Tag: Job

September 25: Job 15:1-3

Second Eliphaz Speech: Chapter 15

As with the first Cycle of Speeches, Eliphaz is the first of the companions to speak, responding (principally) to Job’s complaint in 13:20-14:22. The Job speech of chapters 12-14 is transitional, serving as both the climax of the first Cycle and the beginning of the second Cycle.

Eliphaz’ speech has two main parts or divisions: the first (vv. 2-19) being a rebuke of Job, and the second (vv. 20-35) an expository defense of God’s justice (viz., to the effect that He justly punishes the wicked). In his complaint, Job seriously questioned (and even impugned) God’s justice, claiming that God was punishing people unnecessarily and unfairly; in particular, the thrust of Job’s complaint (and appeal) is that God has punished him, a righteous man, as though he were one of the wicked. Eliphaz addresses this aspect of Job’s complaint in the second part of his speech.
Cf. the article by Catherine Chin, “Job and the Injustice of God: Implicit Arguments in Job 13.17-14.12”, Journal for the Study of the Old Testament [JSOT] 64 (1994), pp. 91-10.

Job 15:1

“Then Elîpaz the Southlander responded and said:”

All of the Dialogue speeches are introduced with the same formula; for the first Eliphaz speech, see the note on 4:1.

Job 15:2-6

The first part of Eliphaz’ speech consists of two main sections, vv. 2-6 and 7-19. It is possible to view these sections as poetic stanzas, each containing five couplets, with the couplets of the second stanza (vv. 7-10, 17) having been expanded with additional expository/illustrative theological and Wisdom material (vv. 11-16, 18-19); cf. Nõmmik, pp. 33ff.

The first section (or stanza) itself is comprised of two strophes (vv. 2-3, 5-6) with a transitional central couplet (v. 4). In each strophe, Eliphaz gives a strong rebuke to Job for the recklessness and (seeming) impiety of his complaint.

Verse 2

“Does a wise man respond (with) knowledge of wind,
and does he fill, (with the) east (wind), his belly?—”

The opening rebuke by Eliphaz echoes similar words by Bildad (8:2) and Zophar (11:2-3), to the effect that Job is full of ’empty bluster’ (cf. also the characterization in 6:26); Job responds in kind in 16:3. Here, both Job’s speech (i.e., his speaking) and his knowledge are characterized as being “wind”; in Wisdom tradition, “wind” or “breath” (here in line 1, j^Wr) specifically connotes the idea of emptiness and vanity (even deception), as well as that which is ephemeral and transitory—cf. especially throughout Qohelet (1:6, 14, 17; 2:11, 17, 26, etc.). For this specific use of j^Wr, cf. also 7:7; Prov 11:29; Isa 41:29.

In this second line, the noun <yd!q* is used, denoting the wind that is “in/up front”, i.e., the east wind. The reference is particularly to the hot wind (or sirocco) that comes from desert (cf. Exod 10:13; 14:21; Jer 18:17; Ezek 17:10; 19:12). Here, the claim is that Job is full (and has filled himself) with ‘hot wind’; in English idiom, we would say that a person is “full of hot air”, and, more generally, “full of bluster”.
Aquila and Theodotion translate <yd!q* with kauswno$ (i.e., “burning [heat]”, cf. Vulg. ardore, “heat”), while Symmachus emphasizes the stormy/blustery aspect (pneumato$ biaiou, “wind of [great] force”). Cf. Seow, p. 710, who notes how the intensification of the imagery in the second line, with the use of <yd!q* (citing Gen 41:6, 23, 27; Ezek 17:10; 19:12), suggests that there is a certain destructiveness in Job’s words. 

The question begun in verse 2 continues in v. 3. On the use of such rhetorical questions as a poetic-rhetorical structuring principal in the speeches (and particularly that of chap. 15), cf. the article by L. J. de Regt, “Implication of Rhetorical Questions in Strophes in Job 11 and 15”, in Beuken, pp. 321-8.

Verse 3

“(seek)ing to prove with speech (that) is of no use,
and words (for which) there is no profit in them!”

Not only does Eliphaz, in his rebuke, suggest that Job is full of (potentially destructive) ‘bluster’ and ‘hot air’, he also, here in v. 3, claims that the actual words (and arguments) used by Job in his complaint are useless and ineffective. This is expressed by the parallel use of the nouns rb*D* and <yL!m! (“speech” and “words”), as well as by the verbs /k^s* (I, “be of use”) and lu^y` (Hiphil, “give/bring profit”). The arguments that Job has used to prove (vb jk^y`) his case are of no use, and there is no profit in them. For earlier uses of the verb jk^y`, cf. 5:17; 6:25-26; 9:33; 13:3, 10, 15, and also the related noun tj^k^oT, 13:6.
The verb /k^s* I (“be of use, be of concern”), is something of a distinctive Joban term; indeed, all the Scriptural occurrences of the verb (in the Qal stem) are found in Job (cf. also 22:2; 34:9; 35:3). Cf. Seow, p. 710, who also notes the instances of the cognate sakānu (“attend to, care for”) in the Amarna letters from Jerusalem (EA 286.38; 287.17, 40; 288.48; 290.29).

In the next note, we will examine the second strophe of the section (vv. 5-6) along with the transitional couplet in v. 4. Since there are two distinct ways that vv. 4-5[f] can be understood and translated, it will be worth devoting an entire note to the matter.

    • References above (and throughout these notes) marked “Seow” are to C. L. [Choon Leong] Seow, Job 1-21: Interpretation and Commentary, Illuminations Commentary Series (Eerdmans: 2013).
    • Those marked “Beuken” are to The Book of Job, edited by W. A. M. Beuken, Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium [BETL] CXIV (Leuven University Press: 1994). 
    • Those marked “Nõmmik” are to Urmas Nõmmik, Die Freundesreden des Ursprünglichen Hiobdialogs: Eine Form- und Traditiongeschichtliche Studie, Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft [BZAW] 410 (De Gruyter: 2010).

August 22: Job 14:20-22

Job 14:20-22

This is the fourth (and final) unit of the second stanza of Job’s complaint; it corresponds to 14:4-6 in the first stanza (see the earlier note). The two units share the basic Wisdom-emphasis on the brevity and mortality of a human life, which is brought to an end (in death) by God.

Verse 20

“You take hold of him to (the) finish, and he goes (away);
(hav)ing changed his face, indeed, you send him (away)!”

The wording in this couplet somewhat echoes the thought expressed in verse 6 (see above). There are two points of commonality: (1) God’s effective action in bringing an end to a human being’s life, and (2) an allusion to the completion of the person’s life. The latter aspect here is conveyed by the expression jx^n#l*. The noun jx^n@ (I) denotes “success”, particularly in battle, where the sense of victory/triumph can carry a connotative association of “splendor, glory”. Quite often the aspect of duration or permanence (viz., a lasting triumph) is in view, to be generalized particularly by the temporal-durative expression jx^n@l*, i.e., “to the end/finish”, “for ever”, etc. The verb [q^T*, “take hold of, seize (with force)”, also is suggestive of battle (and of success/victory in battle); cf. the use of the same verb in 15:24. God essentially acts with force/violence against a human being (cf. the military imagery in 6:4; 10:17), exercising His supreme power—which guarantees success and results in the death of the individual. The individual “goes (away)” (i.e., passes away), and God’s role as the actor in this (cf. 19:10) is clearly expressed by the parallel in the second line: “you send him (away)”.

The exact meaning of the participial phrase in the second line— “(hav)ing changed his face” —is not entirely clear. As suggested by the Rabbinic commentator Malbim (Meir Leibush ben Yehiel Michel), the reference may be to the visible effects of aging on the person (before death). Certainly, the motif of the rock being worn down (v. 19) would apply to the wearing down of a human being (through age and infirmity). The disfigurement of Job’s flesh (2:7f, 12), as part of his terrible affliction/suffering, is doubtless also in view; on Job’s suffering affecting and altering his “face”, cf. 9:27.
For a very different understanding of the phrase “changing his face”, see the article by Baruch Halpern, “Yhwh’s Summary Justice in Job XIV 20”, Vetus Testamentum [VT] 28 (1978), pp. 472-74, who suggests that, based on supposed parallels in the Amarna Letters, the Semitic idiom here carries the meaning “act with treacherous intent”. Cf. Seow, p. 693.

Verse 21

“His sons may be(come) weighty, but he does not know (it);
(or) they may be small, but he discerns not(hing) of it!”

Once the human being has come to the end of his life, once he has ‘passed’ on, he will no longer have any awareness (in Sheol) of what happens to his children (and descendants), whether good or bad. They may come to be of great “weight” (vb db^k*), i.e., heavy with riches and honor, or they may be small and of little account (cf. Jer 30:19 for a similar juxtaposition of dbk with rux); either way, the dead householder will have no knowledge of it (cf. 9:10; Qoh 9:5).

