerari; a regeneration would be necessary if the wild ass should become human, - a regeneration which is inconceivable. It is by nature refractory, and especially when young (ועיר from Arab. ‛âr , fut. i in the signification vagari, huc illuc discurrere, of a young, restless, wild, frisking animal). Just so, says Zophar, the vacuum in an empty man is incapable of being filled up, - a side hit at Job, which rebounds on Zophar himself; for the dogma of the friends, which forms the sole contents of their hollowness, can indeed not fill with brightness and peace a heart that is passing through conflict. The peculiarity of the expression is no longer unintelligible; Zophar is the most impassioned of the three friends. Job 11:13-15 13 But if thou wilt direct thy heart,

And spread out thy hands to Him - 14 If there is evil in thy hand, put it far away,

And let not wickedness dwell in thy tents - 15 Then indeed canst thou lift up thy face without spot,

And shalt be firm without fearing.

The phrase הכין לב signifies neither to raise the heart (Ewald), nor to establish it (Hirz.), but to direct it, i.e., give it the right direction (Psa 78:8) towards God, 1Sa 7:3; 2Ch 20:33; it has an independent meaning, so that there is no need to supply אל־אל, nor take וּפרשׂתּ to be for לפרושׂ (after the construction in 2Ch 30:19). To spread out the hands in prayer is כּפּים (פּרשׂ) פּרשׂ; ידים is seldom used instead of the more artistic כפים, palmas, h.e. manus supinas. The conditional antecedent clause is immediately followed, Job 11:14, by a similarly conditional parenthetical clause, which inserts the indispensable condition of acceptable prayer; the conclusion might begin with הרהיקהוּ: when thou sendest forth thy heart and spreadest out thy hands to Him, if there is wickedness in thy hand, put it far away; but the antecedent requires a promise for its conclusion, and the more so since the praet. and fut. which follow אם, Job 11:13, have the force of futt. exact.: si disposueris et extenderis, to which the conclusion: put it far away, is not suited, which rather expresses a preliminary condition of acceptable prayer. The conclusion then begins with כּי־אז, then indeed, like Job 8:6; Job 13:19, comp. Job 6:3, with עתּה כּי, now indeed; the causal signification of כי has in both instances passed into the confirmatory (comp. 1Sa 14:44; Psa 118:10-12; Psa 128:2, and on Gen 26:22): then verily wilt thou be able to raise thy countenance (without being forced to make any more bitter complaints, as Job 10:15.), without spot, i.e., not: without bodily infirmity, but: without spot of punishable guilt, sceleris et paenae (Rosenmüller). מן here signifies without (Targ. דּלא), properly: far from, as Job 21:9; 2Sa 1:22; Pro 20:3. Faultless will he then be able to look up and be firm (מצּק from יצק, according to Ges. §71), quasi ex aere fusus (1Ki 7:16), one whom God can no longer get the better of. Job 11:16-20 16 For thou shalt forget thy grief,

Shalt remember it as waters that flow by. 17 And thy path of life shall be brighter than mid-day;

If it be dark, it shall become as morning. 18 And thou shalt take courage, for now there is hope;

And thou shalt search, thou shalt lie down in safety. 19 And thou liest down without any one making thee afraid;

And many shall caress thy cheeks. 20 But the eyes of the wicked languish,

And refuge vanisheth from them,

And their hope is the breathing forth of the soul.

