Job 21:18-24:18 | KD | STEP | How rarely is the light of the wicked put out, And their calamity breaketh in upon them, That He distributeth snares in his wrath, 18 That they become as straw before the wind, And as chaff which the storm sweepeth away!? 19 “Eloah layeth up his iniquity for his children!” May He recompense it to him that he may feel it. 20 May his own eyes see his ruin, And let him drink of the glowing wrath of the Almighty. 21 For what careth he for his house after him, When the number of his months is cut off? The interrogative כּמּה has here the same signification as in : how often (comp. , how long? , how many?), but in the sense of “how seldom?!” How seldom does what the friends preach to him come to pass, that the lamp of the wicked is put out (thus Bildad, ), and their misfortune breaks in upon them (יבא, ingruit; thus Bildad, : misfortune, איד, prop. pressure of suffering, stands ready for his fall), that He distributes (comp. Zophar’s ”this is the portion of the wicked man,” i.e., what is allotted to him, ) snares in His wrath. Hirz., Ew., Schlottm., and others, translate הבלים, after the precedent of the Targ. (עדבין, sortes ), "lots,” since they understand it, after , of visitations of punishment allotted, and as it were measured out with a measuring-line; but that passage is to be translated, “the measuring-lines have fallen to me in pleasant places,” and indeed חבל can signify the land that is allotted to one ( , comp. ); but the plural does not occur in that tropical sense, and if it were so intended here, חבליהם or חבלים להם might at least be expected. Rosenm., Ges., Vaih., and Carey transl. with lxx and Jer. (ὠδῖνες, dolores ) “pains,” but הבלים is the peculiar word for the writhings of those in travail ( ), which is not suited here. Schnurr. and Umbr. are nearer to the correct interpretation when they understand חבלים like פחים, , of lightning, as it were fiery strings cast down from above. If we call to mind in how many ways Bildad, , has represented the end of the godless as a divinely decreed seizure, it is certainly the most natural, with Stick. and Hahn, to translate (as if it were Arabic ḥabâ'ilin ) “snares,” to be understood after the idea, however, not of lightning, but generally of ensnaring destinies (e.g., חבלי עני, ). Both with its three members and with two, are under the control of כמה. The figure of straw, or rather chopped straw (Arab. tibn , tabn ), occurs only here. The figure of chaff is more frequent, e.g., Psa 1:4. Job here puts in the form of a question what maintains, being urged on by Zophar’s false application and superficial comprehension of the truth expressed in the opening of the Psalter. What next follows in is an objection of the friends in vindication of their thesis, which he anticipates and answers; perhaps the clause is to be spoken with an interrogative accent: Eloah will - so ye object - reserve his evil for his children? אונו, not from און, strength, wealth, as , ; ; , but from און, wickedness ( ) and evil ( ), here (without making it clear which) of wickedness punishing itself by calamity, or of calamity which must come forth from the wickedness as a moral necessity comp. on Job 15:31. That this is really the opinion of the friends: God punishes the guilt of the godless, if not in himself, at least in his children, is seen from ; Job 5:4. Job as little as Ezekiel, ch. 18, disputes the doctrine of retribution in itself, but that imperfect apprehension, which, in order that the necessary satisfaction may be rendered to divine justice, maintains a transfer of the punishment which is opposed to the very nature of personality and freedom: may He recompense him himself, וידע, that he may feel it, i.e., repent (which would be in Arab. in a similar sense, faja'lamu; ידע as ; Hos 9:7; ). continues in the same jussive forms; the ἅπ. γεγρ. כּיד signifies destruction (prop. a thrust, blow), in which sense the Arab. caid (commonly: cunning) is also sometimes used. The primary signification of the root כד, Arab. kd , is to strike, push; from this, in the stems Arab. kâd , med. Wau and med. Je , Arab. kdd , kdkd , the most diversified turns and applications are developed; from it the signif. of כּידוד, , כּידון, , and according to Fleischer (vid., supra , pp. 388) also of כּידור, are explained. , as ; Oba 1:16, refers to the figure of the cup of the wrath of God which is worked out by Asaph, , and then by the prophets, and by the apocalyptic seer in the New Testament. The emphasis lies on the signs of the person in עינו (עיניו) and ישׁתּה. The rather may his own eyes see his ruin, may he himself have to drink of the divine wrath; for what is his interest (what interest has he) in his house after him? מה puts a question with a negative meaning (hence Arab. mâ is directly used as non ); חפץ, prop. inclination, corresponds exactly to the word “interest” ( quid ejus interest ), as , comp. , (following his own interest), without being weakened to the signification, affair, πραγμα, a meaning which does not occur in our poet or in Isaiah. is added as a circumstantial clause to the question in : while the number of his own months ... , and the predicate, as in (which see), is in the plur. per attractionem. Schnurr., Hirz., Umbr., and others explain: if the number of his months is drawn by lot, i.e., is run out; but חצץ as v. denom. from חץ morf, in the signification to shake up arrows as sticks for drawing lots (Arab. sahm , an arrow and a lot, just so Persian tı̂r ) in the helmet or elsewhere (comp. ), is foreign to the usage of the Hebrew language (for מחצצים, Jdg 5:11, signifies not those drawing lots, but the archers); besides, חצּץ ( pass . חצּץ) would signify “to draw lots,” not “to dispose of by lot,” and “disposed of by lot” is an awkward metaphor for “run out.” Cocceius also gives the choice of returning to חצץ, ψῆφος, in connection with this derivation: calculati sive ad calculum, i.e., pleno numero egressi, which has still less ground. Better Ges., Ew., and others: if the number of his months is distributed, i.e., to him, so that he (this is the meaning according to Ew.) can at least enjoy his prosperity undisturbed within the limit of life appointed to him. By this interpretation one misses the לו which is wanting, and an interpretation which does not require it to be supplied is therefore to be preferred. All the divers significations of the verbs חצץ (to divide, whence , חצץ, forming divisions, i.e., in rank and file, denom . to shoot with the arrow, Talm. to distribute, to halve, to form a partition), חצה (to divide, ; to divide in two equal parts), Arab. hṣṣ (to divide, whence Arab. hṣṣah , portio ), and Arab. chṣṣ (to separate, particularize) - to which, however, Arab. chṭṭ (to draw, write), which Ew. compares here, does not belong - are referable to the primary signification scindere, to cut through, split (whence חץ, an arrow, lxx , σχίζα); accordingly the present passage is to be explained: when the number of his months is cut off (Hlgst., Hahn), or cut through, i.e., when a bound is set to the course of his life at which it ends (comp. בּצּע, of the cutting off of the thread of life, ; , Arab. ṣrm ). Job 14:21., , are parallels to Job 21:21. Death is the end of all clear thought and perception. If therefore the godless receives the reward of his deeds, he should receive it not in his children, but in his own body during life. But this is the very thing that is too frequently found to be wanting.

‏ Job 21:18-34

Job 21:17-21 17 How rarely is the light of the wicked put out,

And their calamity breaketh in upon them,

That He distributeth snares in his wrath, 18 That they become as straw before the wind,

And as chaff which the storm sweepeth away!? 19 “Eloah layeth up his iniquity for his children!”

May He recompense it to him that he may feel it. 20 May his own eyes see his ruin,

And let him drink of the glowing wrath of the Almighty. 21 For what careth he for his house after him,

When the number of his months is cut off?

The interrogative כּמּה has here the same signification as in Psa 78:40 : how often (comp. Job 7:19, how long? Job 13:23, how many?), but in the sense of “how seldom?!” How seldom does what the friends preach to him come to pass, that the lamp of the wicked is put out (thus Bildad, Job 13:5), and their misfortune breaks in upon them (יבא, ingruit; thus Bildad, Job 18:12 : misfortune, איד, prop. pressure of suffering, stands ready for his fall), that He distributes (comp. Zophar’s ”this is the portion of the wicked man,” i.e., what is allotted to him, Job 20:29) snares in His wrath. Hirz., Ew., Schlottm., and others, translate הבלים, after the precedent of the Targ. (עדבין, sortes), "lots,” since they understand it, after Psa 16:6, of visitations of punishment allotted, and as it were measured out with a measuring-line; but that passage is to be translated, “the measuring-lines have fallen to me in pleasant places,” and indeed חבל can signify the land that is allotted to one (Jos 17:14, comp. Jos 17:5); but the plural does not occur in that tropical sense, and if it were so intended here, חבליהם or חבלים להם might at least be expected. Rosenm., Ges., Vaih., and Carey transl. with lxx and Jer. (ὠδῖνες, dolores) “pains,” but הבלים is the peculiar word for the writhings of those in travail (Job 39:3), which is not suited here. Schnurr. and Umbr. are nearer to the correct interpretation when they understand חבלים like פחים, Psa 11:6, of lightning, as it were fiery strings cast down from above. If we call to mind in how many ways Bildad, Job 18:8-10, has represented the end of the godless as a divinely decreed seizure, it is certainly the most natural, with Stick. and Hahn, to translate (as if it were Arabic ḥabâ'ilin) “snares,” to be understood after the idea, however, not of lightning, but generally of ensnaring destinies (e.g., חבלי עני, Job 36:8).

Both Job 21:17 with its three members and Job 21:18 with two, are under the control of כמה. The figure of straw, or rather chopped straw (Arab. tibn , tabn), occurs only here. The figure of chaff is more frequent, e.g., Psa 1:4. Job here puts in the form of a question what Psa 1:1-6 maintains, being urged on by Zophar’s false application and superficial comprehension of the truth expressed in the opening of the Psalter. What next follows in Job 21:19 is an objection of the friends in vindication of their thesis, which he anticipates and answers; perhaps the clause is to be spoken with an interrogative accent: Eloah will - so ye object - reserve his evil for his children? אונו, not from און, strength, wealth, as Job 18:7, Job 18:12; Job 20:10; Job 40:16, but from און, wickedness (Job 11:11) and evil (Job 15:35), here (without making it clear which) of wickedness punishing itself by calamity, or of calamity which must come forth from the wickedness as a moral necessity comp. on Job 15:31. That this is really the opinion of the friends: God punishes the guilt of the godless, if not in himself, at least in his children, is seen from Job 20:10; Job 5:4. Job as little as Ezekiel, ch. 18, disputes the doctrine of retribution in itself, but that imperfect apprehension, which, in order that the necessary satisfaction may be rendered to divine justice, maintains a transfer of the punishment which is opposed to the very nature of personality and freedom: may He recompense him himself, וידע, that he may feel it, i.e., repent (which would be in Arab. in a similar sense, faja'lamu; ידע as Isa 9:8; Hos 9:7; Eze 25:14).

Job 21:20 continues in the same jussive forms; the ἅπ. γεγρ. כּיד signifies destruction (prop. a thrust, blow), in which sense the Arab. caid (commonly: cunning) is also sometimes used. The primary signification of the root כד, Arab. kd, is to strike, push; from this, in the stems Arab. kâd , med. Wau and med. Je , Arab. kdd , kdkd , the most diversified turns and applications are developed; from it the signif. of כּידוד, Job 41:11, כּידון, Job 39:23, and according to Fleischer (vid., supra, pp. 388) also of כּידור, are explained. Job 21:20, as Psa 60:5; Oba 1:16, refers to the figure of the cup of the wrath of God which is worked out by Asaph, Psa 75:9, and then by the prophets, and by the apocalyptic seer in the New Testament. The emphasis lies on the signs of the person in עינו (עיניו) and ישׁתּה. The rather may his own eyes see his ruin, may he himself have to drink of the divine wrath; for what is his interest (what interest has he) in his house after him? מה puts a question with a negative meaning (hence Arab. mâ is directly used as non); חפץ, prop. inclination, corresponds exactly to the word “interest” (quid ejus interest), as Job 22:3, comp. Isa 58:3, Isa 58:13 (following his own interest), without being weakened to the signification, affair, πραγμα, a meaning which does not occur in our poet or in Isaiah. Job 21:21 is added as a circumstantial clause to the question in Job 21:21: while the number of his own months ... , and the predicate, as in Job 15:20 (which see), is in the plur. per attractionem. Schnurr., Hirz., Umbr., and others explain: if the number of his months is drawn by lot, i.e., is run out; but חצץ as v. denom. from חץ morf, in the signification to shake up arrows as sticks for drawing lots (Arab. sahm, an arrow and a lot, just so Persian tı̂r) in the helmet or elsewhere (comp. Eze 21:26), is foreign to the usage of the Hebrew language (for מחצצים, Jdg 5:11, signifies not those drawing lots, but the archers); besides, חצּץ (pass. חצּץ) would signify “to draw lots,” not “to dispose of by lot,” and “disposed of by lot” is an awkward metaphor for “run out.” Cocceius also gives the choice of returning to חצץ, ψῆφος, in connection with this derivation: calculati sive ad calculum, i.e., pleno numero egressi, which has still less ground. Better Ges., Ew., and others: if the number of his months is distributed, i.e., to him, so that he (this is the meaning according to Ew.) can at least enjoy his prosperity undisturbed within the limit of life appointed to him. By this interpretation one misses the לו which is wanting, and an interpretation which does not require it to be supplied is therefore to be preferred. All the divers significations of the verbs חצץ (to divide, whence Pro 30:27, חצץ, forming divisions, i.e., in rank and file, denom. to shoot with the arrow, Talm. to distribute, to halve, to form a partition), חצה (to divide, Job 40:20; to divide in two equal parts), Arab. hṣṣ (to divide, whence Arab. hṣṣah , portio), and Arab. chṣṣ (to separate, particularize) - to which, however, Arab. chṭṭ (to draw, write), which Ew. compares here, does not belong - are referable to the primary signification scindere, to cut through, split (whence חץ, an arrow, lxx 1Sa 20:20, σχίζα); accordingly the present passage is to be explained: when the number of his months is cut off (Hlgst., Hahn), or cut through, i.e., when a bound is set to the course of his life at which it ends (comp. בּצּע, of the cutting off of the thread of life, Job 6:9; Job 27:8, Arab. ṣrm). Job 14:21., Ecc 3:22, are parallels to Job 21:21. Death is the end of all clear thought and perception. If therefore the godless receives the reward of his deeds, he should receive it not in his children, but in his own body during life. But this is the very thing that is too frequently found to be wanting. Job 21:22-26 22 Shall one teach God knowledge,

Who judgeth those who are in heaven? 23 One dieth in his full strength,

Being still cheerful and free from care. 24 His troughs are full of milk,

And the marrow of his bones is well watered. 25 And another dieth with a sorrowing spirit,

And hath not enjoyed wealth. 26 They lie beside one another in the dust,

And worms cover them both.

The question, Job 21:22, concerns the friends. Since they maintain that necessarily and constantly virtue is rewarded by prosperity, and sin by misfortune, but without this law of the divine order of the world which is maintained by them being supported by experience: if they set themselves up as teachers of God, they will teach Him the right understanding of the conduct which is to be followed by Him as a ruler and judge of men, while nevertheless He is the Absolute One, beneath whose judicial rule not merely man, but also the heavenly spirits, are placed, and to which they must conform and bow. The verb למּד, instead of being construed with two acc., as in the dependent passage Isa 40:14, is here construed with the dat. of the person (which is not to be judged according to Job 5:2; Job 19:3, but according to διδάσκειν τινί τι, to teach one anything, beside the other prevailing construction). With והוא a circumstantial clause begins regularly: while He, however, etc. Arnh. and Löwenth. translate: while, however, He exaltedly judges, i.e., according to a law that infinitely transcends man; but that must have been מרום (and even thus it would still be liable to be misunderstood). Hahn (whom Olsh. is inclined to support): but He will judge the proud, to which first the circumstantial clause, and secondly the parallels, Job 35:2; Job 15:15; Job 4:18 (comp. Isa 24:21), from which it is evident that רמים signifies the heavenly beings (as Psa 78:69, the heights of heaven), are opposed: it is a fundamental thought of this book, which abounds in allusions to the angels, that the angels, although exalted above men, are nevertheless in contrast with God imperfect, and therefore are removed neither from the possibility of sin nor the necessity of a government which holds them together in unity, and exercises a judicial authority over them. The rule of the all-exalted Judge is different from that which the three presumptuously prescribe to Him.