Another way of understanding this verse, which might be in better accord with the following v. 22, is to see the person’s lack of awareness (about his children, etc.) as being due to his own sufferings. In other words, the reference is to the person who (like Job) is afflicted by God while he is still alive, prior to death.

Verse 22

“Only, his flesh over him shall be in pain,
and his soul over him shall mourn!”

The experience of death is double-edged for human beings. On the one hand, they are cut off from life and from the living (v. 21), yet, at the same time, there is the benefit that they no longer experience physical pain and suffering, and they endure no further affliction (see esp. 3:13ff, 16-19). In order that his complaint should not end on any sort of positive note, Job further emphasizes that, before his death, the human being afflicted by God will experience pain (vb. ba^K*) and will have reason to mourn (over himself). This certainly is true in Job’s case; on the attitude and gestures of mourning, cf. 2:8, 11-13.

The exact force of the initial emphatic-affirmative particle Ea^ is uncertain. If verse 22 is meant as a contrast with v. 21 (and the lack of sensation by the dead), then the particle here may have restrictive force—viz., pointing out that it is only in the flesh (i.e., while a person is alive) that he will experience pain (cf. Tur-Sinai, p. 244). If v. 21 is meant to describe a person’s experience while he is still alive, then the particle may simply be affirming and emphasizing the individual’s suffering—i.e., “Indeed…” or “Truly…!”. I tend to think that the particle here is emphatic (and explicative), but also partly restrictive: i.e., “Only, (you must realize that)…”. In addition to the negative experience in Sheol (of being cut off from the living), this will also have been preceded by suffering and affliction while still alive. Indeed, as in Job’s case, the suffering is of such severity that others will mourn form him (and he will mourn over himself) as though he were already dead.
Given the emphasis in chapter 3 on death as a relief from suffering, it is most unlikely that v. 22 here is meant to describe pain that an individual feels while dead (cf. Pope, p. 111; Gordis, p. 152f).

Seow (pp. 669, 681) makes the interesting observation that the final word of the chapter (lb*a$T#) begins with the letter t, while the first word (<d*a*, v. 1) begins with the letter a—that is, the first and last letters of the Hebrew alphabet, respectively. Moreover, the chapter contains 22 verses, which also happens to be the number of letters in the alphabet. Cf. also van der Lugt, p. 173, and the article by P. W. Skehan, “Strophic Patterns in the Book of Job”, The Catholic Biblical Quarterly [CBQ] 23 (1961), pp. 125-42. This observation would tend to confirm the traditional chapter divisions of the speech, even though, on more substantive poetic-rhetorical structural grounds, the Complaint portion of Job’s speech should be seen as beginning in the middle of chapter 13 (v. 20) and continuing throughout the whole of chap. 14.

The boldness of Job’s complaint against God, in which he questions (and even impugns) God’s justice, naturally does not go unanswered by the companions. Indeed, in the lengthy speech by Eliphaz (chap. 15) that follows, and which kicks off the second-cycle of Dialogue speeches, Job is roundly rebuked for harsh words and attitude against God (see esp. verse 13). We will begin examining this speech in the next note.

    • References above (and throughout these notes) marked “Seow” are to C. L. [Choon Leong] Seow, Job 1-21: Interpretation and Commentary, Illuminations Commentary Series (Eerdmans: 2013).
    • Those marked “Pope” are to Marvin H. Pope, Job, Anchor Bible [AB], vol. 15 (1965, 1973).
    • Those marked “Gordis” are to Robert Gordis, The Book of Job: Commentary, New Translation, and Special Studies, Moreshet Series, Studies in Jewish History, Literature and Thought, vol. II (The Jewish Theological Seminary of America: 1978).
    • Those marked “Tur-Sinai” are to N. H. Tur-Sinai, The Book of Job: A New Commentary (Kiryath Sepher: 1957).
    • Those marked “van der Lugt” are to Pieter van der Lugt, Rhetorical Criticism and the Poetry of the Book of Job, Oudtestamentische Studiën XXXII (Brill: 1995).

August 21: Job 14:18-19

Job 14:18-19

This is the third unit of the second stanza of Job’s complaint; it corresponds to 14:1-3 in the first stanza (see the earlier note). The two units have in common the principal Wisdom-emphasis on the weakness and mortality of the human condition, expressed by a way of an illustration from nature (see v. 2).

Verse 18

“But instead, (just as) a mountain falling crumbles away,
and (the) rock moves away from its place of standing,”

In the parallel verse 2 (see above), the nature-illustration compared a person’s existence to the short-lived seasonal blossoming of flowers and grass. Here, the imagery involves something which, by contrast, appears to be fixed in place and enduring—namely, a rocky mountain (cf. Ps 30:8[7]; 46:3-4 [2-3]; 65:7[6], etc.)—and yet, even it may eventually crumble and fall, if God (the Creator) so wills it (cf. 9:5-6). Indeed, elsewhere in Scripture, such imagery refers to God’s sovereign and ultimate power over creation, particularly when He comes (and is present), to render judgment, etc.—cf. 18:4; Psalm 18:8[7]; 97:5; 114:4; Nah 1:5, etc. In other words, it is God’s power (as Creator) and actions (as the great Judge) that are typically thought to cause the otherwise steadfast mountains to crumble and fall.

The verb lb^n` fundamentally means “wear/wither away”. In the context of a falling mountain, the related sense of “crumble away” would seem to be fitting. The translation “erodes” (so Clines, p. 278), though less poetic, is closer to basic meaning. Tur-Sinai (p. 240) proposed redividing the text, so that it reads lwbyl [wn rh, “(the) high/towering mountain (turns) to a flowing (stream)”; cf. the image of the mountains melting, Ps 97:5; Nah 1:5; Mic 1:4; Amos 9:5. Michel (p. 330), following a suggestion by M. Dahood, connects the verb lbn here with Ugaritic nbl(t), “flame(s)”, i.e., “a mountain falling bursts into flames”.

The double conjunction <l*Wal+ is doubly adversative, i.e., “but instead…”; the situation in vv. 18-19 is firmly contrasted with Job’s description in vv. 15-17 of how God should be treating him. Cf. Gordis, p. 151.

Verse 19

“and (as the) waters grind away stones,
(the) outpouring washing away earth’s dust—
so (the) hope of humankind you make perish!”

The basic illustration from verse 18 continues here in v. 19, the imagery shifting slightly to the (natural) process of water-erosion that both wears down the rock (“stones”) and then, ultimately, washes away the debris (“dust/dirt of [the] earth”). The verb qj^v* means “grind”, both in terms of grinding (i.e., crushing) a substance and grinding down (i.e., wearing down) an object or surface. The parallel verb [f^v* means “wash off, wash away”, sometimes assuming a mighty outpouring or flood of water.

The subject noun of the second line is highly problematic. The MT h*yj=p!s=, presumably the masculine noun j^yp!s* with a feminine singular suffix, is untenable and likely represents a textual error; there is no antecedent for a feminine singular suffix. The verb form ([f)v=T!) does, however, require a feminine singular noun. There would seem to be two possibilities, both of which represent nouns that are otherwise unattested. The first is a noun hj*yp!s= (or hj*p!s=), meaning “outgrowth” in the specific sense of an “outpouring” (cp. Arabic sapaḥa, “pour out [water],” and the noun sāpiḥ, “pouring out”, and certain uses of j^P@s! in later Hebrew); cf. Jastrow, p. 1012, and the discussion by Seow, p. 692. The second, which assumes a scribal error (metathesis), is a noun hp*yj!s= from the root [js, “take/carry away” (in the sense of “wash away”, see Prov 28:3; cf. Arabic saḥīfat, for a “pouring rain”, viz.,  which washes away the soil [HALOT, p. 749]). The latter of these options is perhaps more likely, but both must be considered possible, with relatively little contextual difference of meaning between them.
A few commentators would retain the consonantal text of the MT. Blommerde (p. 72), for example (followed by Michel, p. 322), treats the final hy– as an intensive element, viz., “a mighty outpouring”. But such a parsing of the text seems questionable at best; cf. Pope, p. 111.