The grief that has been surmounted will then leave no trace in the memory, like water that flows by (not: water that flows away, as Olshausen explains it, which would be differently expressed; comp. Job 20:28 with 2Sa 14:14). It is not necessary to change אתּה כּי into עתּה כּי (Hirzel); אתה, as in Job 11:13, strengthens the force of the application of this conclusion of his speech. Life (חלד, from חלד to glide away, slip, i.e., pass away unnoticed, ^{▼▼Vid., Hupfeld on Psa 17:14, and on the other hand Böttcher, infer. §275 s., who, taking חלד in the sense of rooting into, translates: “the mildew springs up more brilliant than mid-day.” But whatever judgment one may form of the primary idea of חלד, this meaning of חלד is too imaginary.} as αἰών, both life-time, Psa 39:6, and the world, Psa 49:2, here in the former sense), at the end of which thou thoughtest thou wert already, and which seemed to thee to run on into dismal darkness, shall be restored to thee (יקום with Munach on the ult. as Job 31:14, not on the penult.) brighter than noon-day (מן, more than, i.e., here: brighter than, as e.g., Mic 7:4, more thorny than); and be it ever so dark, it shall become like morning. Such must be the interpretation of תּעפה. It cannot be a substantive, for it has the accent on the penult.; as a substantive it must have been pointed תּעוּפה (after the form תּקוּדה, תּקוּמה, and the like). It is one of the few examples of the paragogic strengthened voluntative in the third pers., like Psa 20:4; Isa 5:19 ^{▼▼In other instances, as תּרנּה, Pro 1:20; Pro 8:3, and ותּעגּבה, Eze 23:20, the ah is not the cohortative form, but either paragogic without special meaning or (so that the fut. has a double feminine form) as feminine termination, as is evident in Job 22:21, where the ah is combined with the inflection.} (Ges. §48, 3); the cohortative form of the future is used with or without אם (vid., on Psa 73:16) in hypothetical antecedent clauses (Ges. §128, 1). Translate therefore: should it become dark (accordingly correctly accented with Rebia mugrasch), from עוּף, to envelope one’s self, to darken (whence עפתה, Job 10:22), not: shouldst thou become dark (Schlottm.). The feminine forms are instead of the neuter, like תּמטיר, it rains, Amo 4:7; חשׁכה, it becomes dark, Mic 3:6 (Ges. §137, 2).

The fut. is followed by perff. consecutiva in Job 11:18 : And thou shalt take confidence, for there is ground for hope for thee; ישׁ, with the force of real and lasting existence. וחפרתּ is also perf. consec., and is rightly accented as such. If it were to be interpreted et si erubueris pudore tranquille cubabis, it would require the accent on the penult., since it would be a perf. hypotheticum. But although the seeming antithesis of וחפרת and לבטח (comp. Job 6:20) appears to favour this interpretation, it is nevertheless inadmissible, since it introduces a sadness into the promise: granted that thou shouldest be put to shame at this or that prospect; whereas, if חפר be taken in the sense of scrutari, as it is used by our poet (Job 3:21; Job 39:29) (not with Böttch., who comp. Ecc 5:11, in the signification fodere = to labour in the field, in which meaning it is not common), the tone of sadness is removed, and the accentuation is duly observed: and thou shalt search about (i.e., examine the state of thy household, which is expressed by וּפקדתּ in Job 5:24), thou shalt lay thyself down in peace (i.e., because thou findest everything in a prosperous condition, and hast no anxiety). This felling of security against every harm that may befall one’s person or property, gained from trust in God, is expressed (Job 11:19) under the figure of the peaceful situation of a herd when removed from danger, - a figure which is borrowed from Lev 26:6, and is frequently repeated in the prophets (Isa 17:2; Zep 3:13). The promises of Zophar culminate in a future exaltation which shall command reverence and inspire trust: et mulcebunt faciem tuam multi. פּני חלּה, to approach any one in humble entreaty, generally used in reference to God; less frequently, as here and Psa 45:13; Pro 19:6, in reference to men in high positions. The end of the wicked, on the other hand, is told in Job 11:20. Zophar here makes use of the choicest expressions of the style of the prophetic psalms: כּלה, otherwise frequently used of those who pine away with longing, here and Job 17:5 of eyes that languish with unsatisfied longing; מנּהם (Aram. מנּהוןּ), poetic for מהם; נפשׁ מפּח, after the phrase נפשׁ נפח, he breathes forth his soul (Jer 15:9, comp. Job 31:39). The meaning is not that death is their only hope, but that every expectation remains unfulfilled; giving up the ghost is that whither all their disappointed hopes tend.

