Job 20:18-29 | KD | STEP | He shall not delight himself in streams, Like to rivers and brooks of honey and cream. 18 Giving back that for which he laboured, he shall not swallow it; He shall not rejoice according to the riches he hath gotten. 19 Because he cast down, let the destitute lie helpless; He shall not, in case he hath seized a house, finish building it. 20 Because he knew no rest in his craving, He shall not be able to rescue himself with what he most loveth. As poets sing of the aurea aetas of the paradise-like primeval age: Flumina jam lactis, jam flumina nectaris ibant, (Note: Ovid, Metam . i. 112, comp. Virgil, Ecl. iv. 30: Et durae quercus sudabant roscida mella; and Horace, Epod . xvi. 47 Mella cava manant ex ilice, montibus altis Levis crepante lympha desilit pede .) and as the land of promise is called in the words of Jehovah in the Thora, ”a land flowing with milk and honey,” the puffed-up prosperity to which the evil-doer has attained by injustice is likened to streams (פּלגּות, prop. dividings, and indeed perhaps of a country = districts, Jdg 5:15., or as here, of a fountain = streams) of rivers, of brooks (two gen. appositionis which are co-ordinate, of which Hupfeld thinks one must be crossed out; they, however, are not unpoetical, since, just as in , the flow of words is suspended, Ew. §289, c ) of honey and cream (comp. cream and oil, ), if נהרי נחלי is not perhaps (which is more in accordance with the accentuation) intended as an explanatory permutative of בפלגות: he shall not feast himself upon streams, streamings of rivers of honey and cream (Dachselt); and by אל־ירא ( seq. Beth, to fasten one’s gaze upon anything = feast one’s self upon it), the prospect of enjoying this prosperity, and indeed, since the moral judgment and feeling are concerned in the affirmation of the fact (אל, as ; ; , ), the privilege of this prospect, is denied. This thought, that the enjoyment aimed at and anticipated shall not follow the attainment of this height of prosperity, is reiterated in a twofold form in Job 20:18. is not to be translated: He gives back that which he has gained without swallowing it down, which must have been ישׁיב; the syntactic relation is a different one: the Waw of ולא is not expressive of detail; the detailing is implied in the partic., which is made prominent as an antecedent, as if it were: because, or since, he gives out again that which he has acquired (ינע only here instead of יגיע, and freq.), he has no pleasure in it, he shall or may not altogether swallow it down (Targ. incorrectly ולא־יגמר, after the Arabic blg, to penetrate, attain an object). The formation of the clause corresponds entirely with . All attempts at interpretation which connect כּחיל תּמוּרתו with משׁיב, , are to be objected to: (he gives it back again) as property of his restitution, i.e., property that is to be restored (Schlottm.), or the property of another (Hahn). Apart from the unsuitableness of the expression to the meaning found in it, it is contrary to the relative independence of the separate lines of the verse, which our poet almost always preserves, and is also opposed by the interposing of ולא יבלע. The explanation chosen by Schult., Oet., Umbr., Hirz., Renan, and others, after the Targ., is utterly impossible: as his possession, so his exchange (which is intended to mean: restitution, giving up); this, instead of כּחיל, must have been not merely כּחיל, but כּחילו. The designed relation of the members of the sentence is, without doubt, that כחיל תמורתו is a nearer defining of ולא יעלס, after the manner of an antecedent clause, and from which, that it may be emphatically introduced, it begins by means of Waw apod. (to which Schult. not unsuitably compares ; 1Ki 15:13). The following explanation is very suitable: according to the power, i.e., entire fulness of his exchange, but not in the sense of “to the full amount of its value” (Carey, as Rosenm.), connected with משׁיב, but connected with what follows: “how great soever his exchange (gain), still he does not rejoice” (Ew.). But it is not probable that חיל here signifies power = a great quantity, where property and possessions are spoken of. The most natural rendering appears to me to be this: according to the relation of the property of his exchange (תמורה from מור, Syr. directly emere , cogn. מהר, מחר, and perhaps also מכר, here of exchange, barter, or even acquisition, as ; comp. , of the means of exchange), i.e., of the property exchanged, bartered, gained by barter by him, he is not to enjoy, i.e., the rejoicing which might have been expected in connection with the greatness of the wealth he has amassed, departs from him. Jerome is not the only expositor who (as though the Hebrew tenses were subject to no rule, and might mean everything) translates , domum rapuit et non aedificvit eam (equivalent to quam non aedificaverat ). Even Hupfeld translates thus, by taking ולא יבנהו as imperfect = והוּא לא בנהוּ; but he, of course, fails to furnish a grammatical proof for the possibility of inferring a plusquamperfectum sense. It might sooner be explained: instead of building it ( Lit. Centralblatt , 1853, Nr. 24). But according to the syntax, must be an antecedent clause: because he crushed, left (therefore: crushed by himself) the destitute alone; and the conclusion: he has pillaged a house, and will not build it, i.e., in case he has plundered a house, he will not build it up. For בּית גּזל, according to the accents, which are here correct, is not to be translated: domus, quam rapuit, but hypothetically: si (ἐὰν) domum rapuit, to which ybnhw wl' is connected by Waw apod. (comp. ); and בּנה signifies here, as frequently, not: to build, but: to build round, build additions to, continue building (comp. ; , ). In similar periodizing occurs: because he knew not שׁלו (neutral = שׁלוה, ; Ew. §293, c ), contentment, rest, and sufficiency (comp. , לא ידע שׁלום) in his belly, i.e., his craving, which swallows up everything: he will not be able to deliver himself (מלּט like פּלּט, , as intensive of Kal : to escape, or also = מלּט נפשׁו, which seems to favour) with (בּ as ) his dearest treasure (thus e.g., Ewald), or: he will not be able to rescue his dearest object, prop. not to effect a rescue with his dearest object, the obj., as , ; , conceived of as the instrument (vid., e.g., Schlottm.). The former explanation is more natural and simple. חמוּד, that which is exceedingly desired ( ), of health and pleasantness; , of idols, as the cherished objects of their worshippers), is the dearest and most precious thing to which the sinner clung with all his soul, not, as Böttch. thinks, the soul itself.

