Job 33:31-38:31 | KD | STEP | Behold, God doeth all Twice, thrice with man, 30 To bring back his soul from the pit, That it may become light in the light of life. 31 Listen, O Job, hearken to me; Be silent and let me speak on. 32 Yet if thou hast words, answer me; Speak, for I desire thy justification. 33 If not, hearken thou to me; Be silent and I will teach thee wisdom. After having described two prominent modes of divine interposition for the moral restoration and welfare of man, he adds, , that God undertakes (observe the want of parallelism in the distich, ) everything with a man twice or thrice (asyndeton, as e.g., , in the sense of bis terve ) in order to bring back his soul from the pit (שׁחת, here for the fifth time in this speech, without being anywhere interchanged with שׁאול or another synonym, which is remarkable), that it, having hitherto been encompassed by the darkness of death, may be, or become, light (לאור, inf. Niph., syncopated from להאור, Ew. §244, b ) in the light of life (as it were bask in the new and restored light of life) - it does not always happen, for these are experiences of no ordinary kind, which interrupt the daily course of life; and it is not even repeated again and again constantly, for if it is without effect the first time, it is repeated a second or third time, but it has an end if the man trifles constantly with the disciplinary work of grace which designs his good. Finally, Elihu calls upon Job quietly to ponder this, that he may proceed; nevertheless, if he has words, i.e., if he thinks he is able to advance any appropriate objections, he is continually to answer him (השׁיב with acc . of the person, as ), for he (Elihu) would willingly justify him, i.e., he would gladly be in the position to be able to acknowledge Job to be right, and to have the accusation dispensed with. Hirz. and others render falsely: I wish thy justification, i.e., thou shouldst justify thyself; in this case נפשׁך ought to be supplied, which is unnecessary: חפץ, without a change of subject, has the inf. constr. here without ל, as it has the inf. absol. in , and צדּק signifies to vindicate (as ), or acknowledge to be in the right (as the Piel of צדק, ), both of which are blended here. The lxx, which translates θέλω γὰρ δικαιωθῆναί σε, has probably read צדקך ( ). If it is not so (אם־אין as ), viz., that he does not intend to defend himself with reference to his expostulation with God on account of the affliction decreed for him, he shall on his part (אתּה) listen, shall be silent and be further taught wisdom. Quasi hac ratione Heliu sanctum Iob convicerit! exclaims Beda, after a complete exposition of this speech. He regards Elihu as the type of the false wisdom of the heathen, which fails to recognise and persecutes the servant of God: Sunt alii extra ecclesiam, qui Christo ejusque ecclesiae similiter adversantur, quorum imaginem praetulit Balaam ille ariolus, qui et Elieu sicut patrum traditio habet (Balaam and Elihu, one person - a worthless conceit repeated in the Talmud and Midrash), qui contra ipsum sanctum Iob multa improbe et injuriose locutus est, in tantum ut etiam displiceret in una ejus et indisciplinata loquacitas. Gregory the Great, in his Moralia , expresses himself no less unfavourably at the conclusion of this speech: Magna Eliu ac valde fortia protulit, sed hoc unusquisque arrogans habere proprium solet, quod dum vera ac mystica loquitur subito per tumorem cordis quaedam inania et superba permiscet. He also regards Elihu as an emblem of confident arrogance, yet not as a type of a heathen philosopher, but of a believing yet vain and arrogant teacher. This tone in judging of Elihu, first started by Jerome, has spread somewhat extensively in the Western Church. In the age of the Reformation, e.g., Victorin Strigel takes this side: Elihu is regarded by him as exemplum ambitiosi oratoris qui plenus sit ostentatione et audacia inusitate sine mente. Also in the Greek Eastern Church such views are not wanting. Elihu says much that is good, and excels the friends in this, that he does not condemn Job; Olympiodorus adds, πλὴν οὐκ ἐνόησε τοῦ δικαίου τῆν διάνοιαν, but he has not understood the true idea of the servant of God! In modern times, Herder entertains the same judgment. Elihu’s speech, in comparison with the short, majestic, solemn language of the Creator, he calls “the weak rambling speech of a boy.” “Elihu, a young prophet” - he says further on his Geist der Ebr. Poesie, where he expounds the book of Job as a composition - “arrogant, bold, alone wise, draws fine pictures without end or aim; hence no one answers him, and he stands there merely as a shadow.” Among the latest expositors, Umbreit (Edition 2, 1832) consider’s Elihu’s appearance as “an uncalled-for stumbling in of a conceited young philosopher into the conflict that is already properly ended; the silent contempt with which one allows him to speak is the merited reward of a babbler.” In later years Umbreit gave up this depreciation of Elihu. Nevertheless Hahn, in his Comm. zu Iob (1850), has sought anew to prove that Elihu’s speeches are meant indeed to furnish a solution, but do not really do so: on the contrary, the poet intentionally represents the character of Elihu as that “of a most conceited and arrogant young man, boastful and officious in his undeniable knowingness.” The unfavourable judgments have been carried still further, inasmuch as an attempt has even been made to regard Elihu as a disguise for Satan in the organism of the drama; but it may be more suitable to break off this unpleasant subject than to continue it. In fact this dogmatic criticism of Elihu’s character and speeches produces a painful impression. For, granted that it might be otherwise, and the poet really had designed to bring forward in these speeches of Elihu respecting God’s own appearing an incontrovertible apology for His holy love, as a love which is at work even in such dispensations of affliction as that of Job: what offence against the deep earnestness of this portion of Holy Scripture would there be in this degradation of Elihu to an absurd character, in that depreciation of him to a babbler promising much and performing little! But that the poet is really in earnest in everything he puts into Elihu’s mouth, is at once shown by the description, , which forms the kernel of the contents of the first speech. This description of the manifold ways of the divine communication to man, upon a contrite attention to which his rescue from destruction depends, belongs to the most comprehensive passages of the Old Testament; and I know instances of the powerful effect which it can produce in arousing from the sleep of security and awakening penitence. If one, further, casts a glance at the historical introduction of Elihu, , the poet there gives no indication that he intends in Elihu to bring the odd character of a young poltroon before us. The motive and aim of his coming forward, as they are there given, are fully authorized. If one considers, further, that the poet makes Job keep silence at the speeches of Elihu, it may also be inferred therefrom that he believes he has put answers into Elihu’s mouth by which he must feel himself most deeply smitten; such truths as , drawn from the depths of moral experience, could not have been put forth if Job’s silence were intended to be the punishment of contempt. These counter-considerations also really affect another possible and milder apprehension of the young speaker, inasmuch as, with von Hofmann, the gravitating point of the book of Job is transferred to the fact of the Theophany as the only satisfactory practical solution of the mystery of affliction: it is solved by God Himself coming down and acknowledging Job as His servant. Elihu - thus one can say from this point of view - is not one of Job’s friends, whose duty it was to comfort him; but the moral judgment of man’s perception of God is made known by this teacher, but without any other effect than that Job is silent. There is one duty towards Job which he has not violated, for he has not to fulfil the duty of friendship: The only art of correct theorizing is to put an opponent to silence, and to have spoken to the wind is the one punishment appropriate to it. This milder rendering also does not satisfy; for, in the idea of the poet, Elihu’s speeches are not only a thus negative, but the positive preparation for Jehovah’s appearing. In the idea of the poet, Job is silent because he does not know how to answer Elihu, and therefore feels himself overcome. And, in fact, what answer should he give to this first speech? Elihu wishes to dispute Job’s self-justification, which places God’s justice in the shade, but not indeed in the friends’ judging, condemnatory manner: he wishes to dispute Job’s notion that his affliction proceeds from a hostile purpose on the part of God, and sets himself here, as there, a perfectly correct task, which he seeks to accomplish by directing Job to regard his affliction, not indeed as a punishment from the angry God, but as a chastisement of the God who desires his highest good, as disciplinary affliction which is intended to secure him against hurtful temptation to sin, especially to pride, by salutary humiliation, and will have a glorious issue, as soon as it has in itself accomplished that at which it aims. It is true one must listen very closely to discover the difference between the tone which Elihu takes and the tone in which Eliphaz began his first speech. But there is a difference notwithstanding: both designate Job’s affliction as a chastisement (מוסר), which will end gloriously, if he receives it without murmuring; but Eliphaz at once demands of him humiliation under the mighty hand of God; Elihu, on the contrary, makes this humiliation lighter to him, by setting over against his longing for God to answer him, the pleasing teaching that his affliction in itself is already the speech of God to him, - a speech designed to educate him, and to bring about his spiritual well-being. What objection could Job, who has hitherto maintained his own righteousness in opposition to affliction as a hostile decree, now raise, when it is represented to him as a wholesome medicine reached forth to him by the holy God of love? What objection could Job now raise, without, in common, offensive self-righteousness, falling into contradiction with his own confession that he is a sinful man, , comp. ? Therefore Elihu has not spoken to the wind, and it cannot have been the design of the poet to represent the feebleness of theory and rhetoric in contrast with the convincing power which there is in the fact of Jehovah’s appearing. But would it be possible, that from the earliest times one could form such a condemnatory, depreciating judgment concerning Elihu’s speeches, if it had not been a matter of certainty with them? If of two such enlightened men as Augustine and Jerome, the former can say of Elihu: ut primas partes modestiae habuit, ita et sapientiae, while the latter, and after his example Bede, can consider him as a type of a heathen philosophy hostile to the faith, or of a selfishly perverted spirit of prophecy: they must surely have two sides which make it possible to form directly opposite opinions concerning them. Thus is it also in reality. On the one side, they express great, earnest, humiliating truths, which even the holiest man in his affliction must suffer himself to be told, especially if he has fallen into such vainglorying and such murmuring against God as Job did; on the other side, they do not give such sharply-defined expression to that which is intended characteristically to distinguish them from the speeches of the friends, viz., that they regard Job not as רשׁע, and his affliction not as just retribution, but as a wholesome means of discipline, that all misunderstanding would be excluded, as all the expositors who acknowledge themselves unable to perceive an essential difference between Elihu’s standpoint and the original standpoint of the friends, show. But the most surprising thing is, that the peculiar, true aim of Job’s affliction, viz., his being proved as God’s servant, is by no means thoroughly clear in them. From the prologue we know that Job’s affliction is designed to show that there is a piety which also retains its hold on God amid the loss of all earthly goods, and even in the face of death in the midst of the darkest night of affliction; that it is designed to justify God’s choice before Satan, and bring the latter to ruin; that it is a part of the conflict with the serpent, whose head cannot be crushed without its sting being felt in the heel of the conqueror; in fine, expressed in New Testament language, that it falls under the point of view of the cross (σταυρός), which has its ground not so much in the sinfulness of the sufferer, as in the share which is assigned to him in the conflict of good with evil that exists in the world. It cannot be supposed that the poet would, in the speeches of Elihu, set another design in opposition to the design of Job’s affliction expressed in the prologue; on the contrary, he started from the assumption that the one design does not exclude the other, and in connection with the imperfectness of the righteousness even of the holiest man, the one is easily added to the other; but it was not in his power to give expression to both grounds of explanation of Job’s affliction side by side, and thus to make this intermediate section “the beating heart” of the whole. The aspect of the affliction as a chastisement so greatly preponderates, that the other, viz., as a trial or proving, is as it were swallowed up by it. One of the old writers says, “Elihu proves that it can indeed be that a man may fear and honour God from the heart, and consequently be in favour with God, and still be heavily visited by God, either for a trial of faith, hope, and patience, or for the revelation and improvement of the sinful blemishes which now and then are also hidden from the pious.” According to this, both aspects are found united in Elihu’s speeches; but in this first speech, at least, we cannot find it. There is another poet, whose charisma does not come up to that of the older poet, who in this speech pursues the well-authorized purpose not only of moderating what is extreme in Job’s speeches, but also of bringing out what is true in the speeches of the friends. While the book of Job, apart from these speeches, presents in the Old Testament way the great truth which Paul, , expresses in the words, οὐδέν κατάκριμα τοῖς ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ, this other poet has given expression at the same time, in the connection of the drama, to the great truth, , κρινόμενοι ὑπὸ τοῦ δυρίου παιδευόμεθα, ἵνα μὴ σὺν τῷ κόσμῳ κατακριθῶμεν. That it is another poet, is already manifest from his inferior, or if it is preferred, different, poetic gift. True, A. B. Davidson has again recently asserted, that by supporting it by such observations, the critical question is made “a question of subjective taste.” But if these speeches and the other parts of the book are said to have been written by one poet, there is an end to all critical judgment in such questions generally. One cannot avoid the impression of the distance between them; and if it be suppressed for a time, it will nevertheless make itself constantly felt. But do the prophecies of Malachi stand lower in the scale of the historical development of revelation, because the Salomonic glory of prophetic speech which we admire in Isaiah is wanting in them? Just as little do we depreciate the spiritual glory of these speeches, when we find the outward glory of the rest of the book wanting in them. They occupy a position of the highest worth in the historical development of revelation and redemption. They are a perfecting part of the canonical Scriptures. In their origin, also, they are not much later; indeed, I venture to assert that they are by a contemporary member even of the Chokma-fellowship from which the book of Job has its rise. For they stand in like intimate relation with the rest of the book to the two Ezrahite Psalms, 88, 89; they have, as to their doctrinal contents, the fundamental features of the Israelitish Chokma in common; they speak another and still similar Aramaizing and Arabizing language ( hebraicum arabicumque sermonem et interdum syrum, as Jerome expresses it in his Praef. in l. Iobi ); in fact, we shall further on meet with linguistic signs that the poet who wrote this addition has lived together with the poet of the book of Job in one spot beyond the Holy Land, and speaks a Hebrew bearing traces of a like dialectic influence.

‏ Job 33:31-33

Job 33:29-33 29 Behold, God doeth all

Twice, thrice with man, 30 To bring back his soul from the pit,

That it may become light in the light of life. 31 Listen, O Job, hearken to me;

Be silent and let me speak on. 32 Yet if thou hast words, answer me;

Speak, for I desire thy justification. 33 If not, hearken thou to me;

Be silent and I will teach thee wisdom.

After having described two prominent modes of divine interposition for the moral restoration and welfare of man, he adds, Job 33:29, that God undertakes (observe the want of parallelism in the distich, Job 33:29) everything with a man twice or thrice (asyndeton, as e.g., Isa 17:6, in the sense of bis terve) in order to bring back his soul from the pit (שׁחת, here for the fifth time in this speech, without being anywhere interchanged with שׁאול or another synonym, which is remarkable), that it, having hitherto been encompassed by the darkness of death, may be, or become, light (לאור, inf. Niph., syncopated from להאור, Ew. §244, b) in the light of life (as it were bask in the new and restored light of life) - it does not always happen, for these are experiences of no ordinary kind, which interrupt the daily course of life; and it is not even repeated again and again constantly, for if it is without effect the first time, it is repeated a second or third time, but it has an end if the man trifles constantly with the disciplinary work of grace which designs his good. Finally, Elihu calls upon Job quietly to ponder this, that he may proceed; nevertheless, if he has words, i.e., if he thinks he is able to advance any appropriate objections, he is continually to answer him (השׁיב with acc. of the person, as Job 33:5), for he (Elihu) would willingly justify him, i.e., he would gladly be in the position to be able to acknowledge Job to be right, and to have the accusation dispensed with. Hirz. and others render falsely: I wish thy justification, i.e., thou shouldst justify thyself; in this case נפשׁך ought to be supplied, which is unnecessary: חפץ, without a change of subject, has the inf. constr. here without ל, as it has the inf. absol. in Job 13:3, and צדּק signifies to vindicate (as Job 32:2), or acknowledge to be in the right (as the Piel of צדק, Job 33:12), both of which are blended here. The lxx, which translates θέλω γὰρ δικαιωθῆναί σε, has probably read צדקך (Psa 35:27). If it is not so (אם־אין as Gen 30:1), viz., that he does not intend to defend himself with reference to his expostulation with God on account of the affliction decreed for him, he shall on his part (אתּה) listen, shall be silent and be further taught wisdom.Quasi hac ratione Heliu sanctum Iob convicerit! exclaims Beda, after a complete exposition of this speech. He regards Elihu as the type of the false wisdom of the heathen, which fails to recognise and persecutes the servant of God: Sunt alii extra ecclesiam, qui Christo ejusque ecclesiae similiter adversantur, quorum imaginem praetulit Balaam ille ariolus, qui et Elieu sicut patrum traditio habet (Balaam and Elihu, one person - a worthless conceit repeated in the Talmud and Midrash), qui contra ipsum sanctum Iob multa improbe et injuriose locutus est, in tantum ut etiam displiceret in una ejus et indisciplinata loquacitas. ^{▼▼Bedae Opp. ed. Basil. iii. col. 602f. 786. The commentary also bears the false name of Jerome Hieronymus, and as a writing attributed to him is contained in tom. v. Opp. ed. Vallarsi.}

Gregory the Great, in his Moralia, expresses himself no less unfavourably at the conclusion of this speech: ^{▼▼Opp. ed. Prais, i. col. 777.}Magna Eliu ac valde fortia protulit, sed hoc unusquisque arrogans habere proprium solet, quod dum vera ac mystica loquitur subito per tumorem cordis quaedam inania et superba permiscet. He also regards Elihu as an emblem of confident arrogance, yet not as a type of a heathen philosopher, but of a believing yet vain and arrogant teacher. This tone in judging of Elihu, first started by Jerome, has spread somewhat extensively in the Western Church. In the age of the Reformation, e.g., Victorin Strigel takes this side: Elihu is regarded by him as exemplum ambitiosi oratoris qui plenus sit ostentatione et audacia inusitate sine mente. Also in the Greek Eastern Church such views are not wanting. Elihu says much that is good, and excels the friends in this, that he does not condemn Job; Olympiodorus adds, πλὴν οὐκ ἐνόησε τοῦ δικαίου τῆν διάνοιαν, but he has not understood the true idea of the servant of God! ^{▼▼Catena in Job. Londin. p. 484, where it is further said, Ὅθεν λογιζόμεθα καὶ τόν θεὸν μήτε ἐπαινέσαι τὸν Ελιοὺς, ἐπειδὴ μὴ νενόηκε τοῦ Ἰὼβ τοὺς λόγους, μήτε μὴν καταδικάσαι, ἐπειδὴ μὴ ἀσεβείας αὐτὸν κατέκρινε.}

In modern times, Herder entertains the same judgment. Elihu’s speech, in comparison with the short, majestic, solemn language of the Creator, he calls “the weak rambling speech of a boy.” “Elihu, a young prophet” - he says further on his Geist der Ebr. Poesie, where he expounds the book of Job as a composition - “arrogant, bold, alone wise, draws fine pictures without end or aim; hence no one answers him, and he stands there merely as a shadow.” ^{▼▼Edition 1805, S. 101, 142.}

Among the latest expositors, Umbreit (Edition 2, 1832) consider’s Elihu’s appearance as “an uncalled-for stumbling in of a conceited young philosopher into the conflict that is already properly ended; the silent contempt with which one allows him to speak is the merited reward of a babbler.” In later years Umbreit gave up this depreciation of Elihu. ^{▼▼Vid., Riehm, Blätter der Erinnerung an F. W. C. Umbreit (1862), S. 58.}

Nevertheless Hahn, in his Comm. zu Iob (1850), has sought anew to prove that Elihu’s speeches are meant indeed to furnish a solution, but do not really do so: on the contrary, the poet intentionally represents the character of Elihu as that “of a most conceited and arrogant young man, boastful and officious in his undeniable knowingness.” The unfavourable judgments have been carried still further, inasmuch as an attempt has even been made to regard Elihu as a disguise for Satan in the organism of the drama; ^{▼▼Thus the writer of a treatise in the 3rd vol. of Bernstein’s Analekten, entitled: Der Satan als Irrgeist und Engel des Lichts.} but it may be more suitable to break off this unpleasant subject than to continue it.