That Zophar, in the mind of the poet, is the youngest of the three speakers, may be concluded from his introducing him last of all, although he is the most impetuous. Zophar manifests a still greater inability than the other two to bring Job to a right state of mind. His standpoint is the same as that of the others; like them, he regards the retributive justice of God as the principle on which alone the divine government in the world is exercised, and to which every act of this government is to be attributed, and it may indeed be assumed to be at work even when the relation of circumstances is mysterious and impenetrably dark to us. This limited view which the friends take of the matter readily accounts for the brevity of their speeches in comparison with Job's. This one locus communis is their only theme, which they reiterate constantly in some new and modified form; while the mind of Job is an exhaustless fountain of thought, suggested by the direct experiences of the past. Before the present dispensation of suffering came upon Job, he enjoyed the peace of true godliness, and all his thoughts and feelings were under the control of a consciousness, made certain by his experience, that God makes himself known to those who fear Him. Now, however, his nature, hitherto kept in subjection by divine grace, is let loose in him; the powers of doubt, mistrust, impatience, and despondency have risen up; his inner life is fallen into the anarchy of conflict; his mind, hitherto peaceful and well-disciplined, is become a wild chaotic confusion; and hence his speeches, in comparison with those of the friends, are as roaring cataracts to small confined streams. But in this chaos lie the elements of a new creation; the harsh pertinacity with which the friends maintain their one dogma only tends to give an impulse to it. The new truth, the solution of the mystery, springs from this spiritual battle Job has to fight, from which, although not scathless, he still shall come forth as conqueror.

Is the dogma of the friends, then, so pure a doctrine (זך לקח) as that which, according to Zophar’s words, Job claims for himself? On Zophar’s side it is maintained that God always acts in accordance with justice, and Job maintains that God does not always so act. The maxim of the friends is false in the exclusiveness with which they maintain it; the conclusion to which they are urged gives evidence of the fallacy of the premises: they must condemn Job, and consequently become unjust, in order to rescue the justice of God. Job’s maxim, on the other hand, is true; but it is so unconnected as it stands, that it may be turned over any moment and changed into a falsehood. For that God does not act everywhere as the Just One is a truth, but that He sometimes acts unjustly is blasphemy. Between these two Job hangs in suspense. For the stedfast consciousness of his innocence proves to him that God does not always act as the Just One; shall he therefore suppose that God deals unjustly with him? From this blasphemous inversion of his maxim, Job seeks refuge in the absolute power of God, which makes that just which is unjust according to the clearest human consciousness. This is the feeble thread on which Job’s piety hangs. Should this be cut, it would be all over with him. The friends do their best to cut it in twain. Zophar’s speech is like a sword-thrust at it.

For while Eliphaz and Bildad with cautious gentleness describe suffering more as chastisement than as punishment, Zophar proceeds more boldly, and demands of Job that he should humble himself, as one who has incurred punishment from God. Of sin on Job’s part which may have called down the divine judgment, Zophar knows as little as Job himself. But he wishes that God would grant Job some revelation of His infinite wisdom, since he refuses to humble himself. Then he would confess his folly, and see that God not only does not punish him unjustly, but even allows much of his guilt to go unpunished. Job is therefore to turn penitently to God, and to put away that evil which is the cause of his suffering, in order that he may be heard. Then shall his hopeless condition become bright with hope; whereas, on the other hand, the downfall of the wicked is beyond recovery. Ewald aptly remarks that thus even the concluding words of the speeches of the friends are always somewhat equivocal. “Eliphaz just adds a slight caution, Bildad introduces the contrast in a few words, and Zophar adds but a word; all these seem to be as the forerunners of a multitude of similar harsh threatenings, ch. 15, 18, 20.”