‏ Job 20:18-29

Job 20:17-20 17 He shall not delight himself in streams,

Like to rivers and brooks of honey and cream. 18 Giving back that for which he laboured, he shall not swallow it;

He shall not rejoice according to the riches he hath gotten. 19 Because he cast down, let the destitute lie helpless;

He shall not, in case he hath seized a house, finish building it. 20 Because he knew no rest in his craving,

He shall not be able to rescue himself with what he most loveth.

As poets sing of the aurea aetas of the paradise-like primeval age: Flumina jam lactis, jam flumina nectaris ibant, (Note: Ovid, Metam. i. 112, comp. Virgil, Ecl. iv. 30:Et durae quercus sudabant roscida mella; and Horace, Epod. xvi. 47 Mella cava manant ex ilice, montibus altis Levis crepante lympha desilit pede.) and as the land of promise is called in the words of Jehovah in the Thora, ”a land flowing with milk and honey,” the puffed-up prosperity to which the evil-doer has attained by injustice is likened to streams (פּלגּות, prop. dividings, and indeed perhaps of a country = districts, Jdg 5:15., or as here, of a fountain = streams) of rivers, of brooks (two gen. appositionis which are co-ordinate, of which Hupfeld thinks one must be crossed out; they, however, are not unpoetical, since, just as in Psa 78:9, the flow of words is suspended, Ew. §289, c) of honey and cream (comp. cream and oil, Job 29:6), if נהרי נחלי is not perhaps (which is more in accordance with the accentuation) intended as an explanatory permutative of בפלגות: he shall not feast himself upon streams, streamings of rivers of honey and cream (Dachselt); and by אל־ירא (seq. Beth, to fasten one’s gaze upon anything = feast one’s self upon it), the prospect of enjoying this prosperity, and indeed, since the moral judgment and feeling are concerned in the affirmation of the fact (אל, as Job 5:22; Psa 41:3; Pro 3:3, Pro 3:25), the privilege of this prospect, is denied. This thought, that the enjoyment aimed at and anticipated shall not follow the attainment of this height of prosperity, is reiterated in a twofold form in Job 20:18.Job 20:18 is not to be translated: He gives back that which he has gained without swallowing it down, which must have been ישׁיב; the syntactic relation is a different one: the Waw of ולא is not expressive of detail; the detailing is implied in the partic., which is made prominent as an antecedent, as if it were: because, or since, he gives out again that which he has acquired (ינע only here instead of יגיע, Job 10:3 and freq.), he has no pleasure in it, he shall or may not altogether swallow it down (Targ. incorrectly ולא־יגמר, after the Arabic blg, to penetrate, attain an object). The formation of the clause corresponds entirely with Job 20:18. All attempts at interpretation which connect כּחיל תּמוּרתו with משׁיב, Job 20:18, are to be objected to: (he gives it back again) as property of his restitution, i.e., property that is to be restored (Schlottm.), or the property of another (Hahn). Apart from the unsuitableness of the expression to the meaning found in it, it is contrary to the relative independence of the separate lines of the verse, which our poet almost always preserves, and is also opposed by the interposing of ולא יבלע. The explanation chosen by Schult., Oet., Umbr., Hirz., Renan, and others, after the Targ., is utterly impossible: as his possession, so his exchange (which is intended to mean: restitution, giving up); this, instead of כּחיל, must have been not merely כּחיל, but כּחילו. The designed relation of the members of the sentence is, without doubt, that כחיל תמורתו is a nearer defining of ולא יעלס, after the manner of an antecedent clause, and from which, that it may be emphatically introduced, it begins by means of Waw apod. (to which Schult. not unsuitably compares Jer 6:19; 1Ki 15:13). The following explanation is very suitable: according to the power, i.e., entire fulness of his exchange, but not in the sense of “to the full amount of its value” (Carey, as Rosenm.), connected with משׁיב, but connected with what follows: “how great soever his exchange (gain), still he does not rejoice” (Ew.). But it is not probable that חיל here signifies power = a great quantity, where property and possessions are spoken of. The most natural rendering appears to me to be this: according to the relation of the property of his exchange (תמורה from מור, Syr. directly emere, cogn. מהר, מחר, and perhaps also מכר, here of exchange, barter, or even acquisition, as Job 15:31; comp. Job 28:17, of the means of exchange), i.e., of the property exchanged, bartered, gained by barter by him, he is not to enjoy, i.e., the rejoicing which might have been expected in connection with the greatness of the wealth he has amassed, departs from him.

