Job

The ancient Israelites understood Job to have been a real person and so did Christians in the first century CE and many others since then. He is mentioned in verses 14 and 20 of Ezekiel chapter 14 as an example of an outstandingly righteous or upright man, and the disciple James (5:11) referred to the outcome for Job after his trial as revealing God’s compassion.

It is most unlikely that his parents would have named him “Job,” for in the Hebrew language that name may be linked to a root meaning “to be hostile.” Therefore, the name “Job” may be regarded as reflecting his experience as a greatly afflicted man or as an object of hostility or attack. According to an epilogue found in the Septuagint but not in the extant Hebrew text, his original name was “Jobab” (Iobab), and he is identified as having ruled as king in Edom. (Job 42:17b, d; compare Genesis 36:31-33.)

Based on the view of ancient rabbis, the Babylonian Talmud (Baba Bathra, 14b) identifies Moses as the writer of the book of Job. One extant Dead Sea Job scroll (4QpaleoJobc) is written in ancient Hebrew script (paleo-Hebrew). This suggests that, when the text was copied late in the third century BCE or in the second century BCE, the book of Job was regarded as being very ancient. The Septuagint translator, however, did not slavishly follow what appears to have been the ancient Hebrew text but took considerable liberties in his renderings. This may indicate that he did not consider the book of Job as having the same authority as, for example, the Pentateuch (the five books attributed to Moses — Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy) of which fragmentary manuscripts in paleo-Hebrew also exist.

After a prose prologue (1:1-3:2) that refers to Job’s uprightness, his wealth, and his children, the interchanges between God and Satan regarding Job, the suffering that subsequently befell him, the impact the calamity had on Job’s wife, and the arrival of Eliphaz, Zophar, and Bildad for the purpose of comforting him, the book continues as a poetic composition. It largely sets forth the wrong views that Eliphaz, Zophar, and Bildad expressed about Job’s suffering, and his adamant denial of their contention that he was afflicted on account of the wrongs he had committed. The expressions of the young man Elihu, which are also in poetic style, are not followed by any rebuttal from Job. The poetic section comes to a conclusion with the words of God and Job’s acknowledgment that he had spoken in ignorance and, therefore, repented. (3:3-42:6)

The epilogue tells of the divine reproof directed to Eliphaz and his two companions and relates the blessed outcome for Job. This epilogue reflects the joy and contentment that are not evident in the prologue, for in the prologue Job handled affairs in a manner that reflected fear. In the epilogue, however, the mention of the names of the daughters and of their beauty serves as a bright contrast to the serious concern Job had regarding the possible failings of his grown children with reference to God and the need he felt to make atonement for each of them with sacrifice. (42:7-17; compare 1:4, 5.)

Especially because the book of Job is mainly poetic and contains many words that are not found elsewhere in the biblical text, it is very difficult to translate, and one cannot be certain about the specific meaning of various parts of the preserved account. This, however, need not be a matter of great concern, for the message of the book is clear — human suffering is not to be regarded as establishing the nature of an individual’s moral state.

For those who are looking for definitive answers regarding human suffering, the book of Job will prove to be disappointing. This book does not contain these answers, but it emphasizes the tremendous limitations humans have when it comes to comprehending what God may do or permit. As the God who trusts those who are devoted to him, he will ultimately bless all those who trust him.

In the prologue, God is portrayed as one who trusted Job, whereas Satan is depicted in the role of a suspicious informant who had no such confidence and who was determined to prove the rightness of his doubts about Job. Therefore, by focusing on God’s trust in them and on the outcome for Job, those who are devoted to God can draw comfort from the book. They can be confident that absolutely nothing that may befall them will result in permanent harm. Even the worst of suffering will, in the end, be transformed into joys and blessings beyond compare. That reversal, though, may not become fully realized until the dead are resurrected.

Because the book of Job is primarily a poetic composition, one cannot definitively state which, if any, part of it is truly revelatory. The calamities that befell Job are not without parallel. Throughout the centuries, countless numbers of parents, including God-fearing men and women, have lost all their possessions and children on account of wars, gang or mob violence, persecution, genocide, earthquakes, typhoons, tsunamis, hurricanes, and tornadoes. After these losses, numerous wives have seen their husbands stricken with painful and debilitating diseases. Often the lives of both husbands and wives ended without their experiencing the kind of dramatic reversal in their fortunes that came to be Job’s lot.

The prologue in the book of Job contains features that suggest it functions mainly as a literary introduction to set the stage for the poetic debating that follows. Job’s wife is not portrayed as a fellow sufferer but as a temptress to turn Job away from cleaving to God. Yet she, too, had lost everything, and all the children to whom she gave birth had perished. With the exception of not being afflicted with a loathsome disease, she suffered no less than Job did. In the Septuagint, this aspect is not passed over in silence. After every calamity, there was only one escapee and the only purpose for his survival was to make his report to Job. If regarded as revelatory, the heavenly scene would mean that God, in effect, was willing to make a bet with Satan that he was right and that Satan was wrong. No such teaching is ever alluded to anywhere in the biblical accounts, and even the epilogue includes no revelation to Job about divine permission being granted to Satan to afflict him.

It may be that the introduction of a heavenly scene basically serves to expose wrong views regarding God. In Job 15:15, Eliphaz is quoted as making the claim that God does not trust his “holy ones” or angels and that even the heavens are not clean to him. The expressions in the prologue indicate that Satan regarded Job as one whose trust in God was rooted in selfishness, but God is portrayed as one who fully trusted him. While God may permit godly persons to experience calamities, he (as evident from the prologue) is not the source of their suffering. Another important truth conveyed in the prologue is that servants of God are not pawns in the power of Satan. Nothing takes place outside the realm of divine permission. In view of the fact that the book of Job was written at a time when peoples generally were in fear of invisible powers and believed that they needed to appease them to avoid harm, the portrayal of God as the absolute Sovereign who trusts his servants and who has everyone and everything under his ultimate control is truly significant.

In 1 Kings 22:19-22, the prophet Micah is quoted as portraying a heavenly scene to indicate that King Ahab would listen to false prophets and would suffer calamity as a result. The nature of the book of Job suggests that the depiction of a heavenly scene serves a similar purpose, revealing that the prosperous state of Job would not continue.

Job 1:1-22

Job lived in the “land of Uz” (Ausitis [LXX]). Words in a Septuagint epilogue that are not found in the Masoretic Text refer to the “land of Ausitis” as bordering Idumea and Arabia. Job is described as “complete” or a person of integrity, “upright,” and a man “fearing God [having a wholesome reverential regard for God] and turning away from evil [shunning corrupt practices].” According to the Septuagint, he was “true,” “genuine,” or “honest,” blameless,” “righteous” or “upright, and “God-fearing,” devout, or reverential. He abstained from “every evil deed.” (1:1; 42:17b [LXX]; see the introduction for additional comments.)

Job came to have a large family. “Seven sons and three daughters were born to him.” (1:2)

Job’s wealth largely consisted of domestic animals. He had 7,000 sheep, 3,000 camels, 500 yoke of bovines, and 500 female donkeys (“grazing female donkeys” [LXX]). The female donkeys would have been a valuable source for milk. To care for his animals and possessions, Job had many servants. The Septuagint additionally mentions his “great works” on the land, which could indicate that he was engaged in extensive and varied activities. (1:3)

Job is described as being “greater than all the sons of the east.” This could mean that he was wealthier than all those who lived in the same eastern region. The Septuagint rendering for the Hebrew word translated “greater” is the adjective heugenés, meaning “well-born,” and may relate to his noble or dignified standing among his contemporaries. In a Septuagint epilogue, he is identified as having ruled as king in Edom. (1:3; 42:17d)

A customary practice among Job’s sons was for each of them, on a rotational basis, to arrange to feast together in their respective houses on a set day. They would then invite their sisters to eat and drink with them. Their desire to have their sisters present indicates that the sons of Job ate and drank with proper restraint. The Septuagint rendering could be understood to mean that each day all the brothers were together they had a feast to which they invited their sisters. (1:4)

When the seven sons completed the days of feasting, Job sent for them and “sanctified them” or purified them from possible defilement. Acting in the capacity of a priest for his family, he rose early in the morning and offered a burnt offering for each of his sons. The Septuagint adds that he also offered “one calf” as a sin offering for “their souls” (for them or for their lives). Job’s reason for sanctifying or purifying his sons by offering sacrifices was his concern that, in the course of their feasting, they might have sinned and “blessed” God in “their hearts” (in their minds or within themselves). In this context, the verb “blessed” is commonly regarded as a euphemism with the opposite significance. Rather than denoting “cursed,” however, the euphemism may apply to variety of negative expressions. According to the Septuagint, Job was concerned that his sons, in their “thinking faculty” or mind, might have “thought bad things toward God,” After the feasting of his children, Job’s practice “all the days,” continually, or always was to offer sacrifices. (1:5; see the Notes section.)

A certain day came when the “sons of God” (“angels of God” [LXX]) stationed themselves before YHWH, and Satan also made his appearance “among them.” The Hebrew designation “Satan” identifies him as a resister or opposer. In the Septuagint, he is called “devil” or “slanderer.” The context that follows reveals him to have been one who resisted God, insisting that God was wrong in trusting Job. Satan also proved himself to be a slanderer, for he implied that Job only conducted himself uprightly because God had blessed and protected him. (1:6; see the Notes section.)

According to the account, YHWH was fully aware of Satan’s thoughts, and he made him reveal his view of Job by questioning him. In response to the question from where he had come, Satan (the “devil” or “slanderer” [LXX]) is quoted as replying, “From roving about on the earth and walking about on it [walking about that (which is) under heaven (LXX)].” (1:7; see the Notes section.)