What impression will this harsh treatment of Zophar’s produce on Job? Job is to humble himself as a sinner who is undergoing the punishment of his sin, though the measure of it is far below the degree of his guilt; and while he does not deny his sinful weaknesses, he is nevertheless convinced that he is righteous, and having as such experienced the favour of God, cannot become an object of punishment. Brentius discriminatingly observes here: Videntur et Sophar et reliqui amici Hiob prorsus ignorare quid sit aut efficiat Evangelion et fides in promissionem Dei; sic argumentantur contra Hiobem, quasi nullus unquam possit coram Deo fide justificari. The language is rather too much in accordance with the light of the New Testament; but it is true that the friends know nothing whatever of the condition of a truly righteous man, over whom the law with its curse, or the retributive justice of God, has no power. The interpretation of affliction in accordance with the recognition of this principle is strange to them; and this is just the issue which is developed by the drama in the case of Job - the idea which comes to light in the working out of the plot. Even Job does not perceive the solution of the mystery, but, in the midst of the conflict, is in a state of ignorance which excites compassion; the ignorance of the friends arising from their shallowness of understanding, on the contrary, creates aversion. When Zophar, therefore, wishes that God would grant Job some revelation of His infinite wisdom, it is indeed true that Job is greatly in need of it; but it is self-deceiving pride which leads Zophar to imagine that he has no need of it himself. For this Wisdom which has decreed the suffering of Job is hidden from his also; and yet he does not treat the suffering of his friend as a divine mystery. He explains it as the working of the retributive justice of God; but since he endeavours thus to explain the mystery, he injures his cause, and if possible injures also the slender thread by which Job’s faith hangs. For should Job regard his sufferings as a just divine retribution, he could then no longer believe on God as the Just One.

‏ Job 12:1-7

Job 12:1-3 1 The Job began, and said: 2 Truly then ye are the people,

And wisdom shall die with you! 3 I also have a heart as well as you;

I do not stand behind you;

And to whom should not such things be known?

The admission, which is strengthened by כּי אמנם, truly then (distinct from אמנם כּי, for truly, Job 36:4, similar to כּי הנּה, behold indeed, Psa 128:4), is intended as irony: ye are not merely single individuals, but the people = race of men (עם, as Isa 40:7; Isa 42:5), so that all human understanding is confined to you, and there is none other to be found; and when once you die, it will seem to have died out. The lxx correctly renders: μὴ ὑμεῖς ἐστὲ ἄνθρωποι μόνοι (according to the reading of the Cod. Alex.); he also has a heart like them, he is therefore not empty, נבוב, Job 11:12. Heart is, like Job 34:10, comp. נלבב, Job 11:12, equivalent to νοῦς διάνοια; Ewald’s translation, “I also have a head even as you” (“brains” would better accord with the connection), is a western form of expression, and modern and unbiblical (vid., Division ”Herz und Haupt,” Psychol. iv. §12). He is not second to them; מן נפל, like Job 13:2, properly to slip from, to be below any one; מן is not the comparative (Ewald). Oetinger’s translation is not bad: I cannot slink away at your presence. Who has not a knowledge of such things as those which they, by setting themselves up as defenders of God, have presented to him! אתּי היה is equivalent to ידעתּי, σύνοιδα, Isa 59:12. Job 12:4-6 4 I must be a mockery to my own friend,

I who called on Eloah and He heard me;

A mockery - the just, the godly man. 5 Contempt belongs to misfortune, according to the ideas of the prosperous;

It awaits those who are ready to slip. 6 Tents of the destroyer remain in peace,

And those that defy God are prosperous,

Who taketh Eloah into his hand.