Jerome is not the only expositor who (as though the Hebrew tenses were subject to no rule, and might mean everything) translates Job 20:19, domum rapuit et non aedificvit eam (equivalent to quam non aedificaverat). Even Hupfeld translates thus, by taking ולא יבנהו as imperfect = והוּא לא בנהוּ; but he, of course, fails to furnish a grammatical proof for the possibility of inferring a plusquamperfectum sense. It might sooner be explained: instead of building it (Lit. Centralblatt, 1853, Nr. 24). But according to the syntax, Job 20:19 must be an antecedent clause: because he crushed, left (therefore: crushed by himself) the destitute alone; ^{▼▼The Targ. translates: because he brought to ruin the business of the poor (עזב after עזּבון in Ezekiel); and Parchon: because he brought to ruin the courts of the poor (after the Mishna-word מעזיבה, a paved floor); but עזב, according to the Masora on Isa 58:2 (comp. Kimchi, Michlol, p. 35), is to be read עזב as a verb.} and Job 20:19 the conclusion: he has pillaged a house, and will not build it, i.e., in case he has plundered a house, he will not build it up. For בּית גּזל, according to the accents, which are here correct, is not to be translated: domus, quam rapuit, but hypothetically: si (ἐὰν) domum rapuit, to which ybnhw wl' is connected by Waw apod. (comp. Job 7:21); and בּנה signifies here, as frequently, not: to build, but: to build round, build additions to, continue building (comp. 2Ch 11:5-6; Psa 89:3, Psa 89:5). In Job 20:20 similar periodizing occurs: because he knew not שׁלו (neutral = שׁלוה, Pro 17:1; Ew. §293, c), contentment, rest, and sufficiency (comp. Isa 59:8, לא ידע שׁלום) in his belly, i.e., his craving, which swallows up everything: he will not be able to deliver himself (מלּט like פּלּט, Job 23:7, as intensive of Kal: to escape, or also = מלּט נפשׁו, which Amo 2:15 seems to favour) with (בּ as Job 19:20) his dearest treasure (thus e.g., Ewald), or: he will not be able to rescue his dearest object, prop. not to effect a rescue with his dearest object, the obj., as Job 16:4, Job 16:10; Job 31:12, conceived of as the instrument (vid., e.g., Schlottm.). The former explanation is more natural and simple. חמוּד, that which is exceedingly desired (Psa 39:12), of health and pleasantness; Isa 44:9, of idols, as the cherished objects of their worshippers), is the dearest and most precious thing to which the sinner clung with all his soul, not, as Böttch. thinks, the soul itself. ^{▼▼Hupfeld interprets: non fruitur securus ventre suo h. e. cibo quo venter potitus erat et deliciis quas non salvas retinebit (or also Job 20:20 as a clause by itself: cum deliciis suis non evadet), but without any proof that ידע בּ can signify frui, and בטן metonymically food, whereas the assertion that שׁלו cannot be equivalent to שׁלו, and cannot be used of rest with reference to the desire, is unfounded. In Hebrew the neuter adj. can be used as a substantive, just as in Greek, e.g., τὸ ἀσφαλές, security, τὸ εὐτυχές, success (comp. e.g., the combination בתמים ואמת), and שלח signifies release and ease (Arab. followed by ‛n), without distinction of what disturbs, be it danger, or pain, or any kind of emotion whatever.} Job 20:21-25 21 Nothing escaped his covetousness,