The question as to whether Satan (the “devil” or “slanderer” [LXX]) had set his “heart on” (“thought” or “mind against” [LXX]) YHWH’s servant Job refers to whether he had made him the object of his attention, with the implication being that he had ill-will toward him and regarded him as only serving God for selfish reasons. In YHWH’s estimation, no one “on the earth” was like Job — “complete” or a man of integrity, “and upright, fearing God [having a wholesome fear of God] and turning away from evil [abstaining from corrupt practices].” The Septuagint says that Job was “blameless,” “true,” “genuine,” or “honest,” “God-fearing,” devout, or reverential, and a man who abstained from “every evil deed.” (1:8)

Satan (the “devil” or “slanderer” [LXX]) raised the question as to whether Job feared God “for nothing,” or without his having gained greatly from it. This question implied slanderously that, were it not for selfish gain, Job would cease to be a God-fearing man. (1:9)

In question form, Satan (the “devil” or “slanderer” [LXX]) claimed that God had protected Job and all of his possessions. Regarding what God did for Job, the Hebrew text has the word suk, which is thought to mean “fence in protectively.” The corresponding verb in the Septuagint is a form of periphrásso (“enclose”). As with a protective wall, hedge, or fence, God had surrounded Job, his house, and everything he had “on every side.” According to the Septuagint rendering, God had enclosed the things “outside” him (the things Job possessed that were external to him) and the things “inside his house” or household and “all the things outside” that belonged to him “all around.” Additionally, Satan contended that God had blessed the “works” of Job’s hands or everything that he did, causing his livestock to increase “in the land.” (1:10)

If God were to put forth his “hand” and “touch” all that Job had (depriving him of everything that he possessed), he (as Satan claimed) would “bless” him to his face. Both the Hebrew text and the Greek text of the Septuagint contain the verb for “bless,” with the apparent euphemistic meaning of “curse” or “blaspheme.” (1:11)

YHWH granted Satan (the “devil” or the “slanderer” [LXX]) to have in his “hand” or power everything that Job had. This was with the specific limitation that he could not extend his “hand” to harm Job personally. Thereupon Satan (the “devil” or “slanderer” [LXX]) went forth from the “face” or presence of YHWH. (1:12)

A day came when Job’s sons and daughters were eating and drinking wine in the house of their oldest brother. (1:13)

On that very day of feasting, a messenger arrived to inform Job about a calamity that had occurred while his servants were plowing with the bovines and the female donkeys were feeding in the pasture alongside them. (1:14)

Sabeans fell upon the plowing bovines, the female donkeys, and Job’s servants. They killed the servants with the “edge [literally, mouth] of the sword,” and seized the animals. The messenger was the sole escapee and so the only one who could inform Job about what had happened. The Sabean marauders could have been descendants of the Sheba in the line of Ham through Cush or the Sheba in the line of Shem through Joktan. (Genesis 10:6, 7, 21-29) Based on the Septuagint (Job 42:17b), Job lived on the “borders of Idumea and Arabia.” This suggests that the Sabeans resided in the Arabian Peninsula. (1:15; see the Notes section.)

While the first messenger was still speaking, another one arrived to make his report about an additional calamity. “Fire of God” had fallen “from heaven,” burning up the sheep and the servants of Job who tended them. In the Septuagint, there is no reference to God. It reads, “Fire fell from heaven.” This may refer to a lightning strike that started a quickly spreading fire that engulfed the sheep and the shepherds so that they perished in the flames. There was only one escapee, the messenger who made his report to Job. (1:16; see the Notes section.)

The second messenger had not finished speaking when a third messenger came. This messenger informed Job that the Chaldean raiders formed three bands and then seized his camels and killed his servants “with the edge [literally, mouth] of the sword.” He alone had escaped to relate to Job what had occurred. (1:17)

The Septuagint does not refer to the Chaldeans. It quotes the messenger as saying, “The horsemen formed three bands [literally, heads] [around] us, and they encircled the camels and captured them. And they killed the servants with swords, but I alone escaped and came to tell you.” (1:17)

Another messenger arrived while the third one was still speaking. This fourth messenger then related that Job’s sons and daughters were eating and drinking wine in the home of their oldest brother. (1:18)

While Job’s sons and daughters were feasting, a very strong wind from the direction of the wilderness (or the east) blew against the four corners of the house. The house then collapsed upon the children, killing them. Only the messenger had escaped to bring this distressing news to Job. (1:19)

Job arose and, in expression of his grief, tore his garment, shaved the hair of his head, dropped to his knees to the ground, and prostrated himself in a manifest act of worship. (1:20)

“Naked I came out of my mother’s womb,” Job said, “and naked I will return there. YHWH has given, and YHWH has taken away. Blessed be the name of YHWH.” The Septuagint adds, “As it seemed good to the Lord, so also it came to be.” Job’s quoted words represent him as one who recognized that man came from the elements of the earth or the ground and, at death, would eventually return to those elements. So although he came naked out of his own mother’s womb, he also came forth naked from the earthly elements of which his mother consisted, or from the earth as if it were his mother. To these elements, or to the earth, he would return with not a single one of his possessions. Everything that he owned, Job attributed to having received from YHWH, and he spoke of the loss of everything as YHWH’s act of taking everything away from him. He “blessed” the name of YHWH or praised and glorified the God represented by the name. Previously (in verses 5 and 11), the Hebrew word for “bless” was used in a euphemistic sense to convey a negative significance. In this context, however, the basic meaning of “bless” is unmistakable. (1:21)

Contrary to the contention of Satan (verse 11), Job did not curse God after experiencing the loss of all his possessions and all his children. “In all this,” he “did not sin” and did not ascribe anything unseemly to God. The Septuagint is more specific when identifying “all this” as “all these things that had befallen him.” It then says that he did not ascribe “folly to God.” Although Job had suffered greatly, he did not find fault with God nor did he blaspheme. (1:22)

Notes

In the concluding part of verse 5, only the “sons” are mentioned. It is possible, however, that the earlier reference to “all” could refer to all of Job’s children (sons and daughters).

The repetition of the nearly identical wording of verses 6 through 8 in verses 1 through 3 of chapter 2 indicates that the prologue is a stylistic narrative.

It should be kept in mind that communication in the heavenly realm (verses 7 through 10) would not have taken place in the Hebrew language. (1 Corinthians 13:1) This may provide a basis for considering the prologue as having the experiences of Job as the underlying foundation but as being presented in a literary style that is designed primarily to convey a message. If this is indeed the case, the prologue does not reveal what took place in the heavenly realm nor does it disclose the nature of Satan’s involvement in the calamities that befell Job. In themselves, these calamities were not outside the realm of human experience and would not have required the intervention of an invisible entity. Without additional expressions about this aspect, the commentary that follows is focused on the wording of the Hebrew text and the Greek text of the Septuagint.

The stylistic wording of the surviving messenger (verse 15) is repeated (verses 16, 17, 19) in connection with the report of all the other messengers (“and I have escaped, only I alone, to tell you”).

In verse 16, the expression “fire of God” could designate an exceedingly great fire.

The arrival of three messengers in quick succession (verses 16, 17, 18) is expressed with the identical stylistic wording. “While this one was speaking, also another came and said.” Job is represented as not having any time for recovering from the emotional stress resulting from the individual reports, with the last report (the loss of all his children) constituting the severest blow.

Job 2:1-13

The narrative provides no indication when this assembling of the “sons of God” (“angels of God” [LXX]) occurred in relation to their previously having taken their position before YHWH. Again Satan (the “devil” or the “slanderer” [LXX]) was present. According to the Hebrew text, he also took his stand before YHWH. This phrase, based on the markings of the Christian scholar Origen (who produced his Hexapla in the third century CE), was not found in the Septuagint text available to him. He added the corresponding Greek words of the phrase from the version of Theodotion (a translator of the Hebrew text or a reviser of the Greek text based on the Hebrew text). With the exception of this additional phrase, the wording of the Hebrew text is the same as that found in verse 6 of chapter 1 (which see for comments). (2:1)

The question attributed to YHWH is virtually identical in wording to the one previously directed to Satan (the “devil” or the “slanderer” [LXX]), “From where have you come?” Satan’s quoted response is also the same, “From roving about on the earth and walking about on it.” (1:7) The Septuagint rendering is somewhat different but retains the basic significance. “[After] traveling through that [which is] under heaven and walking about everywhere, I am [now] here.” (2:2; see the Notes section for 1:7-10.)

The question YHWH is represented as having directed to Satan (the “devil” or the “slanderer” [LXX]) is the same one as found in chapter 1, verse 8, “Have you set your heart [focused your inmost attention] upon my servant Job, that there is none like him on the earth, a man “complete” [or a man of integrity] and upright, fearing God [having a wholesome regard for God] and turning away from evil [shunning corrupt practices]?” In the Septuagint, the question is, “Have you then observed my servant Job, that [there] is not [anyone] like him upon the earth, a man [who is] not evil, [who is] true [genuine or honest], blameless, God-fearing, abstaining from all evil?” Although Satan (the “devil” or the “slanderer” [LXX]) is represented as having instigated God against him to destroy him without cause, Job still held fast to his “completeness” or integrity. According to the Septuagint, Job still held on to or maintained his innocence even though the devil “said to destroy his possessions without cause.” (2:3; also see the comments on 1:8.)

Satan (the “devil” or the “slanderer” [LXX]) was not satisfied. His contention continued to be that Job served God for selfish reasons. The quoted retort was, “Skin for skin; everything which a man [owns] he will give for his soul.” The words “skin for skin” may be a proverbial saying related to barter, with one item being exchanged for another one of like value. A man’s life is so precious that he would be willing to give everything that he has in order to save his own soul or himself from death. The implication was that Job would be willing to renounce his God if his very soul, his life, or he himself would be seriously afflicted. (2:4)

Challengingly, Satan (the “devil” or the “slanderer” [LXX]) is quoted as saying to YHWH, “Now put forth your hand and touch his bone and his flesh.” As one who had no trust in Job, Satan claimed that, if Job were subjected to painful affliction, he would “bless” God to his face. In this context, both the Hebrew and the Greek words for “bless” are used euphemistically to denote “curse” or “blaspheme.” (2:5)

YHWH is quoted as saying to Satan (the “devil” or the “slanderer” [LXX]) regarding Job, “See, he [is] in your hand” or power. The Septuagint reads, “See, I am handing him over to you.” There was, however, a limitation. The adversary had to be on guard that Job’s “soul” or life was preserved. (2:6)

Satan (the “devil” or the “slanderer” [LXX]) departed from the “face [or presence] of YHWH.” He afflicted Job with a “bad boil” (a collective singular that designates painful sores) from the sole of his feet to his scalp. According to the description in the poetic section, maggots covered Job’s skin. During the nights, the restless sleep gave him no relief from his misery. (2:7; 7:4, 5).