The synallage of לרעהוּ for לרעי is not nearly so difficult as many others: a laughing-stock to his own friend; comp. Isa 2:8, they worship the work of their (his) own hands (ידיו). “One who called on Eloah (לאלוהּ, for which לאלוהּ is found in lxx at Job 36:2) and He heard him” is in apposition to the subject; likewise תמים צדיק, which is to be explained according to Pro 11:5, צדיק (from צדק, Arab. ṣdq, to be hard, firm, stiff, straight), is one who in his conduct rules himself strictly according to the will of God; תמים, one whose thoughts are in all respects and without disguise what they should be-in one word: pure. Most old translators (Targ., Vulg., Luther) give לפּיד the signification, a torch. Thus e.g., Levi v. Gerson explains: “According to the view of the prosperous and carnally secure, he who is ready for falterings of the feet, i.e., likely to fall, is like a lighted torch which burns away and destroys whatever comes in contact with it, and therefore one keeps aloof from him; but it is also more than this: he is an object of contempt in their eyes.” Job might not inappropriately say, that in the eyes of the prosperous he is like a despised, cast-away torch (comp. the similar figure, Isa 14:19, like a branch that is rejected with contempt); and Job 12:5 would be suitably connected with this if למועדי could be derived from a substantive מעד, vacillatio, but neither the usage of the language nor the scriptio plena (after which Jerome translates tempus statutum, and consequently has in mind the מועדים, times of festal pilgrimages, which are also called ררלים in later times), nor the vowel pointing (instead of which מעדי would be expected), is favourable to this. רגל מועדי signifies vacillantes pede, those whose prosperity is shaken, and who are in danger of destruction that is near at hand. We therefore, like Abenezra and modern expositors, who are here happily agreed, take לפיד as composed of ל and פּיד, a word common to the books of Job (Job 30:24; Job 31:29) and Proverbs (ch. Pro 24:22), which is compared by the Jewish lexicographers, according both to form and meaning, to כּיד (Job 21:20) and איד, and perhaps signifies originally dissolution (comp. פדה), decease (Syr. f'jodo, escape; Arab. faid, dying), fall, then generally calamity, misfortune: contempt (befits) misfortune, according to the thoughts (or thinking), idea of the prosperous. The pointing wavers between לעשׁתּות and the more authorized לעשׁתּוּת, with which Parchon compares the nouns עבדוּת and מרדּוּת; the ת, like ד in the latter word, has Dag. lene, since the punctuation is in this respect not quite consistent, or follows laws at present unknown (comp. Ges. §21, rem. 2). Job 12:5 is now suitably connected: ready (with reference to בוז) for those who stumble, i.e., contempt certainly awaits such, it is ready and waiting for them, נכון, ἕτοιμος, like Exo 34:2.

While the unfortunate, in spite of his innocence, has thus only to expect contempt, the tents, i.e., dwellings and possessions, of the oppressor and the marauder remain in prosperity; ישׁליוּ for ישׁלוּ, an intensive form used not only in pause (Psa 36:8; comp. Deu 32:37) and with greater distinctives (Num 34:6; Psa 122:6), but also in passages where it receives no such accent (Psa 36:9; Psa 57:2; Psa 73:2). On אהלים, instead of אהלים, vid., Ges. §93, 6, 3. The verbal clause (Job 12:6) is followed by a substantival clause (Job 12:6). בּטּחות is an abstract plural from בּטּוּח, perfectly secure; therefore: the most care-less security is the portion of those who provoke God (lxx περοργίζουσι); ^{▼▼Luther takes בטחות as the adverb to מרגיזי: und toben wider Gott thürstiglich (vid., Vilmar, Pastoraltheolog. Blätter, 1861, S. 110-112); according to the Vulg., et audacter provocant Deum.} and this is continued in an individualizing form: him who causes Eloah to go into his hand. Seb. Schmid explains this passage in the main correctly: qui Deum in manu fert h.e. qui manum aut potentiam suam pro Deo habet et licitum sibi putat quodlibet; comp. Hab 1:11 : “this his strength becomes God to him,” i.e., he deifies his own power, and puts it in the place of God. But הביא signifies, in this connection with לידו (not בידו), neither to carry, nor to lead (Gesenius, who compares Psa 74:5, where, however, it signifies to cause to go into = to strike into); it must be translated: he who causes Eloah to enter into his hand; from which translation it is clear that not the deification of the hand, but of that which is taken into the hand, is meant. This which is taken into the hand is not, however, an idol (Abenezra), but the sword; therefore: him who thinks after the manner of Lamech, ^{▼▼[Comp Pentateuch, at Gen 4:25, Clark’s Foreign Theological Library. - Tr.]} as he takes the iron weapon of attack and defence into his hand, that he needs no other God. Job 12:7-10 7 But ask now even the beasts - they shall teach it thee;

And the birds of heaven - they shall declare it to thee: 8 Or look thoughtfully to the ground - it shall teach it thee;

And the fish of the sea shall tell it thee. 9 Who would not recognise in all this

That the hand of Jehovah hath wrought this, 10 In whose hand is the soul of every living thing,

And the breath of all mankind?!