Therefore his prosperity shall not continue. 22 In the fulness of his need it shall be strait with him,

Every hand of the needy shall come upon him. 23 It shall come to pass: in order to fill his belly,

He sendeth forth the glow of His anger into him,

And He causeth it to rain upon him into his flesh. 24 He must flee from an iron weapon,

Therefore a brazen bow pierceth him through. 25 It teareth, then it cometh forth out of his body,

And the steel out of his gall,

The terrors of death come upon him.

The words of Job 20:21 are: there was nothing that escaped (שׂריד, as Job 18:19, from שׂרד, Arab. šarada , aufugere) his eating (from אכל, not from אכל), i.e., he devoured everything without sparing, even to the last remnant; therefore טוּבו, his prosperity, his abundant wealth, will not continue or hold out (יחיל, as Psa 10:5, to be solid, powerful, enduring, whence חיל, Arab. ȟı̂lat , ḥawl). Hupf. transl. differently: nihil ei superstes ad vescendum, itaque non durant ejus bona; but שׂריד signifies first elapsum, and על־כן propterea; and we may retain these first significations, especially since Job 20:21 is not future like Job 20:21. The tone of prediction taken up in Job 20:21 is continued in what follows. The inf. constr. מלאות (prop. מלאות, but with Cholem by the Aleph, since the Waw is regarded as יתיר, superfluous), formed after the manner of the verbs Lamed He (Ew. 238, c), is written like קראות, Jdg 8:1 (comp. on the other hand the scriptio devectiva, Lev 8:33; Lev 12:4); and שׂפקו (with Sin, as Norzi decides after Codd., Kimchi, and Farisol, not Samech) is to be derived from שׂפק (ספק), sufficientia (comp. the verb, 1Ki 20:10): if his sufficiency exists in abundance, not from שׂפק = Arab. safqat , ṣafqat , complosio, according to which Schultens explains: if his joyous clapping of hands has reached its highest point (Elizabeth Smith: “while clapping the hands in the fulness of joy”), to which מלאות is not suitable, and which ought at least to be שׁפק כּפּיו. Therefore: in the fulness of his need shall he be straitened (יצר with the tone drawn back for יצר on account of the following monosyllable, although also apocopated futt. follow further on in the strict future signification, according to poetic usage), by which not merely the fearful foreboding is meant, which just in the fullest overflow makes known his impending lot, but the real calamity, into which his towering prosperity suddenly changes, as Job 20:22 shows: All the hands of the destitute come upon him (בּוא seq. acc.: invadere) to avenge on him the injustice done to the needy. It is not necessary to understand merely such as he has made destitute, it is כּל־יד; the assertion is therefore general: the rich uncompassionate man becomes a defenceless prey of the proletaries. Job 20:26-29 26 All darkness is reserved for his treasured things,

A fire that is not blown upon devoureth him;

It feedeth upon what is left in his tent. 27 The heavens reveal his iniquity,

And the earth riseth up against him. 28 The produce of his house must vanish,

Flowing away in the day of God’s wrath. . . . . . . 29 This is the lot of the wicked man from Elohim,

And the heritage decreed for him from God.