Job would scrape himself with a broken piece of pottery. The Septuagint rendering could be understood to mean that he scraped away pus from his sores. Job sat outside “among the ashes,” apparently at a dump. According to the Septuagint, Job stayed outside the city or town on a garbage pile. (2:8)

At this point in the narrative, the Hebrew text introduces Job’s wife as a temptress. After some time had passed, she asked him, “Are you still holding fast to your completeness” or integrity? The thought appears to be whether Job continued to cleave to God as his devoted servant. After raising the question, Job’s wife is quoted as saying, “Bless God, and die.” As in other verses, the Hebrew word for “bless” here has a euphemistic sense and refers to making a negative expression about God. The Septuagint reading is, “Say some word [against] the Lord, and die.” These words suggest that Job should simply give up all hope for relief and say something blasphemous that would prompt God to slay him in expression of his wrath. (2:9)

Whereas the Hebrew text says nothing about the suffering of Job’s wife, the Septuagint mentions it. After much time had passed, she said to her husband, “How long will you persevere, saying, See, I will wait yet a short time, expecting the hope of my deliverance?” The question implied that there was no point in waiting for any improvement in Job’s wretched condition. She referred to her own misery when speaking to him about his suffering. Remembrance of Job had been “blotted out from the earth,” for the sons and daughters to whom she had given birth were dead and so her labor pains had been in vain. Job sat in the decaying matter of worms and spent the nights outside, and she wandered about as a “hired servant from place to place and from house to house,” waiting for the sun to set so that she might “rest from the hardships and the pains” that had befallen her. The additional words in the Septuagint suggest that the distress had brought Job’s wife to the breaking point, causing her to tell Job to say “some word” against God, “and die.” (2:9a-9e [LXX])

According to the Septuagint rendering, when Job responded, he looked at his wife and then spoke. He did not call his wife a foolish woman but referred to her words about making a negative or blasphemous expression regarding God as something foolish women would say. He acknowledged that they as a couple had received good from God (“good things from the hand of the Lord” [LXX]). So could they not also accept bad from him or, according to the Septuagint, “endure the bad things”? “In all this, Job did not sin with his lips” (“against God” [LXX]). The Septuagint identifies “all this” as applying to all the things that had befallen Job. (2:10)

News about “all this evil” or calamity that had come upon Job reached his three associates or friends — Eliphaz the Temanite, Bildad the Shuhite, and Zophar the Naamathite. They departed from their own “place” or location of residence (their “own country” or “region” [LXX]) and then met to see Job in order to commiserate with him and to comfort him. The Septuagint identifies all three men as kings or rulers and, therefore, Job’s fellow rulers. (2:11)

Eliphaz, Bildad, and Zophar may have been descendants of Abraham. In verses 10 and 11 of Genesis chapter 36, Teman is mentioned as a descendant of Esau the twin brother of Jacob. An epilogue in the Septuagint but not in the extant Hebrew text identifies Eliphaz as being from the “sons [descendants] of Esau.” (42:17e, LXX) Bildad may have been a descendant of Abraham by his concubine Keturah who bore Shuah to him. (Genesis 25:1, 2) The Septuagint refers to Zophar as “king of the Minaeans,” an Arab people that may have descended from one of Abraham’s sons by Keturah. (2:11)

The ravages of his affliction had so greatly altered Job’s appearance that his three friends did not recognize him when first looking at him from a distance. His disfigured appearance moved them to raise their voices in lamentation and to weep. Shocked and sorrowful, they tore their garments and tossed dust toward the “heavens” (the sky), thereby covering their heads with dust. The Septuagint does not mention the “heavens” or the sky. It says that the three men “sprinkled themselves with dust.” (2:12)

Eliphaz, Bildad, and Zophar seated themselves on the ground with Job. During the seven days and nights that passed, not a one of them spoke even a word. This was because they recognized that Job’s pain was very great. The Septuagint refers to the “plague” or “blow” being “dreadful and very great.” (2:13)

Job 3:1-26

In the presence of Eliphaz, Bildad, and Zophar who had not spoken a word to him since their arrival seven days earlier, Job broke the silence. He “opened his mouth and made light of [cursed (LXX)] his day.” The context indicates that this was the day of his birth. (3:1)

What Job “said” is written in poetic style. In the Septuagint, one participle (“saying”) introduces Job’s words. The extant Hebrew text is longer and may be translated, “And Job responded and said.” (3:2)

When cursing the day of his birth, Job wanted it to perish, or to be obliterated so as to be a nonexistent day. The parallel phrase is, “and the night [one] said, A male is conceived!” This could refer to the night when Job was conceived to be born a male child. It is also possible that the day of birth is here being referred to as consisting of day and night. In that case, the phrase about conception applies to the announcement that the child which had been conceived some nine months earlier was a boy. The Septuagint, although not mentioning conception, conveys this meaning (“and the night in which they said, Look, a male!” [literally, a “man”]). (3:3)

Instead of being a day that would dispel the darkness of the night at sunrise, Job wanted the day of his birth to be one of darkness. He desired it to be a day that “God above” would not “seek,” not giving any attention to it. Job wanted no “light to shine” upon that day, leaving it in perpetual blackness. (3:4)

Job wanted “darkness and deep shadow” (“shadow of death” [LXX]), as if acting in the capacity of a redeemer, to claim (“to seize” [LXX]) the day of his birth. His desire was that dark clouds would “dwell” upon it and that it be terrified by the “blackness of day,” or be filled with the terrors that are associated with complete darkness when the light of the sun is eclipsed. With reference to this day, the Septuagint says, “Let darkness come upon it.” (3:5)

In the Hebrew text, the night to which reference is being made was the night of the announcement regarding the conceived male (Job as a baby). Job wanted “thick darkness” to seize that night, causing it to disappear as if swallowed up by the gloom. According to the Septuagint, his desire was for “that day and night” to be cursed, with darkness carrying away the day and night of that day. “Among the days of a year,” Job did not want that day to rejoice and to be numbered among the “months.” No joy like the announcement regarding the birth of a boy was to be associated with that day. It was to be a day without any development that would give rise to gladness and was to be blotted out as a day missing from all the months. According to the Septuagint, that day was to have no existence “among the days of a year” nor was to “be numbered among the days of the months.” (3:6)

For the “night” (the night when the announcement about the conceived male was made) to be barren would mean for it to be without anything of a cheerful nature. The night would be like one that did not even exist. No joyful outcry was then to be heard. Instead of any kind of joy, that night, according to the Septuagint, was to be one of “pain” or “grief,” with no rejoicing nor delight coming upon it. (3:7)

At the time the book of Job was committed to writing and also much earlier, those practicing occult arts were known for uttering curses, casting powerful spells, and invoking the powers of darkness. Job is quoted as wanting those who curse a day and who are skilled in the occult arts so as to be able to rouse up the great monster Leviathan (possibly the crocodile in some contexts) to curse the day of his birth. (3:8)

The Septuagint rendering contains no reference to anything of an occult nature. He who curses that day (the one of Job’s birth) is the one whom Job called upon to curse that “night” (mentioned in verse 7). This one is represented as about to subdue the great “sea monster.” These expressions appear to refer to God as the one who could subdue the monster and utter a curse that was certain to take effect. (3:8)

For the “stars of twilight” to be dark would mean that the stars would not be seen in the night sky. Job wanted the night to which his birth was linked to be without any hope or expectation of light. The night was not to “see” the “eyelids of dawn.” This would signify that the darkness of the night would continue, with the sun not rising to usher in daylight. (3:9)

In the Septuagint, the expressions “stars of twilight” and “eyelids of dawn” are not translated literally. The Greek text expresses Job’s desire for the “stars of that night” to be darkened and thus to remain, with the light of dawn never coming. Job did not want that night to see the rising of the morning star (the planet Venus). (3:9)

The reference to “my womb” in the Hebrew text applies to the womb of Job’s mother where his life began. In the Septuagint, it is specifically called the “womb of my mother.” If the “doors” of the womb from which he came forth as a baby had closed, Job would not have been born. In view of his pain and great distress, he felt that it would have been better for him if he had never lived. He would then not have experienced affliction or trouble. This trouble would have been hidden from his eyes, never to be seen. Both in the Hebrew text and the Greek text of the Septuagint, the third person singular verbs could refer to God as the one who did not shut the doors of the womb and did not hide trouble from Job’s eyes. It is also possible to regard the night as being personified and represented as the agent that did not take this action. (3:10)

On account of his great suffering, Job asked why he had not died at birth and why he had come forth from the womb and then not expired (“immediately perished” [LXX]). (3:11)

Upon his mother’s knees, Job had been held as a baby, and he suckled the breasts of his mother. As a man enduring affliction, he could not understand why he had thus “met knees” and suckled breasts. (3:12)

If he had died at birth and not been cared for as a baby, Job would already have been able to lie down in the realm of the dead and been “quiet” or without any disturbance from troubles or afflictions of any kind. He would then have been asleep in death and experienced rest. (3:13)