In fact this dogmatic criticism of Elihu’s character and speeches produces a painful impression. For, granted that it might be otherwise, and the poet really had designed to bring forward in these speeches of Elihu respecting God’s own appearing an incontrovertible apology for His holy love, as a love which is at work even in such dispensations of affliction as that of Job: what offence against the deep earnestness of this portion of Holy Scripture would there be in this degradation of Elihu to an absurd character, in that depreciation of him to a babbler promising much and performing little! But that the poet is really in earnest in everything he puts into Elihu’s mouth, is at once shown by the description, Job 33:13-30, which forms the kernel of the contents of the first speech. This description of the manifold ways of the divine communication to man, upon a contrite attention to which his rescue from destruction depends, belongs to the most comprehensive passages of the Old Testament; and I know instances of the powerful effect which it can produce in arousing from the sleep of security and awakening penitence. If one, further, casts a glance at the historical introduction of Elihu, Job 32:1-5, the poet there gives no indication that he intends in Elihu to bring the odd character of a young poltroon before us. The motive and aim of his coming forward, as they are there given, are fully authorized. If one considers, further, that the poet makes Job keep silence at the speeches of Elihu, it may also be inferred therefrom that he believes he has put answers into Elihu’s mouth by which he must feel himself most deeply smitten; such truths as Job 32:13-22, drawn from the depths of moral experience, could not have been put forth if Job’s silence were intended to be the punishment of contempt.

These counter-considerations also really affect another possible and milder apprehension of the young speaker, inasmuch as, with von Hofmann, the gravitating point of the book of Job is transferred to the fact of the Theophany as the only satisfactory practical solution of the mystery of affliction: it is solved by God Himself coming down and acknowledging Job as His servant. Elihu - thus one can say from this point of view - is not one of Job’s friends, whose duty it was to comfort him; but the moral judgment of man’s perception of God is made known by this teacher, but without any other effect than that Job is silent. There is one duty towards Job which he has not violated, for he has not to fulfil the duty of friendship: The only art of correct theorizing is to put an opponent to silence, and to have spoken to the wind is the one punishment appropriate to it. This milder rendering also does not satisfy; for, in the idea of the poet, Elihu’s speeches are not only a thus negative, but the positive preparation for Jehovah’s appearing. In the idea of the poet, Job is silent because he does not know how to answer Elihu, and therefore feels himself overcome. ^{▼▼The preparation is negative only so far as Elihu causes Job to be silent and to cease to murmur; but Jehovah drawn from him a confession of penitence on account of his murmuring. This positive relation of the appearing of Jehovah to that for which Elihu negatively prepares the way, is rightly emphasized by Schlottm., Räbiger (De l. Iobi sententia primaria, 1860, 4), and others, as favourable to the authenticity.}

And, in fact, what answer should he give to this first speech? Elihu wishes to dispute Job’s self-justification, which places God’s justice in the shade, but not indeed in the friends’ judging, condemnatory manner: he wishes to dispute Job’s notion that his affliction proceeds from a hostile purpose on the part of God, and sets himself here, as there, a perfectly correct task, which he seeks to accomplish by directing Job to regard his affliction, not indeed as a punishment from the angry God, but as a chastisement of the God who desires his highest good, as disciplinary affliction which is intended to secure him against hurtful temptation to sin, especially to pride, by salutary humiliation, and will have a glorious issue, as soon as it has in itself accomplished that at which it aims.

It is true one must listen very closely to discover the difference between the tone which Elihu takes and the tone in which Eliphaz began his first speech. But there is a difference notwithstanding: both designate Job’s affliction as a chastisement (מוסר), which will end gloriously, if he receives it without murmuring; but Eliphaz at once demands of him humiliation under the mighty hand of God; Elihu, on the contrary, makes this humiliation lighter to him, by setting over against his longing for God to answer him, the pleasing teaching that his affliction in itself is already the speech of God to him, - a speech designed to educate him, and to bring about his spiritual well-being. What objection could Job, who has hitherto maintained his own righteousness in opposition to affliction as a hostile decree, now raise, when it is represented to him as a wholesome medicine reached forth to him by the holy God of love? What objection could Job now raise, without, in common, offensive self-righteousness, falling into contradiction with his own confession that he is a sinful man, Job 14:4, comp. Job 13:26? Therefore Elihu has not spoken to the wind, and it cannot have been the design of the poet to represent the feebleness of theory and rhetoric in contrast with the convincing power which there is in the fact of Jehovah’s appearing.

But would it be possible, that from the earliest times one could form such a condemnatory, depreciating judgment concerning Elihu’s speeches, if it had not been a matter of certainty with them? If of two such enlightened men as Augustine and Jerome, the former can say of Elihu: ut primas partes modestiae habuit, ita et sapientiae, while the latter, and after his example Bede, can consider him as a type of a heathen philosophy hostile to the faith, or of a selfishly perverted spirit of prophecy: they must surely have two sides which make it possible to form directly opposite opinions concerning them. Thus is it also in reality. On the one side, they express great, earnest, humiliating truths, which even the holiest man in his affliction must suffer himself to be told, especially if he has fallen into such vainglorying and such murmuring against God as Job did; on the other side, they do not give such sharply-defined expression to that which is intended characteristically to distinguish them from the speeches of the friends, viz., that they regard Job not as רשׁע, and his affliction not as just retribution, but as a wholesome means of discipline, that all misunderstanding would be excluded, as all the expositors who acknowledge themselves unable to perceive an essential difference between Elihu’s standpoint and the original standpoint of the friends, show. But the most surprising thing is, that the peculiar, true aim of Job’s affliction, viz., his being proved as God’s servant, is by no means thoroughly clear in them. From the prologue we know that Job’s affliction is designed to show that there is a piety which also retains its hold on God amid the loss of all earthly goods, and even in the face of death in the midst of the darkest night of affliction; that it is designed to justify God’s choice before Satan, and bring the latter to ruin; that it is a part of the conflict with the serpent, whose head cannot be crushed without its sting being felt in the heel of the conqueror; in fine, expressed in New Testament language, that it falls under the point of view of the cross (σταυρός), which has its ground not so much in the sinfulness of the sufferer, as in the share which is assigned to him in the conflict of good with evil that exists in the world. It cannot be supposed that the poet would, in the speeches of Elihu, set another design in opposition to the design of Job’s affliction expressed in the prologue; on the contrary, he started from the assumption that the one design does not exclude the other, and in connection with the imperfectness of the righteousness even of the holiest man, the one is easily added to the other; but it was not in his power to give expression to both grounds of explanation of Job’s affliction side by side, and thus to make this intermediate section “the beating heart” ^{▼▼Vid., Hengstenberg, Lecture on the Book of Job.} of the whole. The aspect of the affliction as a chastisement so greatly preponderates, that the other, viz., as a trial or proving, is as it were swallowed up by it. One of the old writers ^{▼▼Jacob Hoffmann (of St. Gallen), Gedult Iobs, Basel, 1663 (a rare little book which I became acquainted with in the town library of St. Gallen).} says, “Elihu proves that it can indeed be that a man may fear and honour God from the heart, and consequently be in favour with God, and still be heavily visited by God, either for a trial of faith, hope, and patience, or for the revelation and improvement of the sinful blemishes which now and then are also hidden from the pious.” According to this, both aspects are found united in Elihu’s speeches; but in this first speech, at least, we cannot find it.

There is another poet, whose charisma does not come up to that of the older poet, who in this speech pursues the well-authorized purpose not only of moderating what is extreme in Job’s speeches, but also of bringing out what is true in the speeches of the friends. ^{▼▼On this subject see my Art. Hiob in Herzog’s Real-Encyklopädie, vi. 116-119, and comp. Kahnis, Dogmatik, i. 306-309, and my Für und wider Kahnis (1863), S. 19-21.}

While the book of Job, apart from these speeches, presents in the Old Testament way the great truth which Paul, Rom 8:1, expresses in the words, οὐδέν κατάκριμα τοῖς ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ, this other poet has given expression at the same time, in the connection of the drama, to the great truth, 1Co 11:32, κρινόμενοι ὑπὸ τοῦ δυρίου παιδευόμεθα, ἵνα μὴ σὺν τῷ κόσμῳ κατακριθῶμεν. That it is another poet, is already manifest from his inferior, or if it is preferred, different, poetic gift. True, A. B. Davidson has again recently asserted, that by supporting it by such observations, the critical question is made “a question of subjective taste.” But if these speeches and the other parts of the book are said to have been written by one poet, there is an end to all critical judgment in such questions generally. One cannot avoid the impression of the distance between them; and if it be suppressed for a time, it will nevertheless make itself constantly felt. But do the prophecies of Malachi stand lower in the scale of the historical development of revelation, because the Salomonic glory of prophetic speech which we admire in Isaiah is wanting in them? Just as little do we depreciate the spiritual glory of these speeches, when we find the outward glory of the rest of the book wanting in them. They occupy a position of the highest worth in the historical development of revelation and redemption. They are a perfecting part of the canonical Scriptures. In their origin, also, they are not much later; ^{▼▼Seinecke (Der Grundgedanke des B. Hiob, 1863) places it, with Ewald, 100-200 years later; and, moreover, asserts that the book of Job has no foundation whatever in oral tradition - Job is the Israel of the exile, Uz is Judaea, etc.} indeed, I venture to assert that they are by a contemporary member even of the Chokma-fellowship from which the book of Job has its rise. For they stand in like intimate relation with the rest of the book to the two Ezrahite Psalms, 88, 89; they have, as to their doctrinal contents, the fundamental features of the Israelitish Chokma in common; they speak another and still similar Aramaizing and Arabizing language (hebraicum arabicumque sermonem et interdum syrum, as Jerome expresses it in his Praef. in l. Iobi); in fact, we shall further on meet with linguistic signs that the poet who wrote this addition has lived together with the poet of the book of Job in one spot beyond the Holy Land, and speaks a Hebrew bearing traces of a like dialectic influence.

‏ Job 34

Job 34:1-4 1 Then began Elihu and said: 2 Hear, ye wise men, my words,

And ye experienced ones, give ear to me! 3 For the ear trieth words,

As the palate tasteth by eating. 4 Let us find out what is right,

Let us explore among ourselves what is good.

After his first speech Elihu has made a brief pause; now since Job is silent, he begins anew. ויען ויאמר, lxx correctly, here as in all other instances where the phrase occurs: ὑπολαβὼν λέγει, taking up the word he said. The wise and the knowing (Arab. ‛ulamâ), whose attention he bespeaks, are not Job and the three (Umbr., Hahn), who are indeed a party, and as such a subject for the arbitrative appearance of Elihu; also not every one capable of forming a judgment (Hirz.); but those in the circle of spectators and listeners which, as is assumed, has assembled round the disputants (Schlottm.). In Job 33:4 Elihu does not expressly mean his own ear, but that of the persons addressed: he establishes his summons to prove what he says by the general thought brought over from Job 12:11, and as there (comp. Job 5:7; Job 11:12), clothed in the form of the emblematic proverb, - that as there is a bodily, so there is also a mental organ of sense which tries its perceptions. לאכל is not intended as expressing a purpose (ad vescendum), but as a gerundive (vescendo). The phrase בּחר משׁפּט, occurring only here, signifies neither to institute a search for the purpose of decision (Schult. and others), since בחר does not signify to decide upon anything, nor to investigate a cause (Hahn), which would be נבחנה, but to test and choose what is right, δοκιμάζειν καὶ τὸ καλὸν κατέχειν, 1Th 5:21, after which the parallel runs: cognoscamus inter nos (i.e., in common) quid bonum. Job 34:5-9 5 For Job hath said: “I am guiltless, “And God hath put aside my right. 6 “Shall I lie in spite of my right, “Incurable is mine arrow without transgression.” 7 Where is there a man like Job,

Who drinketh scorning like water, 8 And keepeth company with the workers of iniquity,

And walketh with wicked men, 9 So that he saith: “A man hath no profit “From entering into fellowship with God”?!

That in relation to God, thinking of Him as a punishing judge, he is righteous or in the right, i.e., guiltless (צדקתּי with Pathach in pause, according to Ew. §93, c, from צדק = צדק, but perhaps, comp. Pro 24:30; Psa 102:26, because the Athnach is taken only as of the value of Zakeph), Job has said verbatim in Job 13:18, and according to meaning, Job 23:10; Job 27:7, and throughout; that He puts aside his right (the right of the guiltless, and therefore not of one coming under punishment): Job 27:2. That in spite of his right (על, to be interpreted, according to Schultens’ example, just like Job 10:7; Job 16:17), i.e., although right is on his side, yet he must be accounted a liar, since his own testimony is belied by the wrathful form of his affliction, that therefore the appearance of wrong remains inalienably attached to him, we find in idea in Job 9:20 and freq. Elihu makes Job call his affliction חצּי, i.e., an arrow sticking in him, viz., the arrow of the wrath of God (on the objective suff. comp. on Job 23:2), after Job 6:4; Job 16:9; Job 19:11; and that this his arrow, i.e., the pain which it causes him, is incurably bad, desperately malignant without (בּלי as Job 8:11) פּשׁע, i.e., sins existing as the ground of it, from which he would be obliged to suppose they had thrust him out of the condition of favour, is Job’s constant complaint (vid., e.g., Job 13:23.). Another utterance of Job closely connected with it has so roused Elihu’s indignation, that he prefaces it with the exclamation of astonishment: Who is a man like Job, i.e., where in all the world (מי as 2Sa 7:23) has this Job his equal, who ... . The attributive clause refers to Job; “to drink scorn (here: blasphemy) like water,” is, according to Job 15:16, equivalent to to give one’s self up to mockery with delight, and to find satisfaction in it. ארח לחברה, to go over to any one’s side, looks like a poeticized prose expression. ללכת is a continuation of the ארח, according to Ew. §351, c, but not directly in the sense "and he goes,” but, as in the similar examples, Jer 17:10; Jer 44:19; 2Ch 7:17, and freq., in the sense of: “he is in the act of going;” comp. on Job 36:20 and Hab 1:17. The utterance runs: a man does not profit, viz., himself (on the use of סכן of persons as well as of things, vid., on Job 22:2), by his having joyous and familiar intercourse (בּרצתו, as little equivalent to בּרוּץ as in Psa 50:18) with God. Job has nowhere expressly said this, but certainly the declaration in Job 9:22, in connection with the repeated complaints concerning the anomalous distribution of human destinies (vid., especially Job 21:7, Job 24:1), are the premises for such a conclusion. That Elihu, in Job 34:7, is more harsh against Job than the friends ever were (comp. e.g., the well-measured reproach of Eliphaz, Job 15:4), and that he puts words into Job’s moth which occur nowhere verbatim in his speeches, is worked up by the Latin fathers (Jer., Philippus Presbyter, Beda, ^{▼▼Philippus Presbyter was a disciple of Jerome. His Comm. in Iobum is extant in many forms, partly epitomized, partly interpolated (on this subject, vid., Hieronymi Opp. ed. Vallarsi, iii. 895ff.). The commentary of Beda, dedicated to a certain Nectarius (Vecterius), is fundamentally that of this Philippus.}

Gregory) in favour of their unfavourable judgment of Elihu; the Greek fathers, however, are deprived of all opportunity of understanding him by the translation of the lxx (in which μυκτηρισμόν signifies the scorn of others which Job must swallow down, comp. Pro 26:6), which here perverts everything. Job 34:10-11 10 Therefore, men of understanding, hearken to me!

Far be it from god to do evil,

And the Almighty to act wrongfully. 11 No indeed, man’s work He recompenseth to him,

And according to man’s walk He causeth it to be with him. “Men of heart,” according to Psychol. S. 249, comp. 254, is equivalent to noee'mones or noeeroi' (lxx συνετοὶ καρδίας). The clause which Elihu makes prominent in the following reply is the very axiom which the three defend, perfectly true in itself, but falsely applied by them: evil, wrong, are inconceivable on the part of God; instead of וּלשׁדּי it is only ושׁדּי in the second member of the verse, with the omission of the praep. - a frequent form of ellipsis, particularly in Isaiah (Isa 15:8; Isa 28:6; Isa 48:14; Isa 61:7, comp. Eze 25:15). Far removed from acting wickedly and wrongfully, on the contrary He practises recompense exactly apportioned to man’s deeds, and ever according to the walk of each one (ארח like דּרך or דּרכי, e.g., Jer 32:19, in an ethical sense) He causes it to overtake him, i.e., to happen to him (המציא only here and Job 37:13). The general assertion brought forward against Job is now proved. Job 34:12-15 12 Yea verily God acteth not wickedly,

And the Almighty perverteth not the right. 13 Who hath given the earth in charge to Him?

And who hath disposed the whole globe? 14 If He only set His heart upon Himself,

If He took back His breath and His inspiration to Himself: 15 All flesh would expire together,

And man would return to dust.

With אף אמנם (Yea verily, as Job 19:4, “and really”) the counter-assertion of Job 34:11 is repeated, but negatively expressed (comp. Job 8:3). הרשׁיע signifies sometimes to act as רשׁע, and at others to be set forth and condemned as a רשׁע; here, as the connection requires, it is the former. Job 34:13 begins the proof. Ewald’s interpretation: who searcheth, and Hahn's: who careth for the earth beside Him, are hazardous and unnecessary. פּקד with על of the person and the acc. of the thing signifies: to enjoin anything as a duty on any one, to entrust anything to any one, Job 36:23; Num 4:27; 2Ch 36:23; therefore: who has made the earth, i.e., the care of it, a duty to Him? ארצה (Milel) is not to be refined into the meaning “to the earth” (as here by Schultens and a few others, Isa 9:1 by Luzzatto: he hath smitten down, better: dishonoured, to the earth with a light stroke), but is poetically equivalent to ארץ, as לילה (comp. modern Greek ἡ νύχθα) is in prose equivalent to ליל. Job 34:13 is by no means, with Ew. and Hahn, to be translated: who observes (considers) the whole globe, שׂים as Job 34:23; Job 4:20; Job 24:12 - the expression would be too contracted to affirm that no one but God bestowed providential attention upon the earth; and if we have understood Job 34:13 correctly, the thought is also inappropriate. A more appropriate thought is gained, if עליו is supplied from Job 34:13: who has enjoined upon Him the whole circle of the earth (Saad., Gecat., Hirz., Schlottm.); but this continued force of the עליו into the second independent question is improbable in connection with the repetition of מי. Therefore: who has appointed, i.e., established (שׂם as Job 38:5; Isa 44:7), - a still somewhat more suitable thought, going logically further, since the one giving the charge ought to be the lord of him who receives the commission, and therefore the Creator of the world. This is just God alone, by whose רוּח and נשׁמה the animal world as well as the world of men (vid., Job 32:8; Job 33:4) has its life, Job 34:14 : if He should direct His heart, i.e., His attention (שׂים לב אל, as Job 2:3), to Himself (emphatic: Himself alone), draw in (אסף as Psa 104:29; comp. for the matter Ecc 12:7, Psychol. S. 406) to Himself His inspiration and breath (which emanated from Him or was effected by Him), all flesh would sink together, i.e., die off at once (this, as it appears, has reference to the taking back of the animal life, רוח), and man would return (this has reference to the taking back of the human spirit, נשׁמה) to dust (על instead of אל, perhaps with reference to the usual use of the על־עפר, Job 17:16; Job 20:11; Job 21:26).

Only a few modern expositors refer אליו, as Targ. Jer. and Syr., to man instead of reflexively to God; the majority rightly decide in favour of the idea which even Grotius perceived: si sibi ipsi tantum bonus esse (sui unius curam habere) vellet. אם followed by the fut. signifies either si velit (lxx ει ̓ βούλοιτο), as here, or as more frequently, si vellet, Psa 50:12; Psa 139:8, Oba 1:4, Isa 10:22; Amo 9:2-4. It is worthy of remark that, according to Norzi’s statement, the Babylonian texts presented ישׁיב, Job 34:14, as Chethîb, ישׂים as Kerî (like our Palestine text, Dan 11:18), which a MS of De Rossi, with a Persian translation, confirms; the reading gives a fine idea: that God’s heart is turned towards the world, and is unclosed; its ethical condition of life would then be like its physical ground of life, that God’s spirit dwells in it; the drawing back of the heart, and the taking back to Himself of the spirit, would be equivalent to the exclusion of the world from God’s love and life. However, ישׂים implies the same; for a reference of God’s thinking and willing to Himself, with the exclusion of the world, would be just a removal of His love. Elihu’s proof is this: God does not act wrongly, for the government of the world is not a duty imposed upon Him from without, but a relation entered into freely by Him: the world is not the property of another, but of His free creative appointment; and how unselfishly, how devoid of self-seeking He governs it, is clear from the fact, that by the impartation of His living creative breath He sustains every living thing, and does not, as He easily might, allow them to fall away into nothingness. There is therefore a divine love which has called the world into being and keeps it in being; and this love, as the perfect opposite of sovereign caprice, is a pledge for the absolute righteousness of the divine rule. Job 34:16-20 16 And oh understand now, hear this;

Hearken to the sound of my words. 17 Would one who hateth right also be able to subdue?