The final line explains/applies the illustration—that is, as an illustration of God’s actions in grinding down (and destroying) a human being’s hope (cf. the earlier use of hw`q=T! in verse 7; 4:6; 5:16; 6:8; 7:6; 8:13; 11:18, 20). The verb db^a* (I, Hiphil) means “cause to be lost, make perish”. The claim is general, implying unjust treatment (and oppression) of human beings by God (see esp. 10:3); however, it also applies specifically, and especially, to Job’s situation, in which God has (it seems) punished him unjustly with terrible afflictions and suffering. Throughout these speeches, Job has positioned his suffering as a natural (if especially extreme and severe) extension of the common lot of suffering that attends the human condition. Since humans already suffer due to their weakness, mortality, and the often corrupt and cruel nature of the world (and society) around them, why does God feel the need to punish them additionally (for their sins and faults) with such severity? Job has already made the point, on numerous occasions in his speeches, that he is innocent of any wrong-doing that would justify the terrible afflictions that he has suffered. For the righteous, in particular, their hope and expectation—viz., that they would be blessed and protection (by God)—should be as solid as a rock, and yet Job sees instances (most notably in his own case) where God Himself seems to destroy it.

This bold questioning (and even impugning) of God’s justice is one of the most striking features of Job’s speeches in the Dialogue. Here, it serves as the dramatic climax of his complaint, coming even more clearly into view in the final unit (of both the second stanza and the speech as a whole), vv. 20-22, which we will examine in the next note.

    • References above (and throughout these notes) marked “Seow” are to C. L. [Choon Leong] Seow, Job 1-21: Interpretation and Commentary, Illuminations Commentary Series (Eerdmans: 2013).
    • Those marked “Clines” are to David J. A. Clines, Job 1–20, Word Biblical Commentary, vol. 17 (1989).
    • Those marked “Pope” are to Marvin H. Pope, Job, Anchor Bible [AB], vol. 15 (1965, 1973).
    • Those marked “Michel” are to Walter L. Michel, Job in the Light of Northwest Semitic, Biblica et Orientalia 42 (Rome, Pontifical Biblical Institute Press: 1987).
    • Those marked “Blommerde” are to Anton C. M. Blommerde, Northwest Semitic Grammar and Job, Biblica et Orientalia 22 (Rome, Pontifical Biblical Institute Press: 1969).
    • Those marked “Gordis” are to Robert Gordis, The Book of Job: Commentary, New Translation, and Special Studies, Moreshet Series, Studies in Jewish History, Literature and Thought, vol. II (The Jewish Theological Seminary of America: 1978).
    • Those marked “Tur-Sinai” are to N. H. Tur-Sinai, The Book of Job: A New Commentary (Kiryath Sepher: 1957).

August 20: Job 14:15-17

Job 14:15-17

This is the second unit of the second stanza of Job’s complaint; it corresponds to 13:26-28 in the first stanza (see the earlier note). The two units have in common the thematic motif of God “keeping watch” of Job’s feet/steps, in the legal/punitive context of taking account of his supposed sins (the noun /ou* occurs in both passages, as does the verb rm^v*, cf. below).

A few small fragments of vv. 15-17 are preserved in the Qumran manuscript 4QpaleoJobc. The bits that survive confirm the MT (except for one minor variant in v. 16, cf. below).

Verse 15

“You would call, and I (indeed) would answer you—
for (the) work of your hands you should be longing!”

The rhetorical thrust of these verses is not entirely clear. To some extent, the interpretation depends on the relationship of v. 15 to vv. 16-17. In my view, these verses belong together as a conceptual and rhetorical unit. The reference to a human being (Job) as the “work of (God’s) hands” echoes the earlier wording in 10:3ff, and thus the sense of the lines here should be seen as similar—viz., Job is essentially rebuking God for how He is apparently treating His creation (human beings); He should be treating them with loving care, rather than as enemies or miscreants to be punished. The second line here surely has the same thrust, as Job tells God: “you should be longing for the work of your hands”. The verb [s^K* (II) and its cognates mean “be dark/gloomy” (cf. Arabic kasafa), “be/look pale”, with the connotative meanings of (feeling) shame and/or desire. The latter is in view here, as in the other rare Scriptural occurrences (Gen 31:30; Psalm 17:12; 84:3[2]; Zeph 2:1). In other words, God should have a desire/longing for his creation, so as to love and care for it.

Job wishes that God would demonstrate His concern by calling to him—for he would be most eager to answer! Job would rather not have to take the initiative, seeking God out to make his appeal to Him. The language of calling/answering obviously has legal-judicial implications here (cf. 9:15-16; 13:22), but the idiom also has religious significance, in terms of the individual’s relationship to God; cf. Clines, p. 332f. In 12:4, Job expressed the other side of this same wish—viz., that God would answer him when he calls to Him; cf. 19:16; 30:20.

Verse 16

“Indeed, now you might count my strides,
(but) not be acting as guard over my sin!”

As indicated above, the entire thrust of this unit is a description by Job of how God should be treating him—but clearly, apparently, has not been! It is fine for God to be watching over Job’s steps (“counting my strides”), cf. 31:4; 34:21, but He should not be doing so with the purpose of keeping track of all his sins (see 10:6). This wording echoes the parallel unit (13:26-27f), including use of the same verb rm^v* (“guard”). Often, when applied to YHWH, this verb has a positive meaning—particularly in the covenant context of YHWH guarding and protecting the faithful ones of His people. Here, however (cf. also 7:12), the sense is negative: God is apparently judging and punishing Job, putting him under guard (like a criminal), having kept a close watch on all of his sins (even those committed during his youth). I translate rm^v* here as “act as a guard”, alluding to the earlier image of a prison-guard, but also capturing the broader judicial context of the judge (in this instance, God) as a guardian over right and wrong, keeping close track of a person’s sins and punishing them accordingly.

The nuance of this couplet (and the unit as whole) has apparently proven difficult for many prior commentators and translators to discern (see the discussion by Gordis, p. 150f). The Syriac Peshitta, for example, translates with a negative particle in both lines, making the lines truly parallel: “…not count my strides” / “…not be a guard over my sin”. Michel (p. 329) is one of handful of commentators who, following earlier suggestions by M. Dahood, reads al here as a Divine title (vocalized al@, and meaning something like “Victorious [One]”). This similarly gives to both lines a negative sense, as Job makes a parallel rebuke to God: “But now my strides you count, / O Victor, you are a guard over my sin!”. It is a creative line of interpretation, but it hardly seems necessary.

I regard the initial yK! particle as emphatic-affirmative, “Indeed…!”. The Qumran manuscript 4QpaleoJobc lacks this particle.

Verse 17

“(You might let) be sealed in a bundle my breach,
and might have covered over my crookedness!”

This final couplet continues the rhetorical orientation of the unit, as Job describes how God should have, or could have, dealt with him. As a righteous and devout person, any wrongs that he might have done would have been minor or had taken place long ago (in his youth, cf. 13:26); God surely could have forgiven and overlooked them. Such wrongs are referenced generally, and collectively, in v. 16 as “sin/error” (ha*F*j^); here, they are divided out into two basic kinds, or aspects: (1) a breach of a relational bond of trust (whether with God or other human beings), uv^P#; and (2) crookedness, /ou*, i.e., any deviation from what is right/proper.

The effective removal of sin/guilt, in something like a forensic sense, is expressed here by two distinct motifs: (a) sealing the sin away in a bag, and (b) covering it over (as with paint or clay). The verb <t^j* means “shut/seal up” (note the alliterative wordplay with the prior word ha*F*j^); in this case, the sealing is done by putting the sin into a bag or bundle that is tied/bound (noun rorx=, cf. Gen 42:30; Prov 7:20; Song 1:13, etc.). The verb in the second line is lp^f*, meaning “cover/spread over”, as with clay; cf. earlier in 13:4; also Psalm 119:69; Sir 51:5. The verb is quite rare in Biblical Hebrew, but rather more common in Aramaic (and later Hebrew); its use here could thus be an indication of a relatively late date for the Dialogue (cf. also Arabic ṭufāl), but a cognate is already attested in Akkadian (ṭapālu, also ṭuppulu) [HALOT, p. 378f].

Pope (p. 109f) cites a possible Near Eastern parallel (from Nuzi) in support of the idea that the ‘sealed bag’ here is an accounting bag, i.e., in which God has kept an account of Job’s sins (compare Hos 13:12); cf. the discussion by Seow, p. 690, who also suggests that the spreading (or daubing) of clay, mentioned in the second line, relates as well to the process of sealing.

The form of the verb <tj in the first line (according to the MT vocalization) is a passive participle (<t%j*) functioning as a verbal adjective, viz., for a tied bundle that is “sealed”. In order to provide a smoother parallel to the second line, the LXX and Vulgate translate with a second person active verb, i.e., “you might seal”, or “you might have sealed”. The Peshitta curiously translated with an imperative, perhaps reading the vocalization as <t)j& (cf. Isa 8:16). Gordis (p. 151) favors vocalizing as an infinitive (<t)j*), being equivalent in usage to a 2nd person imperfect form, viz., “(You are) sealing”, or “(You could) be sealing”. Cf. Seow, p. 690.