In the realm of the dead, Job would have joined “kings and counselors of the earth [or land]” or those who advised rulers. These kings and counselors are said to have built “ruins” for themselves. This may refer to their having built impressive tombs or desolate places, for there is no life in them. The Septuagint rendering does not express this thought but appears to represent “kings, counselors of the earth,” to have been proud of their swords (literally, “upon swords”). This rendering may have arisen because the consonants of the Hebrew word for “sword” and “desolation” are the same. (3:14)

Among the dead, Job would have been with “princes” or “rulers” (LXX) who had “gold” (“much gold” [LXX]). These princes or rulers had also filled “their houses with silver.” Possibly this is an allusion to their having been buried with treasures. (3:15)

Job wondered why he could not have been like a hidden miscarriage (an “untimely birth coming forth from a mother’s womb” [LXX]) or like infants that have never seen the “light” of life or of day. He would then have been spared the misery he was experiencing. (3:16)

In the realm of the dead, the wicked have ceased from raging or stirring up trouble for others. The Septuagint rendering appears to mean that the “impious” have “burned out” the “fury of [their] wrath” there. This could indicate that wrath could no longer be expressed, for whatever fueled it had been totally consumed. Among the dead, those “weary in strength,” or persons drained of their vitality from laboring, are at rest. The Septuagint refers to the “resting” as being for those weary in body. (3:17)

“Bound ones,” captives, or prisoners are at ease or undisturbed in the realm of the dead. They do not “hear” the voice of a taskmaster who drives them to perform hard labor. The Septuagint does not contain a corresponding expression for “bound ones” but uses the plural form of the Greek word aiónios and could refer to “ancients” or “those of old.” In conjunction with the adverb “together,” the meaning of the first phrase may be, “The ancients [are] together” in the realm of the dead. Then the verse concludes with the words, “They have not heard the voice of tribute collectors.” (3:18)

In the realm of the dead, the “small” or insignificant persons and the “great” or prominent individuals are found. No longer does any distinction exist there. A “slave” is “free from his master” who can no longer utter commands. According to Rahlfs’ printed Greek text of the Septuagint, there, in the realm of the dead, a “servant is not fearing his master.” (3:19)

Job could not understand why “light” (the “light of life”) has been given to one whose existence is filled with misery (“to those in bitterness” [LXX]) and why life has been granted to persons bitter of soul (individuals whose life is made bitter by having to bear great hardships and affliction or, according to the Septuagint, souls or persons in pains). (3:20)

Job observed that those who suffer greatly wait for or long for death, but it does not come. They so very much desire relief from their misery that he likened their yearning for death to their digging for it more than for hidden treasures. (3:21)

On account of the relief death brings, Job is quoted as saying that those who find the grave “rejoice with joy” or rejoice exceedingly and exult. According to the Septuagint, those who long for death would be overjoyed if they could succeed in attaining it. (3:22)

A man whose way is “hidden” would be in a state of confusion when confronted with obstacles, hardships, and troubles. He would not know which way to turn or what course to pursue, leaving him without any avenue of escape from his distressing circumstances. Such a man is designated as one whom God has “hedged in,” making it impossible for him to be liberated from his misery. His freedom of movement is blocked. Job could not understand why this one would be given life to have such a miserable existence. (3:23)

The Septuagint does not mention the hiding of the way, but it says that death is the “rest” for a man, apparently for a seriously afflicted man. Death would bring relief because God has completely locked the man in, depriving him of freedom of movement and leaving him no way out of his distressing state. (3:23)

For Job in his afflicted condition, there was nothing to brighten his day. Before partaking of “bread” or food, he was already groaning, possibly because it was painful for him to eat. His distressing outcries “poured out like water.” According to the Septuagint, he wept, being held fast or paralyzed by fear. (3:24)

The “fear” which Job “feared” is the very fear that came upon him, and what he dreaded befell him. Possibly, even while he enjoyed a prosperous state, he feared that it might not last, that future calamities might end it. Some evidence to this effect may be his great concern about the possibility that his sons might have expressed something improper in their hearts with reference to God and his feeling the need to offer sacrifices for them. (1:5) Another possible significance may be that, once he heard the report about the first calamity, he became filled with apprehension that other calamities might follow. (3:25)

Job is portrayed as being in a troubled and anxious state — not at peace or not undisturbed, not quiet or calm, and not at rest. While in this condition of inner turmoil, “quaking” (as when gripped by fear) or “wrath” (LXX) came to him. For Job, things progressively became worse, and no relief was in sight. (3:26)

Job 4:1-21

According to an epilogue in the Septuagint that is not found in the extant Hebrew text, Eliphaz was a descendant of Esau, the twin brother of Jacob and, therefore, also a descendant of Abraham. (42:17e [LXX]) In Genesis 36, verses 10 and 11, Teman is listed among the descendants of Esau. Eliphaz was the first one to respond to Job’s painful lament, suggesting that he may have been the oldest of the three men that had arrived to comfort Job or that he may have been the most prominent among them. The region of Teman came to be known for its wise men (Jeremiah 49:7), and (as evident from verses 9 and 10 of Job chapter 15) Eliphaz considered himself to be wise. His expression about the aged as possessors of wisdom (15:10) could indicate that he was older than Job, Bildad, and Zophar. (4:1)

When responding to what Job had said, Eliphaz spoke with restraint, asking him whether he might become “weary,” dispirited, or impatient (or take offense) if someone tried to speak a “word” to him. Eliphaz perceived what Job had said to be an unjustifiable complaint against God, and this impelled him to speak. This is implied in the wording of the next question. “And to restrain words, who can [that is, who can do so after hearing what Job had said]?” The Septuagint phrases the question somewhat differently. “But who can endure the strength [or the force] of your words?” Eliphaz is thus portrayed as expressing himself to the effect that his only option was to speak up in defense of God. In the Septuagint, the initial question also differs from the Masoretic Text. “Have you often been spoken to [while] in distress?” (4:2)

Eliphaz reminded Job that, in the past, he had instructed many and strengthened weak hands, providing encouragement and comfort to those who were dispirited. (4:3)

With comforting and reassuring words, Job had raised up those who were stumbling. His words must have strengthened them so that they were able to bear the adversity that had befallen them. According to the Septuagint, Job, with his words, raised up those who were weak, powerless, or helpless. The kind of encouragement and comfort Job provided “made firm” the knees that were about to give way, strengthening those who were downcast during the time of their distress or, as expressed in the Septuagint, encompassing weak knees with courage. (4:4)

In the estimation of Eliphaz, Job had not responded in a way that should have been expected from a man who had strengthened others. “Affliction” (LXX) or “distress” had come upon him, and he had become “weary,” dispirited, or impatient. It had “touched” him, and he had become “dismayed,” disturbed, or disquieted. The Hebrew word that may be rendered “dismayed” can also mean “hasten” or “make haste,” and this is the rendering in the Septuagint. This could mean that, instead of patiently enduring, he was quick to become irritated by what had befallen him. (4:5; see the Notes section.)

Eliphaz apparently believed that Job’s reaction to what had befallen him could not be that of a reverential man or of a man who was “complete” in his ways (one who conducted himself as a man of integrity). Therefore, he directed the rhetorical question to Job, “[Is] not your fear [of God] your confidence [kisláh], also the completeness [or integrity] of your ways your hope?” The implication of the question appears to be that, if Job had been a God-fearing man of integrity, he should have been confident that everything would turn out well in the end and that this would have been his sure hope or expectation. (4:6)

In the context of verse 6, the Hebrew word kisláh is commonly regarded as denoting “confidence.” It can, however, also mean mean “folly.” (Psalm 85:8[9]) This explains the rendering of the Septuagint. “[Is] then not your fear in folly, also your hope and the innocence of your way?” The wording of the Septuagint suggests that the basis of Job’s fear was folly, as also was the hope he had on the basis of believing that his way or conduct had been innocent or free from evil. (4:6)

Eliphaz called upon Job to “remember” or to bring to mind the truth that he was about to express with another rhetorical question. Who of the “innocent” (the “clean” or “pure” [LXX]) had ever “perished” and when had the “upright” (“true ones,” genuine ones, or honest ones [LXX]) ever been “effaced” (been “destroyed with the whole root” [LXX])? (4:7)

Based on what he had seen, Eliphaz said that those “plowing iniquity” (“things out of place,” inappropriate things, or wrongs [LXX]) and “sowing trouble” are the ones who reap the consequences for their actions. According to the Septuagint, the ones to whom Eliphaz referred “reap pains for themselves.” (4:8)

The “breath of God [ordinance of the Lord (LXX])],” like a destructive tempest, causes those “plowing iniquity” and “sowing trouble” to perish. They come to their finish (“will be exterminated” [LXX]) through the “spirit of his anger” or from the full force of his wrath. (4:9)

Eliphaz seemingly likened what happens to those who injure others to what takes place in the case of lions. These animals may roar and frighten prey, but even the teeth of young lions get broken. With broken teeth, they cannot consume prey. The text may be literally rendered, “A lion’s [aryéh] roar [strength (LXX)], a lion’s [sháchal (lioness’s [LXX])] sound, and the teeth of young lions [kephír] get broken.” In the Septuagint, the concluding phrase reads, “but the arrogance of dragons was extinguished.” (4:10; see the Notes section.)

Although a strong predator, a lion (láyish) will perish when sufficient prey for survival is no longer available. The “cubs of a lioness (laví’) are scattered.” When the cubs are abandoned, they cannot survive. They will either starve to death or become victims of other predators. The implied message Eliphaz appeared to have intended for Job was that the wicked, like beasts of prey and their offspring, eventually come to their end. (4:11; see the Notes section regarding the Septuagint rendering.)

Eliphaz claimed that a “word” or message had been conveyed to him as by stealth. He perceived this message as having been whispered in his ear. (4:12; see the Notes section regarding the Septuagint rendering.)