Or wilt thou condemn the All-just? 18 Is it becoming to say to a king: Worthless One!?

Thou evil-doer! to princes? 19 To Him who accepteth not the person of rulers,

And regardeth not the noble before the poor:

For they are all the work of His hands. 20 In a moment they die, and at midnight

The people are overthrown and perish,

And they put aside the mighty - not by the hand of man.

This strophe contains several grammatical rarities. At first sight it appears that Job 34:16 ought to be translated: “and if there is understanding (viz., to thee = if thou hast), then hear this.” But בּינה is accented as Milel and with Mercha, and can therefore not be a substantive (Hirz., Hahn, and others); for the retreat of the accent would be absolutely incomprehensible, and instead of a conjunctive, a distinctive, viz., Dechî, ought to be expected. Several of the old expositors, therefore, interpret with Nolde: quod quum ita sit, intellige; but this elliptical ואם, well as it might also be used for Job 21:4, is unsupportable; the Makkeph between the two words is also against it, which rather arises from the assumption that בּינה is the imperat., and אם as an exception, like Gen 23:13, is an optative particle joined to the imper. 2 instead of to the fut.: “and if thou shouldst observe” (= ואם־תּבין). To translate Job 34:17 with Schultens: num iram osor judicii frenabit, is impracticable on account of the order of the words, and gives a thought that is inappropriate here. אף is a particle, and the fut. is potentialis: is it also possible that an enemy of right should govern? (חבשׁ, imperio coercere, as אצר 1Sa 9:17, אסר Psa 105:22); right and government are indeed mutually conditioned, without right everything would fall into anarchy and confusion. In Job 34:17 this is applied to the Ruler of the world: or (ואם, an, as Job 8:3; Job 21:4; Job 40:9) wilt thou condemn the mighty just One, i.e., the All-just? As Elihu calls God שׂגּיא כח, Job 37:23, as the Almighty, and as the Omniscient One, תּמים דּעים, Job 37:16, so here as the All-just One, צדּיק כּבּיר. The two adjectives are put side by side ἀσυνδέτως, as is frequently the case in Arabic, and form one compound idea, Ew. §270, d. Job 34:21-23 21 For His eyes are upon the ways of each one,

And He seeth all his steps. 22 There is no darkness nor shadow of death

Wherein the workers of iniquity might hide themselves. 23 For He needeth not long to regard a man

That he may enter into judgment with God.

As the preceding strophe showed that God’s creative order excludes all partiality, so this strophe shows that His omniscience qualifies Him to be an impartial judge. He sees everything, nothing can escape His gaze; He sees through man without being obliged to wait for the result of a judicial investigation. שׂים with על does not here signify: to lay upon (Saad., Gecat.), but as Job 37:15, and as with אל (Job 34:14) or בּ (Job 23:6); to direct one’s attention (supply לבּו, Job 1:8) towards anything; the fut. has here a modal signification; עוד is used as e.g., Gen 46:29 : again and again, continuously; and in the clause expressive of purpose it is אל־אל (instead of אליו, a very favourite combination used throughout the whole book, Job 5:8; Job 8:5; Job 13:3, and so on) from the human standpoint: He, the all-seeing One, needs not to observe him long that he should enter into judgment with God - He knows him thoroughly before any investigation takes place, which is not said without allusion to Job’s vehement longing to be able to appear before God’s tribunal. Job 34:24-28 24 He breaketh the mighty in pieces without investigation

And setteth others in their place. 25 Thus He seeth through their works,

And causeth their overthrow by night, thus they are crushed. 26 He smiteth them after the manner of evil-doers

In the sight of the public. 27 For for such purpose are they fallen away from Him

And have not considered any of His ways, 28 To cause the cry of the poor to come up to Him,

And that He should hear the cry of the needy.

He makes short work (לא־חקר for בּלא, as Job 12:24; Job 38:26 : without research, viz., into their conduct, which is at once manifest to Him; not: in an incomprehensible manner, which is unsuitable, and still less: innumerabiles, as Jer., Syr.) with the mighty (כּבּירים, Arab. kibâr , kubarâ), and in consequence of this (fut. consec.) sets up (constituit) others, i.e., better and worthier rulers (comp. אהר, Job 8:19; Isa 55:1-13 :15), in their stead. The following לכן is not equivalent to לכן אשׁר, for which no satisfactory instance exists; on the contrary, לכן here, as more frequently, introduces not the real consequence (Job 20:2), but a logical inference, something that directly follows in and with what precedes (corresponding to the Greek ἄρα, just so, consequently), comp. Job 42:3; Isa 26:14; Isa 61:7; Jer 2:33; Jer 5:2; Zec 11:7 (vid., Köhler in loc.). Thus, then, as He hereby proves, He is thoroughly acquainted with their actions (מעבּד, nowhere besides in the book of Job, an Aramaizing expression for מעשׂה). This abiding fact of divine omniscience, inferred from the previously-mentioned facts, then serves again in its turn, in Job 34:25, as the source of facts by which it is verified. לילה is by no means an obj. The expositions: et inducit noctem (Jer.), He walks in the night in which He has veiled Himself (Umbr.), convertit eos in noctem (Syr., Arab.), and such like, all read in the two words what they do not imply. It is either to be translated: He throws them by night (לילה as Job 27:20) upon the heaps (הפך as Pro 12:7), or, since the verb has no objective suff.: He maketh a reformation or overthrow during the night, i.e., creates during the night a new order of things, and they who stood at the head of the former affairs are crushed by the catastrophe. Job 34:29-32 29 If He, however, maketh peace, who will then condemn?

And if He hideth His countenance - who then can behold Him? -

Both concerning numbers and individuals together: 30 That godless men reign not,

That they be not nets to the people. 31 For one, indeed, saith to God, “I have been proud, I will not do evil; 32 “What I see not, show Thou me; “If I have done wrong, I will do it no more”!? -

If God makes peace (ישׁקיט as Psa 94:13, comp. Isa 14:7, הארץ שׁקטה כל־, viz., after the overthrow of the tyrant) in connection with such crying oppression of the poor, who will then condemn Him without the rather recognising therein His comprehensive justice? The conjecture ירעשׁ ^{▼▼Vid., Grätz in Frankel’s Monatsschrift, 1861, i.} is not required either here or 1Sa 14:47 (where הרשׁיע signifies to punish the guilty); ירשׁע is also not to be translated turbabit (Rosenm.), since רשׁע (Arab. rs‛ , rsg) according to its primitive notion does not signify “to be restless, to rage,” but “to be relaxed, hollow” (opposite of צדק, Arab. ṣdq, to be hard, firm, tight). Further: If God hides His countenance, i.e., is angry and punishes, who can then behold Him, i.e., make Him, the veiled One, visible and claim back the favour withdrawn? The Waw of וּמי, if one marks off the periods of the paratactic expression, is in both cases the Waw of conclusion after hypothetical antecedents, and. Job 34:29 refers to Job’s impetuous challenging of God. Thus exalted above human controversy and defiance, God rules both over the mass and over individuals alike. יחד gives intensity of the equality thus correlatively (et-et) expressed (Targ., Syr.); to refer it to אדם as generalizing (lxx, Jer. et super omnes homines), is forbidden by the antithesis of peoples and individuals. To the thought, that God giveth rest (from oppressors) and hides His countenance (from the oppressors and in general those who act wrongly), two co-ordinate negative final clauses are attached: in order that godless men may not rule (ממּלך, as e.g., 2Ki 23:33, Keri), in order that they may no longer be (מ( e = מהיות, under the influence of the notion of putting aside contained in the preceding final clause, therefore like Isa 7:8 מעם, Isa 24:2 מעיר, Jer 48:2 מגוי, and the like) snares of the people, i.e., those whose evil example and bad government become the ruin of the community.

In Job 34:31 the view of those who by some jugglery concerning the laws of the vowel sounds explain האמר as imper. Niph. (= האמר), be it in the sense of להאמר, dicendum est (Rosenm., Schlottm., and others, after Raschi), or even in the unheard-of reflexive signification: express thyself (Stick., Hahn), is to be rejected. The syncopated form of the infin. בּהרג, Eze 26:15, does not serve as a palliation of this adventurous imperative. It is, on the contrary, אמר with ה interrog., as Eze 28:9 האמר, and probably also העמוּר Mic 2:7 (vid., Hitz.). A direct exhortation to Job to penitence would also not be in place here, although what Elihu says is levelled against Job. The כּי is confirmatory. Thus God acts with that class of unscrupulous men who abuse their power for the destruction of their subjects: for he (one of them) says (or: has said, from the standpoint of the execution of punishment) to God, etc. Ew. differently: “for one says thus to God even: I expiate what I do not commit,” by understanding the speech quoted of a defiance which reproachfully demands an explanation. It is, however, manifestly a compendious model confession. And since Elihu with כי establishes the execution of punishment from this, that it never entered the mind of the עדם חנף thus to humble himself before God, so נשׂאתי here cannot signify: I have repented (put up with and had to bear what I have deserved); on the contrary, the confession begins with the avowal: I have exalted myself (נשׂא, se efferre, in Hos 13:1; Psa 89:10), which is then followed by the vow: I will not (in the future) do evil (חבל synon. עוה, as Neh 1:7, and probably also supra, Job 24:9), and the entreaty, Job 34:32 : beside that which I behold (elliptical object-clause, Ew. §333, b), i.e., what lies beyond my vision (= נסתּרות or עלמים, Psa 19:13; Psa 90:8, unacknowledged sins), teach me; and the present vow has reference to acknowledged sins and sins that have still to be acknowledged: if I have done wrong, I will do it no more. Thus speaking - Elihu means - those high ones might have anticipated the punishment of the All-just God, for favour instead of wrath cannot be extorted, it is only reached by the way of lowly penitence. Job 34:33-37 33 Shall He recompense it as thou wilt? For thou hast found fault,

So that thou hast to determine, not I,

And what thou knowest speak out! 34 Men of understanding will say to me,

And a wise man who listeneth to me: 35 “Job speaketh without knowledge, “And his words are without intelligence.” 36 O would that Job were proved to the extreme

On account of his answers after the manner of evil men; 37 For he addeth transgression to his sin,

Among us he clappeth

And multiplieth his speeches against God.

The question put to Job, whether then from him or according to his idea (עם in מעמּך as Job 23:10; Job 27:11, which see) shall God recompense it (viz., as this “it” is to be understood according to Job 34:32: man’s evil-doing and actions in general), Elihu proves from this, that Job has despised (shown himself discontented with it) the divine mode of recompense, so that therefore (this second כּי signifies also nam, but is, because extending further on account of the first, according to the sense equivalent to ita ut) he has to choose (seek out) another mode of recompense, not Elihu (who is perfectly satisfied with the mode with which history furnishes us); which is then followed by the challenge (דּבּר not infin., but as Job 33:32): what (more corresponding to just retribution) thou knowest, speak out then! Elihu on his part knows that he does not stand alone against Job, the censurer of the divine government of the world, but that men of heart (understanding) and (every) wise man who listens to him will coincide with him in the opinion that Job’s talk is devoid of knowledge and intelligence (on the form of writing השׂכּיל as Jer 3:15, vid., Ges. §53, rem. 2).

In Job 34:36 we will for the present leave the meaning of אבי undecided; יבּחן is certainly intended as optative: let Job be tried to the extreme or last, i.e., let his trial by affliction continue until the matter is decided (comp. Hab 1:4), on account of the opposition among men of iniquity, i.e., after the manner of such (on this Beth of association comp. בּקּשׁשׁים, Job 36:14), for to חטּאת, by which the purpose of his affliction is to be cleared up, he adds פּשׁע, viz., the wickedness of blasphemous speeches: among us (therefore without fear) he claps (viz., his hands scornfully together, יספּוק only here thus absolute instead of ישׂפּק כּפּיו fo dae, Job 27:23, comp. בשׂפק Job 36:18 with ספקו Job 20:22) ^{▼▼The mode of writing with ס instead of שׂ is limited in the book of Job, according to the Masora, to Job 34:26, Job 34:37.} and multiplies (ירב, fut. apoc. Hiph. as Job 10:17, and instead of the full fut., as ישׂר, Job 33:27) his speeches against God, i.e., exceeds himself in speeches which irreverently dictate to and challenge God.

But we now ask, what does that אבי, Job 34:36, signify? According to the accentuation with Rebia, it appears to be intended to signify pater mi (Jer.), according to which Saad. (jâ rabbı̂) and Gecat. (munchiı̂, my Creator) translate it. This would be the only passage where an Old Testament saint calls God אבי; elsewhere God is called the Father of Israel, and Israel as a people, or the individual comprehending himself with the nation, calls Him אבינו. Nevertheless this pater mi for Elihu would not be inappropriate, for what the writer of the Epistle to the Hebrews, Heb 12:7, says to believers on the ground of Pro 3:11 : εἰς παιδείαν ὑπομένετε, ye suffer for the purpose of paternal discipline, is Elihu’s fundamental thought; he also calls God in Job 32:22; Job 36:3, which a like reference to himself, עשׂני and פעלי - this ejaculatory “my Father!” especially in conjunction with the following wish, remains none the less objectionable, and only in the absence of a more agreeable interpretation should we, with Hirz., decide in its favour. It would be disproportionately repulsive if Job 34:36 still belonged to the assenting language of another, and Elihu represented himself as addressed by אבי (Wolfson, Maur.). Thus, therefore, אבי must be taken somehow or other interjectionally. It is untenable to compare it with אבוי, Pro 23:29, for אוי ואבוי (Arab. âh wa - âwâh) is “ah! and alas!” The Aramaic בייא בייא, vae vae (Buxtorf, col. 294), compared by Ges. to בּי, signifies just the same. The Targ. translates צבינא, I wish; after which Kimchi, among moderns, Umbr., Schlottm., Carey, and others derive אבי from אבה, a wish (after the form קצה, הזה), but the participial substantival-form badly suits this signification, which is at once improbable according to the usage of the language so far as we at present know it. This interpretation also does not well suit the בי, which is to be explained at the same time. Ewald, §358, a, regards אבי as the fuller form of בּי, and thinks אבי is dialectic = לבי = לוי = לוּ, but this is an etymological leger-demain. The two Schultens (died 1750 and 1793) were on the right track when they traced back אבי to בוא, but their interpretation: rem eo adducam ut (אבי = אביא, as it is certainly not unfrequently written, e.g., 1Ki 21:29, with the assumption of a root בי cognate with בא), is artificial and without support in the usage of the language and in the syntax. Körber and Simonis opened up the right way, but with inadequate means for following it out, by referring (vid., Ges. Thes. s.v. בּי) to the formula of a wish and of respect, bawwâk allah , which, however, also is bajjâk. The Kamus interprets bajjâk, though waveringly, by bawwâk, the meaning of which (may he give thee a resting-place) is more transparent. In an annotated Codex of Zamachschari hajjâk allah wa - bajjâk is explained: God preserve thy life and grant thee to come to a place of rest, bawwaaka (therefore Arab. bawâ = bawa'a) menzilan. That אבי (as also בּי) is connected with this bajjâk since the latter is the Piel-form of an old verb bajja (vid., supra, p. 559), which with the forms Arab. bâ'a (whence Arab. bı̂‛at, a sheltering house) and Arab. bw' (bwâ) has one root similar in signification with בוא, the following contributions of Wetzstein will show.

In elucidation of the present passage he observes: The expressions abı̂ tebı̂ , jebı̂ ; nebı̂ , tebû , jebû , are so frequent in Damascus, that they very soon struck me, and on my first inquiry I always received the same answer, that they are a mutilation of Arab. 'bgy , abghi , I desire, etc. [vid. supra, p. 580], until one day a fugitive came into the consulate, and with these words, abı̂ wâlidêk, seized me in that part of the body where the Arabs wear the girdle (zunnâr), a symbolic action by which one seeks some one’s protection. Since the word here could not be equivalent to abghi (“I desire” thy parents), I turned to the person best acquainted with the idiom of the country, the scribe Abderrahmân el-Mîdâni, which father had been a wandering minstrel in the camps for twenty years; and he explained to me that abghi only signifies “I desire;” on the contrary, abı̂, “I implore importunately, I pray for God’s sake,” and the latter belongs to a defective verb, Arab. bayya, from which, except the forms mentioned, only the part. anâ bâj , “I come as a suppliant,” and its plur. nahn bâjin , is used. The poet Musa Rârâ from Krêje in the south of Hauran, who lived with me six months in Damascus in order to instruct me in the dialect of his district, assured me that among the Beduins also the perf. forms bı̂t , bı̂nâ (I have, we have entreated), and the fut. forms tabı̂n (thou, woman ... ), jaben (they, the women ... ), and taben (ye women ... ), are used. In the year 1858, in the course of a journey in his native country, I came to Dîmâs, whither they had brought two strange Beduins who had been robbed of their horses in that desert (Sahra Dîmâs), and one of them had at the same time received a mortal gunshot-wound. As I can to these men, who were totally forsaken, the wounded man began to express his importunate desire for a surgeon with the words jâ shêch nebı̂ ‛arabak, “Sir, we claim the protection of thy Arabs,” i.e., we adjure thee by thy family. Naturally abı̂ occurs most frequently. It generally has its obj. in the acc., often also with the praepos. Arab. ‛ly , exactly like Arab. dchl (to enter, to flee anywhere and hide), which is its correct synonym and usual substitute in common life. It is often used without an obj., and, indeed, very variously. With women it is chiefly the introduction to a question prompted by curiosity, as: abı̂ (ah, tell me), have you really betrothed your daughter? Or the word is accompanied by a gesture by the five fingers of the right hand, with the tips united, being stretched out towards the hasty or impatient listener, as if one wished to show some costly object, when abı̂ signifies as much as: I pray thee wait till I have shown thee this precious thing, i.e., allow me to make one more remark to thee in reference to the matter. Moreover, בּי (probably not corrupted from אבי, but a derived nomen concretum in the sense of dachı̂ l or mustagı̂r, one seeking protection, protégé, after the form אי, צי, from בוה = בוא) still exists unaltered in Hauran and in the steppe. The Beduin introduces an important request with the words anâ bı̂ ahlak, I am a protégé of thy family, or anâ bı̂ ‛irdak, I trust to thine honour, etc.; while in Damascus they say, anâ dachı̂l ahlak , harı̂mak , aulâdak , etc. The Beduin women make use of this bı̂ in a weakened signification, in order to beg a piece of soap or sugar, and anâ bı̂ lihjetak , I pray by thy beard, etc., is often heard.

If now we combine that אבי of Elihu with abghi (from Arab. bgâ, Hebr. בּעה, Aram. בּעא, fut. יבעי, as בּי with בּעי) or with abî = אבא, from the verb bajja = בוא (בי), ^{▼▼We cannot in any case, with Wetzst., explain the אבי אבי, 2Ki 2:12; 2Ki 13:14, according to the above, so that the king of Israel adjured the dying prophet by the national army and army of the faithful not to forsake him, as an Arab is now and then adjured in most urgent and straitened circumstances “by the army of Islam;” vid., on the other hand, 2Ki 6:21, comp. Job 5:13; Job 8:9 (בּנך). Here rather, if an Arabian parallel be needed, the usual death wail, bi - abı̂ anta (thou wast dear as a father to me), e.g., in Kosegarten, Chrestom. p. 140, 3, is to be compared. אבי, 1Sa 24:12, might more readily, with Ew. §101, c, be brought in here and regarded as belonging to the North Palestine peculiarities of the book of Kings; but by a comparison of the passages cited, this is also improbable.} it always remains a remarkable instance in favour of the Arabic colouring of the Elihu section similar to the rest of the book, - a colouring, so to speak, dialectically Hauranitish; while, on the other hand, even by this second speech, one cannot avoid the impression of a great distance between it and the rest of the book: the language has a lofty tone, without its special harshness, as there, being the necessary consequence of a carefully concentrated fulness of thought; moreover, here in general the usual regularity of the strophe-lines no longer prevails, and also the usual symmetrical balance of thought in them.