As in Psa 17:14 God’s store of earthly goods for the children of men is called צפוּן (צפין), so here the stores laid up by man himself are called צפוּניו. Total darkness, which will finally destroy them, is decreed by God against these stores of the godless, which are brought together not as coming from the hand of God, but covetously, and regardless of Him. Instead of טמוּן it might also have been צפוּן (Job 15:20; Job 21:19; Job 24:1), and instead of לצפוּניו also לטמוּניו (Deu 33:19); but טמוּן is, as Job 40:13 shows, better suited to darkness (on account of the ט, this dull-toned muta, with which the word begins). כּל־חשׁך signifies sheer darkness, as in Psa 39:6, כל־הבל, sheer nothingness; Psa 45:14, כל־כבודה, sheer splendour; and perhaps Isa 4:5, כל־כבוד, sheer glory. And the thought, expressed with somewhat of a play upon words, is, that to the θησαυρίζειν of the godless corresponds a θησαυρίζειν of God, the Judge (Rom 2:5; Jam 5:3): the one gathers up treasures, and the other nothing but darkness, to whom at an appointed season they shall be surrendered. The תּאכלהוּ which follows is regarded by Ges. as Piel instead of תּאכּלהוּ, but such a resolving of the characteristic sharpened syllable of Piel is unsupportable; by Hirz., Olsh. §250, b, and Pual instead of תּאכּלהוּ, but אכּל signifies to be eaten, not (so that it might be connected with an accusative of the obj.) to get to eat; by Ew., Hupf., as Kal for תּאכלהוּ, which is possible both from the letters and the matter (vid., on Psa 94:20); but more correctly it is regarded as Poel, for such Poel forms from strong roots do occur, as שׁפט (vid., on Job 9:15), and that the Cholem of these forms can be shortened into Kametz-chatuph is seen from ודרשׁוּ, Psa 109:10 (vid., Psalter in loc.). ^{▼▼Such a contraction is also presented in the readings תּרצחוּ, Psa 62:4; מלשׁני, Psa 101:5; and ויּחלקם, 1Ch 23:6; 1Ch 24:3. All these forms are not resolved forms of Piel (Ges., Berth., Olsh. §248, a), but contracted forms of Poel with Kametz-chatuph instead of Cholem. תּהתלּוּ, Job 13:9, is not a resolved form of Piel, but a non-syncopated Hiphil. It should be observed that the Chateph-Kametz in “wedorschu” above and at p. 328 is used as an unmistakeable sign of the ŏ. - Tr.]}

The Poel is in the passage before us the intensive of Kal: a fire which is not blown upon shall eat him up. By this translation נפּח is equivalent to נפּחה, since attention is given to the gender of אשׁ in the verb immediately connected with it, but it is left out of consideration in the verbs נפח and ירע which stand further form it, which Olshausen thinks doubtful; there are, however, not a few examples which may be adduced in favour of it, as 1Ki 19:11; Isa 33:9; comp. Ges. §147, rem. 1. Certainly the relative clause לא נפח may also be explained by supplying בּהּ: into which one has not blown, or that one has not blown on (Symm., Theod., ἄνευ φυσήματος): both renderings are possible, according to Eze 22:20, Eze 22:22; but since the masc. ירע follows, having undoubtedly אשׁ as its subject, we can unhesitatingly take the Synallage gen. as beginning even with נפח. A fire which needs no human help for its kindling and its maintenance is intended (comp. on לא ביד, Job 34:20); therefore “fire of God,” Job 1:16. This fire feasts upon what has escaped (שׂריד, as Job 20:21; Job 18:19), i.e., whatever has escaped other fates, in his tent. yeera` (Milel) is fut. apoc. Kal; the form of writing ירע (fut. apoc. Niph.) proposed by Olsh. on account of the change of gender, i.e., it is devoured, is to be rejected for the reason assigned in connection with נפח. The correct interpretation has been brought forward by Schultens.

It is not without reference to Job 16:18-19, where Job has called upon earth and heaven as witnesses, that in Job 20:27 Zophar continues: “the heavens reveal his guilt, and the earth rises against him;” heaven and earth bear witness to his being an abhorrence, not worthy of being borne by the earth and shone upon by the light of heaven; they testify this, since their powers from below and above vie with one another to get rid of him. מתקוממה is connected closely with לו (which has Lamed raphatum) by means of Mercha-Zinnorith, and under the influence of the law, according to which before a monosyllabic accented word the tone is drawn back from the last syllable of the preceding word to the penultima (Ew. §73, 3), is accented as Milel on account of the pause. ^{▼▼This mode of accentuation, which is found in Codd. and is attested by grammarians (vid., Norzi), is grammatically more intelligible than that of our editions, which have the Mercha with the final syllable. For while מתקוממה, as Milel, is the pausal-form of the fem. part. Hithpalel for מתקוממה (מתקוממת) with a pausal â instead of ê, it ought to be as Milra, a passive form; but the Hithpalal has no meaning here, and is in general not firmly supported within the range of biblical Hebrew.}