The one (viz., the evil-doer) dies בּעצם תּמּו, in ipsa sua integritate, like בעצם היום, ipso illo die; the Arabic would be fı̂ ‛yn , since there the eye, here the bone (comp. Uhlemann, Syr. Gramm. §58), denote corporeality, duration, existence, and therefore identity. תּם is intended of perfect external health, as elsewhere מתם; comp. תּמימים, Pro 1:12. In Job 21:23 the pointing שׁלאנן (adj.) and שׁלאנן (3 praet.) are interchanged in the Codd.; the following verbal adjective favours the form of writing with Kametz. As to the form, however (which Röd. and Olsh. consider to be an error in writing), it is either a mixed form from שׁאנן and שׁלו with the blended meaning of both (Ew. §106, c), to which the comparison with שׁליו (= שׁלו) is not altogether suitable, or it is formed from שׁאנן by means of an epenthesis (as זלעף from זעף, aestuare, and בלסם, βάλσαμον, from בשׂם), and of similar but intensified signification; we prefer the latter, without however denying the real existence of such mixed forms (vid., on Job 26:9; Job 33:25). This fulness of health and prosperity is depicted in Job 21:24. The ancient translators think, because the bones are mentioned in the parallel line, עטיניו must also be understood of a part of the body: lxx ἔγκατα, Jer. viscera; Targ. בּיזוי, his breasts, βυζία ^{▼▼Vid., Handschriftliche Funde, 2. S. V.} (for Hebr. שׁדים, שׁד); Syr. version gabauh (= ganbauh), his sides in regard to עטמא, Syr. ‛attmo = אטמא, side, hip; Saad. audâguhu, his jugular veins, in connection with which (not, however, by this last rendering) חלב is read instead of חלב: his bowels, etc., are full of fat. ^{▼▼Gesenius in his Thes. corrects the אודאגה which was found in Saadia’s manuscript translation to אודאעה, Arab. awdâ‛uhu , which is intended to mean repositoria ejus, but is really not Arabic; whereas אודאגה is the correct plur. of Arab. wadaj : his jugular veins, which occurs not merely of horses, but also of animals and men. Saadia, with reference to the following מלאוּ חלב, has thought of the metaphorical phrase Arab. ḥalaba awdâjahu : “he has milked his jugular vein,” i.e., he has, as it were, drawn the blood from his jugular veins = eum jugulavit , vid., Bibliotheca Arabo-Sicula, p. 563: “and with the freshly milked juice of the jugular veins, viz., of the enemy (Arab. w - mn ḥlb 'l - 'wdâj), our infant ready to be weaned is nourished in the midst of the tumult of battle, as soon as he is weaned.” The meaning of Saadia’s translation is then: his jugular veins are filled with fresh blood swollen with fulness of blood. - Fl.}

But the assumption that עטיניו must be a part of the body is without satisfactory ground (comp. against it e.g., Job 20:17, and for it Job 20:11); and Schlottm. very correctly observes, that in the contrast in connection with the representation of the well-watered marrow one expects a reference to a rich nutritious drink. To this expectation corresponds the translation: “his resting-places (i.e., of his flocks) are full of milk,” after the Arab. ‛aṭanor ma‛ṭin. which was not first compared by Schultens and Reiske (epaulia), but even by Abul-walid, Aben-Ezra, and others.

But since the reference of what was intended to be said of the cattle at the watering-places to the places where the water is, possesses no poetic beauty, and the Hebrew language furnished the poet with an abundance of other words for pastures and meadows, it is from the first more probable that עטיניו are large troughs, - like Talm. מעטן, a trough, in which the unripe olives were laid in order that they might become tender and give forth oil, that they may then be ready for the oil-press (בּד), and עטן denotes this laying in itself, - and indeed either milk-tubs or milk-pails (שׁחולבין לתוכן), or with Kimchi (who rightly characterizes this as more in accordance with the prosperous condition which is intended to be described), the troughs for the store of milk, which also accords better with the meaning of the verb עטן, Arab. ‛aṭana, to lay in, confire. ^{▼▼The Arab. verb 'tn, compared by the Orientals themselves with Arab. wtn, cognate in sound and meaning, has the primary signification to lie secure and to lay secure, as Arab. 'atan, a resting-place of camels, sheep, and goats about the watering-places, is only specifically distinct from Arab. watan, a cow-shed, cow-stall. The common generic notion is always a resting-place, wherefore the Kamus interprets 'attan by wattan wa-mebrek, viz., round about the drinking-places. Arab. ma'tin as n. loci, written m'atén by Barth in his Wanderungen durch die Küstenländer des Mittelmeeres, Bd. i. (vid., Deutsch. Morgenländ. Zeitschrift, iv. S. 275) S. 500, 517, is similar in meaning. The Arab. verb 'atana, impf. j'attunu, also j'attina, n. act. 'uttûn, a v. instrans., signifies, viz., of camels, etc., to lay themselves down around the drinking-troughs, after or even before drinking from them. On the other hand, Arab. 'atana, impf. j'attinu, also j'attunu, n. act. 'attn, a v. trans. used by the dresser of skins: to lay the skins in the tan or ooze (French, confire; low Latin, tanare, tannare, whence French, tanner, to tan, tan, the bark) until they are ready for dressing, and the hairs will easily scrape off. Hence Arab. 'atina, impf. j'attanu, n. act. 'attan, a v. intrans. used of skins: to become tender by lying in the ooze, and to smell musty, to stink, which is then transferred to men and animals: to stink like a skin in the ooze, comp. situs, mould, mildew, rest. - Fl. Starting from the latter signification, macerare pellem, Lee explains: his bottles (viz., made of leather); and Carey: his half-dressed skins (because the store of milk is so great that he cannot wait for the preparation of the leather for the bottles); but the former is impossible, the latter out of taste, and both are far-fetched.}

From the abundance of nutriment in Job 21:24, the description passes over in Job 21:24 to the well-nourished condition of the rich man himself in consequence of this abundance. מח (Arab. muchch, or even nuchch, as נף = מף, naurag = מורג) is the marrow in the bones, e.g., the spinal marrow, but also the brain as the marrow of the head (Psychol. S. 233). The bones (Pro 3:8), or as it is here more exactly expressed, their marrow, is watered, when the body is inwardly filled with vigour, strength, and health; Isaiah, Isa 58:11, fills up the picture more (as a well-watered garden), and carries it still further in Isa 66:14 (thy bones shall blossom like a tender herb). The counterpart now follows with וזה (and the other, like Job 1:16). The other (viz., the righteous) dies with a sorrowful soul (comp. Job’s lament, Job 7:11; Job 10:1), i.e., one which is called to experience the bitterness of a suffering life; he dies and has not enjoyed בּטּובה, any of the wealth (with partitive Beth, as Psa 141:4, comp. supra, Job 7:13), has had no portion in the enjoyment of it (comp. Job’s lament, Job 9:25). In death they are then both, unrighteous and righteous, alike, as the Preacher said: מקרה אחד comes upon the wise as upon the fool, Ecc 2:15, comp. Job 9:2. They lie together in the dust, i.e., the dust of the grave (vid., on Job 19:25), and worms cover them. What then is become of the law of retribution in the present world, which the friends maintained with such rigid pertinacity, and so regardless of the deep wound they were inflicting on Job? Job 21:27-31 27 Behold I know your thoughts

And the stratagems, with which ye overpower me! 28 When ye say: Where is the house of the tyrant,

And where the pavilions of the wicked - : 29 Have ye not asked those who travel,

Their memorable things ye could surely not disown: 30 That the wicked was spared in the day of calamity,

In the day of the outburst of wrath they were led away. 31 Who liketh to declare to him his way to his face?

And hath he done aught, who will recompense it to him?

Their thoughts which he sees through, are their secret thoughts that he is such an evil-doer reaping the reward of his deeds. מזמּות (which occurs both of right measures, good wise designs, Pro 5:2; Pro 8:12, and of artful devices, malicious intrigues, Pro 12:2; Pro 14:17, comp. the definition of בּעל מזמּות, Pro 24:8) is the name he gives to the delicately developed reasoning with which they attack him; חמס (comp. Arab. taḥammasa, to act harshly, violently, and overbearingly) is construed with על in the sense of forcing, apart from the idea of overcoming. In Job 21:28, which is the antecedent to Job 21:29, beginning with כּי האמרוּ (as Job 19:28), he refers to words of the friends like Job 8:22; Job 15:34; Job 18:15, Job 18:21. נדיב is prop. the noble man, whose heart impels (נדב, Arab. nadaba) him to what is good, or who is ready and willing, and does spontaneously that which is good (Arab. naduba), vid., Psychol. S. 165; then, however, since the notion takes the reverse way of generosus, the noble man (princely) by birth and station, with which the secondary notion of pride and abuse of power, therefore of a despot or tyrant, is easily as here (parall. רשׁעים, comp. עשׁיר, Isa 53:9, with the same word in the parallel) combined (just so in Isa 13:2, and similarly at least above, Job 12:21, - an anomaly of name and conduct, which will be for the future put aside, according to Isa 32:5). It is not admissible to understand the double question as antithetical, with Wolfson, after Pro 14:11; for the interrogative איּה is not appropriate to the house of the נדיב, in the proper sense of the word. Job 21:28, משׁכנות is not an externally but internally multiplying plur.; perhaps the poet by byt intends a palace in the city, and by אהל משׁכנות a tent among the wandering tribes, rendered prominent by its spaciousness and the splendour of the establishment. ^{▼▼Although the tents regularly consist of two divisions, one for the men and another for the women, the translation “magnificent pavilion” (Prachtgezelt), disputed by Hirz., is perfectly correct; for even in the present day a Beduin, as he approaches an encampment, knows the tent of the sheikh immediately: it is denoted by its size, often also by the lances planted at the door, and also, as is easily imagined, by the rich arrangement of cushions and carpets. Vid., Layard’s New Discoveries, pp. 261 and 171.}

Job thinks the friends reason a priori since they inquire thus; the permanent fact of experience is quite different, as they can learn from ערי דרך, travellers, i.e., here: people who have travelled much, and therefore are well acquainted with the stories of human destinies. The Piel נכּר, proceeding from the radical meaning to gaze fixedly, is an enantio'seemon, since it signifies both to have regard to, Job 34:19, and to disown, Deu 32:27; here it is to be translated: their אתת ye cannot nevertheless deny, ignore (as Arab. nakira and ankara). אתת are tokens, here: remarkable things, and indeed the remarkable histories related by them; Arab. âyatun (collective plur. âyun), signs, is also similarly used in the signification of Arab. ‛ibrat, example, historical teaching.

That the כּי, Job 21:30, as in Job 21:28, introduces the view of the friends, and is the antecedent clause to Job 21:31 : quod (si) vos dicitis, in tempora cladis per iram divinam immissae servari et nescium futuri velut pecudem eo deduci improbum (Böttcher, de fin. §76), has in the double ל an apparent support, which is not to be denied, especially in regard to Job 38:23; it is, however, on account of the omission of the indispensable תאמרו in this instance, an explanation which does violence to the words. The כּי, on the contrary, introduces that which the accounts of the travellers affirm. Further, the ל in ליום indicates here not the terminus ad quem, but as in לערב, in the evening, the terminus quo. And the verb חשׂך, cohibere, signifies here to hold back from danger, as Job 33:18, therefore to preserve uninjured. Ew. translates Job 21:30 erroneously: “in the day when the floods of wrath come on.” How tame would this הוּבל, “to be led near,” be! This Hoph. signifies elsewhere to be brought and conducted, and occurs in Job 21:32, as in Isa 55:12 and elsewhere, of an honourable escort; here, in accordance with the connection: to be led away out of the danger (somewhat as Lot and his family by the escort of angels). At the time, when streams of wrath (עברה, the overflowing of vexation = outburst of wrath, like the Arab. ‛abrt, the overflowing of the eye = tears) go forth, they remain untouched: they escape them, as being under a special, higher protection. ^{▼▼This interpretation, however, is unsatisfactory, because it does not do justice to the twofold ל, which seems, according to Job 38:23, to be intended to indicate the terminus ad quem; perhaps Job 21:29 and Job 21:30 are to be transposed. If Job 21:30 followed Job 21:28, it would retain its natural sense as belonging to the view of the friends: “For the wicked is reserved for the day of calamity, and to a day of wrath they are led” (יובלו as Isa 53:7; Jer 11:19). Then והוא לקברות יובל also adds a suitable echo of the contradiction in Job’s mouth. Böttch. rightly calls attention to the consonance of יובל with יובלו, and of עברות with קברות.}

Job 21:31 is commonly taken as a reflection on the exemption of the evil-doer: God’s mode of action is exalted above all human scrutiny, although it is not reconcilable with the idea of justice, Job 9:12; Job 23:13. But the מי ישׁלּם־לו, who will recompense it to him, which, used of man in relation to God, has no suitable meaning, and must therefore mean: who, after God has left the evil-doer unpunished - for which, however, הוּא עשׂה would be an unsuitable expression - shall recompense him, the evil-doer? is opposed to it. Therefore, against Ew., Hirz., and Hlgst., it must with most expositors be supposed that Job 21:31 is a reflection referable not to God, but to the evil-doer: so powerful is the wicked generally, that no one can oppose his pernicious doings and call him to account for them, much less that any one would venture to repay him according to his desert when he has brought anything to a completion (הוּא עשׂה, intentionally thus seriously expressed, as elsewhere of God, e.g., Isa 38:15). In the next strophe, that which is gathered from the accounts of travellers is continued, and is then followed by a declamatory summing up. Job 21:32-34 32 And he is brought to the grave,

And over the tomb he still keepeth watch. 33 The clods of the valley are sweet to him,

And all men draw after him,

As they preceded him without number. . . . . . . 34 And how will ye comfort me so vainly!

Your replies are and remain perfidy.