If we confine our attention to the real substance of the speech, apart from the emotional and rough accessories, Elihu casts back the reproach of injustice which Job has raised, first as being contradictory to the being of God, Job 34:10.; then he seeks to refute it as contradicting God’s government, and this he does (1) apagogically from the unselfish love with which God’s protecting care preserves the breath of every living thing, while He who has created all things might bring back all created things to the former non-existence, Job 34:12-15; (2) by induction from the impartial judgment which He exercises over princes and peoples, and from which it is inferred that the Ruler of the world is also all-just, Job 34:16-20. From this Elihu proves that God can exercise justice, and from that, that He is omniscient, and sees into man’s inmost nature without any judicial investigation, Job 34:21-28; inaccessible to human accusation and human defiance, He rules over peoples and individuals, even over kings, and nothing turns His just punishment aside but lowly penitence blended with the prayer for the disclosure of unperceived sin, Job 34:29-32. For in His retributive rule God does not follow the discontented demands of men arrogant and yet devoid of counsel, Job 34:33. It is worthy of recognition, that Elihu does not here coincide with what has been already said (especially Job 12:15), without applying it to another purpose; and that his theodicy differs essentially from that proclaimed by the friends. It is not derived from mere appearance, but lays hold of the very principles. It does not attempt the explanation of the many apparent contradictions to retributive justice which outward events manifest, as agreeing with it; it does not solve the question by mere empiricism, but from the idea of the Godhead and its relation to the world, and by such inner necessity guarantees to the mysteries still remaining to human shortsightedness, their future solution.

‏ Job 35

Job 35:1-4 1 Then began Elihu, and said: 2 Dost thou consider this to be right,

Sayest thou: my righteousness exceedeth God’s, 3 That thou sayest, what advantage is it to thee,

What doth it profit me more than my sin? 4 I will answer thee words,

And thy companions with thee.

The neutral זאת, Job 35:2, refers prospectively to כּי־תאמר, Job 35:3: this that thou sayest. חשׁב with acc. of the obj. and ל of the predicate, as Job 33:10, comp. Job 13:24, and freq. The second interrogative clause, Job 35:2, is co-ordinate with the first, and the collective thought of this ponderous construction, Job 35:2, Job 35:3, is this: Considerest thou this to be right, and thinkest thou on this account to be able to put thy righteousness above the divine, that, as thou maintainest, no righteousness on the side of God corresponds to this thy righteousness, because God makes no distinction between righteousness and the sin of man, and allows the former to go unrewarded? צדקי (for which Olsh. wishes to read צדקתּי, as Job 9:27 אמרתי for אמרי) forms with מאל a substantival clause: justitia mea est prae Deo (prae divina); מן comparative as Job 32:2, comp. on the matter Job 34:5, not equivalent to ἀπό as Job 4:17. כי־תאמר is first followed by the oratio obliqua: what it (viz., צדקך) advantageth thee, then by the or. directa (on this change vid., Ew. §338, a): what profit have I (viz., בצדקי), prae peccato meo; this מן is also comparative; the constantly ambiguous combination would be allowable from the fact that, according to the usage of the language, “to obtain profit from anything” is expressed by הועיל בּ, not by הועיל מן. Moreover, prae peccato meo is equivalent to plus quam inde quod pecco, comp. Psa 18:24, מעוני, Hos 4:8 אל־עונם. We have already on Job 34:9 observed that Job has not directly said (he cites it, Job 21:15, as the saying of the ungodly) what Elihu in Job 35:3 puts into his mouth, but as an inference it certainly is implied in such utterances as Job 9:22. Elihu’s polemic against Job and his companions (רעיך are not the three, as lxx and Jer. translate, but the אנשׁי און, to whom Job is likened by such words as Job 34:8, Job 34:36) is therefore not unauthorized; especially since he assails the conclusion together with its premises. In the second strophe the vindication of the conclusion is now refuted. Job 35:5-8 5 Look towards heaven and see,

And behold the ethereal heights: they are high above thee. 6 If thou sinnest, what dost thou effect with Him?

And if thy transgressions are many, what doest thou to Him? 7 If thou art righteous, what dost thou give Him,

Or what doth He take from thy hand? 8 To man like thee thy godlessness availeth,

And to thee, a son of man, thy righteousness.

Towards heaven he is to direct his gaze, to obtain from the height of heaven a notion of the exaltation of God who dwells above the heavens. The combination הבּיט וראה is like Psa 80:15 and freq. שׁחקים (שׁחק, Arab. sḥq, to rub in pieces, make thin, therefore the opposite of עבים) are the thin transparent strata of the atmosphere above the hanging clouds. מן after גּבהּ denotes the height that is on the opposite side to the beholder. From the exaltation of God it is then further inferred that it is impossible to exercise any human influence upon Him, by which He might suffer. The pointing wavers here between תּפעל (the common fut. form) and תּפעל(as a contraction of תּפעל after the form אזעם, Num 23:8). Human wrong or right doing neither diminishes nor increases His blessedness; injury or advantage is only on the side of man, from whom it proceeds. Others, whom his conduct affect, are not included in Job 35:8 : righteous or ungodly doing, Elihu means to say, as such and with its consequences, belongs solely to the doer himself, the man “like thee” (לאישׁ with Munach, כּמוך with Munach), the son of man, i.e., man, capable of evil as of good, and who always, after deciding in favour of the latter or the former, determines his fortune or misfortune, in distinction from God, who ever remains unchangeably the same in His perfect righteousness. What Elihu here says we have already heard from Eliphaz, Job 22:2., and Job even expresses himself similarly in Job 7:20; but to Elihu’s mind it all becomes for Job new and powerful motives to quiet submission, for what objection should Job raise in justification of his complaints concerning his affliction against such sentiments as these, that goodness bears its reward and evil its punishment in itself, and that God’s reward of goodness is not a work of indebtedness, nor His punishment of evil a work of necessity? Before such truth he must really hold his peace. Job 35:9-13 9 By reason of the multitude of oppressions they raise a cry,

They call for help by reason of the arm of the great, 10 But none saith: Where is Eloah my Creator,

Who giveth songs of praise in the night, 11 Who teacheth us by the beasts of the earth,

And maketh us wise by the fowls of heaven? 12 Then they cry, yet He answereth not,

Because of the pride of evil men. 13 Vanity alone God heareth not,

And the Almighty observeth it not.

In Job 35:9 the accentuation of מרוב with Dechî, according to which Dachselt interprets: prae multitudine (oppressionum) oppressi clamabunt, is erroneous; it is to be written מרב, as everywhere else, and this (according to Codd. and the editions of Jablonski, Majus, Michaelis, and others) is to be accented with Munach, which is followed by עשׁוּקים with a vicarious Munach: prae multitudine oppressionum (עשׁוקים like Ecc 4:1, and probably also Amo 3:9) edunt clamorem (Hiph. in the intensive Kal signification, as e.g., הזנה, to commit fornication, Hos 4:10). On זרוע, Job 35:9; רבּים are the great or lords (Arab. arbâb). The plur. with a general subj. is followed by the sing. in Job 35:10: and no one says (exactly as in האמר, Job 34:31). Elihu weakens the doubt expressed by Job in Job 24:12, that God allows injustice to prevail, and oppressed innocence remains without vindication. The failure of the latter arises from the fact of the sufferers complaining, but not seeking earnestly the only true helper, God their maker (עשׂים, intensive plur., as Isa 22:11; Isa 54:5; Psa 149:2), who gives (to which may be compared a passage of the Edda: “Wuodan gives songs to the Scalds”) songs (זמרות, from the onomatopoetic זמר) in the night, i.e., who in the night of sorrow puts songs of praise concerning the dawning light of help into the mouth of the sufferers. The singing of the glory of the nightly heavens (Stick., Hahn) is to be as little thought of as the music of the spheres; the night is, as Job 34:20, Job 34:25, the time of unexpectedly sudden change.

In Job 35:11 most expositors (last of all Schlottm.) take the two מן as comparative. Elihu would then, since he feels the absence of the asking after this God on the part of the sufferers, mean the conscious relation in which He has placed us to Himself, and in accordance with which the sufferer should not merely instinctively complain, but humbly bow himself and earnestly offer up prayer. But according to Job 12:7 (comp. Pro 6:6, וחכם), it is to be translated: who teaches (מלּפנוּ = מאלּפנוּ, comp. 2Sa 22:40, Psalter i. 160) us from the beasts of the earth (so that from them as a means of instruction teaching comes to us), and makes us wise from the birds of heaven. The fut. interchanging with the part. better accords with this translation, according to which Job 35:11 is a continuation of the assertion of a divine instruction, by means of the animal creation; the thought also suits the connection better, for of the many things that may be learned from the animal creation, prayer here comes under consideration, - the lions roar, Psa 104:21; the thirsty cattle cry to God, Joe 1:20; the ravens call upon God, Psa 147:9. It we now determine the collective thought of Job 35:10, that affliction does not drive most men to God the almighty Helper, who will be humbly entreated for help: it is more natural to take שׁם (vid., on Job 23:7) in the sense of then (τότε), than, with reference to the scene of oppression, in the sense of there (lxx, Jer.: ibi). The division of the verse is correct, and H. B. Starcke has correctly interpreted: Tunc clamabunt (sed non respondebit) propter superbiam (insolentiam) malorum. מפּני is not to be connected with יענה in the sense of non exaudiet et servabit, by which constr. praegnans one would expect מן, Psa 22:22, instead of מפני, nor in the sense of non exaudiet propter (Hirz., Schlottm.), for the arrogant רעים are not those who complain unheard: but, as the connection shows, those from whom the occasion of complaint proceeds. Therefore: not allowing themselves to be driven to God by oppression, they cry then, without, however, being heard of God, by reason of the arrogance of evil men which they have to endure. Job 35:13 gives the reason of their obtaining no answer: Only emptiness (i.e., mere motion of the lips without the true spirit of prayer) God heareth not, and the Almighty observeth it not. Hahn wrongly denies אך the significations certo and verumtamen; but we prefer the restrictive signification (sheer emptiness or hollowness) which proceeds from the affirmative primary signification ^{▼▼Vid., Hupfeld in the Zeitschr. für Kunde des Morgenl. ii. 441f.} here, to the adversative (nevertheless emptiness), since the adversative thought, verumtamen non exaudit, has found its expression already in ולא יענה. Job 35:14-16 14 Although thou sayest, thou seest Him not:

The cause lieth before Him, and thou mayest wait for Him. 15 Now, then, if His wrath hath not yet punished,

Should He not be well acquainted with sullenness? 16 While Job openeth his mouth without reason,

Without knowledge multiplieth words.

The address is not direct to Job exclusively, for it here treats first of the acts of injustice which prevail among men and remain apparently unpunished; but to Job, however, also, so far as he has, Job 23:8-10, comp. Job 19:7; Job 30:20, thus complained concerning his prayer being unanswered. אף כּי signifies elsewhere quanto minus, Job 4:19, or also quanto magis, Pro 15:11, but nowhere quanto minus si (Hirz., Hlgst.) or quanto magis si (Hahn), also not Eze 15:5, where it signifies etiamne quum. As it can, however, naturally signify etiam quum, it can also signify etiamsi, etsi, as here and Neh 9:18. This quamvis dicas (opineris) is followed by the oratio obliqua, as Job 35:3. The relation of the matter - says the conclusion, Job 35:14 - is other than thou thinkest: the matter to be decided lies before Him, is therefore well known to Him, and thou mightest only wait for Him (חולל instead of יחל or הוחיל only here, comp. Psa 37:7, והתחולל לו); the decision, though it pass by, will not fail. In Job 35:15, Job 35:15 is taken by most modern commentators as antecedent to Job 35:16, in which case, apart from the distortions introduced, two interpretations are possible: (1) However now, because His (God’s) wrath does not visit ... Job opens his mouth; (2) However now, because He (God) does not visit his (Job’s) wrath (comp. on this reference of the אפּו to Job, Job 18:4; Job 36:13, Job 36:18)...Job opens, etc. That a clause with a confirmatory כי is made to precede its principal clause is not without example, Gen 3:14, Gen 3:17; but in connection with this arrangement the verb is accustomed always, in the principal clause or in the conclusion, to stand prominent (so that consequently we should expect ויפצה איוב), although in Arabic this position of the words, ואיוב יפצה, and in fact Arab. fâyûb instead of wâyûb (in connection with a difference of the subj. in the antecedent and in the conclusion, vid., De Sacy, Gramm. Arabe, §1201, 2), is regular. Therefore for a long time I thought that Job 35:15 was to be taken interrogatively: And now (ועתּה as logical inference and conclusion, which is here its most probable function, Ew. §353, b) should His wrath not punish (פּקד as absolute as Job 31:14), and should He not take notice, etc., כּי interrogative as 1Sa 24:20; 1Sa 28:1; 1Ki 11:22, as הכי (is it so that, or: should it be so that), Job 6:22, and freq., in connection with which, what is said on Gen 21:7 concerning the modal use of the praet. might be compared on the two praett. But by this rendering the connection of Job 35:16 with what precedes is awkward. Ewald has given the correct rendering (apart from the misunderstanding of פּשׁ): Therefore, because His wrath has not yet punished, He does not know much about foolishness! Job 35:15 requires to be taken as the conclusion to Job 35:15, yet not as an exclamation, but as an interrogative. The interrogative use of ולא is not unusual, 2Sa 20:1; Eze 16:43, Eze 16:47, Eze 16:56; Eze 32:27; and just as here, this interrogative ולא is found after a hypothetical antecedent clause, 1Sa 20:9; Exo 8:22.

In connection with this interrogative rendering of Job 35:15, it still remains questionable whether it refers to Job’s sin, or sin which prevails among men. The theme of this third speech of Elihu requires the latter reference, although perhaps not without a side-glance at Job’s won arrogant behaviour. The translation shows how suitably Job 35:16 is connected with what precedes: Job 35:16 is a circumstantial clause, or, if one is not willing to take it as a subordinate clause, but prefers to take it as standing on a level with Job 35:15, an adversative clause attached with Waw, as is frequently the case: but (nevertheless) Job ... ; פּצה פּה of opening the mouth in derision, as Lam 2:16; Lam 3:46; הבל is the acc. of closer definition to it (= בּהבל), and the הכבּיר, which occurs only here and Job 36:31, signifies without distinction magnificare and multiplicare: Job multiplies high emotional words. As this יכבּיר is, so to speak, Hebraeo-Arabic (Arab. akbara), so is Job 35:15 full of Arabisims: (1) The combination אין פּקד, which has not its like in the Hebrew language (whether it be originally intended as relative or not: non est quod visitaverit, Ew. §321, b), corresponds to the popular Arabic use of lys for lâ, Ges. Thes. i. 82, b; probably אין has the value of an intensive negation (Carey: not at all). (2) The combination ידע בּ, to know about anything, to take knowledge of anything (differently Job 12:9, but comp. Job 24:12 on the idea), is like the Arab. construction of the verb ( alima with bi (concerning) or bianna (because that) of the obj.; מאד (on this vid., on Psa 31:12) belongs not to בפשׁ (which is indeed possible), but, according to Psa 139:14, to ידע. (3) פּשׁ is especially to be explained from the Arabic. The signification a multitude (Jewish expositors, after פּוּשׁ, Niph. se diffundere, Nah 3:18) is not suitable; the signification evil (lxx, Jer., and others: פשׁ = פשׁע) presents a forcibly mutilated word, and moreover one devoid of significance in this connection; whereas the Arab. fšš (but not in its derivatives, fashsh, empty-headed; fâshûsh, empty-headedness, imbecility, with its metaphorical sense) indicates a development of signification which leads to the desired end, especially in the Syro-Arabic usage most natural here. The Arab. verb fšš (פשׁשׁ, cogn. Arab. fšr, frš, to extend, expandere) is used originally of water (fashsh el - mâ): to overflow its dam, to overflow its banks, whence a valley by the lake of el-Hîgâne, into which the waters of the lake flow after the winter rains, is called el - mefeshsh ; then of a leathern bottle: to run out (tarf mefshûsh, an emptied bottle), of a tumour (waram): to disperse, disappear, and tropically of anger (el - chulq): to break forth, vent itself on anything, hence the phrase: dost thou make me a mefeshshe (an object for the venting) of thine anger? From this Arab. fšš (distinct from Arab. faš med. Waw, to swim on the surface, trop. to be above, not to allow one’s self to be kept down, and med. Je, comp. פושׁ, Hab 1:8, Jer 50:11, Mal 4:2, signifies to be proud) is פּשׁ, formed after the forms בּד, מד, מס, a synon. of זדון, or even of עברה in the signification of excessive haughtiness, pride that bursts forth violently. ^{▼▼The signification expandere also underlies the noun fishshe, the lungs (in Egypt.); the signification discutere (especially carminare, to card wool), which the Talmud. פשׁפשׁ also has, is only a shade of the same signification; the origin of the trop. signification fatuum esse is clear from 'gaus fashûsh , empty nuts. The rice from the Palestine valley of Hûle, it is somewhere said, is worse than the Egyptian, because (what is a fault in the East) in cooking tufeshfish, i.e., it bursts, breaks in pieces (comp. on the other hand: if the seed for sowing sinks to the bottom when put into water, it is good; if it swims on the surface, jefûsh, it is bad). The Piel of this fashsha signifies to cause the water to overflow, trop. fashshasha qalbahu, he gave air to his heart, i.e., he revealed a secret which burdened him. A proverb says: the market (with its life and changing scenes) is a feshshâsh of cares, i.e., consoles a trouble heart. In the Hiph. one says in like manner proverbially, el - bukâ jufishsh, weeping removes the anguish of the soul. - Wetzst.}

Thus, even at the close of this third speech of Elihu, the Arabic, and in fact Syro-Arabic colouring, common to this section with the rest of the book, is confirmed; while, on the other hand, we miss the bold, original figures which up to Job 31:1 followed like waves one upon another, and we perceive a deficiency of skill, as now and then between Koheleth and Solomon. The chief thought of the speech we have also heard already from the three friends and Job himself. That the piety of the pious profits himself without involving God in any obligation to him, Eliphaz has already said, Job 22:2.; and that prayer that is heard in time of need and the unanswered cry of the godly and the ungodly are distinct, Job said, Job 27:9. Elihu, however, deprives these thoughts of their hitherto erroneous application. If piety gives nothing to God which He ought to reward, Job dare not regard his affliction, mysterious as it is to him, as unjust; and if the godly do not directly experience the avenging wrath of God on the haughtiness of their oppressors, the question, whether then their prayer for help is of the right kind, is more natural than the complain of a want of justice in God’s government of the world. Job is silent also after this speech. It does not contain the right consolation; it contains, however, censure which he ought humbly to receive. It touches his heart. But whether it touches the heart of the idea of the book, is another question.

‏ Job 36

Job 36:1-4 1 Then Elihu continued and said: 2 Suffer me a little, and I will inform thee,

For there is something still to be said for Eloah. 3 I will fetch my knowledge from afar,

And to my Creator will I ascribe right. 4 For truly my words are not lies,

One perfect in knowledge stands before thee.

Elihu’s preceding three speeches were introduced by ויּען; this fourth, in honour of the number three, is introduced only as a continuation of the others. Job is to wait yet a little while, for he still has (= עוד לּי), or: there still are, words in favour of Eloah; i.e., what may be said in vindication of God against Job’s complaints and accusations is not yet exhausted. This appears to be the only instance of the Aramaic כּתּר being taken up as Hebr.; whereas הוּה, nunciare (Arab. wḥâ, I, IV), is a poetic Aramaism occurring even in Psa 19:3 (comp. on the construction Job 32:6); and זעיר (a diminutive form, after the manner of the Arab. zu‛air) belongs in Isa 28:10, Isa 28:13 to the popular language (of Jerusalem), but is here used poetically. The verb נשׂא, Job 36:3, is not to be understood according to נשׂא משׁל, but according to 1Ki 10:11; and למרחוק signifies, as also Job 39:29; Isa 37:26, e longinquo, viz., out of the wide realm of history and nature. The expression נתן צדק follows the analogy of (עז) נתן כבוד. דּעה, Job 36:4, interchanges with the דּע which belongs exclusively to Elihu, since Elihu styles himself תּמים דּעות, as Job 37:16 God תּמים דּעים (comp. 1Sa 2:3, אל דּעות). תמים in this combination with דעות cannot be intended of purity of character; but as Elihu there attributes absolute perfection of knowledge in every direction to God, so here, in reference to the theodicy which he opposes to Job, he claims faultlessness and clearness of perception. Job 36:5-7 5 Behold, God is mighty, and yet doth not act scornfully,

Mighty in power of understanding. 6 He preserveth not the life of the ungodly,

And to the afflicted He giveth right. 7 He withdraweth not His eyes from the righteous,

But with kings on the throne

He establisheth them for ever, and they are exalted.