In the next unit of the stanza (vv. 18-19), to be discussed in the next note, Job’s expressed wish here (regarding how God should have treated him) collides with the reality of human suffering (as a recurrent Wisdom-theme) and the lack of justice (i.e., God’s justice) that this seemingly reflects.

    • References above (and throughout these notes) marked “Seow” are to C. L. [Choon Leong] Seow, Job 1-21: Interpretation and Commentary, Illuminations Commentary Series (Eerdmans: 2013).
    • Those marked “Clines” are to David J. A. Clines, Job 1–20, Word Biblical Commentary [WBC] vol. 17 (1989).
    • Those marked “Michel” are to Walter L. Michel, Job in the Light of Northwest Semitic, Biblica et Orientalia 42 (Rome, Pontifical Biblical Institute Press: 1987).
    • Those marked “Pope” are to Marvin H. Pope, Job, Anchor Bible [AB] vol. 15 (1965, 1973).
    • Those marked “Gordis” are to Robert Gordis, The Book of Job: Commentary, New Translation, and Special Studies, Moreshet Series, Studies in Jewish History, Literature and Thought, vol. II (The Jewish Theological Seminary of America: 1978).

August 13: Job 14:13-14

Job 14:13-14

This is the first unit of the second stanza of Job’s complaint; it corresponds to 13:23-25 in the first stanza (see the earlier note).

A few small fragments of vv. 13-14 are preserved in the Qumran manuscript 4QpaleoJobc. The bits that survive confirm the MT (except for one minor variant in v. 14, cf. below).

Verse 13

“Who will give (that) you might hide me in Še’ôl,
keep me hidden until your anger turns (away),
set for me an inscribed (time) and remember me?”

This second part of Job’s complaint begins with an echo of his earlier lament (chap. 3), as he expresses the wish (“Who will give…?”) that he might die and thus find relief from his suffering (3:13ff, 20-21ff; cf. also 6:8-13; 7:15-16; 10:18-22). And yet, he knows well enough that there is no return to life for a human being once he has died (vv. 10-12, as discussed in the previous note). Thus, the wish expressed here is that he might experience just a temporary sojourn into the grave (i.e., Sheol, the realm of Death and the dead), that God would hide him there until His anger (i.e., God’s punishing wrath in judgment against him) “turns back/away” (bWv); cf. 9:13, and the similar imagery in Isa 26:20. Two different verbs are used for the act of hiding—/p^x* (line 1) and rt^s* (line 2). God would, it is hoped, allow him to remain hidden in Sheol for a set (lit. “inscribed”) time, after which God would “remember” him and restore him to life. On this use of the noun qj) for an “inscribed [i.e., set/decreed]” time or limit, cf. verse 4, and also the related verb (hq*j*) in 13:27.

Michel (p. 325) prefers to understand the preposition B= in line 1 as meaning “from” (= /m!), “hide me from Sheol [i.e., protect me from death]”, finding it unlikely that Job would actually ask God to place him in Sheol (from whence there is no return). While it is true that B= can occasionally carry the nuanced meaning “from” (usually “from [with]in”), it is unnecessary to attribute such a meaning to the use of the preposition here. The sense of “in” (i.e., “hide me in Sheol”) is appropriate, as it reflect the earlier instances of Job’s wish for death (so as to bring him rest and relief, cf. above). Moreover, as noted above, Job is presenting a hypothetical situation that he knows is impossible—viz., a temporary place of rest and refuge in Sheol.

The interrogative expression /T@y] ym! (“Who will give [that]…?”) is a regular Hebrew idiom for expressing a fervent wish (i.e., “Would that…!”, “Oh, that…!”, “If only…!”); cf. earlier in verse 4. Often such a wish is understood as unlikely to be fulfilled, and that is certainly the case here.

Verse 14

“(Yet,) if a man should die, can he live (again)?
All (the) days of my forced service I would wait,
until (the) coming of my turn (for death).”

As mentioned above, Job is fully aware (cf. verses 10-12) that the wish he expressed in v. 13 is impossible; the question he asks in line 1 here confirms the point: “If a man [rb#G#] should die, can/does he live (again)?” Clearly, the answer is “No”. If only it were possible, then his wish/hope that God might grant him a temporary relief (in Sheol) could be feasible. But, more than this, Job declares (in lines 2-3) that he would even be willing to endure the suffering of his life on earth (that is, not go prematurely into Sheol), if he knew that it was possible to live again (in a new/restored life) after death. I understand the noun hp*yl!j& to mean the “turn” when a particular event or situation is to occur—in this instance, the time when it is Job’s turn to die. The noun can also carry the sense of a turning from one situation to another, connoting the idea of change; here, in context, this would mean a change from Job’s current condition of “forced service” (ab*x*, implying hard labor). This motif (with the use of ab*x*) featured earlier in 7:1ff; cf. 10:17, where the noun hp*yl!j& also occurs, but in a different sense.

The Greek translation of the third line seems to understand hp*yl!j& in the sense of a renewal of life (e&w$ a*n pa/lin ge/nwmai, “until I would again come to be”). As Seow (p. 689) notes, Christian exegesis, based on this Greek version, tended to interpret the line as a reference to the resurrection. However, it remains a question the extent to which the Job poet accepts or posits the idea of an afterlife (beyond the dead individual’s shadowy existence in Sheol). At the very least, Job’s questions here in vv. 13-14 raise the prospect of the possibility of life after death. The matter will be discussed further as we continue along in the notes, as well as in a future supplemental note.

As a minor textual note, the Qumran manuscript 4QpaleoJobc reads the letter h prior to the words aoB du^ (“until [the] coming [of]”) in the final line. This could imply that the manuscript read a long yaqtul/yiqtol cohortative form of the verb ljy, i.e., hlj&y~a& (cp. MT lj@y~a&), “let me wait” or (volitional) “I would (be willing to) wait”. This would not change the meaning of the line much, but the presence of the letter h does, in any case, represent a textual variation from the MT. Cf. Seow, p. 689.

    • References above (and throughout these notes) marked “Seow” are to C. L. [Choon Leong] Seow, Job 1-21: Interpretation and Commentary, Illuminations Commentary Series (Eerdmans: 2013).
    • Those marked “Michel” are to Walter L. Michel, Job in the Light of Northwest Semitic, Biblica et Orientalia 42 (Rome, Pontifical Biblical Institute Press: 1987).

August 11: Job 14:10-12

Job 14:10-12

This is the second stanza (or strophe) of the intermediate Wisdom-poem (vv. 7-12) within Job’s complaint. In the first part (see the previous note), the image was presented of a tree which, though it may appear to be dying (or to have died), it can still experience regeneration and live/grow again. Now, here in the second part (vv. 10-12), a human being is contrasted with such a tree. A mortal human (who grows old and dies) is not like the tree, but more akin to the seasonal vegetation (grass, flowers) that withers and dies out (v. 2).

Verse 10

“But (even) a strong (man) dies and wears away;
indeed, a human expires—and (then) where is he?”

The noun rb#G# is parallel with <d*a* (“[hu]man”) in the second line, and with vya! (“man”) in v. 12a; thus, it has the general meaning of “man” here as well. However, to distinguish between these terms in translation, I have preserved the denotative meaning of rb#G# as “strong/vigorous (one)”; indeed, the nuance of the line may well be as I have translated, “but (even) a strong (one) dies…”, which enhances the contrast of the illustration (cf. also Michel, p. 322). The verb vl^j* (I) is extremely rare, this being the only certain occurrence in Scripture, and thus some commentators (e.g., Budde, Driver-Gray) have suggested emendation to [l^j* (I), “pass by” (in the sense of “pass away”). The verb vl^j* (I) properly means “be(come) worn, wear out”, sometimes with the connotation of “be(come) weak”, and the sense here of “wear away” is perfectly suitable to the context; there may also be some double meaning wordplay with vl^j* (II), “crush, wipe out” (Exod 17:13; Isa 14:12), cf. Akkadian ḫalāšu, and note also Arabic ḫalasa (“rob, steal”), ḫalaša (“carry off”), halaša (“reap”) as possible cognates. Cf. the note by Clines, p. 284.
Some manuscripts read a conjunctive yiqtol form (vl*j=y#w+) rather than a wayyiqtol consecutive form (vl*j=Y#w~); cf. Seow, p. 687.

For the verb uw~G` (translated here “expire”), used in parallel with tWm (“die”), cf. earlier in 3:11; 10:18; 13:19.