The meaning of the whole strophe is perverted if זאת (Job 12:9), is, with Ewald, referred to “the destiny of severe suffering and pain,” and if that which precedes is accordingly referred to the testimony of creation to God as its author. Since, as a glance at what follows shows, Job further on praises God as the governor of the universe, it may be expected that the reference is here to God as the creator and preserver of the world, which seems to be the meaning of the words. Job himself expresses the purpose of this hymn of confession, Job 12:2., Job 13:1.: he will show the friends that the majesty of God, before which he ought, according to their demands, to humble himself in penitence, is not less known to him than to them; and with ואולם, verum enim vero, he passes over to this subject when he begins his third answer with the following thought: The perception in which you pride yourselves I also possess; true, I am an object of scornful contempt to you, who are as little able to understand the suffering of the godly as the prosperity of the godless, nevertheless what you know I also know: ask now, etc. Bildad had appealed to the sayings of the ancients, which have the long experience of the past in their favour, to support the justice of the divine government; Job here appeals to the absoluteness of the divine rule over creation. In form, this strophe is the counterpart of Job 8:8-10 in the speech of Bildad, and somewhat also of Job 11:7-9 in that of Zophar. The working of God, which infinitely transcends human power and knowledge, is the sermon which is continuously preached by all created things; they all proclaim the omnipotence and wisdom of the Creator.

The plural בּהמות is followed by the verb that refers to it, in the singular, in favour of which Gen 49:22 is the favourite example among old expositors (Ges. §146, 3). On the other hand, the verb might follow the collective עוף in the plural, according to Ges. §146, 1. The plural, however, is used only in Job 12:8, because there the verb precedes instead of following its subject. According to the rule Ges. §128, 2, the jussive form of the fut. follows the imperative. In the midst of this enumeration of created things, שׂיח, as a substantive, seems to signify the plants - and especially as Arab. šı̂h even now, in the neighbourhood of Job’s ancient habitation, is the name of a well-known mountain-plant - under whose shade a meagre vegetation is preserved even in the hot season (vid., on Job 30:4.). But (1) שׂיח as subst. is gen. masc. Gen 2:5); (2) instead of לערץ, in order to describe a plant that is found on the ground, or one rooted in the ground, it must be על־הארץ or בארץ; (3) the mention of plants between the birds and fishes would be strange. It may therefore be taken as the imperative: speak to the earth (lxx, Targ., Vulg., and most others); or, which I prefer, since the Aramaic construction לו סח, narravit ei, does not occur elsewhere in Hebrew (although perhaps implicite, Pro 6:22, תשׂיחך = לך תשׂיח, favulabitur, or confabulabitur tibi), as a pregnant expression: think, i.e., look meditatively to the earth (Ewald), since שׂוּח (שׂיח), like הגה, combines the significations of quiet or articulate meditation on a subject. The exhortation directs attention not to the earth in itself, but to the small living things which move about on the ground, comprehended in the collective name רמשׂ, syn. שׁרץ (creeping things), in the record of creation. All these creatures, though without reason and speech, still utter a language which is heard by every intelligent man. Renan, after Ewald, translates erroneously: qui ne sait parmi tous ces êtres. They do not even possess knowledge, but they offer instruction, and are a means of knowledge; בּ with ידע, like Gen 15:8; Gen 42:33, and freq. All the creatures named declare that the hand of Jehovah has made “this,” whatever we see around us, τὸ βλεπόμενον, Heb 11:3. In the same manner in Isa 66:2; Jer 14:22, כּל־אלּה is used of the world around us. In the hand of God, i.e., in His power, because His workmanship, are the souls of all living things, and the spirit (that which came direct from God) of all men; every order of life, high and low, owes its origin and continuance to Him. אישׁ is the individual, and in this connection, in which נפשׁ and רוּח (= נשׁמה) are certainly not unintentionally thus separated, the individual man. Creation is the school of knowledge, and man is the learner. And this knowledge forces itself upon one’s attention: quis non cognoverit? The perf. has this subjunctive force also elsewhere in interrogative clauses, e.g., Psa 11:3 (vid., on Gen 21:7). That the name of God, JEHOVAH, for once escapes the poet here, is to be explained from the phrase “the hand of Jehovah hath made this,” being a somewhat proverbial expression (comp. Isa 41:20; Isa 66:2).

Job now refers to the sayings of the fathers, the authority of which, as being handed down from past generations, Bildad had maintained in his opposition to Job.