During life removed at the time of dire calamity, this unapproachable evil-doer is after his death carried to the grave with all honour (יוּבל, comp. Job 10:19), and indeed to a splendid tomb; for, like משׁכנות above, קברות is also an amplificative plural. It is certainly the most natural to refer ישׁקד, like יוּבל, to the deceased. The explanation: and over the tomb one keeps watch (Böttch., Hahn, Röd., Olsh.), is indeed in itself admissible, since that which serves as the efficient subject is often left unexpressed (Gen 48:2; 2Ki 9:21; Isa 53:9; comp. supra, on Job 18:18); but that, according to the prevalent usage of the language, ישׁקד would denote only a guard of honour at night, not also in the day, and that for clearness it would have required גּדישׁו instead of גּדישׁ, are considerations which do not favour this explanation, for שׁקד signifies to watch, to be active, instead of sleeping or resting; and moreover, the placing of guards of honour by graves is an assumed, but not proved, custom of antiquity. Nevertheless, ישׁקד might also in general denote the watchful, careful tending of the grave, and the maqâm (the tomb) of one who is highly honoured has, according to Moslem custom, servants (châdimı̂n) who are appointed for this duty. But though the translation “one watches” should not be objected to on this ground, the preference is to be given to a commendable rendering which makes the deceased the subject of ישׁקד. Raschi’s explanation does not, however, commend itself: “buried in his own land, he also in death still keeps watch over the heaps of sheaves.” The lxx translates similarly, ἐπὶ σωρῶν, which Jerome improperly, but according to a right sentiment, translates, in congerie mortuorum. For after the preceding mention of the pomp of burial, גּדישׁ, which certainly signifies a heap of sheaves in Job 5:26, is favoured by the assumption of its signifying a sepulchral heap, with reference to which also in that passage (where interment is likewise the subject of discourse) the expression is chosen. Haji Gaon observes that the dome (קבּה, Arab. qbbt, the dome and the sepulchral monument vaulted over by it) ^{▼▼Vid., Lane’s Manners and Customs of the Modern Egyptians (translated by Zenker).} erected over graves according to Arab custom is intended; and Aben-Ezra says, that not exactly this, but in general the grave-mound formed of earth, etc., is to be understood. In reality, גדישׁ (from the verb גדשׁ, cumulare, commonly used in the Talmud and Aramaic) signifies cumulus, in the most diversified connections, which in Arabic are distributed among the verbs jds , kds , and jdš , especially tumulus, Arab. jadatun (broader pronunciation jadafun). If by grave-mound a mound with the grave upon it can be understood, a beautiful explanation is presented which accords with the preference of the Beduin for being buried on an eminence, in order that even in death he may be surrounded by his relations, and as it were be able still to overlook their encampment: the one who should have had a better lot is buried in the best place of the plain, in an insignificant grave; the rich man, however, is brought up to an eminence and keeps watch on his elevated tomb, since from this eminence as from a watch-tower he even in death, as it were, enjoys the wide prospect which delighted him so while living. ^{▼▼“Take my bones,” says an Arabian poem, “and carry them with you, wherever you go; and if ye bury them, bury them opposite your encampment! And bury me not under a vine, which would shade me, but upon a hill, so that my eye can see you!” Vid., Ausland, 1863, Nr. 15 (Ein Ritt nach Transjordanien).}

But the signification collis cannot be supported; גדישׁ signifies the hill which is formed by the grave itself, and Job 21:33 indeed directs us to the wady as the place of burial, not to the hill. But if גדישׁ is the grave-mound, it is also not possible with Schlottm. to think of the pictures on the wall and images of the deceased, as they are found in the Egyptian vaults (although in Job 3:14 we recognised an allusion to the pyramids), for it cannot then be a גדישׁ in the strict sense that is spoken of; the word ought, like the Arabic jdṯ (which the Arab. translation of the New Testament in the London Polyglott uses of the μνημεῖον of Jesus), with a mingling of its original signification, to have been used in the general signification sepulcrum. This would be possible, but it need not be supposed. Job’s words are the pictorial antithesis to Bildad’s assertion, Job 18:17, that the godless man dies away without trace or memorial; it is not so, but as may be heard from the mouth of people who have experience in the world: he keeps watch over his tomb, he continues to watch although asleep, since he is continually brought to remembrance by the monument built over his tomb. A keeping watch that no one approaches the tomb disrespectfully (Ew.), is not to be thought of. שׁקד is a relative negation of the sleep of death: he is dead, but in a certain manner he continues to live, viz., in the monument planting forward his memory, which it remains for the imagination to conceive of as a mausoleum, or weapons, or other votive offerings hung upon the walls, etc. In connection with such honour, which follows him even to and beyond death, the clods of the valley (est ei terra levis) are sweet (מתקוּ is accentuated with Mercha, and לו without Makkeph with little-Rebia) to him; and if death in itself ought to be accounted an evil, he has shared the common fate which all men after him will meet, and which all before him have met; it is the common end of all made sweet to him by the pageantry of his burial and his after-fame. Most modern expositors (Ew., Hirz., Umbr., Hlgst., Welte) understand the ימשׁך, which is used, certainly, not in the transitive signification: to draw after one’s self, but in the intransitive: to draw towards (lxx απελεύσεται), as Jdg 4:6 (vid., Ges. Thes.), of an imitative treading of the same way; but כּל־אדם would then be an untrue hyperbole, by which Job would expose himself to the attack of his adversaries.

In Job 21:34 Job concludes his speech; the Waw of ואיך, according to the idea (as e.g., the Waw in ואני, Isa 43:12), is an inferential ergo. Their consolation, which is only available on condition of penitence, is useless; and their replies, which are intended to make him an evil-doer against the testimony of his conscience, remain מעל. It is not necessary to construe: and as to your answers, only מעל remains. The predicate stands per attractionem in the sing.: their answers, reduced to their true value, leave nothing behind but מעל, end in מעל, viz., באלהים, Jos 22:22, perfidious sinning against God, i.e., on account of the sanctimonious injustice and uncharitableness with which they look suspiciously on him.

Job has hitherto answered the accusations of the friends, which they express in ever-increasingly terrible representations of the end of the godless, presenting only the terrible side of their dogma of the justice of God, with a stedfast attestation of his innocence, and with the ever-increasing hope of divine vindication against human accusation. In him was manifest that faith which, being thrust back by men, clings to God, and, thrust back by God, even soars aloft from the present wrath of God to His faithfulness and mercy. The friends, however, instead of learning in Job’s spiritual condition to distinguish between the appearance and the reality in this confidence, which comes back to itself, see in it only a constant wilful hardening of himself against their exhortations to penitence. It does not confound them, that he over whom, according to their firm opinion, the sword of God’s vengeance hangs, warns them of that same sword, but only confirms them still more in their conviction, that they have to do with one who is grievously self-deluded.

Zophar has painted anew the end of the evil-doer in the most hideous colours, in order that Job might behold himself in this mirror, and be astonished at himself. We see also, from the answer of Job to Zophar’s speech, that the passionate excitement which Job displayed at first in opposition to the friends has given place to a calmer tone; he has already got over the first impression of disappointed expectation, and the more confidently certain of the infallibility of divine justice he becomes, the more does he feel raised above his accusers. He now expects no further comfort; careful attention to what he has to say shall henceforth be his consolation. He will also complain against and of men no more, for he has long since ceased to hope for anything for himself from men; his vexation concerns the objective indefensibility of that which his opponents maintain as a primeval law of the divine government in the world. The maxim that godlessness always works its own punishment by a calamitous issue, is by no means supported by experience. One sees godless persons who are determined to know nothing of God, and are at the same time prosperous. It is not to be said that God treasures up the punishment they have deserved for their children. The godless ought rather to bear the punishment themselves, since the destiny of their children no longer concerns them after they have enjoyed their fill of life. That law is therefore a precept which human short-sightedness has laid down for God, but one by which, however, He is not guided. The godless who have lived prosperously all their days, and the righteous who have experienced only sorrow, share the common lot of death. One has only to ask persons who have had experience of the world: they can relate instances of notorious sinners who maintained their high position until death, and who, without being overtaken by divine judgments, and without human opposition and contradiction, were carried in honour to the grave, and their memory is immortalized by the monuments erected over their tomb. From this Job infers that the connection into which the friends bring his suffering with supposed guilt, is a false one, and that all their answers are, after all, reducible to an unjust and uncharitable judgment, by which they attack (מעל) God.

Job has more than once given expression to the thought, that a just distribution of prosperity and misfortune is not to be found in the world, Job 9:22-24; Job 12:6. But now for the first time he designedly brings it forward in reply to the friends, after he has found every form of assertion of his innocence unavailing, and their behaviour towards him with their dogma is become still more and more inconsiderate and rash. Job sins in this speech; but in order to form a correct judgment of this sinning, two things must be attended to. Job does not revel in the contradiction in which this lasting fact of experience stands to the justice of divine retribution, he had rather be ignorant of it; for he has no need of it in order, in spite of his affliction, to be able to hold fast the consciousness of his innocence. No indeed! if he thinks of this mystery he is perplexed, and shuddering comes over him, Job 21:6. And when he depicts the prosperity of sinners, he expresses his horror of the sins of such prosperous men in the words: The counsel of the ungodly be far from me! (Job 21:16), in order that it may not be erroneously imagined that he lusts after such prosperity.

If we compare Zophar’s and Job’s speeches one with another, we are obliged to say, that relatively the greater right is on the side of Job. True, the Scriptures confirm what Zophar says of the destruction of the evil-doer in innumerable passages; and this calamitous end of one who has long been prosperous and defiant, is the solution by which the Old Testament Scriptures (Ps. 37, 73; Jer 12:1-3; Hab. 1:13-2:1) remove the stumbling-block of the mysterious phenomenon of the prosperity of the evil-doer. But if we bear in mind that this solution is insufficient, so long as that calamitous end is regarded only outwardly, and with reference to the present world, - that the solution only becomes satisfactory when, as in the book of Ecclesiastes, in reply to a similar doubt to that which Job expresses (Ecc 7:15; Ecc 8:14), the end is regarded as the end of all, and as the decision of a final judgment which sets all contradictions right, - that, however, neither Zophar nor Job know anything of a decision beyond death, but regard death as the end whither human destiny and divine retribution tend, without being capable of any further distinction: we cannot deny that Job is most in the right in placing the prosperous life and death of the godless as based upon the incontrovertible facts of experience, in opposition to Zophar’s primeval exceptionless law of the terrible end of the godless. The speeches of Zophar and of Job are both true and false, - both one-sided, and therefore mutually supplementary. The real final end of the evil-doer is indeed none other than Zophar describes; and the temporal prosperity of the evil-doer, lasting often until death, is really a frequent phenomenon. If, however, we consider further, that Job is not able to deny the occurrence of such examples of punishment, such revelations of the retributive justice of God, as those which Zophar represents as occurring regularly and without exception; that, however, on the other hand, exceptional instances undeniably do exist, and the friends are obliged to be blind to them, because otherwise the whole structure of their opposition would fall in, - it is manifest that Job is nearer to the truth than Zophar. For it is truer that the retributive justice of God is often, but by far not always, revealed in the present world and outwardly, than that it never becomes manifest.

Wherein, then, does Job’s sin in this speech consist? Herein, that he altogether ignores the palpably just distribution of human destinies, which does occur frequently enough. In this he becomes unjust towards his opponent, and incapable of convincing him. From it, it appears as though in the divine government there is not merely a preponderance of what is mysterious, of what is irreconcilable with divine justice, but as though justice were altogether contradicted. The reproach with which he reproaches his opponents: Shall one teach God understanding? is one which also applies to himself; for when he says that God, if He punishes, must visit punishment upon the evil-doer himself, and not on his children, it is an unbecoming dictation with regard to God’s doing. We should be mistaken in supposing that the poet, in Job 21:19-21, brings forward a concealed contradiction to the Mosaic doctrine of retribution; nowhere in the Old Testament, not even in the Mosaic law, is it taught, that God visits the sins of the fathers on the children, while He allows them themselves to go free, Exo 20:5, comp. Deu 24:16; Eze 18:1; Jer 31:29. What Job asserts, that the sinner himself must endure the punishment of his sins, not his children instead of him, is true; but the thought lying in the background, that God does not punish where He ought to punish, is sinful. Thus here Job again falls into error, which he must by and by penitently acknowledge and confess, by speaking unbecomingly of God: the God of the future is again vanished from him behind the clouds of temptation, and he is unable to understand and love the God of the present; He is a mystery to him, the incomprehensibility of which causes him pain. “The joyous thought of the future, which a little before struggled forth, again vanishes, because the present, into the abyss of which he is again drawn down, has remained perfectly dark the whole time, and as yet no bridge has been revealed crossing from this side to that.”

‏ Job 22

Job 22:1-5 1 Then began Eliphaz the Temanite, and said: 2 Is a man profitable unto God?

No, indeed! the intelligent man is profitable to himself. 3 Hath the Almighty any profit if thou art righteous,

Or gain if thou strivest to walk uprightly? 4 Will He reprove thee for thy fear of God,

Will He go with thee into judgment? 5 Is not thy wickedness great,

Thine iniquities infinite?

The verb סכן, in the signification to be profitable, is peculiar to the book of Job (although also סכן and סכנת elsewhere, according to its primary signification, does not differ from מועיל, מועילה, by which it is explained by Kimchi); the correct development of the notion of this verb is to be perceived from the Hiph., which occurs in Job 21:21 in this speech of Eliphaz (vid., Ges. Thes.): it signifies originally, like שׁכן, Arab. skn, to rest, dwell, especially to dwell beside one another, then to become accustomed to one another (comp. שׁכן, a neighbour, and Arab. sakanun, a friend, confidant), and to assist one another, to be serviceable, to be profitable; we can say both סכנתּי, I have profit, Job 34:9, and סכן, it is profitable, Job 15:3; Job 35:3, here twice with a personal subj., and first followed by ל, then with the על usual also elsewhere in later prose (e.g., טוב על, 1Ch 13:2, comp. supra, Job 10:3, to be pleasant) and poetry, which gladly adopts Aramaisms (as here and Psa 16:6, שׁפר על, well-pleased), instead of ל, whence here עלימו, as Job 20:23, pathetic for עליו. The question, which is intended as a negative, is followed by the negative answer (which establishes its negative meaning) with כּי; משׂכּיל is, like Psa 14:2, the intelligent, who wills and does what is good, with an insight into the nature of the extremes in morality, as in Pro 1:3 independent morality which rests not merely on blind custom is called מוסר השׂכל. היה חפץ ל, it is to the interest of any one (different from 1Sa 15:22, vid., on Job 21:21), and היה בצע ל, it is to the gain of any one (prop. the act of cutting, cutting off, i.e., what one tears in pieces), follow as synonyms of סכן. On the Aramaizing doubling of the first radical in the Hiph. תתּם (instead of תתם), vid., Ges. §67, rem. 8, comp. 3. It is translated an lucrum (ei) si integras facias vias tuas. The meaning of the whole strophe is mainly determined according to the rendering of המיּראתך (like המבינתך, Job 39:26, with Dechî, and as an exception with Munach, not removed to the place of the Metheg; vid., Psalter, ii. 491, Anm. 1). If the suff. is taken objectively (from fear of thee), e.g., Hirz., we have the following line of thought: God is neither benefited by human virtue nor injured by human sin, so that when He corrects the sinner He is turning danger from himself; He neither rewards the godly because He is benefited by his piety, nor punishes the sinner because by his sinning he threatens Him with injury. Since, therefore, if God chastises a man, the reason of it is not to be found in any selfish purpose of God, it must be in the sin of the man, which is on its own account worthy of punishment. But the logical relation in which Job 22:5 stands to Job 22:4 does not suit this: perhaps from fear of thee ... ? no, rather because of thy many and great sins! Hahn is more just to this relation when he explains: “God has no personal profit to expect from man, so that, somewhat from fear, to prevent him from being injurious, He should have any occasion to torment him with sufferings unjustly.” But if the personal profit, which is denied, is one that grows out of the piety of the man, the personal harm, which is denied as one which God by punishment will keep far from Himself, is to be thought of as growing out of the sin of the man; and the logical relation of Job 22:5 to Job 22:4 is not suited to this, for. Job 22:5 assigns the reason of the chastisement to the sin, and denies, as it runs, not merely any motive whatever in connection with the sin, but that the reason can lie in the opposite of sin, as it appears according to Job’s assertion that, although guiltless, he is still suffering from the wrath of God.

Thus, then, the suff. of המיראתך is to be taken subjectively: on account of thy fear of God, as Eliphaz has used יראתך twice already, Job 4:6; Job 15:4. By this subjective rendering Job 22:4 and Job 22:5 form a true antithesis: Does God perhaps punish thee on account of thy fear of God? Does He go (on that account) with thee into judgment? No (it would be absurd to suppose that); therefore thy wickedness must be great (in proportion to the greatness of thy suffering), and thy misdeeds infinitely many. If we now look at what precedes, we shall have to put aside the thought drawn into Job 22:2 and Job 22:3 by Ewald (and also by Hahn): whether God, perhaps with the purpose of gaining greater advantage from piety, seeks to raise it by unjustly decreed suffering; for this thought has nothing to indicate it, and is indeed certainly false, but on account of the force of truth which lies in it (there is a decreeing of suffering for the godly to raise their piety) is only perplexing.