The final word oYa^w+ is apparently a suffixed form of the interrogative ya@ (lengthened form, hY@a^), “where…?”, i.e., “and where (is) he?” (cf. 20:7). However, the LXX (ou)ke/ti) and Peshitta suggest that the Hebrew is /yaw, the negative particle (of absence/non-existence), /y]a^, a reading that is confirmed by at least one manuscript (cf. Seow, p. 687), i.e., “and he is no more”, much as Job says of himself in 7:8, 21. The same meaning could be coaxed from the text (without emendation) if it is read as a negative particle (ya!), cf. 22:30, as proposed by M. Dahood, “The Conjunction wn and Negative ʾî in Hebrew,” Ugarit-Forschungen [UF] 14 (1982), pp. 51–54, and adopted by Michel (p. 323). As Seow suggests, the MT (i.e., reading wya as the suffixed interrogative) should probably be followed, since it is the more difficult reading and yet makes acceptable sense in context.

Verse 11

“(As the) waters go away from (the) sea,
and a flowing stream dries and dries up,”

A second subordinate nature-image is utilized here in vv. 11-12. If the life (and death) of a human being is not like that of the tree (vv. 7-9), it is like that of a body of water that dries out (in the heat of summer). A similar sort of seasonal comparison (illustration of a wadi) was utilized in chapter 6 (vv. 15-20); it also echoes the vegetation-illustration earlier here in verse 2. The relatively rare verb lz~a* appears to be an Aramaism, being common in Aramaic and similar to Hebrew El^h* (in the general sense of “go”); the meaning here is “go away”. The image of waters “going away” from a lake or other body of water (“sea”) presumably has the dry summer season in mind, more clearly evident in the second line, which utilizes two verbs (br^j* [I] and vb@y`) that both mean “be(come) dry, dry up”. Cf. the use of these same verbs together in Isa 19:5, which generally resembles the wording of v. 11 here.

Verse 12

“so man lies down and does not stand up (again)—
until (the) wearing out of (the) heavens
they will not be wakened nor roused from their sleep!”

This final irregular tricolon (cf. the tricolon of v. 7) continues the illustration and the thought expressed in v. 11 (above). Like the water that disappears (in its season), so a human being disappears from life/existence on earth. The noun vya! (cf. the terms in v. 10) in line 1 is properly singular (i.e., “a man”), but the verb forms in line 3 are plural, implied collective “man(kind)”; indeed, the illustration certainly applies to all human beings.

Once human beings die, they do not come back to life again; two related (traditional) idioms are used to express this juxtaposition of death / no-life: (a) lying down / standing up, and (b) sleeping / awaking. The death-as-sleep motif is utilized in Job’s prior speeches, most notably in the chapter 3 lament.

The short second line makes clear that human beings, once they die, will remain dead (and in the realm of the dead, Sheol), as long as the heavens—the portion of the created order seen as the most divine-like and permanent or long-lasting (cf. Deut 11:21; Psalm 89:30[29], etc.)—continue to exist. This is expressed negatively, by the negative particle yT!l=B!, which resembles /y]a^ (see above) in its emphasis on non-existence. The line, as a temporal phrase, thus means “until (the) heavens are no more”. However, the text can also be vocalized as yt!l)B=, an infinitive construct (with hireq compaginis) of the verb hl*B* (“wear out, wear/fade away”). At the very least, the poet likely has some double-meaning wordplay in mind; indeed, yT!l=B! derives from the same verbal root (hlb, tl#B# cf. Ugaritic/Phoenician blt), and thus the basic denotation of “wear out, wear away” is clearly in view. In order to bring this out, and to capture the conceptual wordplay (i.e., “wear away”) in connection with the verb vl^j* (I) in verse 10 (cf. above), I have translated ytlb here as though it were an infinitive construct of the verb— “until (the) wearing out of (the) heavens” (cf. Psalm 102:27[26]; Isa 34:4; 51:6). See further the discussions by Blommerde (p. 71), Clines (p. 284), Seow (p. 688), and other commentators.

The extent to which the positive concept of an afterlife may be present in the book of Job will be discussed (in a supplemental note) at a later point in the exegesis

In our next note, we will turn to second of the two main stanzas of Job’s complaint, and the first unit (vv. 13-14) of which it is comprised.

    • References above (and throughout these notes) marked “Seow” are to C. L. [Choon Leong] Seow, Job 1-21: Interpretation and Commentary, Illuminations Commentary Series (Eerdmans: 2013).
    • Those marked “Clines” are to David J. A. Clines, Job 1–20, Word Biblical Commentary [WBC] vol. 17 (1989).
    • Those marked “Michel” are to Walter L. Michel, Job in the Light of Northwest Semitic, Biblica et Orientalia 42 (Rome, Pontifical Biblical Institute Press: 1987).
    • Those marked “Blommerde” are to Anton C. M. Blommerde, Northwest Semitic Grammar and Job, Biblica et Orientalia 22 (Rome, Pontifical Biblical Institute Press: 1969).

August 7: Job 14:7-9

Job 14:7-9

In between the two main stanzas of Job’s complaint there is a short Wisdom-poem (14:7-12) which itself is comprised of two stanzas (or strophes). This poem is both transitional and expository, building upon the Wisdom-theme(s) established in the first stanza. In particular, it develops the illustration (from the natural world) in verse 2, only this time the comparison is contrastive. The life of a human being is contrasted with that of a tree. Unlike the seasonal vegetation (mentioned in v. 2), which withers and dies out in its time, a rooted tree survives. Even if it is cut down, it will grow again (v. 7); and, even if its roots begin to wither in the dry ground, it can be renewed again (with water, vv. 8-9).

Verse 7

“Indeed, there may exist for the tree hope:
if it is cut off, then it grows again in turn,
and its suckling (branches) will not cease.”

Since the poem in vv. 7-12 is expository, as noted above, the initial yK! could be causal (i.e., “For…”, “So [then]…”); however, it seems better to view it in an emphatic-declarative sense (“Indeed…”).

The noun hw`q=T! (“hope, expectation”, but also “thread, cord”) has already occurred a number of times in the Dialogue (4:6; 5:16; 6:8; 7:6; 8:13; 11:18, 20) in a similar Wisdom-context, dealing with the mortality of the human condition—viz., the relative shortness of one’s life and its end (i.e., death). In this regard, the particle vy@ (used here in the first line) indicates existence; there exists hope for a tree that, even it seems to have its life cut off, or is about to die, it will continue to exist. Verse 7 deals specifically with the situation when a tree is “cut off” (vb tr^K*, i.e., cut down); it can still grow again, putting forth new shoots (lit. “suckers, sucklings”, tq#n#oy [collective], i.e., branches that suck nutrients from the root). The verb [l^j* (I) fundamentally means “take place in turn(s)” (cf. the earlier usage in 10:20); in this instance, it refers to the tree growing again (dou) in turn. See the similar usage of [l^j* in Psalm 90:5-6, and note also the sense of renewal implied in 29:20 (later in the Dialogue); cf. Seow, p. 686.

The verb ld^j* (“cease”) was used earlier in v. 6, referring to the death of a human being (such as Job). At death, an individual ceases to exist, but also, in a more positive sense, ceases (i.e., finds rest) from the toil and trouble of human existence. By contrast, the tree does not cease to exist.

This initial verse of the poem is a tricolon, just like the last verse (v. 12); indeed, there is a loose chiastic structure to the poem (which will be discussed further in the next note).

Verses 8-9

“(Or,) if its root should grow old in the earth,
and its stump (be about to) die in the dirt,
from a breath of water it will sprout (anew),
and make shoot(s) like a (tree newly) planted!”

Here, in vv. 8-9, a different situation is portrayed: that of a tree/plant whose root is withering away in the ground. The comparative simile referring to human old age and death is clear enough, including use of the specific verbs /q^z` (Hiphil “grow old, become aged”, lit., “[gray-]bearded”) and tWm (“die”). In this context, the latter verb should probably be glossed in the sense of “be in the process of dying”, or “be about to die” (cf. Gordis, p. 148; Clines, p. 284). Even more pointed is the double use of the expression “in the earth” / “in the dirt”, clearly alluding to a dead body buried in the ground (cf. the reference to Sheol in v. 13). While there is no renewal of life (in the simple biological-physical sense) for the dead human being who is in the ground, the dying root of a tree (withering in the dry ground) can still be revived—if it receives water. At even the scent (lit. “breath”) of this life-restoring water, renewal begins to take place.

The noun uz~G# refers to the stump/trunk of a tree (including its roots); it is extremely rare, occurring just twice elsewhere in the Scriptures (Isa 11:1; 40:24) where it is similarly paired with vr#v# (“root”). The nouns Jr#a# (“earth”) and rp*u* (“dirt, dust”) are regularly paired together, both in Hebrew and (with the corresponding cognates) in Ugaritic; cf. Dahood, RSP I. 2.67, III. 1.Suppl.16; Michel, p. 322.

The extended preposition *mK=, much less common than simple K=, occurs a number of times in the book of Job (cf. earlier in 1:8; 2:3; 6:15; 9:32; 10:22; 12:3).