In Job 20:28, Ges., Olsh., and others translate: the produce of his house, that which is swept together, must vanish away in the day of His wrath; נגּרות corrasae (opes), Niph. from גּרר. But first, the suff. is wanting to נגרות; and secondly, בּיום אפּו has no natural connection in what precedes. The Niph. נגרות in the signification diffluentia, derived from נגר morf devire, to flow away (comp. Arab. jry, to flow), is incomparably better suited to the passage (comp. 2Sa 14:14, where Luther transl.: as water which glides away into the earth). The close of the description is similar to Isa 17:11 : “In the day that thou plantedst, thou causedst it to increase, and with the morning thy seed was in flowera harvest-head in the day of deep wounding and deadly sorrow.” So here everything that the evil-doer hoards up is spoken of as ”vanishing in the day of God’s wrath.”

The speech now closes by summing up like Bildad’s, Job 18:21 : “This is the portion or inheritance of, i.e., the lot that is assigned or falls to, the wicked man (אדם רשׁע, a rare application of אדם, comp. Pro 6:12, instead of which אישׁ is more usual) from Elohim, and this the heritage of his (i.e., concerning him) decree from God.” אמר (אמר) with an objective suff., which also occurs elsewhere of the almighty word of command of God (vid., on Hab 3:9), signifies here God’s judicial arrangement or order, in this sense just as Arabic as Hebraic, for also in Arab. amr (plur. awâmir) signifies command and order.

The speech of Zophar, Job 20, is his ultimatum, for in the third course of the controversy he takes no part. We have already seen from his first speech, Job 11, that he is the most impassioned of the friends. His vehemence is now the less excusable, since Job in his previous speech has used the truly spiritual language of importunate entreaty and earnest warning in reply to the friends. The friends would now have done well if they had been silent, and still better if they had recognised in the sufferer the tried and buffeted servant of God, and had withdrawn their charges, which his innermost nature repudiates. But Zophar is not disposed to allow the reproach of the correction which they received to rest upon him; in him we have an illustration of the fact that a man is never more eloquent than when he has to defend his injured honour, but that he is also never more in danger of regarding the extravagant images of natural excitement as a higher inspiration, or, however, as striking justifications coming from the fulness of a superior perception. It has been rightly remarked, that in Zophar the poet described to us one of those hot-heads who pretend to fight for religion that is imperilled, while they are zealous for their own wounded vanity. Instead of being warned by Job’s threat of judgment, he thrusts back his attempt at producing dismay be a similar attempt. He has nothing new to bring forward in reply to Job; the poet has skilfully understood how to turn the heart of his readers step by step from the friends, and in the same degree to gain its sympathy for Job. For they are completely spent in their one dogma; and while in Job an endless multitude of thoughts and feelings surge up one after another, their heart is as hermetically closed against every new perception and emotion. All that is new in the speech of Zophar, and in those of the friends generally, in this second course of the controversy, is, that they no longer try to lure Job on to penitence by promises, but endeavour to bring him to a right state of mind, or rather to weaken his supposedly-mad assault upon themselves, by presenting to him only the most terrible images. It is not possible to illustrate the principle that the covetous, uncompassionate rich man is torn away from his prosperity by the punishment God decrees for him, more fearfully and more graphically than Zophar does it; and this terrible description is not overdrawn, but true and appropriate-but in opposition to Job it is the extreme of uncharitableness which outdoes itself: applied to him, the fearful truth becomes a fearful lie. For in Zophar’s mind Job is the godless man, whose rejoicing does not last long, who indeed raises himself towards heaven, but as his own dung must he perish, and to whom the sin of his unjust gain is become as the poison of the viper in his belly. The arrow of God’s wrath sticks fast in him; and though he draw it out, it has already inflicted on him a deservedly mortal wound! The fire of God which has already begun to consume his possessions, does not rest until even the last remnant in his tent is consumed. The heavens, where in his self-delusion he seeks the defender of his innocence, reveal his guilt, and the earth, which he hopes to have as a witness in his favour, rises up as his accuser. Thus mercilessly does Zophar seek to stifle the new trust which Job conceives towards God, to extinguish the faith which bursts upwards from beneath the ashes of the conflict. Zophar’s method of treatment is soul-destroying; he seeks to slay that life which germinates from the feeling of death, instead of strengthening it. He does not, however, succeed; for so long as Job does not become doubtful of his innocence, the uncharitableness of the friends must be to him the thread by which he finds his way through the labyrinth of his sufferings to the God who loves him, although He seems to be angry with him.