The obj. that must be mentally supplied to ימאס ולא is, as in Job 42:6, to be derived from the connection. The idea of the verb is, as in Job 8:20 : He is exalted, without however looking down disdainfully (non despicit) from His height, or more definitely: without setting Himself above the justice due to even the meanest of His creatures - great in power of heart (comp. Job 34:33 אנשׁי לבב, Arab. ûlû - l - elbâb), i.e., understanding (νοῦς πνεῦμα), to see through right and wrong everywhere and altogether. Job 36:6, Job 36:7 describe how His rule among men evinces this not merely outward but spiritual superiority coupled with condescension to the lowly. The notion of the object, ואת־מלכים לכּסּא (as Isa 9:11 the subject), becomes the more distinctly prominent by virtue of the fut. consec. which follows like a conclusion, and takes it up again. Ewald thinks this explanation contrary to the accents and the structure of the sentence itself; but it is perfectly consistent with the former, and indisputably syntactic (Ges. §129, 2, b, and Ew. himself, §344, b). Psa 9:5, comp. Psa 132:12, Isa 47:1, shows how לכסא is intended (He causes them to sit upon the throne). Job 5:11; 1Sa 2:8; Psa 113:7. are parallel passages. Job 36:8-10 8 And if they are bound with chains,

Holden in cords of affliction: 9 Then He declareth to them their doing

And their transgressions, that they have been vainglorious; 10 Then He openeth their ear to warning,

And commandeth them to turn from iniquity.

The subj. is in no case the רשׁעים (Hahn), but the צדיקים, or those who are as susceptible to discipline as it is needful to them, just as in Ps 107, which in general presents many instances for an extensive comparison with the speeches of Elihu. The chains, Job 36:8, are meant literally, and the bands, Job 36:8, figuratively; the Psalmist couples both in אסירי עני וברזל, Psa 107:10. The conclusion begins with Job 36:9, and is repeated in another application, Job 36:10. פּעל in the sense of maleficium, as Arab. fa‛alat, recalls מעשׂה, facinus, Job 33:17. כּי, Job 36:9, as in Job 36:10, an objective quod. It is not translated, however, quod invaluerint (Rosenm.), which is opposed to the most natural sense of the Hithpa., but according to Job 15:25 : quod sese extulerint. מוּסר, παιδεία, disciplina, interchanges here with the more rare מסר used in Job 33:16; there we have already also met with the phrase גּלה אזן, to uncover the ear, i.e., to open. אמר כּי corresponds to the Arab. amara an (bi - an), to command that. The fundamental thought of Elihu here once again comes unmistakeably to view: the sufferings of the righteous are well-meant chastisements, which are to wean them from the sins into which through carnal security they have fallen - a warning from God to penitence, designed to work their good. Job 36:11-12 11 If they hear and yield,

They pass their days in prosperity

And their years in pleasure. 12 And if they hear not,

They pass away by the bow

And expire in lack of knowledge.

Since a declaration of the divine will has preceded in Job 36:10, it is more natural to take ויעבדוּ in the sense of obsequi, to do the will of another (as 1Ki 12:7, comp. מעבּד from עבד in the generalized sense of facere), than, with Umbr., in the sense of colere scil. Deum (as Isa 19:23, Arab. ‛âbid, one who reveres God, a godly person). Instead of יבלּוּ, Isa 65:22 (on which the Masora observes לית, i.e., “nowhere else”) and Job 21:13 Chethîb, 'it is here without dispute יכלּוּ (Targ. ישׁלּמוּן, peragent, as Eze 43:27). נעימים is, as Psa 16:6, a neutral masc.: amoena. On עבר בשׁלח, to precipitate one’s self into the weapon, i.e., to incur peremptory punishment, comp. Job 33:18. On בבלי דעת comp. Job 35:16; Job 4:21. Impenitence changes affliction, which is intended to be a means of rescue, into total destruction; yet there are some who will not be warned and affrighted by it. Job 36:13-15 13 Yet the hypocrites in heart cherish wrath,

They cry not when He hath chained them. 14 Thus their soul dieth in the vigour of youth,

And their life is like that of the unclean. 15 Yet He delivereth the sufferer by his affliction,

And openeth their ear by oppression.

He who is angry with God in his affliction, and does not humbly pray to Him, shows thereby that he is a חנף, one estranged from God (on the idea of the root, vid., i. 216), and not a צדיק. This connection renders it natural to understand not the divine wrath by אף: θησαυρίζουσιν ὀργήν (Rosenm. after Rom 2:5), or: they heap up wrath upon themselves (Wolfson, who supplies עליהם), but the impatience, discontent, and murmuring of man himself: they cherish or harbour wrath, viz., בּלבּם (comp. Job 22:22, where שׁים בלב signifies to take to heart, but at the same time to preserve in the heart). Used thus absolutely, שׂים signifies elsewhere in the book, to give attention to, Job 4:20; Job 24:12; Job 34:23, or (as Arab. wḍ‛) to lay down a pledge; here it signifies reponunt s. recondunt (with an implied in ipsis), as also Arab. šâm , fut. i, to conceal with the idea of sinking into (immittentem), e.g., the sword in the sheath. With תּמת, for ותּמת (Isa 50:2) or ותמת, the punishment which issues forth undistinguished from this frustration of the divine purpose of grace follows ἀσυνδέτως, as e.g., Hos 7:16. חיּה interchanges with נפשׁ, as Job 33:22, Job 33:28; נער (likewise a favourite word with Elihu) is intended just as Job 33:25, and in the Psa 88:16, which resembles both the Elihu section and the rest of the book. The Beth of בּקּדשׁים has the sense of aeque ac (Targ. היך), as Job 34:36, comp. תּחת, Job 34:26. Jer. translates inter effeminatos; for קדשׁים (heathenish, equivalent to קדושׁים, as כּמרים, heathenish, equivalent to כּהנים) are the consecrated men, who yielded themselves up, like the women in honour of the deity, to passive, prematurely-enervating incontinence (vid., Keil on Deu 23:18), a heathenish abomination prevailing now and again even in Israel (1Ki 14:24; 1Ki 15:12; 1Ki 22:47), which was connected with the worship of Astarte and Baal that was transferred from Syria, and to which allusion is here made, in accordance with the scene of the book. For the sufferer, on the other hand, who suffers not merely of necessity, but willingly, this his suffering is a means of rescue and moral purification. Observe the play upon the words יחלּץ and בּלחץ. The Beth in both instances is, in accordance with Elihu’s fundamental thought, the Beth instrum. Job 36:16-18 16 And He even bringeth thee out of the jaws of distress

To a broad place, whose ground hath no straitness,

And the adorning of thy table shall be full of fatness. 17 Yet thou art become full of the judging of the evil-doer:

Judging and judgment lay hold on one another! 18 For let not anger indeed entice thee to scorning,

And let not the greatness of the ransom mislead thee.

With Job 36:16 Elihu passes over to the application to Job of what he said in the preceding strophe. Since it is usual to place אף (like גּם and אך) at the beginning of the sentence, although not belonging to the member of the sentence which immediately follows, ואף הסיתך for והסית אף אתך cannot be remarkable. The praet. הסיתך is not promissory, but Elihu says with what design God has decreed the present suffering for Job. הסית מן is like 2Ch 18:31 : out of distress (צר for צר by Rebia magnum), which has him in its jaws, and threatens to swallow him, God brings him away to great prosperity; a thought which Elihu expresses in the imagery of the Psalms of a broad place and a bountiful table (comp. e.g., Psa 4:2; Psa 23:5). רחב is locative, and לא־מוּצק תּחתּיה is either a relative clause: whose beneath (ground) is not straitened, no-straitness (in which case מוּצק would not be constr. from the n. hophal. מוּצק, Isa.Isa 9:1, but absol. after the form מחנק, Job 7:15, Ew. §160, c, Anm. 4), Saad. Arab. lâ ḍı̂q fı̂ mûḍ‛hâ (cujus in loco non angustiae); or it is virtually an adj.: without (לא = בּלא, as Job 34:24), comp. on Job 12:24) straitness of what is beneath them, eorum quae sub se habet (comp. on Job 28:5). רחב is fem., like רחוב, Dan 9:25. A special clause takes the place of the locative, Job 36:16 : and the settling or spreading, i.e., the provision (from נוּח, to come down gradually, to seat one’s self) of thy table shall be full of fatness. מלא (whether it be adj. or verb) is treated by attraction, according to the gender of the governed noun; and it is unnecessary, with Rosenm. and others, to derive נחת from נחת (Aram. for ירד).

In Job 36:17, דּין is intended of Job’s negative judgment concerning God and His dealings (comp. Psa 76:9, where it signifies a judicial decision, and Pro 22:10, where it signifies a wrangling refusal of a fair decision). Job 36:17 is not a conditional clause (Hahn), in which case the praet. hypothet. would have a prominent position, but an adversative predicative clause: but (nevertheless) thou art full of the judging of the evil-doer (evil judging); after which, just as ἀσυνδέτως as Job 36:14, the sad issue in which this judging after the manner of evil-doers results is expressed: such judging and judgment border closely upon one another. Röd., Dietr., and Schlottm. have wrongly reproduced this idea, discerned by Ges., when they translate: judgment and sentence (guilt and punishment) shall seize thee. יתמכוּ, prehendunt scil. se (Ebr.: put forth the hand), is used like the Aram. סמך, to draw nearer, fasten together (Rabb. סמוּך, near at hand), Arab. tamâsaka (from Arab. msk = סמך, as e.g., hanash = נחשׁ). In Job 36:18 we leave the signification thick milk or cream (חמה = חמאה, as Job 29:6) to those who persuade themselves that cream can be metaphorically equivalent to superfluity (Ew., Hirz., Vaih., Hlgst.). Renan’s translation: N'espère pas détourner la colère de Dieu par une amende, we also leave as a simple puzzle to its discoverer, who, with this one exception, is destitute of thoughts proper to the book of Job. In general, the thought, “do not imagine by riches, by a great ransom, to be able to satisfy the claims of God,” is altogether out of place here. Moreover, חמה, which, as e.g., דּאגה, Pro 12:25 (Ew. §174, g), is construed as masc., cannot be understood of God’s wrath, since the poet by הסית will not at one time have ascribed to God a well-meant incitation, at another an enticement in malam partem. That which allures is Job’s own חמה, and that not the excitement of his affliction (Hahn), but of his passion; comp. אף, Job 36:13. שׂפק is, however, to be explained according to Job 34:37, comp. Job 27:23 (clapping of hands = derision); and כּפר signifies reconciliation or expiation, as Job 33:24. Elihu admonishes Job not to allow himself to be drawn by the heat of passion into derision, or to deride; nor to be allured from the right way by the ransom which is required of him as the price of restoration to happiness, viz., humble submission to the divine chastisement, as though this ransom were exceeding great. The connection is clear: an adverse verdict (דּין) and condemnation (משׁפּט) are closely connected; for (כּי) hastiness of temper, let it not (פּן( ton ti ) lead thee astray ... thou wouldst not escape the judgment of God! Job 36:19-21 19 Shall thy crying place thee beyond distress,

And all the efforts of strength? 20 Long not for the night to come,

Which shall remove people from their place! 21 Take heed, incline not to evil;

For this thou hast desired more than affliction.

Those expositors who found in Job 36:18 the warning, that Job should not imagine that he would be able to redeem himself from judgment by a large ransom, go on to explain: will He esteem thy riches? (Farisol, Rosenm., Umbr., Carey, Ebr., and others); or: will thy riches suffice? (Hirz., Schlottm.); or some other way (Ew.). But apart from the want of connection of this insinuation, which is otherwise not mentioned in the book, and apart from the violence which must be done to היערך to accommodate it to it, שׁוּע, although it might, as the abstract of שׁוע, Job 34:19, signify wealth (comp. Arab. sa‛at , amplitudo), is, however, according to the usage of the language (vid., Job 30:24), so far as we can trace it, a secondary form of שׁוע (שׁועה), a cry for help; and Job 35:9., Job 36:13, and other passages, also point to this signification. What follows is still less appropriate to this thought of ransom; Hirz. translates: Oh, not God and all the treasures of wealth! But בּצר is nowhere equivalent to בּצר, Job 22:24; but צר, Job 36:16, signifies distress; and the expression לא בצר, in a condition devoid of distress, is like לא בחכמה, Job 4:21, and לא ביד, Job 34:20. Finally, אמּיץ כּח signifies mighty in physical strength, Job 9:4, Job 9:19, and מאמצּי־כח strong proofs of strength, not “treasures of wealth.” Stick. correctly interprets: “Will thy wild raging cry, then, and all thine exertions, as a warrior puts them forth in the tumult of battle to work his way out, put thee where there is an open space?” but the figure of a warrior is, with Hahn, to be rejected; ערך is only a nice word for שׁית שׂים, to place, set up, Job 37:19. Job 36:22-25 22 Behold, God acteth loftily in His strength;

Who is a teacher like unto Him? 23 Who hath appointed Him His way,

And who dare say: Thou doest iniquity!? 24 Remember that thou magnify His doing,

Which men have sung. 25 All men delight in it,

Mortal man looketh upon it from afar.

Most modern expositors, after the lxx δυνάστης, give אמת the signification lord, by comparing the Arab. mar - un (imru - un), Syr. mor (with the art. moro) or more (with the art. morjo), Chald. מרא, Talmud. מר (comp. Philo, ii. 522, ed. Mangey: οὃτως, viz., μάριν φασὶ τὸν κύριον ὀνομάζεστηαι παρὰ Σύροις), with it; but Rosenm., Arnh., Löwenthal, Wolfson, and Schlottm., after the Targ., Syr., and Jer., rightly abide by the signification: teacher. For (1) אמת (from הורה, Psa 25:8, Psa 25:12; Psa 32:8) has no etymological connection with mr (of מרא, Arab. maru'a , opimum, robustum esse); (2) it is, moreover, peculiar to Elihu to represent God as a teacher both by dreams and dispensations of affliction, Job 33:14, Job 34:32, and by His creatures, Job 35:11; and (3) the designation of God as an incomparable teacher is also not inappropriate here, after His rule is described in Job 36:22 as transcendently exalted, which on that very account commands to human research a reverence which esteems itself lightly. Job 36:23 is not to be translated: who overlooketh Him in His way? (פּקד with על of the personal and acc. of the neutral obj.), which is without support in the language; but: who has prescribed to Him (פקד על as Job 34:13) His way? i.e., as Rosenm. correctly interprets: quis ei praescripsit quae agere deberet, He is no mandatory, is responsible to no one, and under obligation to no one, and who should dare to say (quis dixerit; on the perf. comp. on Job 35:15): Thou doest evil? - man shall be a docile learner, not a self-satisfied, conceited censurer of the absolute One, whose rule is not to be judged according to the laws of another, but according to His own laws. Thus, then, shall Job remember (memento = cura ut) to extol (תשׂגּיא, Job 12:23) God’s doings, which have been sung (comp. e.g., Psa 104:22) by אנשׁים, men of the right order (Job 37:24); Jer. de quo cecinerunt viri. שׁרר nowhere has the signification intueri (Rosenm., Umbr.); on the other hand, Elihu is fond of direct (Job 33:27; Job 35:10) and indirect allusions to the Psalms. All men - he continues, with reference to God’s פּעל, working - behold it, viz., as בו implies, with pleasure and astonishment; mortals gaze upon it (reverentially) from afar, - the same thought as that which has already (Job 26:14) found the grandest expression in Job’s mouth. Job 36:26-29 26 Behold, God is exalted-we know Him not entirely;

The number of His years, it is unsearchable. 27 For He draweth down the drops of water,

They distil as rain in connection with its mist, 28 Which the clouds do drop,

Distil upon the multitude of men. 29 Who can altogether understand the spreadings of the clouds,

The crash of His tabernacle?

The Waw of the quasi-conclusion in Job 36:26 corresponds to the Waw of the train of thought in Job 36:26 (Ges. §145, 2). מספּר שׁניו is, as the subject-notion, conceived as a nominative (vid., on Job 4:6), not as in similar quasi-antecedent clauses, e.g., Job 23:12, as an acc. of relation. שׂגּיא here and Job 37:23 occurs otherwise only in Old Testament Chaldee. In what follows Elihu describes the wondrous origin of rain. “If Job had only come,” says a Midrash (Jalkut, §518), “to explain to us the matter of the race of the deluge (vid., especially Job 22:15-18), it had been sufficient; and if Elihu had only come to explain to us the matter of the origin of rain (מעשׂה ירידת גשׁמים), it had been enough.” In Gesenius’ Handwörterbuch, Job 36:27 is translated: when He has drawn up the drops of water to Himself, then, etc. But it is יגרע, not גּרע; and גּרע neither in Hebr. nor in Arab. signifies attrahere in sublime (Rosenm.), but only attrahere (root גר) and detrahere; the latter signification is the prevailing one in Hebr. (Job 15:8; Job 36:7). With כּי the transcendent exaltation of the Being who survives all changes of creation is shown by an example: He draws away (draws off, as it were) the water-drops, viz., from the waters that are confined above on the circle of the sky, which pass over us as mist and cloud (vid., Genesis, S. 107); and these water-drops distil down (זקק, to ooze, distil, here not in a transitive but an intransitive signification, since the water-drops are the rain itself) as rain, לאדו, with its mist, i.e., since a mist produced by it (Gen 2:6) fills the expanse (רקיע), the downfall of which is just this rain, which, as Job 36:28 says, the clouds (called שׁחקים on account of its thin strata of air, in distinction from the next mist-circle) cause to flow gently down upon the multitude of men, i.e., far and wide over the mass of men who inhabit the district visited by the rain; both verbs are used transitively here, both נזל as Isa 45:8, and רעף, as evidently Pro 3:20. אף אם, Job 36:29, commences an intensive question: moreover, could one understand = could one completely understand; which certainly, according to the sense, is equivalent to: how much less (אף כּי). אם is, however, the interrogative an, and אף אם corresponds to האף in the first member of the double question, Job 34:17; Job 40:8. מפרשׂי are not the burstings, from פּרשׂ = פּרס, frangere, findere, but spreadings, as Eze 27:7 shows, from פּרשׂ, expandere, Psa 105:39, comp. supra on Job 36:9. It is the growth of the storm-clouds, which collect often from a beginning ”small as a man’s hand” (1Ki 18:44), that is intended; majestic omnipotence conceals itself behind these as in a סכּה (Psa 18:12) woven out of thick branches; and the rolling thunder is here called the crash (תּשׁאות, as Job 39:7, is formed from שׁוא, to rumble, whence also שׁואה, if it is not after the form גּולה, migration, exile, from שׁאה morf ,, vid., on Job 30:3) of this pavilion of clouds in which the Thunderer works. Job 36:30-33 30 Behold, He spreadeth His light over Himself,

And the roots of the sea He covereth. 31 For thereby He judgeth peoples,

He giveth food in abundance. 32 Both hands He covereth over with light,

And directeth it as one who hitteth the mark. 33 His noise announceth Him,

The cattle even that He is approaching.