The “word” or message came to Eliphaz in a dream. It was at a time when “visions of the night” give rise to disquieting thoughts and when “men” or people experience “deep sleep.” The Septuagint refers to the time as one of “fear” and a “nightly ringing sound,” of “fear falling upon men.” (4:13)

“Dread” (“shuddering” [LXX]) and “trembling” came upon Eliphaz while he was dreaming. All his “bones” or his entire physical frame came to be filled with dread (“shook” [LXX]). (4:14)

A “spirit” passed by, and Eliphaz appears to have sensed its movement upon his face. This caused the hair of his skin (literally, “flesh”) to “bristle.” According to the Septuagint, his “hair and flesh quivered.” (4:15)

Eliphaz seemingly perceived the “spirit” as standing still, but he could not “recognize its appearance” or make out what it looked like. He saw a “form before his eyes,” an indistinguishable form. Initially, there appears to have been “silence” or calm, and then Eliphaz heard a voice. (4:16)

The Septuagint rendering departs significantly from the reading of the extant Hebrew text. Eliphaz (not the “spirit”) is the one who “stood up,” and he did not recognize the spirit. Although he looked, he saw “no form before [his] eyes.” He did hear “a breeze and a voice.” (4:16)

The words that Eliphaz heard were phrased as rhetorical questions. “Can a mortal man [’enóhsh] be righteous before God? Can a man [géver] be pure before his Maker?” The implied answer is that no mortal can be considered righteous or upright before God, and no man can be regarded as pure or clean by the One who made him. (4:17; see the Notes section regarding the Septuagint rendering.)

Eliphaz heard that God does not trust his servants and that he finds fault with his “messengers” or “angels.” The Septuagint rendering could be understood to say that God does not believe his servants. With reference to his “messengers” or “angels,” he notes something “crooked.” Whereas the prologue made it undeniably clear that God trusted Job (1:8; 2:3), the message that Eliphaz heard reflected Satan’s view regarding Job. Eliphaz thus spoke as one who had been duped by a lying spirit that misrepresented God as trusting no one, not even angels. (4:18)

Eliphaz reasoned that, since God did not trust angels, he trusted humans to an even lesser extent. Humans are earthlings who consist of the elements of the ground. As Eliphaz poetically described them, their physical bodies are “houses of clay” with a foundation that is “in the dust” of the earth. Being mortals, humans are crushed more quickly than a moth, an insect with no hard protective covering. (4:19; see the Notes section regarding the Septuagint rendering.)

Between morning and evening or throughout the day, humans are crushed, dying from disease or in old age and as victims of war or random violence. In a general sense, no one really takes note of the many who thus perish forever. The Septuagint refers to them as being no more and perishing because they could not help themselves. Nothing they could do would have enabled them to escape from dying. (4:20)

In their mortal bodies, humans are dwelling as if in a temporary tent. Once the life force within them ceases to operate, they do not continue living, collapsing like a tent when the tent cord is pulled up from the place to which it was tied to the ground. The rhetorical question that Eliphaz raised was, “If the tent cord within them is pulled out, do they not die and [that] not with wisdom?” This could mean that they die without having attained wisdom during their short life. A number of translations are specific in rendering the text according to this significance. “[They] die without ever finding wisdom.” (REB) “They die devoid of wisdom.” (NJB) “You leave this life, having gained no wisdom.” (CEV) The Septuagint, however, indicates that they perish because they did not have wisdom. They simply did not have the wisdom to prevent or avoid dying. (4:21; see the Notes section for the Septuagint rendering of the beginning of this verse.)

Notes

In verse 5, the extant Hebrew text does not include a word for “affliction” as the object of what had come upon Job, but it is included in the rendering of the Septuagint (“but now affliction has come upon you and touched you”).

In verses 10 and 11, five different Hebrew words refer to a lion, but the context does not indicate just what the distinguishing features may be.

The Septuagint, in verse 11, refers to the “ant lion” (myrmekoléon) as perishing. There is no way to determine just what animal is thus designated. Regarding the lion cubs, the Septuagint says that they “abandoned one another.”

Verse 12 in the Septuagint contains a rendering that departs significantly from the extant Hebrew text. “But if there had come to be any truthful saying among your words, nothing of such kinds of bad would have met you.” The meaning appears to be that, if Job had been truthful and honest, he would not have experienced the calamities that had befallen him. Then with reference to Eliphaz, the verse continues, “Will not my ear receive extraordinary things from him?” The question indicated that Eliphaz expected to receive extraordinary revelations from God.

In verse 17, the Septuagint rendering differs somewhat from the reading of the extant Hebrew text. “What then? Can a mortal be pure before the Lord, or a man be blameless by reason of his works?” The implied answer is that no mortal could be considered pure or clean before the Lord. The works or deeds of a man are not without flaw, and so his works would not reveal him to be blameless.

Verse 19 of the Septuagint starts with the phrase, “But those dwelling in houses of clay.” Then, with apparent reference to himself and his companions, Eliphaz spoke of their being from the dwellers in houses of clay and of the “same clay.” He is quoted as concluding with the words, “He [God] struck them like a moth.”

In verse 21, the Septuagint starts with the words, “For he [God] blew upon them, and they withered.”

Job 5:1-27

Eliphaz challenged Job to “call” out and then raised rhetorical questions. Seemingly, the reason for Job to “call” would be for someone to come to take his side in the complaint he, in the estimation of Eliphaz, had made against God. The implied answer as to who would respond to Job was, No one. Eliphaz implied that Job could not turn to any of the “holy ones” or angels to advocate for him. According to the Septuagint rendering, the implication is that Job would not see any of the holy angels in response to his call. (5:1)

A “fool” is a person with a moral defect, one whose conduct is corrupt or lawless. “Vexation” or “anger” kills the fool. This could mean that God’s wrath is directed against the fool, resulting in a calamitous end for him. “Jealousy kills the simpleton.” The Hebrew word here rendered “simpleton” (patháh) is a parallel designation for “fool” and denotes one who is easily influenced to pursue a wrong course. “Jealousy” could here refer to God’s jealousy, a proper jealousy that calls for undivided devotion on the part of his creatures. God does not tolerate conduct that is defiantly contrary to his ways, and so his jealousy may be understood to bring about the death of the lawless simpleton. It is also possible that the fool’s own anger and the simpleton’s own jealousy or envy would lead to a calamitous end. According to the Septuagint, jealousy kills one who strays or who is deceived. (5:2)

Eliphaz spoke of having seen a “fool” or a corrupt person taking “root” or establishing himself and prospering. Suddenly, though, Eliphaz was moved to “curse his habitation.” Apparently perceiving the calamity that quickly befell the fool as a judgment from God, Eliphaz cursed the dwelling place of the one whom he regarded as having been cursed by God. The Septuagint makes no reference to any cursing but indicates that the mode of life of fools or their habitation was at once “consumed,” vanishing as if it had been devoured. (5:3)

The “sons” of a “fool” or a lawless man are not delivered from distressing circumstances. They are far from “deliverance,” safety, or a state of security and well-being. In the “gate,” or the open area near the gate where elders sat to render judgment, the offspring of a “fool” are crushed or have condemnation expressed against them. There is no one to act as their deliverer from adverse judgment. The Septuagint says respecting the sons, “May they be mocked at the doors of [their] inferiors.” (5:4)

What the “fool” or corrupt man harvests, the hungry one eats, not the lawless man who did the harvesting. The phrase that includes the Hebrew word for “thorns” (the plural of tsen) could mean that the hungry one takes the produce that may be guarded by a thorny hedge or the grain growing among the thorns. According to the Septuagint, the “sons” of fools gather or harvest what the “upright ones will eat.” These sons will not be rescued from injurious things or calamities. The concluding phrase of the extant Hebrew text is obscure. It could be translated, “A snare pants for their wealth.” This could mean that the wealth of lawless ones will not remain their possession. It is as if a snare is in place, ready to seize everything. With reference to the sons of fools, the Septuagint concludes with the words, “May their strength be exhausted.” (5:5; see the Notes section.)

Eliphaz implied that Job’s suffering had not come about on its own and that he himself was to blame for his calamity. As Eliphaz expressed this thought, “distress does not come from the dust and trouble does not sprout from the ground [from the mountains (LXX)].” He thus indicated that affliction and misery do not spring up without a cause. (5:6)

Man (the earthling) is born for “trouble” or “toil.” Apparently because Eliphaz believed that God considered humans untrustworthy, they were bound to experience hardships. This was just as certain to happen as for sparks from a fire to fly upward. According to the rendering of the Septuagint, the “young of the vultures” fly in the heights. (5:7)

Eliphaz had concluded that calamity befell Job for good reason. Therefore, he told him, “I would seek God and commit my cause to God.” As a directive to Job, the words may be understood to indicate that Job should change his course and repent of the wrongs he had committed, seeking God so as to cease being the object of his wrath. In the Septuagint, the Hebrew verbs in the imperfect state are rendered as verbs in the future tense. This rendering conveys what Eliphaz purposed to do. “But I will entreat the Lord, and I will call upon the Lord, the Master of all.” Unlike Job who had complained against God, Eliphaz thus portrayed himself as humbly praying to God, recognizing him as the One exercising dominion over everything. (5:8)

Eliphaz referred to God as “doing great things” and that which cannot be “searched out,” “marvelous things without number.” In the description of the things God does, the Septuagint adds the adjective “glorious” or “notable” (éndoxos). Eliphaz then went on to enumerate these great, unsearchable, and marvelous things. (5:9)

God “gives rain on the earth” or land “and sends waters [in the form of rains or showers] on fields” (literally, on [areas] outside). The Septuagint refers to the waters as being sent upon what lies “under heaven.” (5:10)

God sets the “lowly” or the humiliated ones “on high,” elevating them from their low state to a prominent position. He raises up those who are mourning or grieving on account of affliction or oppression, effecting their deliverance. According to the Septuagint rendering, God “raises up the ruined ones” or those who have been oppressed or have experienced other suffering or distress. (5:11)

God “frustrates the schemes of the shrewd, and their hands do not make [for] success.” Despite their cleverness, the shrewd find that their well-thought-out plans fail. Their works, the product of their hands, end up in failure. The Septuagint says that “their hands will by no means make [that which is] true,” genuine, or lasting. (5:12)

God “catches the wise in their craftiness,” cleverness, or wisdom, and the “plan,” device, or plot of the “twisted ones,” the clever schemers, or the crafty ones is “hastened” to its end or is quickly thwarted. While the clever scheming of crafty persons may not be easily recognized by others, God catches them in their craftiness and deals with them accordingly. Eliphaz implied that God had caught or seized Job in what he had cleverly or craftily done. (5:13; see the Notes section.)