First of all, we must inquire how it is that Eliphaz begins his speech thus. All the exhortations to penitence in which the three exhaust themselves, rebound from Job without affecting him. Even Eliphaz, the oldest among them, full of a lofty, almost prophetic consciousness, has with the utmost solicitude allured and terrified him, but in vain. And it is the cause of God which he brings against him, or rather his own well-being that he seeks, without making an impression upon him. Then he reminds him that God is in Himself the all-sufficient One; that no advantage accrues to Him from human uprightness, since His nature, existing before and transcending all created things, can suffer neither diminution nor increase from the creature; that Job therefore, since he remains inaccessible to that well-meant call to penitent humiliation, has refused not to benefit Him, but himself; or, what is the reverse side of this thought (which is not, however, expressed), that he does no injury to Him, only to himself. And yet in what except in Job’s sin should this decree of suffering have its ground? If it is a self-contradiction that God should chastise a man because he fears Him, there must be sin on the side of Job; and indeed, since the nature of the sin is to be measured according to the nature of the suffering, great and measureless sin. This logical necessity Eliphaz now regards as real, without further investigation, by opening out this bundle of sins in the next strophe, and reproaching Job directly with that which Zophar, Job 20:19-21, aiming at Job, has said of the רשׁע. In the next strophe he continues, with כי explic.: Job 22:6-9 6 For thou distrainedst thy brother without cause,

And the clothes of the naked thou strippedst off. 7 Thou gavest no water to the languishing,

And thou refusedst bread to the hungry. 8 And the man of the arm-the land was his,

And the honourable man dwelt therein. 9 Thou sentest widows away empty,

And the arms of the orphan are broken.

The reason of exceeding great suffering most be exceeding great sins. Job must have committed such sins as are here cited; therefore Eliphaz directly attributes guilt to him, since he thinks thus to tear down the disguise of the hypocrite. The strophe contains no reference to the Mosaic law: the compassionate Mosaic laws respecting duties towards widows and orphans, and the poor who pledge their few and indispensable goods, may have passed before the poet’s mind; but it is not safe to infer it from the expression. As specific Mohammedan commandments among the wandering tribes even in the present day have no sound, so the poet dare not assume, in connection with the characters of his drama, any knowledge, of the Sinaitic law; and of this he remains conscious throughout: their standpoint is and remains that of the Abrahamic faith, the primary commands (later called the ten commands of piety, el-felâhh) of which were amply sufficient for stigmatizing that to which this strophe gives prominence as sin. It is only the force of the connection of the matter here which gives the futt. which follow כי a retrospective meaning. חבל is connected either with the accusative of the thing for which the pledge is taken, as in the law, which meets a response in the heart, Exo 22:25.; or with the accus. of the person who is seized, as here אחיך; or, if this is really (as Bär asserts) a mistake that has gained a footing, which has Codd. and old printed editions against it, rather אחיך. lxx, Targ., Syr., and Jer. read the word as plural. ערוּמים (from ערום), like γυμνοί, Jam 2:15, nudi (comp. Seneca, de beneficiis, v. 13: si quis male vestitum et pannosum videt, nudum se vidisse dicit), are, according to our mode of expression, the half-naked, only scantily (vid., Isa 20:2) clothed. Job 22:10-11 10 Therefore snares are round about thee,

And fear terrifieth thee suddenly; 11 Or percievest thou not the darkness,

And the overflow of waters, which covereth thee?

On account of this inhuman mode of action by which he has challenged the punishment of justice, snares are round about him (comp. Bildad’s picture of this fate of the evil-doer, Job 18:8-10), destruction encompasses him on every side, so that he sees no way out, and must without any escape succumb to it. And the approaching ruin makes itself known to him time after time by terrors which come suddenly upon him and disconcert him; so that his outward circumstances being deranged and his mind discomposed, he has already in anticipation to taste that which is before him. In Job 22:11, לא תראה is by no means to be taken as an eventual circumstantial clause, whether it is translated affirmatively: or darkness (covers thee), that thou canst not see; or interrogatively: or does darkness (surround thee), that thou seest not? In both cases the verb in the principal clause is wanting; apart from the new turn, which או introduces, being none, it would then have to be explained with Löwenthal: or has the habit of sinning already so dulled thy feeling and darkened thine eye, that thou canst not perceive the enormity of thy transgression? But this is a meaning forced from the words which they are not capable of; it must have been at least או חשׁך בּעדך, or something similar. Since או חשׁך (to be accented without Makkeph with Mûnach, Dechî) cannot form a principal clause of itself, תראה is without doubt the verb belonging to it: or (או as Job 16:3) seest thou not darkness? Because, according to his preceding speeches, Job does not question the magnitude of his sufferings, but acknowledges them in all their fearfulness; therefore Hahn believes it must be explained: or shouldst thou really not be willing to see thy sins, which encompass thee as thick dark clouds, which cover thee as floods of water? The two figures, however, can only be understood of the destruction which entirely shrouds Job in darkness, and threatens to drown him. But destruction, in the sense in which Eliphaz asks if Job does not see it, is certainly intended differently to what it was in Job’s complaints. Job complains of it as being unmerited, and therefore mysterious; Eliphaz, on the other hand, is desirous that he should open his eyes that he may perceive in this darkness of sorrow, this flood of suffering, the well-deserved punishment of his heinous sins, and anticipate the worst by penitence. לא תכסּךּ is a relative clause, and belongs logically also to חשׁך, comp. Isa 60:2, where שׁפעת is also found in Job 22:6 (from שׁפע, abundare; comp. Arab. šf‛ , ספק, Job 20:22). Eliphaz now insinuates that Job denies the special providence of God, because he doubts the exceptionless, just government of God. In the second strophe he has explained his affliction as the result of his uncharitableness; now he explains it as the result of his unbelief, which is now become manifest. Job 22:12-14 12 Is not Eloah high as the heavens?

See but the head of the stars, how exalted! 13 So then thou thinkest: “What doth God know?

Can He judge through the thick cloud? 14 Clouds veil Him that He seeth not,

And in the vault of heaven He walketh at His pleasure.”

Because Job has denied the distribution of worldly fortune, of outward prosperity and adversity, according to the law of the justice that recompenses like for like, Eliphaz charges him with that unbelief often mentioned in the Psalms (Psa 73:11; Psa 94:7; comp. Isa 29:15; Eze 8:12), which denies to the God in heaven, as Epicurus did to the gods who lead a blessed life in the spaces between the worlds, a knowledge of earthly things, and therefore the preliminary condition for a right comprehension of them. The mode of expression here is altogether peculiar. גּבהּ שׁמים is not acc. loci, as the like accusatives in combination with the verb שׁכן, Isa 57:15, may be taken: the substantival clause would lead one to expect בּגבהּ, or better בּגבהי (Job 11:8); it is rather (similar to Job 11:8) nomin. praedicati: Eloah is the height of the heavens = heaven-high, as high as the heavens, therefore certainly highly, and indeed very highly, exalted above this earth. In this sense it is continued with Waw explic.: and behold (= behold then) the head of the stars, that, or how (כּי as in Gen 49:15; 1Sa 14:29, quod = quam) exalted they are. וּראה has Asla (Kadma) in correct texts, and רמו is written רמּוּ (râmmu) with a so-called Dag. affectuosum (Olsh. §83, b). It may be received as certain that ראשׁ, the head (vertex), beside ראה (not ספר), does not signify the sum (Aben-Ezra). But it is questionable whether the genitive that follows ראשׁ is gen. partitivus: the highest among the stars (Ew., Hirz., Schlottm.), or gen. epexegeticus: the head, i.e., (in relation to the rest of the universe) the height, which is formed by the stars, or even which they occupy (Ges. coelum stellatum); the partitive rendering is to be preferred, for the Semitic perception recognises, as the plural שׁמים implies, nearer and more distant celestial spheres. The expression “head of the stars” is therefore somewhat like fastigium coeli (the extreme height, i.e., the middle of the vault of heaven), or culmen aereum (of the aether separating the strata of air above); the summit of the stars rising up into the extremest spheres is intended (we should say: the fixed stars, or to use a still more modern expression, the milky way), as also the רמו naturally refers to ראשׁ כוכבים as one notion (summitas astrorum = summa astra).

The connection of what follows with Waw is not adversative (Hirz., Ew., and others: and yet thou speakest), it is rather consecutive (Hahn: and since thou speakest; better: and in consequence of this thou speakest; or: thus speakest thou, thinkest thou then). The undeniable truth that God is exalted, and indeed absolute in His exaltation, is misapplied by Job to the false conclusion: what does God know, or (since the perf. in interrogative sentences frequently corresponds to the Latin conjunctive, vid., on Psa 11:3) how should God know, or take knowledge, i.e., of anything that happens on earth? In Job 22:13 the potential takes the place of this modal perfect: can He rule judicially behind the dark clouds, i.e., over the world below from which He is shut out? בּעד (of like verbal origin with the Arab. b‛da , post, prop. distance, separation, succession, but of wider use) signifies here, as in Job 1:10; Job 9:7, behind, pone, with the secondary notion of being encompassed or covered by that which shuts off. Far from having an unlimited view of everything earthly from His absolute height, it is veiled from His by the clouds, so that He sees not what occurs here below, and unconcerned about it He walks the circle of the heavens (that which vaults the earth, the inhabitants of which seem to Him, according to Isa 40:22, as grasshoppers); התלּך is here, after the analogy of Kal, joined with the accus. of the way over which He walks at His pleasure: orbem coelum obambulat. By such unworthy views of the Deity, Job puts himself on a par with the godless race that was swept away by the flood in ancient days, without allowing himself to be warned by this example of punishment. Job 22:15-18 15 Wilt thou observe the way of the ancient world,

Which evil men have trodden, 16 Who were withered up before their time,

Their foundation was poured out as a stream, 17 Who said unto God: Depart from us!

And what can the Almighty do to them? 18 And notwithstanding He had filled their houses with good-

The counsel of the wicked be far from me!

While in Psa 139:24 דרך עולם prospectively signifies a way of eternal duration (comp. Eze 26:20, עם עולם, of the people who sleep the interminably long sleep of the grave), ארח עולם signifies here retrospectively the way of the ancient world, but not, as in Jer 6:16; Jer 18:15, the way of thinking and acting of the pious forefathers which put their posterity to shame, but of a godless race of the ancient world which stands out as a terrible example to posterity. Eliphaz asks if Job will observe, i.e., keep (שׁמר as in Psa 18:22), this way trodden by people (מתי, comp. אנשׁי, Job 34:36) of wickedness. Those worthless ones were withered up, i.e., forcibly seized and crushed, ולא־עת, when it was not yet time (ולא after the manner of a circumstantial clause: quum nondum, as Psa 139:16), i.e., when according to God’s creative order their time was not yet come. On קמּטוּ, ^{▼▼This קמטו, according to the Masora, is the middle word of the book of Job (חצי הספר).} vid., on Job 16:8; lxx correctly, συνελήφθησαν ἄωροι, nevertheless συλλαμβάνειν is too feeble as a translation of קמט; for as Arab. qbṣ signifies to take with the tip of the finer, whereas Arab. qbḍ signifies to take with the whole bent hand, so קמט, in conformity to the dull, emphatic final consonant, signifies “to bind firmly together.” In Job 22:16 יוּצק is not perf. Pual for יצּק (Ew. §83, b), for this exchange, contrary to the law of vowels, of the sharp form with the lengthened form is without example; it must at least have been written יוּצּק (comp. Jdg 18:29). It is fut. Hoph., which, according to Job 11:15, might be יצּק; here, however, it is with a resolving, not assimilation, of the Jod, as in Lev 21:10. The fut. has the signification of the imperfect which it acquires in an historic connection. It is not to be translated: their place became a stream which has flowed away (Hirz.), for the היה which would be required by such an interpretation could not be omitted; also not: flumen effusum est in fundamentum eorum (Rosenm., Hahn, and others), which would be ליסודם, and would still be very liable to be misunderstood; also not: whose foundation was a poured-out stream (Umbr., Olsh.), for then there would be one attributive clause inserted in the other; but: their solid ground became fluid like a stream (Ew., Hlgst., Schlottm.), so that נהר, after the analogy of the verbs with two accusative, Ges. §139, 2, is a so-called second acc. of the obj. which by the passive becomes a nominative (comp. Job 28:2), although it might also be an apposition of the following subj. placed first: a stream (as such, like such a one) their solid ground was brought into a river; the ground on which they and their habitations stood was placed under water and floated away: without doubt the flood is intended; reference to this perfectly accords with the patriarchal pre-and extra-Israelitish standpoint of the book of Job; and the generation of the time of the flood (דור המבול) is accounted in the holy scriptures of the Old and New Testament as a paragon of godlessness, the contemporaries of Noah are the απειθοῦντες, סוררים, κατ ̓ ἐξοχήν (comp. 1Pe 3:20 with Psa 68:19).

Accordingly they are now here also further described (Job 22:17) as those who said to God, “Depart from us,” and what could the Almighty do to them (למו instead of לנוּ, which was to be expected, since, as in Job 19:28, there is a change from the oratio directa to obliqua)! Olshausen explains with Hahn: “with respect to what thou sayest: and what then does the Almighty do to them (for it)? He fills their houses with prosperity, while the counsel of the wicked is far from me (notwithstanding I am unfortunate).” But this explanation is as forced (since ומה without a אמרת or תאמר standing with it is taken as the word of Job) as it is contrary to the syntax (since the circumstantial clause with והוא is not recognised, and on the other hand ועצת וגו, instead of which it ought at least to have been וּממּנּי וגו, is regarded as such an one). No indeed, just this is an exceedingly powerful effect, that Eliphaz describes those godless ones who dismiss God with סור ממנו, to whom, according to Job’s assertion, Job 21:13., undimmed prosperity is portioned out, by referring to a memorable fact as that which has fallen under the strict judgment of God; and that with the very same words with which Job, Job 21:16, declines communion with such prosperous evil-doers: “the counsel of the wicked be far from me,” he will have nothing more to do, not with the wicked alone, but, with a side glance at Job, even with those who place themselves on a level with them by a denial of the just government of God in the world. פּעל ל, as the following circumstantial clause shows, is intended like Psa 68:29, comp. Job 31:20; Isa 26:12 : how can the Almighty then help or profit them? Thus they asked, while He had filled their houses with wealth - Eliphaz will have nothing to do with this contemptible misconstruction of the God who proves himself so kind to those who dwell below on the earth, but who, though He is rewarded with ingratitude, is so just. The truly godly are not terrified like Job 17:8, that retributive justice is not to be found in God’s government of the world; on the contrary, they rejoice over its actual manifestation in their own case, which makes them free, and therefore so joyous. Job 22:19-20 19 The righteous see it and rejoice,

And the innocent mock at them: 20 “Verily our opponent is destroyed,

And the fire hath devoured their abundance.”

This thought corresponds to that expressed as a wish, hope, or anticipation at the close of many of the Psalms, that the retributive justice of God, though we may have to wait a long time for it, becomes at length the more gloriously manifest to the joy of those hitherto innocently persecuted, Psa 58:11. The obj. of יראוּ, as in Psa 107:42, is this its manifestation. למו is not an ethical dative, as in Psa 80:7, but as in Psa 2:4 refers to the ungodly whose mocking pride comes to such an ignominious end. What follow in Job 22:20 are the words of the godly; the introductory לאמר is wanting, as e.g., Psa 2:3. אם־לא can signify neither si non, as Job 9:24; Job 24:25; Job 31:31, nor annon, as in a disjunctive question, Job 17:2; Job 30:25; it is affirmative, as Job 1:11; Job 2:5; Job 31:36 - an Amen to God’s peremptory judgment. On נכחד (he is drawn away, put aside, become annulled), vid., supra, p. 398. קימנוּ (for which Aben-Ezra is also acquainted with the reading קימנוּ with קמץ קטן, i.e., צירי) has a pausal â springing from ê, as Job 20:27, מתקוממה for מתקוממה; Rth 3:2, לרמותנו; Isa 47:10, ראני (together with the reading ראני, comp. 1Ch 12:17, לרמותני). The form קים is remarkable; it may be more readily taken as part. pass. (like שׂים, positus) than as nom. infin. (the act of raising for those who raise themselves); perhaps the original text had קמינו (קמינוּ). יתרם is no more to be translated their remnant (Hirz.) here than in Psa 17:14, at least not in the sense of Exo 23:11; that which exceeds the necessity is intended, their surplus, their riches. It is said of Job in b. Megilla, 28 a: איוב ותרן בממוניה הוה, he was extravagant (prodigus) with his property. The fire devouring the wealth of the godless is an allusion to the misfortune which has befallen him.