A few expositors (Hirz., Hahn, Schlottm.) understand the celestial ocean, or the sea of the upper waters, by ים, Job 36:30; but it is more than questionable (vid., on Job 9:8) whether ים is used anywhere in this sense. Others as (Umbr., Ew.) the masses of water drawn up to the sky out of the depths of the sea, on which a Persian passage cited by Stick. (who, however, regards the Waw of ושׁרשׁי as Waw adaequationis) from Schebisteri may be compared: “an exhalation rises up out of the sea, and comes down at God’s command upon the deserts.” In both cases כּסּה would be equivalent to כסה עליו, obtegit se, which in and of itself is possible. But he who has once witnessed a storm in the neighbourhood of the sea, will decide in favour of one of the three following explanations: (1.) He covereth the uprooted ground of the sea (comp. Psa 18:15.) with the subsiding waves (Blumenf.); but then Job 36:30 would require to be understood of the light of the brightening sky following the darkness of the storm, which is improbable in respect of Job 36:32. (2.) While the sky is brilliantly lighted up by the lightning, the abysses of the ocean are veiled in a so much deeper darkness; the observation is correct, but not less so another, that the lightning by a thunder-storm, especially when occurring at night, descends into the depths of the sea like snares that are cast down (פּחים, Psa 11:6), and the water is momentarily changed as it were into a sea of flame; accordingly it may be explained, (3.) Behold, He spreadeth over Himself His light (viz., the light which incessantly illumines the world), and the roots of the sea, i.e., the sea down to its depths, He covers with it, since He makes it light through and through (Stuhlm. Wolfs.). Thus, as it appears, Jerome also interprets: Et (si voluerit) fulgurare lumine suo desuper, cardines quoque maris operiet. ^{▼▼The Targ. translates אור, Job 36:30, Job 36:32, by מטרא, pluvia, according to the erroneous opinion of R. Jochanan: כל אורה שׁנאמר באליהוא אינו אלא בירידת גשׁמים. Aben-Ezra and Kimchi explain even עלי־אור, Isa 18:4, according to this passage. The lxx translates Job 36:30: ἰδοὺ ἐκτενεῖ ἐπ ̓ αὐτὸν ἠδώ (Cod. Alex. επ αυτον το τοξον; Cod. Sinait. επ αυτην ηωδη (with the corrections ηδω and τοξον), probably according to the reading אידו for אורו. But what connection have ἠδώ and rainbow?}

This, that He makes the light of the lightning His manifestation (פּרשׂ עליו), and that He covers the earth down to the roots of the sea beneath with this light, is established in Job 36:31 from the design, partly judicial, partly beneficial, which exists in connection with it. בּם refers as neuter (like בּהם, Job 22:21) to the phenomena of the storm; מכבּיר (with the adverbial ל like לרב, Job 26:3), what makes great = a making great, abundance (only here), is n. hiphil. after the form משׁהית, perdens = perditio. In Job 36:32 God is represented under a military figure as a slinger of lightnings: He covers light over both hands, i.e., arms both completely with light (comp. סכסך and Arab. škk , totum se operire armis), and directs it (עליה referring to אור as fem. like Jer 13:16, and sometimes in the Talmud). But what is the meaning of בּמפגּיע? Hahn takes מפגיע as n. hiphil. like מכביר: an object of attack; but what then becomes of the original Hiphil signification? It ought to be בּמפגּע (Job 7:20), as Olsh. wishes to read it. Ew., Hirz., and others, after the example of Theod. (lxx), Syr., Jer., translate: against the adversary; מפגיע ;yrasre signifies indeed the opposite in Isa 49:16 : intercessor (properly, one who assails with prayers); however, it would be possible for this word, just as פגע c. acc. (which signifies usually a hostile meeting, Exo 5:3 and freq., but sometimes also a friendly, Isa 47:3; Isa 64:4), to be an ἐναντιόσημον. We prefer to abide by the usage of the language as we have it, according to which הפגיע signifies facere ut quid incurset s. petat, Isa 53:6; מפגיע therefore is one who hits, in opposition to one who misses the mark. The Beth is the Beth essentiae (vid., on Job 23:13), used here like Exo 6:3; Psa 55:19; Isa 40:10. With both hands He seizes the substance of the lightning, fills them with it so that they are completely covered by it, and gives it the command (appoints it its goal), a sure aimer!

‏ Job 37

Job 37:1-5 1 Yea, at this my heart trembleth

And tottereth from its place. 2 Hear, O hear the roar of His voice,

And the murmur that goeth out of His mouth. 3 He sendeth it forth under the whole heaven,

And His lightning unto the ends of the earth. 4 After it roareth the voice of the thunder,

He thundereth with the voice of His majesty,

And spareth not the lightnings, when His voice is heard. 5 God thundereth with His voice marvellously,

Doing great things, incomprehensible to us.

Louis Bridel is perhaps right when he inserts after Job 36 the observation: L'éclair brille, la tonnerre gronde. לזאת does not refer to the phenomenon of the storm which is represented in the mind, but to that which is now to be perceived by the senses. The combination שׁמעוּ שׁמוע can signify both hear constantly, Isa 6:9, and hear attentively, Job 13:17; here it is the latter. רגז of thunder corresponds to the verbs Arab. rḥz and rjs, which can be similarly used. The repetition of קול fo noititeper eh five times calls to mind the seven קולות (ἑπτὰ βρονταί) in Psa 29:1-11. The parallel is הגה, Job 37:2, a murmuring, as elsewhere of the roar of the lion and the cooing of the dove. The suff. of ישׁרהוּ refers to the thunder which rolls through the immeasurable breadth under heaven; it is not perf. Piel of ישׁר (Schlottm.), for “to give definite direction” (2Ch 32:30) is not appropriate to thunder, but fut. Kal of שׁרה, to free, to unbind (Ew., Hirz. and most others). What Job 37:3 says of thunder, Job 37:3 says of light, i.e., the lightning: God sends it forth to the edges, πτέρυγες, i.e., ends, of the earth. אחריו, Job 37:4, naturally refers to the lightning, which is followed by the roar of the thunder; and יעקּבם to the flashes, which, when once its rumble is heard, God does not restrain (עקּב = עכּב of the Targ., and Arab. ‛aqqaba, to leave behind, postpone), but causes to flash forth in quick succession. Ewald’s translation: should He not find (prop. non investigaverit) them (the men that are to be punished), gives a thought that has no support in this connection. In Job 37:5 נפלאות, mirabilia, is equivalent to mirabiliter, as Dan 8:24, comp. Psa 65:6; Psa 139:14. ולא נדע is intended to say that God’s mighty acts, with respect to the connection between cause and effect and the employment of means, transcend our comprehension. Job 37:6-10 6 For He saith to the snow: Fall towards the earth,

And to the rain-shower

And the showers of His mighty rain. 7 He putteth a seal on the hand of every man,

That all men may come to a knowledge of His creative work. 8 The wild beast creepeth into a hiding-place,

And in its resting-place it remaineth. 9 Out of the remote part cometh the whirlwind,

And cold from the cloud-sweepers. 10 From the breath of God cometh ice,

And the breadth of the waters is straitened.

Like אבי, Job 34:36, and פּשׁ, Job 35:15, הוא, Job 37:6 (is falsely translated “be earthwards” by lxx, Targ., and Syr.), also belongs to the most striking Arabisms of the Elihu section: it signifies delabere (Jer. ut descendat), a signification which the Arab. hawâ does not gain from the radical signification placed first in Gesenius-Dietrich’s Handwörterbuch, to breathe, blow, but from the radical signification, to gape, yawn, by means of the development of the meaning which also decides in favour of the primary notion of the Hebr. הוּה, according to which, what was said on Job 6:2; Job 30:13 is to be corrected. ^{▼▼Arab. hawâ is originally χαίνειν, to gape, yawn, hiare, e.g., hawat et - ta‛natu , the stab gapes (imperf. tahwı̂, inf. huwı̂jun), “when it opens its mouth” - the Turkish Kamus adds, to complete the picture: like a tulip. Thence next hâwijatun, χαίνουσα χαῖνον, i.e., χᾶσμα = hûwatun , uhwı̂jatun , huwâatun , mahwâtun , a cleft, yawning deep, chasm, abyss, βάραθρον, vorago; hawı̂jatun and hauhâtun (a reduplicated form), especially a very deep pit or well. But these same words, hâwijatun , hûwatun , uhwı̂jatun , mahwâtun , also signify, like the usual Arab. hawa'â'un, the χάσμα between heaven and earth, i.e., the wide, empty space, the same as 'gauwun. The wider significations, or rather applications and references of hawâ: air set in motion, a current of air, wind, weather, are all secondary, and related to that primary signification as samâ, rain-clouds, rain, grass produced by the rain, to the prim. signification height, heaven, vid., Mehren, Rhetorik d. Araber, S. 107, Z. 14ff. This hawâ, however, also signifies in general: a broad, empty space, and by transferring the notion of “empty” to mind and heart, as the reduplicated forms hûhatun and hauhâtun: devoid of understanding and devoid of courage, e.g., Koran xiv. 44: wa - af'i - datuhum hawâun , where Bedhâwî first explains hawâ directly by chalâ, emptiness, empty space, i.e., as he adds, châlijetun ‛an el - fahm , as one says of one without mind and courage qalbuhu hawâun . Thence also hauwun, emptiness, a hole, i.e., in a wall or roof, a dormar-window (kauwe , kûwe), but also with the genit. of a person or thing: their hole, i.e., the space left empty by them, the side not taken up by them, e.g., qa‛ada fi hauwihi , he set himself beside him. From the signification to be empty then comes (1) hawat el - mar'atu , i.e., vacua fuit mulier = orba oiberis, as χήρα, vidua, properly empty, French vide; (2) hawâ er - ragulu , i.e., vacuus, inanis factus est vir = exanimatus (comp. Arab. frg, he became empty, euphemistic for he died}.

From this variously applied primary signification is developed the generally known and usual Arab. hawâ, loose and free, without being held or holding to anything one’s self, to pass away, fly, swing, etc., libere ferri, labi, in general in every direction, as the wind, or what is driven hither and thither by the wind, especially however from above downwards, labi, delabi, cadere, deorsum ruere. From this point, like many similar, the word first passes into the signification of sound (as certainly also שׁאה, שא): as anything falling has a full noise, and so on, δουπεῖν, rumorem, fragorem edere (fragor from frangi), hence hawat udhnuhu jawı̂jan of a singing in the ears.

Finally, the mental Arab. hawan (perf. hawija, imperf. jahwâ with the acc.), animo ad or in aliquid ferri, is attached to the notion of passing and falling through space (though by no means to hiare, or the supposed meaning “to breathe, blow”). It is used both emotionally of desire, lust, appetites, passions, and strong love, and intellectually of free opinions or assertions springing from mere self-willed preference, caprices of the understanding. - Fl.)

The ל of לשּׁלג influences Job 37:6 also. The Hebr. name for rain, גּשׁם (cogn. with Chald. גשׁם, Arab. gism, a body), denotes the rain collectively. The expression Job 37:6 is exceeded in Job 37:6, where מטרות does not signify rain-drops (Ew.), but, like the Arab. amtâr, rain-showers. The wonders of nature during the rough season (חרף, סתיו, Sol 2:11), between the autumnal and vernal equinoxes, are meant; the rains after the autumnal equinox (the early rain), which begin the season, and the rains before the vernal equinox (the late rain, Zec 10:1), which close it, with the falls of snow between, which frequently produce great desolation, especially the proper winter with its frosty winds and heavy showers, when the business of the husbandmen as of the nomads is brought to a stand-still, and every one retreats to his house or seeks a sheltering corner.

This is the meaning of Job 37:7 : He sealeth up (חתם בּ as Job 33:16) the hand of all men that they cannot, viz., on account of the cold out of doors, be opened for work, that all people of His work (i.e., thanking Him for their origin as His handiwork, Job 34:19) may come to the perception (of Him who doeth all things). The expression is remarkable, and by the insertion of a m may be as easily cleared up as Job 33:17 : לדעת כּל־אנשׁים מעשׂהוּ, in order that each and every one may acknowledge His work; after which even Jer. translates: ut noverint singuli opera sua. The conjecture אנשׁים עשׂהוּ (Schultens junior, Reiske, Hirz.) is inferior to the former (Olsh.) by its awkward synecdoche num. The fut. consec. in Job 37:8 continues the description of what happens in consequence of the cold rainy season; the expression calls to mind Psa 104:22, as Job 34:14. does Psa 104:29. The winter is also the time of the stormy and raw winds. In Job 37:9 Elihu means the storms which come across from the great wide desert, Job 1:19, therefore the south (Isa 21:1; Zec 9:14), or rather south-east winds (Hos 13:15), increasing in violence to storms. החדר (properly the surrounded, enclosed space, never the storehouse, - so that Psa 135:7 should be compared, - but adytum, penetrale, as Arab. chidr , e.g., in Vita Timuri ii. 904: after the removal of the superincumbent earth, they drew away sitr chidrihâ , the curtain of its innermost part, i.e., uncovered its lowest depth) is here the innermost part of the south (south-east), - comp. Job 9:9 חדרי תימן, and Job 23:9 יעטף ימין (so far as יעטף there signifies si operiat se), - especially of the great desert lying to the south (south-east), according to which ארץ חדרך, Zec 9:1, is translated by the Targ. דרומא ארעא. In opposition to the south-east wind, מזרים, Job 37:9, seems to mean the north winds; in and of itself, however, the word signifies the scattering or driving, as also in the Koran the winds are called the scatterers, dhârijât , Sur. li. 1. ^{▼▼This dhârijât is also differently explained; but the first explanation in Beidhâwi (ii. 183, Fleischer’s edition) is, “the winds which scatter (blow away) the dust and other things.”}

In מזרים, Reiske, without any ground for it, traces the Arab. mirzam (a name of two stars, from which north wind, rain, and cold are derived); the Targ. also has one of the constellations in view: מכּוּת מזרים (from the window, i.e., the window of the vault of heaven, of the mezarim); Aq., Theod. ἀπὸ μαζούρ (= מזרות, Job 38:32); lxx ἀπὸ δὲ τῶν ἀκρωτηρίων, we know not wherefore. Concerning מנּשׁמת־אל (with causal מן) with reference to the wind, vid., on Job 4:15. יתּן, it gives, i.e., comes to light, is used as in Gen 38:28; Pro 13:10. The idea of מוּצק (not fusum from יצק, but coarctatum from צוּק) cannot be doubtful in connection with the antithesis of רחב, comp. Job 36:16, the idea is like Job 38:30 (comp. Mutenebbi: “the flood is bound by bands of ice”); the בּ of בּמוּצק is, as Job 36:32, the Beth essentiae, used far more extensively in Hebr. than in Arab. as an exponent of the predicate: the breadth of the water is (becomes) straitened (forcibly drawn together). Job 37:11-13 11 Also He loadeth the clouds with water,

He spreadeth far and wide the cloud of His light, 12 And these turn themselves round about,

Directed by Him, that they execute

All that He hath commanded them

Over the wide earth. 13 Whether for a scourge, or for the good of His earth,

Or for mercy, He causeth it to discharge itself.

With אף extending the description, Elihu, in the presence of the storm that is in the sky, continually returns to this one marvel of nature. The old versions connect בּרי partly with בּר, electus (lxx, Syr., Theod.) or frumentum (Symm., Jer.), partly with בּרה = בּרר in the signification puritas, serenitas (Targ.); but בּרי is, as Schultens has already perceived, the Hebr.-Arabic רי, Arab. rı̂yun , rı̂ j- un (from רוה = riwj), abundant irrigation, with בּ; and יטריח does not signify, according to the Arab. atraha, “to hurl down,” so that what is spoken of would be the bursting of the clouds (Stick.), ^{▼▼This “a t raha” is, moreover, a pure invention of our ordinary Arabic lexicons instead of ittaraha (VIII form): (1) to throw one’s self, (2) to throw anything from one’s self, with an acc. of the thing. - Fl.} but, according to טרח, a burden (comp. Arab. taraha ala , to load), “to burden;” with fluidity (Ew., Hirz., Hahn, Schlottm.), better: fulness of water, He burdens the clouds (comp. rawij - un as a designation of cloud as the place of rain). ענן אורו, His cloud of light, is that that is charged with lightning, and הפיץ has here its Hebr.-Arab. radical signification effundere, diffundere, with a preponderance of the idea not of scattering, but of spreading out wide (Arab. faid, abundance). והוּא, Job 37:12, refers to the cloud pregnant with lightning; this turns round about (מסבּות, adv. as מסב, round about, 1Ki 6:29) seeking a place, where it shall unburden itself by virtue of His (God’s) direction or disposing (תחבּוּלת, a word belonging to the book of Proverbs; lxx, Cod. Vat. and Alex., untranslated: εν θεεβουλαθωθ, Cod. Sinait. still more monstrous), in order that they (the clouds full of lightning) may accomplish everything that He commands them over the surface of the earth; ארצה as Job 34:13, and the combination תּבל ארצה as Pro 8:31, comp. ארץ ותבל, Psa 90:2. The reference of the pronominal suff. to men is as inadmissible here as in Job 37:4. In Job 37:13 two אם have certainly, as Job 34:29, two ו, the correlative signification sive ... sive (Arab. in...wa - in), in a third, as appears, a conditional, but which? According to Ew., Hirz., Hahn, Schlottm., and others, the middle one: if it (the rod) belongs to His land, i.e., if it has deserved it. But even the possessive suff. of לארצו shows that the ל is to be taken as dat. commodi: be it for a rod, be it for the good of His land; which is then followed by a conditional verbal clause: in case He mercifully causes it (the storm) to come, i.e., causes this His land to be overtaken by it (המציא here with the acc., the thing coming, whereas in Job 34:11 of the thing to be overtaken). The accentuation, indeed, appears to assume a threefold sive: whether He causeth it to discharge itself upon man for punishment, man for mercy, or His earth for good with reference to man. Then Elihu would think of the uninhabited steppe in connection with אם לארצו. Since a conditional אם by the side of two correlatives is hazardous, we decide finally with the lxx, Targ., and all the old versions, in favour of the same rendering of the threefold אם, especially since it corresponds to the circumstances of the case. Job 37:14-16 14 Hearken unto this, O Job;

Stand still and consider the wonderful works of God! 15 Dost thou know when God designeth

To cause the light of His clouds to shine? 16 Dost thou understand the balancings of the clouds,

The wondrous things of Him who is perfect in knowledge?

Job is to stand still, instead of dictating to God, in order to draw from His wondrous acts in nature a conclusion with reference to his mystery of suffering. In Job 37:15 ידע בּ does not, as Job 35:15 (Ew. §217, S. 557), belong together, but בּ is the temporal Beth. שׂוּם is equivalent to שׂים לבּו (vid., on Job 34:23); עליהם does not refer to נפלאות (Hirz.) or the phenomena of the storm (Ew.), but is intended as neuter (as בּם Job 36:31, בּהם Job 22:21), and finds in Job 37:15 its distinctive development: “the light of His clouds” is their effulgent splendour. Without further support, ידע על is to have knowledge concerning anything, Job 37:16; מפלשׂי is also ἁπ. γεγρ.. It is unnecessary to consider it as wrongly written from מפרשׂי, Job 36:29, or as from it by change of letter (as אלמנות = ארמנות, Isa 13:22). The verb פּלּס signifies to make level, prepare (viz., a way, also weakened: to take a certain way, Pro 5:6), once: to weigh, Psa 58:3, as denom. from פּלס, a balance (and indeed a steelyard, statera), which is thus mentioned as the means of adjustment. מפלשׂי accordingly signifies either, as synon. of משׁקלי (thus the Midrash, vid., Jalkut, §522), weights (the relations of weight), or even equipoised balancings (Aben-Ezra, Kimchi, and others), Lat. quomodo librentur nubes in aëre. ^{▼▼The word is therefore a metaphor taken from the balance, and it may be observed that the Syro-Arabic, on account of the most extensive application of the balance, is unusually rich in such metaphors. Moreover, the Arabic has no corresponding noun: the teflı̂s (a balance) brought forward by Ges. in his Thes. and Handwörterbuch from Schindler’s Pentaglotton, is a word devoid of all evidence from original sources and from the modern usage of the language, in this signification.} מפלאות is also a word that does not occur elsewhere; in like manner דּע belongs exclusively to Elihu. God is called תּמים דּעים (comp. Job 36:4) as the Omniscient One, whose knowledge is absolute as to its depth as well as its circumference. Job 37:17-20 17 Thou whose garments became hot,

When the land is sultry from the south: 18 Dost thou with Him spread out the sky,

The strong, as it were molten, mirror? 19 Let us know what we shall say to Him! -

We can arrange nothing by reason of darkness. 20 Shall it be told Him that I speak,

Or shall one wish to be destroyed?