Because of what God does, the wise or the clever schemers find themselves as if deprived of their capacity to formulate successful plans or schemes. It is as if they have been plunged into a state of darkness. “They meet darkness in the daytime.” At noontime [the brightest part of the day], they, like blind men, “grope as in the night.” (5:14)

God “delivers from a sword from their mouth.” The plural suffix that is part of the Hebrew word for “mouth” (“their mouth”) appears to identify the “mouth” as that of the clever schemers. Their words can do serious harm to others and thus prove to be like a “sword” that issues from “their mouth.” When God acts against the clever schemers, he delivers those against whom the “sword from their mouth” was directed. The Septuagint rendering makes the application to the clever schemers. “May they perish in war.” (5:15)

God delivers the “needy from the hand [or power] of the mighty.” The needy, poor, powerless, or those without any influence are the ones whom God rescues from their oppressors. (5:15)

In view of God’s actions against crafty ones or mighty oppressors, persons without power, the poor, or the lowly would have hope — the hope that their distressing circumstances would end. “Injustice” or “unrighteousness” is personified in the Hebrew text and referred to as shutting “her mouth” or as becoming silent with reference to expressions that would harm the lowly or the poor. The Septuagint renders the words to apply to unrighteous individuals. “But may the mouth of the unrighteous be shut.” This would indicate that they would not be permitted to make expressions that were injurious to the poor or lowly nor would they be able to say anything that would enable them to escape divine judgment. (5:16)

Eliphaz pronounced as “happy” or “fortunate” the man whom God reproves, providing this one with the correction that would enable him to make the required changes in his life to have divine favor. Considering the suffering that had befallen Job to be God’s chastening or correction, Eliphaz advised him, “Do not reject the discipline [chastening, correction, or admonition (LXX)] of the Almighty.” (5:17)

Provided that Job accepted the correction of the Almighty, Eliphaz implied that Job’s circumstances would change for the better. The Almighty may cause one to experience pain or suffering, and he also “binds up” the wounds or, according to the Septuagint, “restores again.” “He smites, and his hands heal.” So although Job may have been struck a serious blow, God’s “hands” or power could again be directed to him to heal the wounds. (5:18)

The reference to “six troubles” or “six times” (LXX) signifies multiple or many troubles or times. Eliphaz told Job that if he responded properly to God’s chastening, he would repeatedly be delivered from calamities. Then, in the case of a “seventh one” or a “seventh time” (LXX), or at the end, no “evil,” “calamity,” or “harm” would “touch” Job. (5:19)

If Job responded properly to divine correction, he would be delivered from death should famine come and “from the hand” or power “of a sword” in time of “war.” The Septuagint refers to being “loosed” or delivered from the “hand of iron” or from the power of a weapon used in warfare. (5:20)

If he were to be responsive to divine chastisement, Job (as Eliphaz viewed the matter) would be “concealed” from the “whip [scourge or lash] of a tongue,” not being subjected to verbal abuse or ruinous slander. He would not need to fear ruin, devastation, violence or, according to the Septuagint, “coming evils” or calamities. The things Eliphaz said Job would not experience were the very things he had faced. He had become an object of ridicule and had lost cattle, female donkeys, camels, and servants to violent raiders. (5:21; see 1:14, 15, 17; 12:4; 19:18; 30:1.)

According to Eliphaz, Job, if he were to accept the divine discipline, would laugh at “ruin,” devastation, or despoiling and hunger. Those things wold never affect him so that he could laugh at ruin and hunger as having no power over him. Job would not need to fear wild beasts, for they would not prey upon his domestic animals nor pose a threat to him or any member of his household. Yet Eliphaz knew that Job had no possessions at that time. There was nothing belonging to Job that could be destroyed, and wild animals could not cause any additional losses. (5:22; see the Notes section regarding the Seputagint rendering.)

Eliphaz maintained that, if Job had God’s approval, he would have a “covenant with the stones of the field,” and the “beasts of the field” or wild animals would be at peace with him, causing no injury. Job’s having a “covenant with the stones of the field” could mean that he would not have to contend with an abundance of stones that needed to be cleared from a field prior to cultivation. (Compare Isaiah 5:2.) Instead the field would be comparatively free from rocks as if they had made an agreement with him to stay away from his field. (5:23)

The Septuagint does not include the words about stones. In connection with the previous verse, it indicates that Job would not fear wild animals because they would be at peace with him. (5:23)

If he were living uprightly, Job, as Eliphaz contended, would know “peace” in his “tent” or dwelling, indicating that all in his household would enjoy security. Job would go out to see the pasture where his flocks and herds would be grazing and nothing would be missing. The Septuagint rendering could be understood to mean that Job would by no means experience lack in the “dwelling place of his tent.” In the case of Job at that time, he had nothing, and the words of Eliphaz were hurtful, not comforting. (5:24)

What Eliphaz said next would have been most painful to Job, for all of his sons and daughters had perished. Yet Eliphaz, by implication, claimed that, if Job were a man responsive to God’s discipline, his “seed” would be many, and his “offspring” abundant like the “vegetation of the earth” or land. (5:25)

Although Eliphaz saw Job in a dreadfully diseased state, he portrayed his death (if he were divinely approved) as coming after he had enjoyed a long life of bodily strength. Job would come to his grave in a state of wholeness, or like a “sheaf of grain comes up in its season” (fully mature at the time of the harvest) to the threshing floor. According to the Septuagint he would come to his grave “like ripe grain” that is harvested in its season, or like a “heap” of grain on the “threshing floor” that had been gathered at the right “hour” or time. (5:26)

Eliphaz insisted on the rightness of his view. Apparently including himself with Bildad and Zophar, he is quoted as saying, “Look! This is what we have searched out,” or “found out” from careful observation. The Hebrew words that follow literally read, “for this,” and could be understood to mean “for this is the way it is” or “this is true.” In the Septuagint, the elliptical Hebrew expression “for this” is rendered, “these things are what we have heard.” (5:27)

Eliphaz admonished Job to “hear it,” really taking heed to what had been said to him. He would then “know” for himself that the observations of Eliphaz were right. According to the Septuagint, Job would know or recognize for himself whether he “had done something,” probably meaning “done something wrong.” (5:27)

Notes

In verse 5, the plural of the Hebrew word tsen is commonly understood to refer to “thorns,” but this meaning is not certain.

The thought expressed in verse 13 is also found in 1 Corinthians 3:19, but the wording differs from that of Job 5:13 in the extant text of Septuagint. Of the principal words, only the term for “wise” is identical. Nevertheless, the meaning of the text is the same. In the context of Job 5, Eliphaz used the words to reprove Job, implying that he had sinned and, for this reason, had been seized in his cleverness. While Eliphaz erred in his judgment of Job’s situation, his comments conveyed the truth that God catches or seizes the wise in their cleverness or cunning. Accordingly, the apostle made use of the thought expressed in Job 5:13 in harmony with this truth.

In the first half of verse 22, the Septuagint reads, “At the unjust ones and the lawless ones you will laugh.”

Job 6:1-30

Eliphaz placed the blame on Job himself for the suffering he was experiencing. Job responded with the words that follow. (6:1)

Job wished that his grief (ká‘as) would be weighed and his disaster or calamity be placed on balances altogether. The Hebrew word ká‘as can also denote “anger.” This is the sense conveyed in the Septuagint, where the reference is to Job’s desire that someone weigh his “anger,” which could mean weighing the anger that had been directed against Job. In the context, “grief” or “vexation” appears to be a more fitting rendering for the Hebrew word ká‘as. Job wanted everything he had suffered to be calculated as if it were being weighed on scales in its entirety. (6:2)

In the estimation of Job, the sum of what he had endured, if it had been “weighed” or calculated, would be “heavier than the sand of the seas” (the “seashore” or “coast” [LXX]). The Hebrew expression “sand of the seas,” as indicated in the Septuagint, probably refers to the sand along the shores of the seas. This sand is abundant and of incalculably great weight. Job felt that this represented the oppressive weight that he had to bear on account of the combined calamities that had befallen him. As a result, he expressed himself in words that could be termed “wild” or “frenzied.” According to the Septuagint, Job said that it appeared to him that his words were “worthless.” This could mean that his words meant nothing. No one gave them any consideration, and God was not listening to him but continued to afflict him. (6:3)

Job likened his great suffering to the effect of “arrows” that the Almighty had shot into him. According to the Septuagint, the “arrows of the Lord” were in his “body.” Job’s “spirit,” or he in his inmost self, drank or partook of the “poison” of these arrows, indicating that his pain was intense. The Septuagint represents the “fury” of the arrows as drinking his blood. This could signify that Job sensed that his strength was being diminished progressively. The Hebrew text concludes with the thought that the “terrors of God” had been set against him. Job perceived that the most frightful things had befallen him. In the Septuagint, the verse concludes with the words, “When I start to speak, they [the arrows] pierce me.” This suggests that it was very painful for Job to speak. (6:4)

The rhetorical questions that Job raised indicate that he had good reason to express himself as he did. Regarding a wild ass or onager and a bovine, the implied answers would be, A wild ass does not bray when it has abundant grass on which to feed, and a bovine does not low when it has fodder. (6:5; see the Notes section regarding the Septuagint rendering.)