After this terrible picture, Eliphaz turns to the exhortation of him who may be now perhaps become ripe for repentance. Job 22:21-25 21 Make friends now with Him, so hast thou peace;

Thereby good will come unto thee. 22 Receive now teaching from His mouth,

And place His utterances in thy heart. 23 If thou returnest to the Almighty, thou shalt be built up again;

If thou puttest away iniquity far from thy tents. 24 And lay by in the dust the gold ore,

And under the pebbles of the brooks the gold of Ophir. 25 So shall the Almighty be to thee gold ore in abundance,

And silver to thee of the brightest lustre.

The relationship of the verbs סכן, שׁכן, and Arab. sakana , has been already discussed on Job 22:2 : the Hiph. signifies to be on friendly terms with any one; to enter into, or to stand in, an intimate relationship to any one (Psa 139:3); then also (as the Greek φιλεῖν) to get accustomed to, to be used to (Num 22:30). The second imper. is consecutive, as e.g., Pro 3:4 : and have as the result of it peace (Arab. fa'âslam) = so shalt thou have peace, Ges. §130, 2. In Job 22:21 the first thing to be done is to clear up the form תּבואתך or (according to another reading which is likewise well attested) תּבואתך. Olshausen (in Hirz. and in his Gramm.) and Rödiger (in Thes. p. 11, suppl.) explain this form the same as the other forms which come under consideration in connection with it, viz., תּבואתה (veniat), Deu 33:16, and ותּבאתי, Keri ותּבאת (et venisses, addressed to Abigail), 1Sa 25:34, as errors in writing; whereas Ew., §191, c, sees in תּבואתך the erroneous form תּבואה = תּבוא with a superfluous feminine termination, in תּבואתה an extension of the double feminine by the unaccented ah of intention, and in תּבאתי a transfer of the inflexion of the perf. to the fut. Confining ourselves to the form which occurs here, we refer to what was said above: תבואתך is not a forma mixta from תּבואך and בּאתך, but the mistaken double feminine תּבואה with suff., the ah of which, although the tone is on the penult., is not He voluntativum, as Isa 5:19, but He femin. The exception of such double feminines is made as certain in Hebrew by the regular form נגלתה ( = נגלת with a second feminine termination), and by examples like Pro 1:20; Eze 23:20, and also Jos 6:17; 2Sa 1:26; Amo 4:3 (comp. even Olsh. in his Gramm. S. 449), as the double plural and its further formation by a feminine termination in Arabic. It is therefore unnecessary, with Olsh. and Röd., after the precedent of the ancient versions, to read תּבוּאתך (which is found in 19 Codd. in de Rossi): proventus tuus bonus erit. The suff. in בּהם, as Isa 64:4; Eze 23:18, comp. עליהם, Isa 38:16, is intended as neuter, as the fem. is used elsewhere (e.g., Isa 38:16, בּהן): by it, i.e., by such conduct, good (prosperity) shall come to thee, and indeed, as the בוא construed with the acc. implies, in a sudden change of thy previous lot, coming about without any further effort on thy part. In the certainty that it is God’s word which he presents to his friend (the very certainty which Eliphaz also expresses elsewhere, e.g., Job 15:11), he further admonishes him (Job 22:22) to receive instruction from God’s mouth (מפּיו as Pro 2:6), and to allow His (God’s) utterances a place in his heart, not to let them die away without effect, but to imprint them deeply on his mind. Job 22:26-30 26 For then thou shalt delight thyself in the Almighty,

And lift up they countenance to Eloah; 27 If thou prayest to Him, He will hear thee,

And thou shalt pay thy vows. 28 And thou devisest a plan, and it shall be established to thee,

And light shineth upon thy ways. 29 If they are cast down, thou sayest, “Arise!”

And him that hath low eyes He saveth. 30 He shall rescue him who is not guiltless,

And he is rescued by the purity of thy hands. כּי־אז might also be translated “then indeed” (vid., on Job 11:15), as an emphatic resumption of the promissory והיה (tum erit), Job 22:25; but what follows is really the confirmation of the promise that God will be to him a rich recompense for the earthly treasures that he resigns; therefore: for then thou shalt delight thyself in the Almighty (vid., the primary passage, Psa 37:4, and the dependent one, Isa 58:14; comp. infra, Job 27:10), i.e., He will become a source of highest, heartfelt joy to thee (על as interchanging with בּ by שׂמח). Then shall he be able to raise his countenance, which was previously depressed (נפלוּ, Gen 4:6.), in the consciousness of his estrangement from God by dearly cherished sin and unexpiated guilt, free and open, confident and joyous, to God. If he prays to Him (תּעתּיר may be thus regarded as the antecedent of a conditional clause, like יברח, Job 20:24), He will hear him; and what he has vowed in prayer he will now, after that which he supplicated is granted, thankfully perform; the Hiph. העתּיר (according to its etymon: to offer the incense of prayer) occurs only in Ex 8-10 beside this passage, whereas גּזר (to cut in pieces, cut off) occurs here for the first time in the signification, to decide, resolve, which is the usual meaning of the word in the later period of the language. On ותגזר (with Pathach, according to another reading with Kametz-chatuph), vid., Ges. §47, rem. 2. Moreover, the paratactic clauses of Job 22:28 are to be arranged as we have translated them; קוּם signifies to come to pass, as freq. (e.g., Isa 7:7, in connection with היה, to come into being). That which he designs (אמר) is successful, and is realized, and light shines upon his ways, so that he cannot stumble and does not miss his aim, - light like moonlight or morning light; for, as the author of the introductory Proverbs, to which we have already so often referred as being borrowed from the book of Job (comp. Job 21:24 with Pro 3:8), ingeniously says, ch. Job 4:18 : “The path of the righteous is as the morning light (כּאור נגהּ, comp. Dan 6:20), which shineth brighter and brighter into the height of day (i.e., noonday brightness).”

‏ Job 23

Job 23:1-5 1 Then began Job, and said: 2 Even to-day my complaint still biddeth defiance,

My hand lieth heavy upon my groaning. 3 Oh that I knew where I might find Him,

That I might come even to His dwelling-place! 4 I would lay the cause before Him,

And fill my mouth with arguments: 5 I should like to know the words He would answer me,

And attend to what He would say to me.

Since מרי (for which the lxx reads ἐκ τοῦ χειρός μου, מידי; Ew. מידו, from his hand) usually elsewhere signifies obstinacy, it appears that Job 23:2 ought to be explained: My complaint is always accounted as rebellion (against God); but by this rendering Job 23:2 requires some sort of expletive, in order to furnish a connected thought: although the hand which is upon me stifles my groaning (Hirz.); or, according to another rendering of the על: et pourtant mes gémissements n'égalent pas mes souffrances (Renan. Schlottm.). These interpretations are objectionable on account of the artificial restoration of the connection between the two members of the verse, which they require; they lead one to expect וידי (as a circumstantial clause: lxx, Cod. Vat. καὶ ἡ χεὶρ αὐτοῦ). As the words stand, it is to be supposed that the definition of time, גּם־היּום (even to-day still, as Zec 9:12), belongs to both divisions of the verse. How, then, is מרי to be understood? If we compare Job 7:11; Job 10:1, where מר, which is combined with שׂיח, signifies amarum = amartiduo, it is natural to take מרי also in the signification amaritudo, acerbitas (Targ., Syr., Jer.); and this is also possible, since, as is evident from Exo 23:21, comp. Zec 12:10, the verbal forms מרר and מרה run into one another, as they are really cognates. ^{▼▼מרר and מרה both spring from the root מר [vid. supra, p. 396, note], with the primary signification stringere, to beat, rub, draw tight. Hence Arab. mârrâ, to touch lightly, smear upon (to go by, over, or through, to move by, etc.), but also stringere palatum, of an astringent taste, strong in taste, to be bitter, opp. Arab. ḥalâ, soft and mild in taste, to be sweet, as in another direction חלה, to be loose, weak, sick, both from the root Arab. ḥl in ḥalla , solvit, laxavit. From the signification to be tight come amarra, to stretch tight, istamarra, to stretch one’s self tight, to draw one’s self out in this state of tension - of things in time, to continue unbroken; mirreh, string, cord; מרה, to make and hold one’s self tight against any one, i.e., to be obstinate: originally of the body, as Arab. mârrâ , tamârrâ, to strengthen themselves in the contest against one another; then of the mind, as Arab. mârâ , tamârâ , to struggle against anything, both outwardly by contradiction and disputing, and inwardly by doubt and unbelief. - Fl.}

But it is more satisfactory, and more in accordance with the relation of the two divisions of the verse, if we keep to the usual signification of מרי; not, however, understanding it of obstinacy, revolt, rebellion (viz., in the sense of the friends), but, like moreh, 2Ki 14:26) which describes the affliction as stiff-necked, obstinate), of stubbornness, defiance, continuance in opposition, and explain with Raschi: My complaint is still always defiance, i.e., still maintains itself in opposition, viz., against God, without yielding (Hahn, Olsh.: unsubmitting); or rather: against such exhortations to penitence as those which Eliphaz has just addressed to him. In reply to these, Job considers his complain to be well justified even to-day, i.e., even now (for it is not, with Ewald, to be imagined that, in the mind of the poet, the controversy extends over several days, - an idea which would only be indicated by this one word).

In Job 23:2 he continues the same thought under a different form of expression. My hand lies heavy on my groaning, i.e., I hold it immoveably fast (as Fleischer proposes to take the words); or better: I am driven to a continued utterance of it. ^{▼▼The idea might also be: My hand presses my groaning back (because it would be of no use to me); but Job 23:2 is against this, and the Arab. kamada, to restrain inward pain, anger, etc. by force (e.g., mât kemed , he died from suppressed rage or anxiety), has scarcely any etymological connection with כבד.}

By this interpretation ydy retains its most natural meaning, manus mea, and the connection of the two members of the verse without any particle is best explained. On the other hand, all modern expositors, who do not, as Olsh., at once correct ידי into ידו, explain the suffix as objective: the hand, i.e., the destiny to which I have to submit, weighs upon my sighing, irresistibly forcing it out from me. Then Job 23:2 is related to Job 23:2 as a confirmation; and if, therefore, a particle is to be supplied, it is כּי (Olsh.) and no other. Thus, even the Targ. renders it machatiy, plaga mea. Job’s affliction is frequently traced back to the hand of God, Job 19:21, comp. Job 1:11; Job 2:5; Job 13:21; and on the suffix used objectively (pass.) we may compare Job 23:14, חקּי; Job 20:29, אמרו; and especially Job 34:6, חצּי. The interpretation: the hand upon me is heavy above my sighing, i.e., heavier than it (Ramban, Rosenm., Ges., Schlottm., Renan), also accords with the connection. על can indeed be used in this comparative meaning, Exo 16:5; Ecc 1:16; but כבדה יד על is an established phrase, and commonly used of the burden of the hand upon any one, Psa 32:4 (comp. Job 33:7, in the division in which Elihu is introduced; and the connection with אל, 1Sa 5:6, and שׁם, 1Sa 5:11); and this usage of the language renders the comparative rendering very improbable. But it is also improbable that “my hand” is = the hand that is upon me, since it cannot be shown that יד was directly used in the sense of plaga; even the Arabic, among the many turns of meaning which it gives to Arab. yd , does not support this, and least of all would an Arab conceive of Arab. ydâ passively, plaga quam patior. Explain, therefore: his complain now, as before, offers resistance to the exhortation of the friends, which is not able to lessen it, his (Job’s) hand presses upon his lamentation so that it is forced to break forth, but - without its justification being recognised by men. This thought urges him on to the wish that he might be able to pour forth his complain directly before God. מי־יתּן is at one time followed by an accusative (Job 14:4; Job 29:2; Job 31:31, Job 31:35, to which belongs also the construction with the inf., Job 11:5), at another by the fut., with or without Waw (as here, Job 23:3, Job 6:8; Job 13:5; Job 14:13; Job 19:23), and at another by the perf., with or without Waw (as here, Job 23:3: utinam noverim, and Deu 5:26). And ידעתּי is, as in Job 32:22, joined with the fut.: scirem (noverim) et invenirem instead of possim invenire eum (למצאו), Ges. §142, 3, c. If he but knew how to reach Him (God), could attain to His throne; תּכוּנה (everywhere from כּוּן, not from תּכן) signifies the setting up, i.e., arrangement (Eze 43:11) or establishment (Nah 2:10) of a dwelling, and the thing itself which is set out and established, here of the place where God’s throne is established. Having attained to this, he would lay his cause (instuere causam, as Job 13:18, comp. Job 33:5) before Him, and fill his mouth with arguments to prove that he has right on his side (תּוכחות, as Psa 38:15, of the grounds of defence, or proof that he is in the right and his opponent in the wrong). In Job 23:5 we may translate: I would, or: I should like (to learn); in the Hebrew, as in cognoscerem, both are expressed; the substance of Job 23:5 makes the optative rendering more natural. He would like to know the words with which He would meet him, ^{▼▼אדעה is generally accented with Dechî, מלים with Munach, according to which Dachselt interprets: scirem, quae eloquia responderet mihi Deus, but this is incorrect. The old editions have correctly אדעה Munach, מלים Munach (taking the place of Dechî, because the Athnach-word which follows has not two syllables before the tone-syllable; vid., Psalter, ii. 104, §4).} and would give heed to what He would say to him. But will He condescend? will He have anything to do with the matter? - Job 23:6-9 6 Will He contend with me with great power?

No, indeed; He will only regard me! 7 Then the upright would be disputing with Him,

And I should for ever escape my judge. 8 Yet I go eastward, He is not there,

And westward, but I perceive Him not; 9 Northwards where He worketh, but I behold Him not;

He turneth aside southwards, and I see Him not.

The question which Job, in Job 23:6, puts forth: will He contend with me in the greatness or fulness of His strength, i.e., (as Job 30:18) with a calling forth of all His strength? he himself answers in Job 23:6, hoping that the contrary may be the case: no, indeed, He will not do that. ^{▼▼With this interpretation, לא should certainly have Rebia mugrasch; its accentuation with Mercha proceeds from another interpretation, probably non ituque ponet in me (manum suam), according to which the Targ. translates. Others, following this accentuation, take לא in the sense of הלא (vid., in Dachselt), or are at pains to obtain some other meaning from it.} לא is here followed not by the כּי, which is otherwise customary after a negation in the signification imo, but by the restrictive exceptive אך, which never signifies sed, sometimes verum tamen (Psa 49:16; comp. supra, Job 13:15), but here, as frequently, tantummodo, and, according to the hyperbaton which has been mentioned so often, is placed at the beginning of the sentence, and belongs not to the member of the sentence immediately following it, but to the whole sentence (as in Arabic also the restrictive force of the Arab. innamâ never falls upon what immediately follows it): He will do nothing but regard me (ישׂים, scil. לב, elsewhere with על of the object of regard or reflection, Job 34:23; Job 37:15; Jdg 19:30, and without an ellipsis, ch. Job 1:8; also with אל, Job 2:3, or ל, 1Sa 9:20; here designedly with בּ, which unites in itself the significations of the Arab. b and fı̂, of seizing, and of plunging into anything). Many expositors (Hirz., Ew., and others) understand Job 23:6 as expressing a wish: “Shall He contend with me with overwhelming power? No, I do not desire that; only that He may be a judge attentive to the cause, not a ruler manifesting His almighty power.” But Job 23:6, taken thus, would be purely rhetorical, since this question (shall He, etc.) certainly cannot be seriously propounded by Job; accordingly, Job 23:6 is not intended as expressing a wish, but a hope. Job certainly wishes the same thing in Job 9:34; Job 13:21; but in the course of the discussion he has gradually acquired new confidence in God, which here once more breaks through. He knows that God, if He would but be found, would also condescend to hear his defence of himself, that He would allow him to speak, and not overwhelm him with His majesty. Job 23:10-13 10 For He knoweth the way that is with me:

If He should prove me, I should come forth as gold. 11 My foot held firm to His steps;

His way I kept, and turned not aside. 12 The command of His lips - I departed not from it;

More than my own determination I kept the words of His mouth. 13 Yet He remaineth by one thing, and who can turn Him?