Most expositors connect Job 37:17 with Job 37:16 : (Dost thou know) how it comes to pass that ... ; but אשׁר after ידע signifies quod, Exo 11:7, not quomodo, as it sometimes occurs in a comparing antecedent clause, instead of כאשׁר, Exo 14:13; Jer 33:22. We therefore translate: thou whose ... , - connecting this, however, not with Job 37:16 (vid., e.g., Carey), but as Bolduc. and Ew., with Job 37:18 (where ה before תרקיע is then the less missed): thou who, when the land (the part of the earth where thou art) keeps rest, i.e., in sultriness, when oppressive heat comes (on this Hiph. vid., Ges. §53, 2) from the south (i.e., by means of the currents of air which come thence, without דּרום signifying directly the south wind), - thou who, when this happens, canst endure so little, that on the contrary the heat from without becomes perceptible to thee through thy clothes: dost thou now and then with Him keep the sky spread out, which for firmness is like a molten mirror? Elsewhere the hemispheric firmament, which spans the earth with its sub-celestial waters, is likened to a clear sapphire Exo 24:10, a covering Psa 104:2, a gauze Isa 40:22; the comparison with a metallic mirror (מוּצק here not from צוּק, Job 37:10; Job 36:16, but from יצק) is therefore to be understood according to Petavius: Coelum aëreum στερέωμα dicitur non a naturae propria conditione, sed ab effectu, quod perinde aquas separet, ac si murus esset solidissimus. Also in תרקיע lies the notion both of firmness and thinness; the primary notion (root רק) is to beat, make thick, stipare (Arab. rq‛, to stop up in the sense of resarcire, e.g., to mend stockings), to make thick by pressure. The ל joined with תרקיע is nota acc.; we must not comp. Job 8:8; Job 21:22, as well as Job 5:2; Job 19:3.

Therefore: As God is the only Creator (Job 9:8), so He is the all-provident Preserver of the world - make us know (הודיענוּ, according to the text of the Babylonians, Keri of הודיעני) what we shall say to Him, viz., in order to show that we can cope with Him! We cannot arrange, viz., anything whatever (to be explained according to ערך מלּין, Job 32:14, comp. “to place,” Job 36:19), by reason of darkness, viz., the darkness of our understanding, σκότος τῆς διανοίας; מפּני is much the same as Job 23:17, but different from Job 17:12, and חשׁך different from both passages, viz., as it is often used in the New Testament, of intellectual darkness (comp. Ecc 2:14; Isa 60:2). The meaning of Job 37:20 cannot now be mistaken, if, with Hirz., Hahn, and Schlottm., we call to mind Job 36:10 in connection with אמר כּי: can I, a short-sighted man, enshrouded in darkness, wish that what I have arrogantly said concerning and against Him may be told to God, or should one earnestly desire (אמר, a modal perf., as Job 35:15) that (an jusserit s. dixerit quis ut) he may be swallowed up, i.e., destroyed (comp. לבלעו, Job 2:3)? He would, by challenging a recognition of his unbecoming arguing about God, desire a tribunal that would be destructive to himself. Job 37:21-24 21 Although one seeth now the sunlight

That is bright in the ethereal heights:

A wind passeth by and cleareth them up. 22 Gold is brought from the north, -

Above Eloah is terrible majesty. 23 The Almighty, whom we cannot find out,

The excellent in strength,

And right and justice He perverteth not. 24 Therefore men regard Him with reverence,

He hath no regard for all the wise of heart.

He who censures God’s actions, and murmurs against God, injures himself - how, on the contrary, would a patiently submissive waiting on Him be rewarded! This is the connection of thought, by which this final strophe is attached to what precedes. If we have drawn the correct conclusion from Job 37:1, that Elihu’s description of a storm is accompanied by a storm which was coming over the sky, ועתּה, with which the speech, as Job 35:15, draws towards the close, is not to be understood as purely conclusive, but temporal: And at present one does not see the light (אור of the sun, as Job 31:26) which is bright in the ethereal heights (בּהיר again a Hebr.-Arab. word, comp. bâhir, outshining, surpassing, especially of the moon, when it dazzles with its brightness); yet it only requires a breath of wind to pass over it, and to clear it, i.e., brings the ethereal sky with the sunlight to view. Elihu hereby means to say that the God who his hidden only for a time, respecting whom one runs the risk of being in perplexity, can suddenly unveil Himself, to our surprise and confusion, and that therefore it becomes us to bow humbly and quietly to His present mysterious visitation. With respect to the removal of the clouds from the beclouded sun, to which Job 37:21 refers, זהב, Job 37:22, seems to signify the gold of the sun; esh - shemsu bi - tibrin , the sun is gold, says Abulola. Oriental and Classic literature furnishes a large number of instances in support of this calling the sunshine gold; and it should not perplex us here, where we have an Arabizing Hebrew poet before us, that not a single passage can be brought forward from the Old Testament literature. But מצּפון is against this figurative rendering of the זהב (lxx νέφη χρυσαυγοῦντα). In Eze 1:4 there is good reason for the storm-clouds, which unfold from their midst the glory of the heavenly Judge, who rideth upon the cherubim, coming from the north; but wherefore should Elihu represent the sun’s golden light as breaking through from the north? On the other hand, in the conception of the ancients, the north is the proper region for gold: there griffins (grupe’s) guard the gold-pits of the Arimaspian mountains (Herod. iii. 116); there, from the narrow pass of the Caucasus along the Gordyaean mountains, gold is dug by barbarous races (Pliny, h. n. vi. 11), and among the Scythians it is brought to light by the ants (ib. xxxiii. 4). Egypt could indeed provide itself with gold from Ethiopia, and the Phoenicians brought the gold of Ophir, already mentioned in the book of Job, from India; but the north was regarded as the fabulously most productive chief mine of gold; to speak more definitely: Northern Asia, with the Altai mountains. ^{▼▼Vid., the art. Gold, S. 91, 101, in Ersch and Gruber. The Indian traditions concerning Uttaraguru (the “High Mountain”), and concerning the northern seat of the god on wealth Kuvêra, have no connection here; on their origin comp. Lassen, Indische Alterthumskunde, i. 848.}

Thus therefore Job 28:1, Job 28:6 is to be compared here.

What Job describes so grandly and minutely in Job 28:1, viz., that man lays bare the hidden treasures of the earth’s interior, but that the wisdom of God still transcends him, is here expressed no less grandly and compendiously: From the north cometh gold, which man wrests from the darkness of the gloomy unknown region of the north (צפון, ζόφος, from צפן, cogn. טמן, טמר, ^{▼▼The verb צּפּה, obducere, does not belong here, but to צפח, and signifies properly to flatten (as רקע, to make thin and thick by striking), comp. Arab. ṣfḥ, to strike on something flat (whence el - musâfaha , the salutation by striking the hand), and Arab. ṣf‛, to strike with the flat hand on anything, therefore diducendo obducere.} upon Eloah, on the contrary is terrible majesty (not genitival: terror of majesty, Ew. §293, c), i.e., it covers Him like a garment (Psa 104:1), making Him inaccessible (הוד, glory as resounding praise, vid., on Job 39:20, like כבוד as imposing dignity). The beclouded sun, Job 37:21 said, has lost none of the intensity of its light, although man has to wait for the removing of the clouds to behold it again. So, when God’s doings are mysterious to us, we have to wait, without murmuring, for His solution of the mystery. While from the north comes gold - Job 37:22 continues - which is obtained by laying bare the interior of the northern mountains, God, on the other hand, is surrounded by inaccessibly terrible glory: the Almighty - thus Job 37:23 completes the thought towards which Job 37:22 tends - we cannot reach, the Great in power, i.e., the nature of the Absolute One remains beyond us, the counsel of the Almighty impenetrable; still we can at all times be certain of this, that what He does is right and good: “Right and the fulness of justice (ורב־ according to the Masora, not ורב-) He perverteth not.” The expression is remarkable: ענּה משׁפּט is, like the Talmudic ענּה דּין, equivalent elsewhere to הטּה משׁפט; and that He does not pervert רב־צדקה, affirms that justice in its whole compass is not perverted by Him; His acts are therefore perfectly and in every way consistent with it: רב־צדקה is the abstract. to צדיק כביר, Job 34:17, therefore summa justitia. One may feel tempted to draw ומשׁפט to שׂגיא כח, and to read ורב according to Pro 14:29 instead of ורב, but the expression gained by so doing is still more difficult than the combination לא יענּה...ומשׁפט; not merely difficult, however, but putting a false point in place of a correct one, is the reading לא יענה (lxx, Syr., Jer.), according to which Hirz. translates: He answers, not, i.e., gives no account to man. The accentuation rightly divides Job 37:23 into two halves, the second of which begins with ומשׁפט - a significant Waw, on which J. H. Michaelis observes: Placide invicem in Deo conspirant infinita ejus potentia et justitia quae in hominibus saepe disjuncta sunt.

Elihu closes with the practical inference: Therefore men, viz., of the right sort, of sound heart, uncorrupted and unaffected, fear Him (יראוּהוּ verentur eum, not יראוּהוּ veremini eum); He does not see (regard) the wise of heart, i.e., those who imagine themselves such and are proud of their לב, their understanding. The qui sibi videntur (Jer.) does not lie in לב (comp. Isa 5:21), but in the antithesis. Stick. and others render falsely: Whom the aggregate of the over-wise beholds not, which would be יראנּוּ. God is the subj. as in Job 28:24; Job 34:21, comp. Job 41:26. The assonance of יראוהו and יראה, which also occurs frequently elsewhere (e.g., Job 6:21), we have sought to reproduce in the translation.

In this last speech also Elihu’s chief aim (Job 36:2-4) is to defend God against Job’s charge of injustice. He shows how omnipotence, love, and justice are all found in God. When judging of God’s omnipotence, we are to beware of censuring Him who is absolutely exalted above us and our comprehension; when judging of God’s love, we are to beware of interpreting His afflictive dispensations, which are designed for our well-being, as the persecution of an enemy; when judging of His justice, we are to beware of maintaining our own righteousness at the cost of the Divine, and of thus avoiding the penitent humbling of one’s self under His well-meant chastisement. The twofold peculiarity of Elihu’s speeches comes out in this fourth as prominently as in the first: (1) They demand of Job penitential submission, not by accusing him of coarse common sins as the three have done, but because even the best of men suffer for hidden moral defects, which must be perceived by them in order not to perish on account of them. Elihu here does for Job just what in Bunyan (Pilgrim’s Progress) the man in the Interpreter’s house does, when he sweeps the room, so that Christian had been almost choked with the dust that flew about. Then (2) they teach that God makes use of just such sufferings, as Job’s now are, in order to bring man to a knowledge of his hidden defects, and to bless him the more abundantly if he will be saved from them; that thus the sufferings of those who fear God are a wholesome medicine, disciplinary chastenings, and saving warnings; and that therefore true, not merely feigned, piety must be proved in the school of affliction by earnest self-examination, remorseful self-accusation, and humble submission.

Elihu therefore in this agrees with the rest of the book, that he frees Job’s affliction from the view which accounts it the evil-doer’s punishment (vid., Job 32:3). On the other hand, however, he nevertheless takes up a position apart from the rest of the book, by making Job’s sin the cause of his affliction; while in the idea of the rest of the book Job’s affliction has nothing whatever to do with Job’s sin, except in so far as he allows himself to be drawn into sinful language concerning God by the conflict of temptation into which the affliction plunges him. For after Jehovah has brought Job over this his sin, He acknowledges His servant (Job 42:7) to be in the right, against the three friends: his affliction is really not a merited affliction, it is not a result of retributive justice; it also had not chastisement as its design, it was an enigma, under which Job should have bowed humbly without striking against it - a decree, into the purpose of which the prologue permits us an insight, which however remains unexplained to Job, or is only explained to him so far as the issue teaches him that it should be to him the way to a so much the more glorious testimony on the part of God Himself.

With that criticism of Job, which the speeches of Jehovah consummate, the criticism which lies before us in the speeches of Elihu is irreconcilable. The older poet, in contrast with the false doctrine of retribution, entirely separates sin and punishment or chastisement in the affliction of Job, and teaches that there is an affliction of the righteous, which is solely designed to prove and test them. His thema, not Elihu’s (as Simson ^{▼▼Zur Kritik des B. Hiob, 1861, S. 34.} with Hengstenberg thinks), is the mystery of the Cross. For the Cross according to its proper notion is suffering ἕνεκεν δικαιοσύνης (or what in New Testament language is the same, ἕνεκεν Χριστοῦ). Elihu, however, leaves sin and suffering together as inseparable, and opposes the false doctrine of retribution by the distinction between disciplinary chastisement and judicial retribution. The Elihu section, as I have shown elsewhere, ^{▼▼Vid., Herzog’s Real-Encyklopädie, art. Hiob, S. 119.} has sprung from the endeavour to moderate the bewildering boldness with which the older poet puts forth his idea. The writer has felt in connection with the book of Job what every Christian must feel. Such a maintaining of his own righteousness in the face of friendly exhortations to penitence, as we perceive it in Job’s speeches, is certainly not possible where “the dust of the room has flown about.” The friends have only failed in this, that they made Job more and more an evil-doer deservedly undergoing punishment. Elihu points him to vainglorying, to carnal security, and in the main to those defects from which the most godly cannot and dare not claim exemption. It is not contrary to the spirit of the drama that Job holds his peace at these exhortations to penitence. The similarly expressed admonition to penitence with which Eliphaz, Job 4:1, begins, has not effected it. In the meanwhile, however, Job is become more softened and composed, and in remembrance of his unbecoming language concerning God, he must feel that he has forfeited the right of defending himself. Nevertheless this silent Job is not altogether the same as the Job who, in Job 40 and 42, forces himself to keep silence, whose former testimony concerning himself, and whose former refusal of a theodicy which links sin and calamity together, Jehovah finally sets His seal to.

On the other hand, however, it must be acknowledged, that what the introduction to Elihu’s speeches, Job 32:1-5, sets before us, is consistent with the idea of the whole, and that such a section as the introduction leads one to expect, may be easily understood really as a member of the whole, which carries forward the dramatic development of this idea; for this very reason one feels urged to constantly new endeavours, if possible, to understand these speeches as a part of the original form. But they are without result, and, moreover, many other considerations stand in our way to the desired goal; especially, that Elihu is not mentioned in the epilogue, and that his speeches are far behind the artistic perfection of the rest of the book. It is true the writer of these speeches has, in common with the rest of the book, a like Hebraeo-Arabic, and indeed Hauranitish style, and like mutual relations to earlier and later writings; but this is explained from the consideration that he has completely blended the older book with himself (as the points of contact of the fourth speech with Job 28:1 and the speeches of Jehovah, show), and that to all appearance he is a fellow-countryman of the older poet. There are neither linguistic nor any other valid reasons in favour of assigning it to a much later period. He is the second issuer of the book, possibly the first, who brought to light the hitherto hidden treasure, enriched by his own insertion, which is inestimable in its relation to the history of the perception of the plan of redemption.

We now call to mind that in the last (according to our view) strophe of Job’s last speech. Job 31:35-37, Job desires, yea challenges, the divine decision between himself and his opponents. His opponents have explained his affliction as the punishment of the just God; he, however, is himself so certain of his innocence, and of his victory over divine and human accusation, that he will bind the indictment of his opponents as a crown upon his brow, and to God, whose hand of punishment supposedly rests upon him, will he render an account of all his steps, and go forth as a prince to meet Him. That he considers himself a צדיק is in itself not censurable, for he is such: but that he is מצדק נפשׁו מאלהים, i.e., considers himself to be righteous in opposition to God, who is no angry with him and punishes him; that he maintains his own righteousness to the prejudice of the Divine; and that by maintaining his own right, places the Divine in the shade, - all this is explainable as the result of the false idea which he entertains of his affliction, and in which he is strengthened by the friends; but there is need of censure and penitence. For since by His nature God can never do wrong, all human wrangling before God is a sinful advance against the mystery of divine guidance, under which he should rather humbly bow. But we have seen that Job’s false idea of God as his enemy, whose conduct he cannot acknowledge as just, does not fill his whole soul. The night of temptation in which he is enshrouded, is broken in upon by gleams of faith, in connection with which God appears to him as his Vindicator and Redeemer. Flesh and spirit, nature and grace, delusion and faith, are at war within him. These two elements are constantly more definitely separated in the course of the controversy; but it is not yet come to the victory of faith over delusion, the two lines of conception go unreconciled side by side in Job’s soul. The last monologues issue on the one side in the humble confession that God’s wisdom is unsearchable, and the fear of God is the share of wisdom appointed to man; on the other side, in the defiant demand that God may answer for his defence of himself, and the vaunting offer to give Him an account of all his steps, and also then to enter His presence with the high feeling of a prince. If now the issue of the drama is to be this, that God really reveals Himself as Job’s Vindicator and Redeemer, Job’s defiance and boldness must be previously punished in order that lowliness and submission may attain the victory over them. God cannot acknowledge job as His servant before he penitently acknowledges as such the sinful weakness under which he has proved himself to be God’s servant, and so exhibits himself anew in his true character which cherishes no known sin. This takes place when Jehovah appears, and in language not of wrath but of loving condescension, and yet earnest reproof, He makes the Titan quite puny in his own eyes, in order then to exalt him who is outwardly and inwardly humbled.

‏ Job 38:1-31

Job 38:1-3 1 Then Jehovah answered Job out of the storm, and said: 2 Who then darkeneth counsel

With words without knowledge? 3 Gird up now thy loins as a man:

I will question thee, and inform thou me! “May the Almighty answer me!” Job has said, Job 31:35; He now really answers, and indeed out of the storm (Chethib, according to a mode of writing occurring only here and Job 40:6, מנהסערה, arranged in two words by the Keri), which is generally the forerunner of His self-manifestation in the world, of that at least by which He reveals Himself in His absolute awe-inspiring greatness and judicial grandeur. The art. is to be understood generically, but, with respect to Elihu’s speeches, refers to the storm which has risen up in the meanwhile. It is not to be translated: Who is he who ... , which ought to be המחשׁיך, but: Who then is darkening; זה makes the interrogative מי more vivid and demonstrative, Ges. §122, 2; the part. מחשׁיך (instead of which it might also be יחשׁיך) favours the assumption that Job has uttered such words immediately before, and is interrupted by Jehovah, without an intervening speaker having come forward. It is intentionally עצה for עצתי (comp. עם for עמי, Isa 26:11), to describe that which is spoken of according to its quality: it is nothing less than a decree or plan full of purpose and connection which Job darkness, i.e., distorts by judging it falsely, or, as we say: places in a false light, and in fact by meaningless words. ^{▼▼The correct accentuation is מחשׁיך with Mercha, עצה with Athnach, במלין with Rebia mugrasch, bly (without Makkeph) with Munach.}

When now Jehovah condescends to negotiate with Job by question and answer, He does not do exactly what Job wished (Job 13:22), but something different, of which Job never thought. He surprises him with questions which are intended to bring him indirectly to the consciousness of the wrong and absurdity of his challenge - questions among which “there are many which the natural philosophy of the present day can frame more scientifically, but cannot satisfactorily solve.” ^{▼▼Alex. v. Humboldt, Kosmos, ii. 48 (1st edition), comp. Tholuck, Vermischte Schriften, i. 354.}

Instead of כגבר (the received reading of Ben-Ascher), Ben-Naphtali’s text offered כּג (as Eze 17:10), in order not to allow two so similar, aspirated mutae to come together. Job 38:4-7 4 Where wast thou when I established the earth?

Say, if thou art capable of judging! 5 Who hath determined its measure, if thou knowest it,

Or who hath stretched the measuring line over it? 6 Upon what are the bases of its pillars sunk in,

Or who hath laid its corner-stone, 7 When the morning stars sang together

And all the sons of God shouted for joy?