The next rhetorical questions indicate that there is a reason for doing certain things. “Will [something] tasteless be eaten without salt?” The implied answer is, No. In the Septuagint, the noun designating the tasteless item is ártos, meaning “bread” or “food.” So the question probably relates to whether food is eaten without being seasoned with salt. (6:6)

In the Hebrew text, the item that (according to the implied answer of the rhetorical question) does not have any taste is called the “slime” or “juice” of challamúth. Conjectural meanings for challamúth are the white of an egg or the edible parts of either alkanet (Anchusa officinalis) or marshmallow (Althaea officinalis). The words in the Septuagint could be translated, “And also is [there] taste in empty words [plural of rhéma]?” In this context, the plural form of the Greek noun rhéma may mean “things” (not “words”). Therefore, the reference could be to “empty things” or food items that have no flavor. (6:6)

Job is quoted as saying that his “soul refuses to touch.” This could mean that he himself refused to do so. Based on the previous verse, the implied object for the verb “touch” apparently is food. The Septuagint rendering is not as ambiguous as the Hebrew text but conveys an entirely different significance. “For my soul is not able to cease,” become calm, or be silent. This suggests that Job himself would not be calm or quiet. (6:7)

The elliptical concluding phrase of the Hebrew text may mean that the foods Job did not touch were “like disease in his nourishment” or were sickening to him. Wording in the Septuagint provides no insight regarding the significance of the Hebrew text. The Septuagint says, “For as groaning I see my foods like the odor of lions.” Perhaps the thought is that the groaning resulted from the sickening feeling Job had about his food, with his aversion to it being like the stench of lions to him. (6:7)

Job’s longing was that his “request might come,” meaning either that the request he had directed to God might come before him or that it would be fulfilled. He wanted God to grant him his hope. This hope, as the next verse indicates, was for his life to end so that he would no longer suffer. (6:8)

Job wished that God would be willing to “crush” him, ceasing to direct his hand against him to make him suffer and, instead, cutting him off or ending his life. The Septuagint rendering appears to represent God as having begun to act, and Job is quoted as saying, “Let the Lord, having begun, wound me, but let him not kill me in the end.” (6:9)

Even though he had experienced anguish and God had not spared him in this, Job’s comfort and the reason for him to “leap” (apparently for joy) was that he had not “disowned” (literally, “hidden”) the “words of the Holy One” (as if hiding the words of God from sight so as to disregard them). This is a possible way to understand the wording of the Hebrew text, but the Septuagint rendering is different. Job wanted his “city,” upon the walls of which he had leaped, to be his “grave.” He would not “spare,” possibly meaning that he would not spare himself from facing death. This was because he had not “lied” regarding the “holy sayings of [his] God.” (6:10; see the Notes section for another possible meaning of the Hebrew text.)

It appears that Job believed that his strength was giving out under the weight of his great distress. This seems to be the reason for the rhetorical questions. “What [is] my strength, that I should wait [for relief]” or, according to the rendering of the Septuagint, “endure”? “What [is] my end, that my soul should be patient [literally, I should prolong my soul]?” In the Septuagint, the question is, “What is my time [the time allotted to me to live], that my soul [I myself] should hold up?” (6:11)

Apparently Job felt that he could not endure much longer. This prompted him to ask whether his strength was that of hard “stones” or whether his flesh was “copper” or “bronze,” not weak but very strong. (6:12)

Job did not have the unyielding property of stones nor the strength of copper or bronze. He regarded himself as weak or as one who had “no help” in himself. The capacity for success or wisdom in dealing with his circumstances had been “driven” from him. According to the Septuagint, Job raised the question, “Have I not relied on him?” Though he had trusted in God, Job said, “But help is far from me.” The aid he expected did not come. (6:13)

A friend or companion should respond with kindness or compassion to his associate who is suffering. The Hebrew text could be understood to mean that this should be the case even if the afflicted one had forsaken the “fear” of, or reverential regard for, the Almighty. Another significance would be that a friend who did not respond compassionately to his distressed companion would be a person who has forsaken a proper fear of God. Both meanings are found in translations. “A friend owes kindness to one in despair, though he have forsaken the fear of the Almighty.” (NAB) “A despairing man should have the devotion of his friends, even though he forsakes the fear of the Almighty.” (NIV) “Those who withhold kindness from a friend forsake the fear of the Almighty.” (NRSV) “Refuse faithful love to your neighbour and you forsake the fear of Shaddai.” (NJB) The Septuagint rendering represents Job as saying that “mercy” had disowned him, for he had ceased to be an object of compassion. As far as “oversight [or visitation] of the Lord,” Job felt that this had overlooked him. He had been disregarded or neglected. (6:14)

Referring to his three companions as “brothers” or close associates, Job said that they did not act as such. They had not responded with compassion like friends. Therefore, he likened them to a “deceitful” torrent, one that could not be depended upon for water throughout the year. They were like a “channel of torrents” that “passed away” or through which water ceased to flow during the dry season of summer. According to the Septuagint, Job’s nearest kin had not looked at him or given any attention to him. They passed by him like a winter torrent that dries up in the summer or “like a wave.” Job was completely ignored. (6:15)

Possibly the torrents are described as being “dark with ice” when the ice begins to melt. In that case, the reference to the snow hiding above the torrents could mean that it melts as if hiding itself in the rising water of the streams. Translations vary in their interpretive renderings when describing the torrents as “darkened by thawing ice and swollen with melting snow” (NIV), “run dark with ice, turbid with melting snow” (NRSV), “black with ice, and with snow heaped upon them” (NAB), “choked with snow and ice” (GNT, Second Edition), and “made dark by melting ice and rise with melting snow” (NCV). The Septuagint indicates that persons who formerly respected Job fell upon him “like snow” or like “compacted ice.” They had a chilling effect on him, bringing him no comfort. (6:16)

During the summer season, water stops coursing through the streambeds. When it gets hot, the torrents dry up “from their place” — the channels through which they flow. The Septuagint indicates that after it has melted and the hot season comes, the ice would not be recognized for what it had been. (6:17)

Job is quoted as mentioning a turning aside in relation to the “paths of their ways.” This probably means that travelers or caravans departed from the usual route to locate needed water. They came to an area that was empty or a waste because the streams had dried up, and they then perished. The Septuagint conveys a different meaning. After referring to the melted ice that was no longer recognizable as what it had been, Job likened this to what had happened to him. He had been forsaken by everyone, “perished” or been reduced to ruin, and become homeless. (6:18)

A literal reading of the Hebrew text is elliptical. “The ways of Tema look; the travelers of Sheba are waiting [or hoping] for them.” A common view is that the expression “ways of Tema” designates the caravans from Tema, a region in Edomite territory. Their “looking” could refer to searching for streams that had not dried up. Travelers from Sheba could be understood as hoping to find the streambeds that still had water flowing through them. The Septuagint rendering represents Job as telling Eliphaz, Bildad, and Zophar to look at the “roads of the Thaimanites [Temanites] and the byways of the Sabeans.” He referred to these three associates as men who could “distinguish” or discern clearly. As the next verse in the Septuagint indicates, Job wanted them to recognize what happened to the Temanites and the Sabeans. (6:19)

With seeming reference to those who went in search for water, the Hebrew text indicates that they experienced shame because they trusted, or hoped to find water. When they arrived at the location of a stream, they were disappointed because it had dried up. The wording of the Septuagint could be understood to mean that the Temanites and the Sabeans would experience shame because their trust in cities and wealth was misplaced. (6:20)

Instead of comforting Job, Eliphaz, Bildad, and Zophar had become nothing. They were of no strengthening aid to him. Upon seeing “terror,” or the calamity that had befallen Job, they were afraid. At least in part, their fear may have resulted from their view that his suffering was deserved punishment from God, restraining them from consoling Job in a way that caring friends would. According to the Septuagint, the three companions had trodden upon him without mercy. Job then admonished them to be afraid because they had seen his hurt. (6:21)

Job asked whether he had told his companions to give him something or whether he had asked them to make a gift for him from their “power,” probably meaning from their possessions or substance. This giving may refer to offering a bribe. The Septuagint rendering expresses a different thought, one that is completed in the next verse. “What then? Have I asked you for something or do I need of your strength to deliver me from enemies …?” In his afflicted state, what Job needed was comfort, but his companions had failed to provide it. (6:22)

The rhetorical question Job raised in the previous verse continues. He asked his companions whether he had requested that they deliver him “from the hand” or power of an enemy (“enemies” [LXX]) or “redeem” or rescue him from the “hand” or power of ruthless men, oppressors, tyrants, or “mighty ones” (LXX). (6:23)

Job was willing to be instructed or to have teaching imparted to him that would benefit him in his afflicted state. He would be silent, giving full attention to the instruction. If he had erred, he wanted his companions to make him understand or to show him what he had done wrong. (6:24)

The Hebrew text could be literally translated, “How sick [are] words of uprightness! And what does reproof from you reprove?” Possibly Job is being represented as referring to the words of his companions as “sick” or “weak” but which they regarded as upright, honest, or truthful. Another way to understand the opening phrase is to apply the words to what Job had said. His words were upright, honest, or truthful, and yet his companions treated them as “sick,” weak, amounting to nothing, or not deserving any consideration. This significance has a measure of support in the rendering of the Septuagint. “But it seems [that] words of a genuine person [are] worthless.” Job was genuine or an upright and honest man, and yet his companions treated his words as if they were false. Their words of reproof that were meant to reprove or correct him missed the mark, as these words were based on the belief that Job’s suffering resulted from his having been guilty of serious wrongdoing. Therefore, the answer to Job’s rhetorical question was that the reproof of his companions did not serve to reprove or correct him. (6:25; regarding the rendering of the concluding phrase in the Septuagint, see the Notes section.)