The second stanza (vv. 10-12) of this short Wisdom-poem will be examined in the next note.

    • References above (and throughout these notes) marked “Seow” are to C. L. [Choon Leong] Seow, Job 1-21: Interpretation and Commentary, Illuminations Commentary Series (Eerdmans: 2013).
    • Those marked “Clines” are to David J. A. Clines, Job 1–20, Word Biblical Commentary [WBC] vol. 17 (1989).
    • Those marked “Michel” are to Walter L. Michel, Job in the Light of Northwest Semitic, Biblica et Orientalia 42 (Rome, Pontifical Biblical Institute Press: 1987).
    • Those marked “Gordis” are to Robert Gordis, The Book of Job: Commentary, New Translation, and Special Studies, Moreshet Series, Studies in Jewish History, Literature and Thought, vol. II (The Jewish Theological Seminary of America: 1978).
    • Those marked “Dahood, RSP” (I, III) are to Ras Shamra Parallels: The Text from Ugarit and the Hebrew Bible.
      Volume 1, ed. Loren R. Fisher—Chapter 2: Ugaritic-Hebrew Parallel Pairs, by Mitchell Dahood, S.J., in collaboration with Tadeusz Penar.
      Volume 3, ed. Stan Rummell—Chapter 1: Ugaritic-Hebrew Parallel Pairs, by Mitchell Dahood, S.J. (Rome, Pontifical Biblical Institute: 1972, 1981).

August 4: Job 14:4-6

Job 14:4-6

This is the fourth (and final) unit of the first stanza of Job’s complaint; it corresponds to 14:20-22 in the second stanza.

Verse 4

“Who will give (something) pure from (the) unclean?
(But) not one (instance can be found)!”

The first couplet of this unit is peculiar in almost every regard. With its focus on (moral) purity, it appears to be out of place in the present context. The meter (3+2) is somewhat irregular, as is the terseness (5:3 syllable count) of expression, which makes translation (and interpretation) all the more difficult.

The idea that the verse represents a secondary gloss or addition to the text has little to recommend it, particularly since v. 4 is present in the Qumran manuscript 4QJobb (so also noted by Seow, p. 684). I think that the seeming inappropriateness of the couplet here is the result of an assumption that moral purity (i.e., sin vs. righteousness, guilt) is in view. The context, however, strongly suggests that the wording alludes to the uncleanness that attends a dead body. In 13:28, Job compared himself, along with (to a certain extent) all human beings, to a decaying corpse (cf. also the illustration here in v. 2). The reference to Sheol (viz., the realm of death and the dead) in the parallel v. 20 confirms that death (and a dead body) is in view here as well.
A separate and distinct Wisdom-tradition holds that human beings are fundamentally impure—in the moral sense, but also in terms of their creaturely limitations and mortality. This anthropological (and theological) point is made in the Dialogue by the companions (4:17ff; 15:14ff) rather than Job. For the theological implications of verse 4 in terms of the history of interpretation, cf. the article by J. K. Zink, “Uncleanness and Sin: A Study of Job XIV 4 and Psalm LI 7”, Vetus Testamentum [VT] 17 (1967), pp. 354-61.

The syntactical construct /T@y] ym! (“Who will give (that)…?”) is regularly used as an idiom for expressing a wish—i.e., “Would that…!”, “Oh, that…!”, “If only…!”, etc. So it was used earlier in 6:8; 11:5; 13:5; it occurs again here in v. 13 of Job’s complaint. The sense of the first line thus is: “Who will give that something pure [rohf*] should come to be from something unclean [am@f*]?” I have tried to render this as concisely as possible (above), but it still does not do justice to the terseness of the Hebrew. The answer is that such a thing is not possible; there is “not one (instance)” of it. The abruptness of the answer is expressed by the terseness of the Hebrew line: lit., “Not one” (dj*a# al)). As a proper answer to the question in line 1 (according to its Hebrew syntax), “Who will give (that)…?”, the answer should perhaps be rendered “No one” (but cf. Seow’s comment on this, p. 684).

Mention should be made of the peculiar interpretation of the second line given by Blommerde (p. 69), following Dahood’s claim that certain instances (in the Psalms, etc.) of the negative particle (al)) in the MT should actually be vocalized as a Divine title (al@), meaning “Mighty (One)”. Thus, the answer to the question in line 1 (“Who will give [that]…?”) becomes “(The) Mighty (One) [i.e., God] alone”. Michel (pp. 318-20), again following a suggestion by Dahood, explains dj*a# (“one”) here as another Divine title, viz., “(The Only) One”, “(The) Unique One”. This line of interpretation corresponds with the interpretive translation offered by the Targum (i.e., “No one, except God”); cf. also the Vulgate nonne tu qui solus es, “Is it not you [i.e., God] who are the only one?”

It is important to remember that the couplet needs to be understood according to the Wisdom-context of Job’s complaint. The implication is that God should not judge human beings so harshly, expecting that they ought to be completely pure, since, as ‘decaying corpses’—living only brief lives full of trouble and suffering (v. 1; cf. 7:1ff)—they are already near to death. This is all the more so in Job’s case, in light of the terrible calamities and afflictions that he has suffered.

Verse 5

“Indeed, his days (thus) having been engraved,
(and the) count of his new (moon)s (being) with you—
his limit you have made and he cannot cross (it)—”

The lines of this tricolon echo the wording from 13:26-27—particularly, the idea of God (as the King and Judge) inscribing the judgment for humankind, and, correspondingly, placing individuals in prison (i.e., setting limits on their freedom of movement, etc.). In those prior verses, the verbs bt^K* and hq*j* were used for this act of “cutting, engraving, inscribing”; here it is Jr^j* (I) and the noun qj) (related to hq*j* and qq^j*). As in 13:27, this use of the verbal root *qj carries the sense of an “inscribed limit” that is determined (by God); in this instance, the limit refers to the length of a person’s life—viz., the determined number of days and months (lit., “new [moon]s”), cf. 21:1; Psalm 39:5[4]. It is not possible for a human being to go beyond (i.e., cross over, vb rb^u*) this limit imposed by God. This last point is made in the third line of the verse, which I regard as a parenthetical statement.

The Kethib reads singular oQj% (“his limit”), and the Qere plural wyQ*j% (“his limits”). The LXX (also Symmachus) and the Syriac (Peshitta) support the Kethib, which also corresponds with the Joban usage—all the other occurrences of the noun being singular (23:12, 14; 26:10; 28:26; 38:10, cf. Seow, p. 685).

The initial particle <a! should probably be treated as emphatic (i.e., “Indeed…”), rather than conditional-circumstantial; cf. Gordis, p. 148. Seow (p. 685) references similar usage in Imperial Aramaic.

Verse 6

“look away from him, and let him cease,
until he counts out, like a hired worker, his day!”

Along with Clines (p. 277), I consider verse 6 to represent a syntactical continuation from v. 5 (see above). 

This final couplet echoes two key points from Job’s earlier speech (in chapter 7), utilizing several layers of double-meaning wordplay that defy translation (and require careful exposition). The first line echoes 7:16 + 19, while the second line references the hired-worker (ryk!c*) illustration in 7:1-2. In 7:19, Job essentially asked God to “look away” (vb hu*v* + preposition /m!) from him, just as he does here. The result would be that God might turn from punishing Job (cf. 13:21)—that is, to refrain from punishing him any further, and, instead, give him a measure of relief. That is also the sense of the imperative of the verb ld^j* (I), “cease”, in 7:16—viz., that God would cease from afflicting Job. Here we have a yiqtol/imperfect form of the verb, “and he will cease”, which, however, may carry jussive force (i.e., “and let him cease”) similar to an imperative. It is possible to discern three layers of meaning here for the use of ld^j*, of which the poet was doubtless aware:

    • that the human being (Job) would cease from toil and suffering
    • that he would cease to exist (i.e., would die), finding rest/relief as a result
    • that he would “become fat”, i.e., find fulfillment and enjoyment (wordplay with the meaning of the verbal root ld^j* II)

There is similar multi-layered wordplay in the second line, drawing upon the illustration from 7:1-2 (esp. the hired-worker [ryk!c*] lines, in bold):

“Is it not (like) forced service for humankind upon earth,
and like (the) days of a hired worker his days?
Like a slave he (is) panting for (evening’s) shade,
and like a hired worker awaits (payment) for his work.“

The two key lines join together two conceptual themes: (1) the days of a human being (i.e., his life-span) are like those of a hired worker (full of toil); and (2) the hired worker receives payment for the work done at the end of each day. The first of these refers to the toil/trouble of human life (along with its briefness and mortality), while the second refers to the rest and enjoyment that comes when the day’s toil ceases (alluding to the ‘rest’ that comes with death, and [possibly] to the enjoyment of an afterlife). In this context, there are three layers of meaning for the verb hx*r* (involving two distinct verbal roots, I & II):

    • The human being “counts off” (hx*r* II) the days of his life-span
    • Like the hired-worker, he “counts” (hx*r* II) his wages at the end of the days’ work, the wages being ‘counted out’ to him as payment.
    • He takes pleasure (hx*r* I), finding enjoyment in his wages and in the rest (from toil/labor) that comes at the end of the day.