And He accomplisheth what His soul desireth.

That which is not merely outwardly, but inwardly with (אם) any one, is that which he thinks and knows (his consciousness), Job 9:35; Job 15:9, or his willing and acting, Job 10:13; Job 27:11 : he is conscious of it, he intends to do it; here, Job 23:10, עם is intended in the former sense, in Job 23:14 in the latter. The “way with me” is that which his conscience (συνείδησις) approves (συμμαρτυρεῖ); comp. Psychol. S. 134. This is known to God, so that he who is now set down as a criminal would come forth as tried gold, in the event of God allowing him to appear before Him, and subjecting him to judicial trial. בּחנני is the praet. hypotheticum so often mentioned, which is based upon the paratactic character of the Hebrew style, as Gen 44:22; Rth 2:9; Zec 13:6; Ges. §155, 4, a. His foot has held firmly ^{▼▼On אחז, Carey correctly observes, and it explains the form of the expression: The oriental foot has a power of grasp and tenacity, because not shackled with shoes from early childhood, of which we can form but little idea.} to the steps of God (אשׁוּר, together with אשּׁוּר, Job 31:7, from אשׁר Piel, to go on), so that he was always close behind Him as his predecessor (אחז( ro synon. תּמך, Psa 17:5; Pro 5:5). He guarded, i.e., observed His way, and turned not aside (אט fut. apoc. Hiph. in the intransitive sense of deflectere, as e.g., Psa 125:5).

In Job 23:12, מצות שׂפתיו precedes as cas. absolutus (as respects the command of His lips); and what is said in this respect follows with Waw apod. (= Arab. f) without the retrospective pronoun ממּנּה (which is omitted for poetic brevity). On this prominence of a separate notion after the manner of an antecedent. The Hiph. המישׁ, like הטּה, Job 23:11, and הלּיז, Pro 4:21, is not causative, but simply active in signification. In Job 23:12 the question arises, whether צפן מן is one expression, as in Job 17:4, in the sense of “hiding from another,” or whether מן is comparative. In the former sense Hirz. explains: I removed the divine will from the possible ascendancy of my own. But since צפן is familiar to the poet in the sense of preserving and laying by (צפוּנים( y, treasures, Job 20:26), it is more natural to explain, according to Psa 119:11 : I kept the words (commands) of Thy mouth, i.e., esteemed them high and precious, more than my statute, i.e., more than what my own will prescribed for me. ^{▼▼Wetzstein arranges the significations of צפן as follows: - 1. (Beduin) intr. fut. i, to contain one’s self, to keep still (hence in Hebr. to lie in wait), to be rapt in thought; conjug. II. c. acc. pers. to make any one thoughtful, irresolute. 2. (Hebr.) trans. fut. o, to keep anything to one’s self, to hold back, to keep to one’s self; Niph. to be held back, i.e., either concealed or reserved for future use. Thus we see how, on the one hand, צפן is related to טמן, e.g., Job 20:26 (Arab. itmaanna, to be still); and, on the other, can interchange with צפה in the signification designare (comp. Job 15:22 with Job 15:20; Job 21:19), and to spy, lie in wait (comp. Psa 10:8; Psa 56:7; Pro 1:11, Pro 1:18, with Psa 37:32).}

The meaning is substantially the same; the lxx, which translates ἐν δὲ κόλπῳ μου (בּחקי), which Olsh. considers to be “perhaps correct,” destroys the significance of the confession. Hirz. rightly refers to the “law in the members,” Rom 7:23 : חקּי is the expression Job uses for the law of the sinful nature which strives against the law of God, the wilful impulse of selfishness and evil passion, the law which the apostle describes as ἕτερος νόμος, in distinction from the νόμος τοῦ Θεοῦ (Psychol. S. 379). Job’s conscience can give him this testimony, but He, the God who so studiously avoids him, remains in one mind, viz., to treat him as a criminal; and who can turn Him from His purpose? (the same question as Job 9:12; Job 11:10); His soul wills it (stat pro ratione voluntas), and He accomplishes it. Most expositors explain permanet in uno in this sense; the Beth is the usual ב with verbs of entering upon and persisting in anything. Others, however, take the ב as Beth essentiae: He remains one and the same, viz., in His conduct towards me (Umbr., Vaih.), or: He is one, is alone, viz., in absolute majesty (Targ. Jer.; Schult., Ew., Hlgst., Schlottm.), which is admissible, since this Beth occurs not only in the complements of a sentence (Psa 39:7, like a shadow; Isa 48:10, after the manner of silver; Psa 55:19, in great number; Psa 35:2, as my help), but also with the predicate of a simple sentence, be it verbal (Job 24:13; Pro 3:26) or substantival (Exo 18:4; Psa 118:7). The same construction is found also in Arabic, where, however, it is more frequent in simple negative clauses than in affirmative (vid., Psalter, i. 272). The assertion: He is one (as in the primary monotheistic confession, Deu 6:4), is, however, an expression for the absoluteness of God, which is not suited to this connection; and if הוא באחד is intended to be understood of the unchangeable uniformity of His purpose concerning Job, the explanation: versatur (perstat) in uno, Arab. hua fi wâhidin , is not only equally, but more natural, and we therefore prefer it.

Here again God appears to Job to be his enemy. His confidence towards God is again overrun by all kinds of evil, suspicious thoughts. He seems to him to be a God of absolute caprice, who punishes where there is no ground for punishment. There is indeed a phrase of the abiding fact which he considers superior to God and himself, both being conceived of as contending parties; and this phase God avoids, He will not hear it. Into this vortex of thoughts, as terrible as they are puerile, Job is hurried forward by the persuasion that his affliction is a decree of divine justice. The friends have greatly confirmed him in this persuasion; so that his consciousness of innocence, and the idea of God as inflicting punishment, are become widely opposite extremes, between which his faith is hardly able to maintain itself. It is not his affliction in itself, but this persuasion, which precipitates him into such a depth of conflict, as the following strophe shows. Job 23:14-17 14 For He accomplisheth that which is appointed for me,

And much of a like kind is with Him. 15 Therefore I am troubled at His presence;

If I consider it, I am afraid of Him. 16 And God hath caused my heart to be dejected,

And the Almighty hath put me to confusion; 17 For I have not been destroyed before darkness,

And before my countenance, which thick darkness covereth.

Now it is the will of God, the absolute, which has all at once turned against him, the innocent (Job 23:13); for what He has decreed against him (חקּי) He also brings to a complete fulfilment (השׁלים, as e.g., Isa 44:26); and the same troubles as those which he already suffers, God has still more abundantly decreed for him, in order to torture him gradually, but surely, to death. Job intends Job 23:14 in reference to himself, not as a general assertion: it is, in general, God’s way of acting. Hahn’s objection to the other explanation, that Job’s affliction, according to his own previous assertions, has already attained its highest degree, does not refute it; for Job certainly has a term of life before him, though it be but short, in which the wondrously inventive (Job 10:16) hostility of God can heap up ever new troubles for him. On the other hand, the interpretation of the expression in a general sense is opposed by the form of the expression itself, which is not that God delights to do this, but that He purposes (עמּו) to do it. It is a conclusion from the present concerning the future, such as Job is able to make with reference to himself; while he, moreover, abides by the reality in respect to the mysterious distribution of the fortunes of men. Therefore, because he is a mark for the enmity of God, without having merited it, he is confounded before His countenance, which is so angrily turned upon him (comp. פנים, Psa 21:10; Lam 4:16); if he considers it (according to the sense fut. hypothet., as Job 23:9), he trembles before Him, who recompenses faithful attachment by such torturing pain. The following connection with ל and the mention of God twice at the beginning of the affirmations, is intended to mean: (I tremble before Him), and He it is who has made me faint-hearted (הרך Hiph. from the Kal, Deu 20:3, and freq., to be tender, soft, disconcerted), and has troubled me; which is then supported in Job 23:17.

His suffering which draws him on to ruin he perceives, but it is not the proper ground of his inward destruction; it is not the encircling darkness of affliction, not the mysterious form of his suffering which disconcerts him, but God’s hostile conduct towards him, His angry countenance as he seems to see it, and which he is nevertheless unable to explain. Thus also Ew., Hirz., Vaih., Hlgst., and Schlottm. explain the passage. The only other explanation worthy of mention is that which finds in Job 23:17 the thought already expressed in Job 3:10 : For I was not then destroyed, in order that I might experience such mysterious suffering; and interpretation with which most of the old expositors were satisfied, and which has been revived by Rosenm., Stick., and Hahn. We translate: for I have not been destroyed before darkness (in order to be taken away from it before it came upon me), and He has not hidden darkness before my face; or as an exclamation: that I have not been destroyed! which is to be equivalent to: Had I but been ... ! Apart from this rendering of the quod non = utinam, which cannot be supported, (1) It is doubly hazardous thus to carry the לא forward to the second line in connection with verbs of different persons. (2) The darkness in Job 23:17 appears (at least according to the usual interpret. caliginem) as that which is being covered, whereas it is naturally that which covers something else; wherefore Blumenfeld explains: and darkness has not hidden, viz., such pain as I must now endure, from my face. (3) The whole thought which is thus gained is without point, and meaningless, in this connection. On the other hand, the antithesis between מפּניו and מפּני, ממּנוּ and מפּני־חשׁך, is at once obvious; and this antithesis, which forces itself upon the attention, also furnishes the thought which might be expected from the context. It is unnecessary to take נצמת in a different signification from Job 6:17; in Arabic ṣmt signifies conticescere; the idea of the root, however, is in general a constraining depriving of free movement. חשׁך is intended as in the question of Eliphaz, Job 22:11 : “Or seest thou not the darkness?” to which it perhaps refers. It is impossible, with Schlottm., to translate Job 23:17: and before that darkness covers my face; מן is never other than a praep., not a conjunction with power over a whole clause. It must be translated: et a facie mea quam obtegit caligo. As the absolute פנים, Job 9:27, signifies the appearance of the countenance under pain, so here by it Job means his countenance distorted by pain, his deformed appearance, which, as the attributive clause affirms, is thoroughly darkened by suffering (comp. Job 30:30). But it is not this darkness which stares him in the face, and threatens to swallow him up (comp. מפני־חשׁך, Job 17:12); not this his miserable form, which the extremest darkness covers (on אפל, vid., Job 10:22), that destroys his inmost nature; but the thought that God stands forth in hostility against him, which makes his affliction so terrific, and doubly so in connection with the inalienable consciousness of his innocence. From the incomprehensible punishment which, without reason, is passing over him, he now again comes to speak of the incomprehensible connivance of God, which permits the godlessness of the world to go on unpunished.

‏ Job 24:1-18

Job 24:1-4 1 Wherefore are not bounds reserved by the Almighty,

And they who honour Him see not His days? 2 They remove the landmarks,

They steal flocks and shepherd them. 3 They carry away the ass of the orphan,

And distrain the ox of the widow. 4 They thrust the needy out of the way,

The poor of the land are obliged to slink away together.

The supposition that the text originally stood מדּוּע לרשׁעים משּׁדּי is natural; but it is at once destroyed by the fact that Job 24:1 becomes thereby disproportionately long, and yet cannot be divided into two lines of comparatively independent contents. In fact, לרשׁעים is by no means absolutely necessary. The usage of the language assumes it, according to which את followed by the genitive signifies the point of time at which any one’s fate is decided. Isa 13:22; Jer 27:7; Eze 22:3; Eze 30:3; the period when reckoning is made, or even the terminus ad quem, Ecc 9:12; and ywm followed by the gen. of a man, the day of his end, Job 15:32; Job 18:20; Eze 21:30, and freq.; or with יהוה, the day when God’s judgment is revealed, Joe 1:15, and freq. The boldness of poetic language goes beyond this usage, by using עתּים directly of the period of punishment, as is almost universally acknowledged since Schultens’ day, and ימיו dna ,y of God’s days of judgment or of vengeance; ^{▼▼On עתים, in the sense of times of retribution, Wetzstein compares the Arab. ‛idât, which signifies predetermined reward or punishment; moreover, עת is derived from עדת (from ועד), and עתּים is equivalent to עדתּים, according to the same law of assimilation, by which now-a-days they say לתּי instead of לדתּי (one who is born on the same day with me, from Arab. lidat , lida), and רתּי instead of רדתּי (my drinking-time), since the assimilation of the ד takes place everywhere where ת is pronounced. The ת of the feminine termination in עתים, as in שׁקתות and the like, perhaps also in בתים (bâttim), is amalgamated with the root.} and it is the less ambiguous, since צפן, in the sense of the divine predetermination of what is future, Job 15:20, especially of God’s storing up merited punishment, Job 21:19, is an acknowledged word of our poet. On מן with the passive, vid., Ew. §295, c (where, however, Job 28:4 is erroneously cited in its favour); it is never more than equivalent to ἀπό, for to use מן directly as ὑπό with the passive is admissible neither in Hebrew nor in Arabic. ידעו (Keri ידעיו, for which the Targ. unsuitably reads ידעי) are, as in Psa 36:11; Psa 87:4, comp. supra, Job 18:21, those who know God, not merely superficially, but from experience of His ways, consequently those who are in fellowship with Him. לא חזוּ is to be written with Zinnorith over the לא, and Mercha by the first syllable of חזו. The Zinnorith necessitates the retreat of the tone of חזו to its first syllable, as in כי־חרה, Psa 18:8 (Bär’s Pslaterium, p. xiii.); for if חזו remained Milra, לא ought to be connected with it by Makkeph, and consequently remain toneless (Psalter, ii. 507).

Next follows the description of the moral, abhorrence which, while the friends (Job 22:19) maintain a divine retribution everywhere manifest, is painfully conscious of the absence of any determination of the periods and days of judicial punishment. Fearlessly and unpunished, the oppression of the helpless and defenceless, though deserving of a curse, rages in every form. They remove the landmarks; comp. Deu 27:17, “Cursed is he who removeth his neighbour’s landmark” (מסּיג, here once written with שׂ, while otherwise השּׂיג from נשׂג signifies assequi, on the other hand הסּיג from סוּג signifies dimovere). They steal flocks, ויּרעוּ, i.e., they are so barefaced, that after they have stolen them they pasture them openly. The ass of the orphans, the one that is their whole possession, and their only beast for labour, they carry away as prey (נהג, as e.g., Isa 20:4); they distrain, i.e., take away with them as a pledge (on חבל, to bind by a pledge, obstringere, and also to take as a pledge, vid., on Job 22:6, and Köhler on Zec 11:7), the yoke-ox of the widow (this is the exact meaning of שׁור, as of the Arab. thôr). They turn the needy aside from the way which they are going, so that they are obliged to wander hither and thither without home or right: the poor of the land are obliged to hide themselves altogether. The Hiph. הטּה, with אביונים as its obj., is used as in Amo 5:12; there it is used of turning away from a right that belongs to them, here of turning out of the way into trackless regions. אביון (vid., on Job 29:16) here, as frequently, is the parallel word with ענו, the humble one, the patient sufferer; instead of which the Keri is עני, the humbled, bowed down with suffering (vid., on Psa 9:13). ענוי־ארץ without any Keri in Psa 76:10; Zep 2:3, and might less suitably appear here, where it is not so much the moral attribute as the outward condition that is intended to be described. The Pual חכּאוּ describes that which they are forced to do.