The examination begins similarly to Job 15:7. In opposition to the censurer of God as such the friends were right, although only negatively, since their conduct was based on self-delusion, as though they were in possession of the key to the mystery of the divine government of the world. ידע בּינה signifies to understand how to judge, to possess a competent understanding, 1Ch 12:32; 2Ch 2:12, or (ידע taken not in the sense of novisse, but cognoscere) to appropriate to one’s self, Pro 4:1; Isa 29:24. כּי, Job 38:5, interchanges with אם (comp. Job 38:18), for כּי תדע signifies: suppose that thou knowest it, and this si forte scias is almost equivalent to an forte scis, Pro 30:4. The founding of the earth is likened altogether to that of a building constructed by man. The question: upon what are the bases of its pillars or foundations sunk (טבע, Arab. ṭb‛, according to its radical signification, to press with something flat upon something, comp. Arab. ṭbq, to lay two flat things on one another, then both to form or stamp by pressure, and to press into soft pliant stuff, or let down into, immergere, or to sink into, immergi), points to the fact of the earth hanging free in space, Job 26:7. Then no human being was present, for man was not yet created; the angels, however, beheld with rejoicing the founding of the place of the future human family, and the mighty acts of God in accordance with the decree of His love (as at the building of the temple, the laying of the foundation, Ezr 3:10, and the setting of the head-stone, Zec 4:7, were celebrated), for the angels were created before the visible world (Psychol. S. 63; Genesis, S. 105), as is indeed not taught here, but still (vid., on the other hand, Hofmann, Schriftbew. i. 400) is assumed. For בּני אלהים are, as in Job 1-2, the angels, who proceeded from God by a mode of creation which is likened to begetting, and who with Him form one πατριά (Genesis, S. 121). The “morning stars,” however, are mentioned in connection with them, because between the stars and the angels, which are both comprehended in צבא השׁמים (Genesis, S. 128), a mysterious connection exists, which is manifoldly attested in Holy Scripture (vid., on the other hand, Hofm. ib. S. 318). כּוכב בּקר is the morning star which in Isa 14:12 is called הילל (as extra-bibl. נגהּ) from its dazzling light, which exceeds all other stars in brightness, and בּן־שׁחר, son of the dawn, because it swims in the dawn as though it were born from it. It was just the dawn of the world coming into being, which is the subject spoken of, that gave rise to the mention of the morning star; the plur., however, does not mean the stars which came into being on that morning of the world collectively (Hofm., Schlottm.), but Lucifer with the stars his peers, as כּסילים, Isa 13:10, Orion and the stars his peers. Arab. suhayl (Canopus) is used similarly as a generic name for stars of remarkable brilliancy, and in general suhêl is to the nomads and the Hauranites the symbol of what is brilliant, glorious, and beautiful; ^{▼▼A man or woman of great beauty is called suhêli , suhelı̂je. Thus I heard a Hauranitish woman say to her companion: nahâr el - jôm nedâ , shuft ledsch (Arab. lk) wâhid Suhêli , To-day is dew, I saw a Suhêli , i.e., a very handsome man, for thee. - Wetzst.} so that even the beings of light of the first rank among the celestial spirits might be understood by כוכבי בקר. But if this ought to be the meaning, Job 38:7 and Job 38:7 would be in an inverted order. They are actual stars, whether it is intended of the sphere belonging to the earth or to the higher sphere comprehended in השׁמים, Gen 1:1. Joy and light are reciprocal notions, and the scale of the tones of joy is likened to the scale of light and colours; therefore the fulness of light, in which the morning stars shone forth all together at the founding of the earth, may symbolize one grandly harmonious song of joy. Job 38:8-11 8 And who shut up the sea with doors,

When it broke through, issued from the womb, 9 When I put clouds round it as a garment,

And thick mist as its swaddling clothes, 10 And I broke for it my bound,

And set bars and doors, 11 And said: Hitherto come, and no further,

And here be thy proud waves stayed!?

The state of תהו ובהו was the first half, and the state of תהום the second half of the primeval condition of the forming earth. The question does not, however, refer to the תהום, in which the waters of the sky and the waters of the earth were as yet not separated, but, passing over this intermediate condition of the forming earth, to the sea, the waters of which God shut up as by means of a door and bolt, when, first enshrouded in thick mist (which has remained from that time one of its natural peculiarities), and again and again manifesting its individuality, it broke forth (גּיח of the foetus, as Psa 22:10) from the bowels of the, as yet, chaotic earth. That the sea, in spite of the flatness of its banks, does not flow over the land, is a work of omnipotence which broke over it, i.e., restraining it, a fixed bound (חק as Job 26:10; Pro 8:29; Jer 5:22, = גּבוּל, Psa 104:9), viz., the steep and rugged walls of the basin of the sea, and which thereby established a firm barrier behind which it should be kept. Instead of וּפה, Jos 18:8, Job 38:11 has the Chethib וּפא. חק is to be understood with ישׁית, and “one set” is equivalent to the passive (Ges. §137*): let a bound be set (comp. שׁת, Hos 6:11, which is used directly so) against the proud rising of thy waves. Job 38:12-15 12 Hast thou in thy life commanded a morning,

Caused the dawn to know its place, 13 That it may take hold of the ends of the earth,

So that the evil-doers are shaken under it? 14 That it changeth like the clay of a signet-ring,

And everything fashioneth itself as a garment. 15 Their light is removed from the evil-doers,

And the out-stretched arm is broken.

The dawn of the morning, spreading out from one point, takes hold of the carpet of the earth as it were by the edges, and shakes off from it the evil-doers, who had laid themselves to rest upon it the night before. נער, combining in itself the significations to thrust and to shake, has the latter here, as in the Arab. nâ‛ûra , a water-wheel, which fills its compartments below in the river, to empty them out above. Instead of ידּעתּה שׁחר with He otians, the Keri substitutes ידּעתּ השׁחר. The earth is the subj. to Job 38:14: the dawn is like the signet-ring, which stamps a definite impress on the earth as the clay, the forms which floated in the darkness of the night become visible and distinguishable. The subj. to Job 38:14 are not morning and dawn (Schult.), still less the ends of the earth (Ew. with the conjecture: יתיבצו, "they become dazzlingly white”), but the single objects on the earth: the light of morning gives to everything its peculiar garb of light, so that, hitherto overlaid by a uniform darkness, they now come forth independently, they gradually appear in their variegated diversity of form and hue. In כּמו לבוּשׁ, לבוש is conceived as accusative (Arab. kemâ libâsan , or thauban), while in כלבושׁ (Psa 104:6, instar vestis) it would be genitive. To the end of the strophe everything is under the logical government of the ל of purpose in Job 38:13. The light of the evil-doers is, according to Job 24:17, the darkness of the night, which is for them in connection with their works what the light of day is for other men. The sunrise deprives them, the enemies of light in the true sense (Job 24:13), of this light per antiphrasin, and the carrying out of their evil work, already prepared for, is frustrated. The ע of רשׁעים, Job 38:13 and Job 38:15, is תלויה עין [Ayin suspensum,] which is explained according to the Midrash thus: the רשׁעים, now עשׁירים (rich), become at a future time רשׁים (poor); or: God deprives them of the עין (light of the eye), by abandoning them to the darkness which they loved. Job 38:16-21 16 Hast thou reached the fountains of the sea,

And hast thou gone into the foundation of the deep? 17 Were the gates of death unveiled to thee,

And didst thou see the gates of the realm of shades? 18 Hast thou comprehended the breadth of the earth?

Speak, in so far as thou knowest all this! 19 Which is the way to where the light dwelleth,

And darkness, where is its place, 20 That thou mightest bring it to its bound,

And that thou mightest know the paths of its house? 21 Thou knowest it, for then wast thou born,

And the number of thy days is great! -

The root נב has the primary notion of obtruding itself upon the senses (vid., Genesis, S. 635), whence נבך in Arabic of a rising country that pleases the eye (nabaka, a hill, a hillside), and here (cognate in root and meaning נבע, Syr. Talmud. נבג, Arab. nbg , nbṭ , scatuirire) of gushing and bubbling water. Hitzig’s conjecture, approved by Olsh., נבלי, sets aside a word that is perfectly clear so far as the language is concerned. On חקר vid., on Job 11:7. The question put to Job in Job 38:17, he must, according to his own confession, Job 26:6, answer in the negative. In order to avoid the collision of two aspirates, the interrogative ה is wanting before התבּננתּ, Ew. §324, b; התבנן עד signifies, according to Job 32:12, to observe anything carefully; the meaning of the question therefore is, whether Job has given special attention to the breadth of the earth, and whether he consequently has a comprehensive and thorough knowledge of it. כּלּהּ refers not to the earth (Hahn, Olsh., and others), but, as neuter, to the preceding points of interrogation. The questions, Job 38:19, refer to the principles of light and darkness, i.e., their final causes, whence they come forth as cosmical phenomena. ישׁכּן־אור is a relative clause, Ges. §123, 3, c; the noun that governs (the Regens) this virtual genitive, which ought in Arabic to be without the art. as being determined by the regens, is, according to the Hebrew syntax, which is freer in this respect, הדּרך (comp. Ges. §110, 2). That which is said of the bound of darkness, i.e., the furthest point at which darkness passes away, and the paths to its house, applies also to the light, which the poet perhaps has even prominently (comp. Job 24:13) before his mind: light and darkness have a first cause which is inaccessible to man, and beyond his power of searching out. The admission in Job 38:21 is ironical: Verily! thou art as old as the beginning of creation, when light and darkness, as powers of nature which are distinguished and bounded the one by the other (vid., Job 26:10), were introduced into the rising world; thou art as old as the world, so that thou hast an exact knowledge of its and thine own contemporaneous origin (vid., Job 15:7). On the fut. joined with אז htiw denioj . regularly in the signification of the aorist, vid., Ew. §134, b. The attraction in connection with מספּר is like Job 15:20; Job 21:21. Job 38:22-27 22 Hast thou reached the treasures of the snow,

And didst thou see the treasures of the hail, 23 Which I have reserved for a time of trouble,

For the day of battle and war? 24 Which is the way where the light is divided,

Where the east wind is scattered over the earth? 25 Who divideth a course for the rain-flood

And the way of the lightning of thunder, 26 That it raineth on the land where no one dwelleth,

On the tenantless steppe, 27 To satisfy the desolate and the waste,

And to cause the tender shoot of the grass to spring forth?

The idea in Job 38:22 is not that - as for instance the peasants of Menîn, four hours’ journey from Damascus, garner up the winter snow in a cleft of the rock, in order to convey it to Damascus and the towns of the coast in the hot months - God treasures up the snow and hail above to cause it to descend according to opportunity. אצרות (comp. Psa 135:7) are the final causes of these phenomena which God has created - the form of the question, the design of which (which must not be forgotten) is ethical, not scientific, is regulated according to the infancy of the perception of natural phenomena among the ancients; but at the same time in accordance with the poet’s task, and even, as here, in the choice of the agents of destruction, not merely hail, but also snow, according to the scene of the incident. Wetzstein has in his possession a writing of Muhammed el-Chatîb el-Bosrâwi, in which he describes a fearful fall of snow in Hauran, by which, in February 1860, innumerable herds of sheep, goats, and camels, and also many human beings perished. ^{▼▼Since the Hauranites say of snow as of fire: jahrik, it burns (brûlant in French is also used of extreme cold), Job 1:16 might also be understood of a fall of snow; but the tenor of the words there requires it to be understood of actual fire.} עת־צר might, according to Job 24:1; Job 19:11, signify a time of judgment for the oppressor, i.e., adversary; but it is better to be understood according to Job 36:16; Job 21:30, a time of distress: heavy falls of snow and tempestuous hail-storms bring hard times for men and cattle, and sometimes decide a war as by a divine decree (Jos 10:11, comp. Isa 28:17; Isa 30:30; Eze 13:13).

In Job 38:24 it is not, as in Job 38:19, the place whence light issues, but the mode of the distribution of light over the earth, that is intended; as in Job 38:24, the laws according to which the east wind flows forth, i.e., spreads over the earth. אור is not lightning (Schlottm.), but light in general: light and wind (instead of which the east wind is particularized, vid., p. 533) stand together as being alike untraceable in their courses. הפיץ, se diffundere, as Exo 5:12; 1Sa 13:8, Ges. §53, 2. In Job 38:25 the descent of torrents of rain inundating certain regions of the earth is intended - this earthward direction assigned to the water-spouts is likened to an aqueduct coming downwards from the sky - and it is only in Job 38:25, as in Job 28:26, that the words have reference to the lightning, which to man is untraceable, flashing now here, now there. This guiding of the rain to chosen parts of the earth extends also to the tenantless steppe. לא־אישׁ (for בּלא) is virtually an adj. (vid., on Job 12:24). The superlative combination שׁאה וּמשׁאה (from שׁוא = שׁאה, to be desolate, and to give forth a heavy dull sound, i.e., to sound desolate, vid., on Job 37:6), as Job 30:3 (which see). Not merely for the purposes of His rule among men does God direct the changes of the weather contrary to human foresight; His care extends also to regions where no human habitations are found. Job 38:28-30 28 Hath the rain a father,

Or who begetteth the drops of dew? 29 Out of whose womb cometh the ice forth,

And who bringeth forth the hoar-frost of heaven? 30 The waters become hard like stone,

And the face of the deep is rolled together.

Rain and dew have no created father, ice and hoar-frost no created mother. The parallelism in both instances shows that מי הוליד asks after the one who begets, and מי ילדו the one who bears (vid., Hupfeld on Psa 2:7). בּטן is uterus, and meton. (at least in Arabic) progenies uteri; ex utero cujus is מבטן מי, in distinction from מאי־זה בטן, ex quo utero. אגלי־טל is excellently translated by the lxx, Codd. Vat. and Sin., βώλους (with Omega) δρόσου; Ges. and Schlottm. correct to βόλους, but βῶλος signifies not merely a clod, but also a lump and a ball. It is the particles of the dew holding together (lxx, Cod. Alex.: συνοχὰς καὶ βω. δρ.) in a globular form, from אגל, which does not belong to גּלל, but to Arab. 'jil , retinere, II colligere (whence agı̂l, standing water, ma'‛gal, a pool, pond); אגלי is constr., like עגלי from עגל. The waters “hide themselves,” by vanishing as fluid, therefore: freeze. The surface of the deep (lxx ἀσεβοῦς, for which Zwingli has in marg. ἀβύσσου) “takes hold of itself,” or presses together (comp. Arab. lekda, crowding, synon. hugûm, a striking against) by forming itself into a firm solid mass (continuum, Job 41:9, comp. Job 37:10). Moreover, the questions all refer not merely to the analysis of the visible origin of the phenomena, but to their final causes. Job 38:31-33 31 Canst thou join the twistings of the Pleiades,

Or loose the bands of Orion? 32 Canst thou bring forth the signs of the Zodiac at the right time,

And canst thou guide the Bear with its children? 33 Knowest thou the laws of heaven,

Or dost thou define its influence on the earth?

That מעדגּות here signifies bindings or twistings (from עדן = ענד, Job 31:36) is placed beyond question by the unanimous translations of the lxx (δεσμόν) and the Targ. (שׁירי = σειράς), the testimony of the Masora, according to which the word here has a different signification from 1Sa 15:32, and the language of the Talmud, in which מעדנין, Kêlim, c. 20, signifies the knots at the end of a mat, by loosing which it comes to pieces, and Succa, 13 b, the bands (formed of rushes) with which willow-branches are fastened together above in order to form a booth (succa); but מדאני, Sabbat, 33 a, signifies a bunch of myrtle (to smell on the Sabbath). מעדנות כּימה is therefore explained according to the Persian comparison of the Pleiades with a bouquet of jewels, mentioned on Job 9:9, and according to the comparison with a necklace (‛ipd - eth - thurajja), e.g., in Sadi in his Gulistan, p. 8 of Graf’s translation: “as though the tops of the trees were encircled by the necklace of the Pleiades.” The Arabic name thurajja (diminutive feminine of tharwân) probably signifies the richly-adorned, clustered constellation. But כּימה signifies without doubt the clustered group, ^{▼▼The verb כום is still in general use in the Piel (to heap up, form a heap, part. mukauwam, heaped up) and Hithpa. (to accumulate) in Syria, and kôm is any village desolated in days of yore whose stones form a desolate heap comp. Fleischer, De Glossis Habichtianis, p. 41f.]. If, according to Kamus, in old Jemanic kı̂m in the sense of mukâwim signifies a confederate (synon. chilt , gils), the כּימה would be a confederation, or a heap, assemblage (coetus) of confederates. Perhaps the כימה was regarded as a troop of camels; the Beduins at least call the star directly before the seven-starred constellation of the Pleiades the hâdi, i.e., the singer riding before the procession, who cheers the camels by the sound of the hadwa (חדוה}, and thereby urges them on. - Wetzst.

On πλειάδες, which perhaps also bear this name as a compressed group (figuratively γότρυς) of several stars (ὅτι πλείους ὁμοῦ κατὰ συναγωγήν εἰσι), vid., Kuhn’s Zeitschr. vi. 282-285.) and Beigel (in Ideler, Sternnamen, S. 147) does not translate badly: ”Canst thou not arrange together the rosette of diamonds (chain would be better) of the Pleiades?”

As to כּסיל, we firmly hold that it denotes Orion (according to which the Greek versions translate Ὠρίων, the Syriac gaboro, the Targ. נפלא or נפילא, the Giant). Orion and the Pleiades are visible in the Syrian sky longer in the year than with us, and there they come about 17º higher above the horizon than with us. Nevertheless the figure of a giant chained to the heavens cannot be rightly shown to be Semitic, and it is questionable whether כסיל is not rather, with Saad., Gecat., Abulwalid, and others, to be regarded as the Suhêl, i.e., Canopus, especially as this is placed as a sluggish helper (כסיל, Hebr. a fool, Arab. the slothful one, ignavus) in mythical relation to the constellation of the Bear, which here is called עישׁ, as Job 9:9 עשׁ, and is regarded as a bier, נעשׁ (even in the present day this is the name in the towns and villages of Syria), which the sons and daughters forming the attendants upon the corpse of their father, slain by Gedî, the Pole-star. Understood of Orion, משׁכות (with which Arab. msk , tenere, detinere, is certainly to be compared) are the chains (Arab. masakat , compes), with which he is chained to the sky; understood of Suhêl, the restraints which prevent his breaking away too soon and reaching the goal. ^{▼▼In June 1860 I witnessed a quarrel in an encampment of Mo'gil-Beduins, in which one accused the others of having rendered it possible for the enemy to carry off his camels through their negligence; and when the accused assured him they had gone forth in pursuit of the marauders soon after the raid, and only turned back at sunset, the man exclaimed: Ye came indeed to my assistance as Suhêl to Gedî (פזעתם לי פזע סהיל ללגדי). I asked my neighbour what the words meant, and was informed they are a proverb which is very often used, and has its origin as follows: The Gedî (i.e., the Pole-star, called mismâr, משׂמר, in Damascus) slew the Na‛sh (נעשׁ), and is accordingly encompassed every night by the children of the slain Na‛sh, who are determined to take vengeance on the murderer. The sons (on which account poets usually say benı̂ instead of benât Na‛sh) go first with the corpse of their father, and the daughters follow. One of the latter is called waldâne, a lying-in woman; she has only recently given birth to a child, and carries her child in her bosom, and she is still pale from her lying-in. (The clear atmosphere of the Syrian sky admits of the child in the bosom of the waldâne being distinctly seen.} In order to give help to the Gedî in this danger, the Suhêl appears in the south, and struggles towards the north with a twinkling brightness, but he has risen too late; the night passes away ere he reaches his goal. Later I frequently heard this story, which is generally known among the Hauranites. - Wetzst.

We add the following by way of explanation. The Pleiades encircle the Pole-star as do all stars, since it stands at the axis of the sky, but they are nearer to it than to Canopus by more than half the distance. This star of the first magnitude culminates about three hours later than the Pleiades, and rises, at the highest, only ten moon’s diameters above the horizon of Damascusa significant figure, therefore, of ineffectual endeavour.) מזּרות is not distinct from מזּלות, 2Ki 23:5 (comp. מזּרך, “Thy star of fortune,” on Cilician coins), and denotes not the twenty-eight menâzil (from Arab. nzl, to descend, turn in, lodge) of the moon, ^{▼▼Thus A. Weber in his Abh. über die vedischen Nachrichten von den naxatra (halting-places of the moon), 1860 (comp. Lit. Centralbl. 1859, col. 665), refuted by Steinschneider, Hebr. Bibliographie, 1861, Nr. 22, S. 93f.} but the twelve signs of the Zodiac, which were likewise imagined as menâzil, i.e., lodging-houses or burûg, strongholds, in which one after another the sun lodges as it describes the circle of the year. ^{▼▼The names “the Ram, the Bull,” etc., are, according to Epiphanius, Opp. i. p. 34f. (ed. Petav.), transferred from the Greek into the Jewish astrology, vid., Wissenschaft Kunst Judenthum, S. 220f.}

The usage of the language transferred lzm also to the planets, which, because they lie in the equatorial plane of the sun, as the sun (although more irregularly), run through the constellations of the Zodiac. The question in Job 38:32 therefore means: canst thou bring forth the appointed zodiacal sign for each month, so that (of course with the variation which is limited to about two moon’s diameters by the daily progress of the sun through the Zodiac) it becomes visible after sunset and is visible before sunset? On Job 38:33 vid., on Gen 1:14-19. משׁטר is construed after the analogy of רדה בּ, עצר, משׁל; and שׁמים, as sing. (Ew. §318, b).