There is an obvious resemblance between verse 6 and Psalm 39:14[13], even as there is between verse 5 and Ps 39:5-7 [4-6]. We have already noted the connection between 13:28 and Ps 39:12[11]b. Thus there is a strong likelihood that the Job poet was familiar with the Psalm and utilized on several occasions; cf. the discussion by Will Kynes, My Psalm Has Turned into Weeping: Job’s Dialogue with the Psalms, Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft [BZAW] 437 (De Gruyter: 2012), pp. 122-41 [135-6].

In the next note, we will turn our attention to the short Wisdom-poem (vv. 7-12) that sits between the two stanzas of Job’s complaint. It continues the thematic emphasis on mortality and the brevity of human life.

    • References above (and throughout these notes) marked “Seow” are to C. L. [Choon Leong] Seow, Job 1-21: Interpretation and Commentary, Illuminations Commentary Series (Eerdmans: 2013).
    • Those marked “Clines” are to David J. A. Clines, Job 1–20, Word Biblical Commentary [WBC] vol. 17 (1989).
    • Those marked “Michel” are to Walter L. Michel, Job in the Light of Northwest Semitic, Biblica et Orientalia 42 (Rome, Pontifical Biblical Institute Press: 1987).
    • Those marked “Blommerde” are to Anton C. M. Blommerde, Northwest Semitic Grammar and Job, Biblica et Orientalia 22 (Rome, Pontifical Biblical Institute Press: 1969).
    • Those marked “Gordis” are to Robert Gordis, The Book of Job: Commentary, New Translation, and Special Studies, Moreshet Series, Studies in Jewish History, Literature and Thought, vol. II (The Jewish Theological Seminary of America: 1978).

August 3: Job 14:1-3

Job 14:1-3

This is the third unit of the first stanza of Job’s complaint; it corresponds to 14:18-19 in the second stanza.

Verse 1

“A human being, born of a woman,
(is) short of days and full of turmoil;”

This unit, starting with the first couplet, highlights a familiar Wisdom-theme—namely, the brevity of life and toil/trouble that characterizes the mortal human condition. It is a theme that was present in the earlier speeches, most notably in chapters 7 and 10 of Job’s two prior speeches. The theme is developed further throughout the remainder of Job’s complaint—particularly in the parallel vv. 18-19 (of stanza 2) and the intervening Wisdom-poem (vv. 7-12).

The ‘human condition’, shared generally by all people, is referenced in the first line by the common noun <d*a* (rendered here as “human [being]” rather than “man”) and the expression “born of a woman” (hV*a! dWly+); for the latter, cf. 15:14; 25:4; Sir 10:8; Matt 11:11 par; Gal 4:4). As Seow (p. 682) notes, the expression continues to be in use, in a similar Wisdom-context, connoting the transitory nature of human existence, in the Qumran writings (e.g., 1QS 11:21; 1QHa 5.20; 21.1; 23.13).

The unusual expression “short [rx@q*] of days” is related to the idiom of “cutting short” (vb rx^q*, Piel) one’s days (cf. Ps 89:46[45]; 102:24[23]; Sir 30:24), as also to the idea of “lengthening” the days (Deut 4:40; 5:33; cf. Ps 21:5[4]; 23:6). Generally speaking, human beings live only a relatively short time (10:20; Psalm 39:6[5], et al.), and yet their days can be “full of trouble” (see esp. 7:1-3); cf. Psalm 89:48[47]. The noun zg#r) is something of a Joban term—five of the seven Scriptural occurrences are in the book of Job (cf. also Isa 14:3; Hab 3:2). It was used earlier in 3:17, 26 (and cf. later in 37:2; 39:24), where it was translated as “raging”, though the general denotation (cf. the verb zg^r`, Phoenician rgz, Arabic rajaza) seems to relate to being in a disturbed or agitated condition; here, the meaning “turmoil” is appropriate.

The verb ub^c* (“be filled/full”) tends to have the forceful sense of being ‘stuffed’ full; it was used by Job earlier, in similar idioms, to express the severity of his suffering and misery (cf. 7:4; 9:18; 10:15).

Verse 2

“like a flower, he (blossom)s forth and (then) wilts,
and passes like a shadow, and no (longer) stands—”

As a Wisdom-theme, the shortness of human life and the transitory nature of human existence is frequently illustrated through comparisons with the natural world. A comparison with the sprouting grass and the blooming flowers occurs frequently (e.g., Psalm 37:2; 90:6; 103:15; Isa 40:6-7; James 1:10); it flourishes only for a season, and then withers. The latter aspect (which obviously parallels human old age and death) is expressed here by the verb ll^m* (I), “wilt, wither” (cf. Arabic malla, “be[come] tired”), which also occurs in a similar context in Ps 37:2; 90:6. The parallel in the second line is the negation of the verb dm^u* (“stand”), i.e., “does not stand”, or, better, “no (longer) stands”.
Some commentators would connect the verb form lM*y] with the root lm^a* (I), “wither (away)”, or lWm (I), “cut off”; cf. Seow, p. 683. The Joban poet may well have some double-meaning wordplay in mind. 

It is also quite common to compare human life, in its ephemeral quality, to a passing shadow—cf. 8:9; 17:7; Ps 39:7[6]; 102:12[11]; 109:23; Qoh 6:12. The verb jr^B* specifically means “pass by” or “pass/go away”, often with the sense of this happening quickly or abruptly. The parallel verb in the first line is ax*y` (“go/come forth”), which I translate here contextually as “(blossom) forth”. Proposed emendations to read a form of the verb jm^x* (“sprout”) or Jyx! (“bloom/blossom”) are unnecessary.

Verse 3

“yet, upon (such as) this you would open your eyes
and bring (even) me into judgment with you!”

The initial conjunction [a^ connects this climactic couplet with v. 2, in an adversative/contrary sense (i.e., “yet…”, “nevertheless…”), as Seow (p. 683f) notes, citing Lev 26:44; Ps 44:10[9]; 58:3[2]. The lives of human beings are already short and trouble-filled, and yet God would choose to inflict further punishment upon them. The idiom of God “opening His eyes” (cf. Jer 32:19; Zech 12:4) here carries the (rather hostile) sense of an authority figure watching a person’s behavior with the intent of punishing him/her as soon as an occasion warrants (as the second line makes clear). Job’s suffering is presented as an extension of the suffering that is the common lot of humankind—only it is especially severe and cruel. If one might question the justice of God inflicting punishment on humans who already suffer, it is all the more so in Job’s case! On the wording in the second line, cf. Psalm 143:2.

Some commentators (e.g., Ehrlich, Driver-Gray, Dhorme, Fohrer) would emend the pronominal direct object in the second line (yt!a), “me”) to a third person form (ota), “him”). Blommerde (p. 69, cf. Michel, p. 317), following an interpretive tendency by M. Dahood (in his commentary on the Psalms, etc.), obtains the same reading by preserving the MT and treating the y– sufformative as an archaic third-person suffix.

I have translated verse 3 as an exclamation, but it could just as easily be rendered as a question (cf. Clines, p. 277, and others); the force of Job’s rhetoric, and the incredulity that it expresses, is the same in either case.

    • References above (and throughout these notes) marked “Seow” are to C. L. [Choon Leong] Seow, Job 1-21: Interpretation and Commentary, Illuminations Commentary Series (Eerdmans: 2013).
    • Those marked “Clines” are to David J. A. Clines, Job 1–20, Word Biblical Commentary [WBC] vol. 17 (1989).
    • Those marked “Michel” are to Walter L. Michel, Job in the Light of Northwest Semitic, Biblica et Orientalia 42 (Rome, Pontifical Biblical Institute Press: 1987).
    • Those marked “Blommerde” are to Anton C. M. Blommerde, Northwest Semitic Grammar and Job, Biblica et Orientalia 22 (Rome, Pontifical Biblical Institute Press: 1969).

August 1: Job 13:26-28

Job 13:26-28

This is the second unit of the first stanza of Job’s complaint; it corresponds to 14:15-17 in the second stanza.

A few small fragments of vv. 26-27 are preserved in the Qumran manuscript 4QpaleoJobc. The bits that survive confirm the MT, but, interestingly, also provide evidence in support of an archaic/conservative orthography for the Dialogue—namely, here, spelling without internal vowel letters for the last two words of v. 26: tnwu (so also at least three MSS of the MT [Seow, p. 663]) and yrun. 