The description of these unfortunate ones is now continued; and by a comparison with Job 30:1-8, it is probable that aborigines who are turned out of their original possessions and dwellings are intended (comp. Job 15:19, according to which the poet takes his stand in an age in which the original relations of the races had been already disturbed by the calamities of war and the incursions of aliens). If the central point of the narrative lies in Haurân, or, more exactly, in the Nukra, it is natural, with Wetzstein, to think of the Arab. 'hl 'l - wukror ‛rb 'l - ḥujr , i.e., the (perhaps Ituraean) “races of the caves” in Trachonitis. Job 24:5-8 5 Behold, as wild asses in the desert,

They go forth in their work seeking for prey,

The steppe is food to them for the children. 6 In the field they reap the fodder for his cattle,

And they glean the vineyard of the evil-doer. 7 They pass the night in nakedness without a garment,

And have no covering in the cold. 8 They are wet with the torrents of rain upon the mountains,

And they hug the rocks for want of shelter.

The poet could only draw such a picture as this, after having himself seen the home of his hero, and the calamitous fate of such as were driven forth from their original abodes to live a vagrant, poverty-stricken gipsy life. By Job 24:5, one is reminded of Psa 104:21-23, especially since in Job 24:11 of this Psalm the פּראים, onagri (Kulans), are mentioned, - those beautiful animals ^{▼▼Layard, New Discoveries, p. 270, describes these wild asses’ colts. The Arabic name is like the Hebrew, el - ferâ , or also himâr el - wahsh , i.e., wild ass, as we have translated, whose home is on the steppe. For fuller particulars, vid., Wetzstein’s note on Job 39:5.} which, while young, as difficult to be broken in, and when grown up are difficult to be caught; which in their love of freedom are an image of the Beduin, Gen 16:12; their untractableness an image of that which cannot be bound, Job 11:12; and from their roaming about in herds in waste regions, are here an image of a gregarious, vagrant, and freebooter kind of life. The old expositors, as also Rosenm., Umbr., Arnh., and Vaih., are mistaken in thinking that aliud hominum sceleratorum genus is described in Job 24:5. Ewald and Hirz. were the first to perceive that Job 24:5 is the further development of Job 24:4, and that here, as in Job 30:1, those who are driven back into the wastes and caves, and a remnant of the ejected and oppressed aborigines who drag out a miserable existence, are described.

The accentuation rightly connects פראים במדבר; by the omission of the Caph similit., as e.g., Isa 51:12, the comparison (like a wild ass) becomes an equalization (as a wild ass). The perf. יצאוּ is a general uncoloured expression of that which is usual: they go forth בפעלם, in their work (not: to their work, as the Psalmist, in Psa 104:23, expresses himself, exchanging ב for ל). משׁחרי לטּרף, searching after prey, i.e., to satisfy their hunger (Psa 104:21), from טרף, in the primary signification decerpere (vid., Hupfeld on Psa 7:3), describes that which in general forms their daily occupation as they roam about; the constructivus is used here, without any proper genitive relation, as a form of connection, according to Ges. §116, 1. The idea of waylaying is not to be connected with the expression. Job describes those who are perishing in want and misery, not so much as those who themselves are guilty of evil practices, as those who have been brought down to poverty by the wrongdoing of others. As is implied in משׁחרי (comp. the morning Psa 63:2; Isa 26:9), Job describes their going forth in the early morning; the children (נערים, as Job 1:19; Job 29:5) are those who first feel the pangs of hunger. לו refers individually to the father in the company: the steppe (with its scant supply of roots and herbs) is to him food for the children; he snatches it from it, it must furnish it for him. The idea is not: for himself and his family (Hirz., Hahn, and others); for v. 6, which has been much misunderstood, describes how they, particularly the adults, obtain their necessary subsistence. There is no MS authority for reading בּלי־לו instead of בּלילו; the translation “what is not to him” (lxx, Targ., and partially also the Syriac version) is therefore to be rejected. Raschi correctly interprets יבולו as a general explanation, and Ralbag תבואתו: it is, as in Job 6:5, mixed fodder for cattle, farrago, consisting of oats or barley sown among vetches and beans, that is intended. The meaning is not, however, as most expositors explain it, that they seek to satisfy their hunger with food for cattle grown in the fields of the rich evil-doer; for קצר does not signify to sweep together, but to reap in an orderly manner; and if they meant to steal, why did they not seize the better portion of the produce? It is correct to take the suff. as referring to the רשׁע which is mentioned in the next clause, but it is not to be understood that they plunder his fields per nefas; on the contrary, that he hires them to cut the fodder for his cattle, but does not like to entrust the reaping of the better kinds of corn to them. It is impracticable to press the Hiph. יקצירו of the Chethib to favour this rendering; on the contrary, הקציר stands to קצר in like (not causative) signification as הנחה to נחה (vid., on Job 31:18). In like manner, Job 24:6 is to be understood of hired labour. The rich man prudently hesitates to employ these poor people as vintagers; but he makes use of their labour (whilst his own men are fully employed at the wine-vats) to gather the straggling grapes which ripen late, and were therefore left at the vintage season. the older expositors are reminded of לקשׁ, late hay, and explain ילקּשׁוּ as denom. by יכרתו לקשׁו (Aben-Ezra, Immanuel, and others) or יאכלו לקשׁו (Parchon); but how unnatural to think of the second mowing, or even of eating the after-growth of grass, where the vineyard is the subject referred to! On the contrary, לקּשׁ signifies, as it were, serotinare, i.e., serotinos fructus colligere (Rosenm.): ^{▼▼In the idiom of Hauran, לקשׂ, fut. i, signifies to be late, to come late; in Piel, to delay, e.g., the evening meal, return, etc.; in Hithpa. telaqqas, to arrive too late. Hence laqı̂s לקישׂ and loqsı̂ לקשׂי, delayed, of any matter, e.g., לקישׁ and זרע לקשׂי, late seed (= לקשׁ, Amo 7:1, in connection with which the late rain in April, which often fails, is reckoned on), ולד לקשׂי, a child born late (i.e., in old age); bakı̂r בכיר and bekrı̂ בכרי are the opposites in every signification. - Wetzst.} this is the work which the rich man assigns to them, because he gains by it, and even in the worst case can lose but little.

Job 30:7 tell how miserably they are obliged to shift for themselves during this autumnal season of labour, and also at other times. Naked (ערום, whether an adverbial form or not, is conceived of after the manner of an accusative: in a naked, stripped condition, Arabic ‛urjânan) they pass the night, without having anything on the body (on לבוּשׁ, vid., on Psa 22:19), and they have no (אין supply להם) covering or veil (corresponding to the notion of בּגד) in the cold. ^{▼▼All the Beduins sleep naked at night. I once asked why they do this, since they are often disturbed by attacks at night, and I was told that it is a very ancient custom. Their clothing (kiswe, כסוה), both of the nomads of the steppe (bedû) and of the caves (wa‛r), is the same, summer and winter; many perish on the pastures when overtaken by snow-storms, or by cold and want, when their tents and stores are taken from them in the winter time by an enemy. - Wetzst.}

They become thoroughly drenched by the frequent and continuous storms that visit the mountains, and for want of other shelter are obliged to shelter themselves under the overhanging rocks, lying close up to them, and clinging to them, - an idea which is expressed here by חבּקוּ, as in Lam 4:5, where, of those who were luxuriously brought up on purple cushions, it is said that they “embrace dunghills;” for in Palestine and Syria, the forlorn one, who, being afflicted with some loathsome disease, is not allowed to enter the habitations of men, lies on the dunghill (mezâbil), asking alms by day of the passers-by, and at night hiding himself among the ashes which the sun has warmed. ^{▼▼Wetzstein observes on this passage: In the mind of the speaker, מחסה is the house made of stone, from which localities not unfrequently derive their names, as El-hasa, on the east of the Dead Sea; the well-known commercial town El-hasâ, on the east of the Arabian peninsula, which is generally called Lahsâ; the two of El-hasja (אלחסיה), north-east of Damascus, etc.: so that חבקו צור forms the antithesis to the comfortable dwellings of the Arab. ḥaḍarı̂ , hadarı̂ , i.e., one who is firmly settled. The roots חבק, חבך, seem, in the desert, to be only dialectically distinct, and like the root עבק, to signify to be pressed close upon one another. Thus חבקה (pronounced hibtsha), a crowd = zahme, and asâbi‛ mahbûke (מחבוּכה), the closed fingers, etc. The locality, hibikke (Beduin pronunciation for habáka, חבכה with the Beduin Dag. euphonicum), described in my Reisebericht, has its name from this circumstance alone, that the houses have been attached to (fastened into) the rocks. Hence חבּק in this passage signifies to press into the fissure of a rock, to seek out a corner which may defend one (dherwe) against the cold winds and rain-torrents (which are far heavier among the mountains than on the plain). The dherwe (from Arab. ḏarâ, to afford protection, shelter, a word frequently used in the desert) plays a prominent part among the nomads; and in the month of March, as it is proverbially said the dherwe is better than the ferwe (the skin), they seek to place their tents for protection under the rocks or high banks of the wadys, on account of the cold strong winds, for the sake of the young of the flocks, to which the cold storms are often very destructive. When the sudden storms come on, it is a general thing for the shepherds and flocks to hasten to take shelter under overhanging rocks, and the caverns (mughr, Arab. mugr) which belong to the troglodyte age, and are e.g., common in the mountains of Hauran; so that, therefore, Job 24:8 can as well refer to concealing themselves only for a time (from rain and storm) in the clefts as to troglodytes, who constantly dwell in caverns, or to those dwelling in tents who, during the storms, seek the dherwe of rock sides.}

The usual accentuation, מזרם with Dechî, הרים with Munach, after which it should be translated ab inundatione montes humectantur, is false; in correct Codd. זרם has also Munach; the other Munach is, as in Job 23:5, Job 23:9, Job 24:6, and freq., a substitute for Dechî. Having sketched this special class of the oppressed, and those who are abandoned to the bitterest want, Job proceeds with his description of the many forms of wrong which prevail unpunished on the earth: Job 24:9-12 9 They tear the fatherless from the breast,

And defraud the poor. 10 Naked, they slink away without clothes,

And hungering they bear the sheaves. 11 Between their walls they squeeze out the oil;

They tread the wine-presses, and suffer thirst. 12 In the city vassals groan, And the soul of the oppressed crieth out -

And Eloah heedeth not the anomaly.

The accentuation of Job 24:9 (יגזלו with Dechî, משׁד with Munach) makes the relation of שׁד יתום genitival. Heidenheim (in a MS annotation to Kimchi’s Lex.) accordingly badly interprets: they plunder from the spoil of the orphan; Ramban better: from the ruin, i.e., the shattered patrimony; both appeal to the Targum, which translates מביזת יתום, like the Syriac version, men bezto de - jatme (comp. Jerome: vim fecerunt depraedantes pupillos). The original reading, however, is perhaps (vid., Buxtorf, Lex. col. 295) מבּיזא, ἀπὸ βυζίου, from the mother’s breast, as it is also, the lxx (ἀπὸ μαστοῦ), to be translated contrary to the accentuation. Inhuman creditors take the fatherless and still tender orphan away from its mother, in order to bring it up as a slave, and so to obtain payment. If this is the meaning of the passage, it is natural to understand יחבּלוּ, Job 24:9, of distraining; but (1) the poet would then repeat himself tautologically, vid., Job 24:3, where the same thing is far more evidently said; (2) חבל, to distrain, would be construed with על, contrary to the logic of the word. Certainly the phrase חבל על may be in some degree explained by the interpretation, “to impose a fine” (Ew., Hahn), or “to distrain” (Hirz., Welte), or “to oppress with fines” (Schlottm.); but violence is thus done to the usage of the language, which is better satisfied by the explanation of Ralbag (among modern expositors, Ges., Arnh., Vaih., Stick., Hlgst.): and what the unfortunate one possesses they seize; but this על = אשׁר על directly as object is impossible. The passage, Deu 7:25, cited by Schultens in its favour, is of a totally different kind.

But throughout the Semitic dialects the verb חבל also signifies "to destroy, to treat injuriously” (e.g., Arab. el - châbil, a by-name of Satan); it occurs in this signification in Job 34:31, and according to the analogy of הרע על, 1Ki 17:20, can be construed with על as well as with ל. The poet, therefore, by this construction will have intended to distinguish the one חבל from the other, Job 22:6; Job 24:3; and it is with Umbreit to be translated: they bring destruction upon the poor; or better: they take undue advantage of those who otherwise are placed in trying circumstances.

The subjects of Job 24:10 are these עניים, who are made serfs, and become objects of merciless oppression, and the poet here in Job 24:10 indeed repeats what he has already said almost word for word in Job 24:7 (comp. Job 31:19); but there the nakedness was the general calamity of a race oppressed by subjugation, here it is the consequence of the sin of merces retenta laborum, which cries aloud to heaven, practised on those of their own race: they slink away (הלּך, as Job 30:28) naked (nude), without (בּלי = מבּלי, as perhaps sine = absque) clothing, and while suffering hunger they carry the sheaves (since their masters deny them what, according to Deu 25:4, shall not be withheld even from the beasts). Between their walls (שׁוּרת like שׁרות, Jer 5:10, Chaldee שׁוּריּא), i.e., the walls of their masters who have made them slaves, therefore under strict oversight, they press out the oil (יצהירוּ, ἅπ. γεγρ.), they tread the wine-vats (יקבים, lacus), and suffer thirst withal (fut. consec. according to Ew. §342, a), without being allowed to quench their thirst from the must which runs out of the presses (נּתּות, torcularia, from which the verb דּרך is here transferred to the vats). Böttch. translates: between their rows of trees, without being able to reach out right or left; but that is least of all suitable with the olives. Carey correctly explains: “the factories or the garden enclosures of these cruel slaveholders.” This reference of the word to the wall of the enclosure is more suitable than to walls of the press-house in particular. From tyrannical oppression in the country, ^{▼▼Brentius here remarks: Quantum igitur judicium in eos futurum est, qui in homines ejusdem carnis, ejusdem patriae, ejusdem fidei, ejusdem Christi committunt quod nec in bruta animalia committendum est, quod malum in Germania frequentissimum est. Vae igitur Germaniae!}

Job now passes over to the abominations of discord and was in the cities. Job 24:13-15 13 Others are those that rebel against the light,

They will know nothing of its ways,

And abide not in its paths. 14 The murderer riseth up at dawn,

He slayeth the sufferer and the poor,

And in the night he acteth like a thief. 15 And the eye of the adulterer watcheth for the twilight;

He thinks: “no eye shall recognise me,”

And he putteth a veil before his face.

With המּה begins a new turn in the description of the moral confusion which has escaped God’s observation; it is to be translated neither as retrospective, “since they” (Ewald), nor as distinctive, “they even” (Böttch.), i.e., the powerful in distinction from the oppressed, but ”those” (for המה corresponds to our use of “those,” אלּה to "these”), by which Job passes on to another class of evil-disposed and wicked men. Their general characteristic is, that they shun the light. Those who are described in Job 24:14 are described according to their general characteristic in Job 24:13; accordingly it is not to be interpreted: those belong to the enemies of the light, but: those are, according to their very nature, enemies of the light. The Beth is the so-called Beth essent.; היוּ (comp. Pro 3:26) affirms what they are become by their own inclination, or as what they are fashioned, viz., as ἀποστάται φωτός (Symm.); מרד (on the root מר, vid., on Job 23:2) signifies properly to push one’s self against anything, to lean upon, to rebel; מרד therefore signifies one who strives against another, one who is obstinate (like the Arabic mârid , merı̂d , comp. mumâri , not conformable to the will of another). The improvement מרדי אור (not with Makkeph, but with Mahpach of mercha mahpach. placed between the two words, vid., Bär’s Psalterium, p. x.) assumes the possibility of the construction with the acc., which occurs at least once, Jos 22:19. They are hostile to the light, they have no familiarity with its ways (הכּיר, as Jos 22:17, Psa 142:5; Rth 2:19, to take knowledge of anything, to interest one’s self in its favour), and do not dwell (ישׁבוּ, Jer. reversi sunt, according to the false reading ישׁבוּ) in its paths, i.e., they neither make nor feel themselves at home there, they have no peace therein. The light is the light of day, which, however, stands in deeper, closer relation to the higher light, for the vicious man hateth τὸ φῶς, Joh 3:20, in every sense; and the works which are concealed in the darkness of the night are also ἔργα τοῦ σκότους, Rom 13:12 (comp. Isa 29:15), in the sense in which light and darkness are two opposite principles of the spiritual world. It need not seem strange that the more minute description of the conduct of these enemies of the light now begins with לאור. It is impossible that this should mean: still in the darkness of the night (Stick.), prop. towards the light, when it is not yet light. Moreover, in biblical Hebrew, אור does not signify evening, in which sense it occurs in Talmudic Hebrew (Pesachim 1 a, Seder olam rabba, c. 5, אור שׁביעי, vespera septima), like אורתּא (= נשׁף) in Talmudic Aramaic. The meaning, on the contrary, is that towards daybreak (comp. הבקר אור, Gen 44:3), therefore with early morning, the murderer rises up, to go about his work, which veils itself in darkness (Psa 10:8-10) by day, viz., to slay (comp. on יקטל...יקוּם, Ges. §142, 3, c) the unfortunate and the poor, who pass by defenceless and alone. One has to supply the idea of the ambush in which the waylayer lies in wait; and it is certainly inconvenient that it is not expressed.

The antithesis וּבלּילה, Job 24:14, shows that nothing but primo mane is meant by לאור. He who in the day-time goes forth to murder and plunder, at night commits petty thefts, where no one whom he could attack passes by. Stickel translates: to slay the poor and wretched, and in the night to play the thief; but then the subjunctivus ויהי ought to precede (vid., e.g., Job 13:5), and in general it cannot be proved without straining it, that the voluntative form of the future everywhere has a modal signification. Moreover, here יהי does not differ from Job 18:12; Job 20:23, but is only a poetic shorter form for יהיה: in the night he is like a thief, i.e., plays the part of the thief. And the adulterer’s eye observes the darkness of evening (vid., Pro 7:9), i.e., watches closely for its coming on (שׁמר, in the usual signification observare, to be on the watch, to take care, observe anxiously), since he hopes to render himself invisible; and that he may not be recognised even if seen, he puts on a mask. סתר פּנים is something by which his countenance is rendered unrecognisable (lxx ἀποκρυβὴ προσώπου), like the Arab. sitr , sitâreh , a curtain, veil, therefore a veil for the face, or, as we say in one word borrowed from the Arabic mascharat , a farce (masquerade): the mask, but not in the proper sense. ^{▼▼The mask was perhaps never known in Palestine and Syria; סתר פנים is the mendı̂l or women’s veil, which in the present day (in Hauran exclusively) is called sitr, and is worn over the face by all married women in the towns, while in the country it is worn hanging down the back, and is only drawn over the face in the presence of a stranger. If this explanation is correct the poet means to say that the adulterer, in order to remain undiscovered, wears women’s clothes comp. Deu 22:5; and, in fact, in the Syrian towns (the figure is taken from town-life) women’s clothing is always chosen for that kind of forbidden nocturnal undertaking, i.e., the man disguises himself in an ı̂zâr, which covers him from head to foot, takes the mendı̂l, and goes with a lantern (without which at night every person is seized by the street watchman as a suspicious person) unhindered into a strange house. - Wetzst.} Job 24:16-17 16 In the dark they dig through houses,

By day they shut themselves up,

They will know nothing of the light. 17 For the depth of night is to them even as the dawn of the morning,

For they know the terrors of the depth of night.

The handiwork of the thief, which is but slightly referred to in Job 24:14, is here more particularly described. The indefinite subj. of חתר, as is manifest from what follows, is the band of thieves. The בּ, which is elsewhere joined with chtr (to break into anything), is here followed by the acc. בּתּים (to be pronounced bâttim, not bottim), ^{▼▼Vid., Aben-Ezra on Exo 12:7. The main proof that it is to be pronounced bâttim is, that written exactly it is בּתּים, and that the Metheg according to circumstances, is changed into an accent, as Exo 8:7; Exo 12:7; Jer 18:22; Eze 45:4, which can only happen by Kametz, not by Kometz (K. chatûph); comp. Köhler on Zec 14:2.} as in the Talmudic, חתר שׁנּו, to pick one’s teeth (and thereby to make them loose), b. Kidduschin, 24 b. According to the Talmud, Ralbag, and the ancient Jewish interpretation in general, Job 24:16 is closely connected to btym: houses which they have marked by day for breaking into, and the mode of its accomplishment; but חתם nowhere signifies designare, always obsignare, to seal up, to put under lock and key, Job 14:17; Job 9:7; Job 37:7; according to which the Piel, which occurs only here, is to be explained: by day they seal up, i.e., shut themselves up for their safety (למו is not to be accented with Athnach, but with Rebia mugrasch): they know not the light, i.e., as Schlottm. well explains: they have no fellowship with it; for the biblical ידע, γινώσκειν, mostly signifies a knowledge which enters into the subject, and intimately unites itself with it. In Job 24:17 one confirmation follows another. Umbr. and Hirz. explain: for the morning is to them at once the shadow of death; but יחדּו, in the signification at the same time, as we have taken יחד in Job 17:16 (nevertheless of simultaneousness of time), is unsupportable: it signifies together, Job 2:11; Job 9:32; and the arrangement of the words למו...יחדּו (to them together) is like Isa 9:20; Isa 31:3; Jer 46:12. Also, apart from the erroneous translation of the יחדו, which is easily set aside, Hirzel’s rendering of Job 24:17 is forced: the morning, i.e., the bright day, is to them all as the shadow of death, for each and every one of them knows the terrors of the daylight, which is to them as the shadow of death, viz., the danger of being discovered and condemned. The interpretation, which is also preferred by Olshausen, is far more natural: the depth of night is to them as the dawn of the morning (on the precedence of the predicate, comp. Amo 4:13 and Amo 5:8 : walking in the darkness of the early morning), for they are acquainted with the terrors of the depth of night, i.e., they are not surprised by them, but know how to anticipate and to escape them. Job 38:15 also, where the night, which vanishes before the rising of the sun, is called the “light” of the evil-doer, favours this interpretation (not the other, as Olsh. thinks). The accentuation also favours it; for is בקר had been the subj., and were to be translated: the morning is to them the shadow of death, it ought to have been accented בקר למו צלמות, Dechî, Mercha, Athnach. It is, however, accented Munach, Munach, Athnach, and the second Munach stands as the deputy of Dechî, whose value in the interpunction it represents; therefore בקר למו is the predicate: the shadow of death is morning to them. From the plur. the description now, with יכּיר, passes into the sing., as individualizing it. בּלהות constr. of בּלּהות, is without a Dagesh in the second consonant. Mercier admirably remarks here: sunt ei familiares et noti nocturni terrores, neque eos timet aut curat, quasi sibi cum illis necessitudo et familiaritas intercederet et cum illis ne noceant foedus aut pactum inierit. Thus by their skill and contrivance they escape danger, and divine justice allows them to remain undiscovered and unpunished, - a fact which is most incomprehensible.

It is now time that this thought was once again definitely expressed, that one may not forget what these accumulated illustrations are designed to prove. But what now follows in Job 24:18 seems to express not Job’s opinion, but that of his opponents. Ew., Hirz., and Hlgst. regard Job 24:18, Job 24:22, as thesis and antithesis. To the question, What is the lot that befalls all these evil-doers? Job is thought to give a twofold answer: first, to Job 24:21, an ironical answer in the sense of the friends, that those men are overtaken by the merited punishment; then from Job 24:22 is his own serious answer, which stands in direct contrast to the former. But (1) in Job 24:18 there is not the slightest trace observable that Job does not express his own view: a consideration which is also against Schlottman, who regards Job 24:18 as expressive of the view of an opponent. (2) There is no such decided contrast between Job 24:18 and Job 24:22, for Job 24:19 and Job 24:24 both affirm substantially the same thing concerning the end of the evil-doer. In like manner, it is also not to be supposed, with Stick., Löwenth., Böttch., Welte, and Hahn, that Job, outstripping the friends, as far as Job 24:21, describes how the evil-doer certainly often comes to a terrible end, and in Job 24:22 how the very opposite of this, however, is often witnessed; so that this consequently furnishes no evidence in support of the exclusive assertion of the friends. Moreover, Job 24:24 compared with Job 24:19, where there is nothing to indicate a direct contrast, is opposed to it; and Job 24:22, which has no appearance of referring to a direct contrast with what has been previously said, is opposed to such an antithetical rendering of the two final strophes. Job 24:22 might more readily be regarded as a transition to the antithesis, if Job 24:18 could, with Eichh., Schnurr., Dathe, Umbr., and Vaih., after the lxx, Syriac, and Jerome, be understood as optative: “Let such an one be light on the surface of the water, let ... be cursed, let him not turn towards,” etc., but Job 24:18 is not of the optative form; and Job 24:18, where in that case אל־יפנה would be expected, instead of אל־יפנה, shows that Job 24:18, where, according to the syntax, the optative rendering is natural, is nevertheless not to be so rendered. The right interpretation is that which regards both Job 24:18 and Job 24:22 as Job’s own view, without allowing him absolutely to contradict himself. Thus it is interpreted, e.g., by Rosenmüller, who, however, as also Renan, errs in connecting Job 24:18 with the description of the thieves, and understands Job 24:18 of their slipping away, Job 24:18 of their dwelling in horrible places, and Job 24:18 of their avoidance of the vicinity of towns. Job 24:18-21 18 For he is light upon the surface of the water;

Their heritage is cursed upon the earth;

He turneth no more in the way of the vineyard. 19 Drought, also heat, snatch away snow water -

So doth Sheôl those who have sinned. 20 The womb forgetteth him, worms shall feast on him,

He is no more remembered;

So the desire of the wicked is broken as a tree - 21 He who hath plundered the barren that bare not,

And did no good to the widow.

The point of comparison in Job 24:18 is the swiftness of the disappearing: he is carried swiftly past, as any light substance on the surface of the water is hurried along by the swiftness of the current, and can scarcely be seen; comp. Job 9:26 : “My days shoot by as ships of reeds, as an eagle which dasheth upon its prey,” and Hos 10:7, “Samaria’s king is destroyed like a bundle of brushwood (lxx, Theod., φρύγανον) on the face of the water,” which is quickly drawn into the whirlpool, or buried by the approaching wave. ^{▼▼The translation: like foam (spuma or bulla), is also very suitable here. Thus Targ., Symm., Jerome, and others; but the signification to foam cannot be etymologically proved, whereas קצף in the signification confringere is established by קצפה, breaking, Joe 1:7, and Arab. qṣf; so that consequently קצף, as synon. of אף, signifies properly the breaking forth, and is then allied to אברה.}

But here the idea is not that of being swallowed up by the waters, as in the passage in Hosea, but, on the contrary, of vanishing from sight, by being carried rapidly past by the rush of the waters. If, then, the evil-doer dies a quick, easy death, his heritage (חלקה, from חלק, to divide) is cursed by men, since no one will dwell in it or use it, because it is appointed by God to desolation on account of the sin which is connected with it (vid., on Job 15:28); even he, the evil-doer, no more turns the way of the vineyard (פּנה, with דּרך, not an acc. of the obj., but as indicating the direction = אל־דּרך; comp. 1Sa 13:18 with 1Sa 13:17 of the same chapter), proudly to inspect his wide extended domain, and overlook the labourers. The curse therefore does not come upon him, nor can one any longer lie in wait for him to take vengeance on him; it is useless to think of venting upon him the rage which his conduct during life provoked; he is long since out of reach in Sheôl.

That which Job says figuratively in Job 24:18, and in Job 21:13 without a figure: “in a moment they go down to Sheôl,” he expresses in Job 24:19 under a new figure, and, moreover, in the form of an emblematic proverb (vid., Herzog’s Real-Encyklopädie, xiv. 696), according to the peculiarity of which, not כּן, but either only the copulative Waw (Pro 25:25) or nothing whatever (Pro 11:22), is to be supplied before שׁאול חטאו. חטאוּ is virtually an object: eos qui peccarunt. Job 24:19 is a model-example of extreme brevity of expression, Ges. §155, 4, b. Sandy ground (ציּה, arid land, without natural moisture), added to it (גּם, not: likewise) the heat of the sun - these two, working simultaneously from beneath and above, snatch away (גּזלוּ, cogn. גּזר, root גז, to cut, cut away, tear away; Arab. jzr , fut. i, used of sinking, decreasing water) מימי שׁלג, water of (melted) snow (which is fed from no fountain, and therefore is quickly absorbed), and Sheôl snatches away those who have sinned (= גּזלה את־אשׁר חטאוּ). The two incidents are alike: the death of those whose life has been a life of sin, follows as a consequence easily and unobserved, without any painful and protracted struggle. The sinner disappears suddenly; the womb, i.e., the mother that bare him, forgets him (רחם, matrix = mater; according to Ralbag: friendship, from רחם, to love tenderly; others: relationship, in which sense Arab. raḥimun = רחם is used), worms suck at him (מתקו for מתקתּוּ, according to Ges. §147, a, sugit eum, from which primary notion of sucking comes the signification to be sweet, Job 21:33 : Syriac, metkat ennun remto ; Ar. imtasahum , from the synonymous Arab. maṣṣa= מצץ, מצה, מזה), he is no more thought of, and thus then is mischief (abstr. pro concr. as Job 5:16) broken like a tree (not: a staff, which עץ never, not even in Hos 4:12, directly, like the Arabic ‛asa , ‛asât , signifies). Since עולה is used personally, רעה וגו, Job 24:21, can be connected with it as an appositional permutative. His want of compassion (as is still too often seen in the present day in connection with the tyrannical conduct of the executive in Syria and Palestine, especially on the part of those who collected the taxes) goes the length of eating up, i.e., entirely plundering, the barren, childless (Gen 11:30; Isa 54:1), and therefore helpless woman, who has no sons to protect and defend her, and never showing favour to the widow, but, on the contrary, thrusting her away from him. There is as little need for regarding the verb רעה here, with Rosenm. after the Targ., in the signification confringere, as cognate with רעע, רצץ, as conversely to change תּרעם, Psa 2:9, into תּרעם; it signifies depascere, as in Job 20:26, here in the sense of depopulari. On the form ייטיב for יימיב, vid., Ges. §70, 2, rem.; and on the transition from the part. to the v. fin., vid., Ges. §134, rem. 2. Certainly the memory of such an one is not affectionately cherished; this is equally true with what Job maintains in Job 21:32, that the memory of the evil-doer is immortalized by monuments. Here the allusion is to the remembrance of a mother’s love and sympathetic feeling. The fundamental thought of the strophe is this, that neither in life nor in death had he suffered the punishment of his evil-doing. The figure of the broken tree (broken in its full vigour) also corresponds to this thought; comp. on the other hand what Bildad says, Job 18:16 : “his roots dry up beneath, and above his branch is lopped off” (or: withered). The severity of his oppression is not manifest till after his death.

In the next strophe Job goes somewhat further. But after having, in Job 24:22, Job 24:23, said that the life of the ungodly passes away as if they were the favoured of God, he returns to their death, which the friends, contrary to experience, have so fearfully described, whilst it is only now and then distinguished from the death of other men by coming on late and painlessly.