Verse 26

“How you (seem to) inscribe against me bitter (thing)s,
and make me possess (the) crooked deeds of my youth!”

Job’s actual complaint comes more clearly into view in this second unit, beginning with the first couplet. In this regard, and in terms of the poetic structure, I translate the initial yK! particle as emphatic and exclamatory (“How…!”). In a sense, this exclamation continues the questions from vv. 23-25 (see the previous note). Indeed, Job might just as well have phrased v. 26 as a question, “Would you, then, inscribe against me…?” His incredulity is the same; he does not understand how God could have rendered such a fearful judgment against him, inflicting terrible punishments upon him, as though he were one of the wicked. God’s role as the Judge is indicated by the wording in line 1, with the use of the verb bt^K* (“engrave, inscribe”) in the context of an authoritative ruling.

The plural noun torr)m= should be understood and rendered according to the basic meaning “bitter (thing)s”—both in terms of the ruling (i.e., “bitter words”) and the punishment (i.e., “bitter afflictions and sufferings”). Some commentators would interpret this from a medicinal standpoint, viz., of prescribing a person bitter (herb)s, or even poison. Cf. Seow, p. 663; Michel, p. 312f; Pope, p. 102. The substantive adjective rr)m*, denoting something bitter, is relatively rare, occurring just four times elsewhere in Scripture (Exod 12:8; Num 9:11; Deut 32:32; Lam 3:15). Job has already characterized his suffering as extremely “bitter” on several occasions (3:20; 7:11; 9:18; 10:1; cf. further, 23:2; 27:2).
Blommerde (p. 68) prefers to explain the wording in line 1 as referring to a commercial transaction, so that yl^u* (“against me”) essentially means “against my account”. 

The verb vr^y` (Hiphil) means “cause (someone) to possess (something)”, often in the specific context of an inheritance; cf. Judg 11:24; Ezra 9:12, etc. Here it is used to express the idea of making the elder Job pay for the misdeeds of his youth—viz., causing him to ‘inherit’ them. Job tacitly admits that he may have committed certain errors and indiscretions (“crooked deeds/decisions”, cf. verse 23) when he was young—but these surely were not serious enough to warrant the kind of punishment that God has (apparently) inflicted upon him now! Still, for lack of a better explanation, Job raises the possibility that God may, in fact, be punishing him for the sins of his youth.

Verse 27

“Indeed, you put my feet in(to) the block(s),
and set a guard (on) all my pathways—
upon (the) roots of my feet you carve (it)!”

This tricolon introduces a different aspect of God’s judgment against Job—namely, the placement of the accused in prison (or custody), probably with the judicial proceedings in mind, though the imagery could apply equally to the punishment after sentence has been rendered. Three different images are utilized, all related to a person’s feet, and to the placing of limits on the person’s freedom of movement. The first image is of a prisoner’s feet in a block of wood (i.e., stocks). This noun (ds^) is extremely rare in Biblical Hebrew (occurring only here and in the similar 33:11), but relatively common in Aramaic and later Hebrew (which may serve as an indication for the date of the Dialogue); cf. Arabic sadda (“shut, block”), sadd (“barrier, obstruction”).

The second image is of being placed under guard (vb rm^v*, “guard”) so that a person is prevented from walking about, viz., traveling his/her normal “pathways”. Many commentators assume that the reference here is to God watching Job’s behavior. However, while a play on this aspect of meaning may be intended (cf. the parallel in 14:16), the primary point of reference surely is to a person being guarded (i.e., under guard, in prison); cf. the use of the verbal root rmv in 7:12 and 10:14.

The third image is of God making a carving (or engraving) on the soles (lit. “roots”) of the prisoner’s feet. This has been explained in terms of the branding of a slave, though typically such branding was not done on the soles of feet. Seow (p. 665) makes a strong argument for the use of hq*j* (cf. the more common qq^j*, “carve, engrave”) in terms of inscribing limits or boundaries upon a person, esp. on his/her movement (represented concretely by the feet). For this usage, Prov 8:27 [note] is cited, along with similar use of the related noun qj) (cf. 14:5, 13; 26:10; 38:10; Isa 5:14; Jer 5:22; Mic 7:11; Prov 8:29). I understand the specific usage in the third line here in relation to the guard that is placed on the prisoner’s movement in line 2; viz., this guard is further carved on the very feet of the prisoner, a painful process that makes certain that it will not be possible for him to move about.
The use of the verb hq*j* is obviously parallel with bt^K* in v. 26a, as both essentially mean “engrave, inscribe”, particularly in the specific context of an authoritative decree or ruling (made by God as Judge). 

Verse 28

“And he (is) as a decaying (skin that) wastes away,
like a garment (when the) moth is eating it!”

Job’s complaint here touches upon a familiar Wisdom-theme—one that will be development considerably in chapter 14. Already in his prior speeches (see esp. in chapter 10), Job has framed his suffering as an extension of the common human condition—viz., the pain, weakness, and mortality that is shared by all humankind. Moreover, from the very beginning of the Dialogue (cf. 2:8, 12-13; 3:20ff), there have been allusions to the idea that Job, in the midst of his terrible suffering, is like one who has already died.

This is expressed here by the noun bq*r*, which means “decay”, or, concretely, something that is decaying (cf. Driver-Gray, p. 126; Althan, p. 72*).  Commentators have noted the Aramaic aB*q=r% and Syriac raqbā, also Arabic raqwat and qirbat, meaning “skin” (spec. a water-skin or wine-skin), and posit that a similar noun (vocalized bq#r) ?) is intended here. Indeed, the words used here by the Syriac (rqbʾ) and LXX (a)sko/$) versions support this view, along with the fact that a “(wine-)skin” makes for a better (and proper) parallel with “garment” (dg#B#) in the second line. My glossed translation above, “decaying (skin)”, attempts to capture both the fundamental idea of decay and the concrete image of a “skin”.

The devouring moth motif was already utilized in 4:19 (note), and cf. Psalm 39:12[11]; Isa 50:9; 51:8; Hos 5:12. Jesus also draws upon the motif to emphasize the impermanence and transitory nature of human existence (Matt 6:19-20; Lk 12:33).
On the likely influence of Ps 39 on 13:28-14:6, cf. the discussion by Will Kynes, My Psalm Has Turned into Weeping: Job’s Dialogue with the Psalms, Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft [BZAW] 437 (De Gruyter: 2012), pp. 135-6.

Many commentators feel that verse 28, in its current position, is out of place (“obviously out of place”, Pope [p. 106]), or, at the very least, properly belongs with what follows in 14:1ff. The most common approach is to read the verse after 14:2 (so, e.g., Dhorme, Horst, Rowley, Pope); though it would be simpler to keep the verse in its current position, regarding the pronoun aWh as anticipating (logically and syntactically) the noun <d*a* (“man”) in 14:1 (so Tur-Sinai, etc.). Others (Reiske, Gordis [p. 146]) consider v. 28 to follow properly the question in v. 25. All of these proposals recognize the thematic connection of v. 28 with the Wisdom-verses in chapter 14; however, at the same time, this couplet, in my view, provides a suitable conclusion to the stanza-unit of vv. 26-28. Job points out dramatically, as he did earlier in chapter 10, that God is inflicting punishment on His own creation, weak and mortal beings, who, though shaped by God’s own hands, live only a short time before succumbing to the forces of decay and death.

    • References above (and throughout these notes) marked “Seow” are to C. L. [Choon Leong] Seow, Job 1-21: Interpretation and Commentary, Illuminations Commentary Series (Eerdmans: 2013).
    • Those marked “Althann” are to Robert Althann, bwya Job, Biblia Hebraica Quinta, vol. 16 (Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft: 2024).
    • Those marked “Pope” are to Marvin H. Pope, Job, Anchor Bible [AB], vol. 15 (1965, 1973).
    • Those marked “Michel” are to Walter L. Michel, Job in the Light of Northwest Semitic, Biblica et Orientalia 42 (Rome, Pontifical Biblical Institute Press: 1987).
    • Those marked “Blommerde” are to Anton C. M. Blommerde, Northwest Semitic Grammar and Job, Biblica et Orientalia 22 (Rome, Pontifical Biblical Institute Press: 1969).
    • Those marked “Gordis” are to Robert Gordis, The Book of Job: Commentary, New Translation, and Special Studies, Moreshet Series, Studies in Jewish History, Literature and Thought, vol. II (The Jewish Theological Seminary of America: 1978).
    • Those marked “Driver-Gray” are to Samuel Rolles Driver and George Buchanan Gray, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Job, vol. 1, International Critical Commentary [ICC] (T. & T. Clark: 1921).