His companions had directed reproof against Job’s words and so he asked them, “Do you think you can reprove words and [as] wind [treat] the sayings of a despairing man?” (6:26)

The elliptical Hebrew text requires the addition of words in order to convey an understandable significance. This has resulted in a variety of renderings. “Do you mean to correct what I say, and treat the words of a despairing man as wind?” (NIV) “Do you think that you can disprove [my] words or that a despairing man’s words are [mere] wind?” (HCSB) “Do you consider your words as proof, but the sayings of a desperate man as wind?” (NAB) “Here I am desperate, and you consider my words as worthless as wind.” (CEV) “You think I am talking nothing but wind; then why do you answer my words of despair?” (GNT, Second Edition) “Do you think mere words deserve censure, desperate speech that the wind blows away?” (NJB) “Do you mean to argue about mere words? Surely such despairing utterance is mere wind.” (REB) According to the Septuagint, the reproof of Job’s companions would not stop him from continuing to speak nor would he “tolerate the sound of [their] word.” He was not going to stop expressing himself nor accept their wrong evaluation of his circumstances. (6:26)

Apparently because of the way in which his companions had responded to him in his afflicted state, Job likened them to persons who would cast “lots over the fatherless” and “bargain over [their] companion” or friend. Such casting of lots and bargaining would have been for the purpose of acquiring the individual as a slave. The Septuagint refers to Job’s companions as falling upon orphans and jumping on their friend, thus acting contrary to what his distressing circumstances required. (6:27)

Job requested that his companions be pleased or willing to look at him, with the apparent reason being that they would give attention to his words. There was good reason for them to listen to what he said, for he would “not lie to [their] face,” but would tell them the truth. According to the Septuagint, Job is the one who looked into the faces of his associates, and he would not lie. (6:28)

The words of Job suggest that he considered his companions as having been unjust in the expressions they made about him. He entreated them to “turn” or to reconsider what they had said, with the result that there would not be injustice. He then again asked them to “turn” or reconsider their view of him. The reason for their doing so is worded in an elliptical manner — “my righteousness to it.” This has been variously rendered. “Turn now; my vindication is at stake.” (ESV) “Think again, for my integrity is in question.” (REB) “Think it over; I still am right.” (NAB) “Relent then, since I am upright.” (NJB) “Reconsider; my righteousness is still the issue.” (HCSB) “Stop assuming my guilt, for I am righteous.” (NLT) “Think again, because my innocence is being questioned.” (NCV) According to the Septuagint, Job requested that his companions “sit down” and that there be “no injustice.” This could mean that he wanted them to be just in the way they looked at him in his afflicted state. His desire was that they would again be assembled with the just one. Since Job was just, righteous, or upright, the request may be understood to refer to their again being united with him in the same company as caring associates. (6:29)

Job asked whether there was “unrighteousness” or “injustice” on his tongue or whether he had ever expressed what was corrupt or unjust. In the Septuagint, this is rendered as a statement. “For no injustice is on my tongue.” The rhetorical question about his tasting “ruin” (or what is calamitous or bad) with his palate could relate to whether Job had the moral discrimination to judge aright, and the implied answer is that he could “taste” so as to determine what was corrupt. In the Septuagint, the verse concludes with the question, “Does not my throat give attention to insight?” Perhaps the thought is that he had the capacity to discriminate, choosing what he would partake of and swallow. (6:30)

Notes

The wording of the rhetorical questions in verse 5 is more explicit in the Septuagint than in the extant Hebrew text. “What then? Will a wild ass bray for no reason but [do so when] it is seeking grain? And will also a bovine low at a manger when it has fodder?”

If verse 10 is linked to the expressions in the previous verse, they could relate to the relief Job would experience if he were to die. To have his life end would have been a comfort to him, for it would have brought an end to his suffering. Even though “not spared in anguish,” Job would “leap,” apparently for joy. He had not “disowned” or “hidden” the “words of the Holy One.” This could be understood to indicate that Job did not consider the calamities that had befallen him to have been punishment for wrongdoing. He was not seeking relief from deserved chastisement.

In verse 25, the Septuagint does not include any reference to reproof. It concludes with the words, “For I do not ask for strength from you.” Possibly this means that he did not ask his companions to give him strengthening support.

Job 7:1-21

Job recognized that, during the course of their life, humans repeatedly face problems and hardships. Therefore, he raised the rhetorical question, “[Is] not a mortal’s [existence] on earth [like] hard labor [a trial (LXX)], and his days like days of a hireling?” A man who performed hard labor or one who was a hireling looked forward to the end of the day when he would no longer be engaged in wearying labor. When life proved to be like forced labor or like days of a hireling who looked forward to the end of each day when he received his wages, the individual desired relief from drudgery. In the case of Job, this implied that it was most fitting for him to want relief from his distressing situation, and his earlier comments indicated that he regarded death as the means by which he could be liberated from his affliction. (7:1; compare 3:10-19; 6:9, 10.)

The yearning for relief from troubles and difficulties that life brings is compared to the longing of a slave for a “shadow” and like the anticipation of a hireling for his wages at the end of the day. A “shadow” would bring welcome relief from the heat, and the lengthening of shadows also indicated that the time for laboring was drawing to a close and that the time for rest was drawing near. A hireling’s being able to look forward to receiving wages at the end of the day made the performance of wearying labor more tolerable. Job’s words indicate that it was natural for humans to want relief from difficult circumstances, and so his desire to be liberated from his misery was the reaction that his companions should have expected. (7:2; see the Notes section regarding the Septuagint rendering.)

Job looked at his situation as being much like the hard lot of a slave or that of a hireling. Months of “emptiness” or futility had been allotted to him, and “nights of trouble” or misery had been apportioned to him. Neither the day nor the night brought him respite from his affliction. (7:3)

After lying down for the night, Job wondered just when he could arise. This was because the night brought him no rest. The night seemed to drag on, for he would toss restlessly until dawn. According to the rendering of the Septuagint, Job found himself asking when it would be day. Then, upon getting up, he would ask when it would be evening. “From evening until morning,” he was tormented with pains (literally, “full of pains”). (7:4)

Job described his “flesh” or “body” (LXX) as “clothed” (“defiled” [LXX]) or covered with “worms” or maggots and “clods of dust,” either dirt or scabs (with the “decay of worms” or maggots [LXX]). Regarding his skin, he is quoted as saying, “My skin hardens and flows.” This could mean that pus oozed from his shriveled and cracked skin. The Septuagint rendering represents Job as saying that he was “melting away” and “scraping clods of earth away from pus.” (7:5)

In his afflicted state, Job perceived his life as rapidly slipping away. He likened this to his days going by faster than a shuttle by means of which a weaver quickly passes the thread of the weft between the threads of the warp. His days ended without hope, for he saw no change for the better. The Septuagint refers to his life or existence as being “lighter” than “talk,” which may mean that it passed more quickly than the words that proceed from the mouth of the one speaking. Job is then quoted as saying that his life perished in “empty” or “vain hope.” This suggests that he might have had hope but that it was completely crushed in view of the state of misery in which he found himself. (7:6)

At this point, Job directed his words to God, asking him to “remember” or to take note of the reality that he was a mortal, one whose life was but a “breath” (rúach). The Hebrew word rúach can also mean “spirit.” In this context, however, it denotes an exhaled breath or a mere puff of air. Job felt that his “eye” would never again see “good” or a reversal in his state of great suffering. His expression appears to have been a plea to be shown compassion in his pathetic state before his life would end. (7:7)

Upon his death, no eye of one who then saw him would see him. Apparently again directing his words to God, Job continued, “Your eyes [will be] upon me, and I will not be.” (7:8; see the Notes section.)

“A cloud fades and vanishes.” Like such a disappearing cloud (“like a cloud having been cleared from heaven [the sky]” as Job would be [LXX]), one descending to Sheol, the realm of the dead, does not come back up. The Septuagint says, “For if a man has descended into Hades, he does not again come up.” (7:9)

The one who descended into Sheol or the realm of the dead does not return to his house. As this one no longer exists in the earthly realm of the living, “his place,” the one that he once occupied, does not know him any more. He is gone from that place like a stranger who had never been there. (7:10)

Believing that his descent into the realm of the dead was at hand, Job was not going to restrain his mouth from speaking. He would express himself in the “anguish of [his] spirit,” or in the distress of his inner self. The Septuagint rendering could be understood to mean that he would speak because of being in distress. The verse concludes with the thought that Job purposed to complain “in the bitterness of [his] soul” or in the bitterness of his very being. In the Septuagint, Job is represented as saying that, being “held fast” or “afflicted,” he would “open” or disclose the “bitterness of [his] soul.” (7:11)

Job believed God to be the source of the affliction that had taken fast hold of him. This prompted him to ask whether God regarded him as the “sea” or a “sea monster” (“dragon” [LXX]) that had to be restrained so that he “set a guard” over him. Job’s affliction was like a guard that kept him in a perpetual state of suffering. (7:12)

When Job said to himself that his “divan” would “comfort” him, granting him respite from his misery while sleeping at night, and that his bed would “lift up” or ease his “complaint” (sich), giving him some relief from his distress, he did not find this to be the case. The Hebrew word sich can also mean “musing.” This appears to be the basis for the Septuagint rendering. “I will bring up” or express a “word for my own self on my bed.” (7:13)

Instead of getting a peaceful night’s rest, Job had disturbing nightmares. He attributed these to God, saying, “You frighten me with dreams and terrify me with visions.” (7:14)

The effect on Job from terrifying nightmares was such that he would have preferred to be suffocated. Death would have been a better option than his bones, or the keeping of his bodily frame barely alive. According to the Septuagint, Job said, “You will remove my soul from my spirit but my bones from death.” This could mean that God would cause Job’s soul or Job himself to be without his “spirit” or his life force or life principle. Death would render him lifeless, but his bones would remain intact, as if taken away from death. (7:15)

The Hebrew text is elliptical. “I reject” or “despise”; “not forever [to limitless time] would I live.” Based on the previous verse that quotes Job as saying that he preferred death to his miserable existence, the implied object of “reject” or “despise” appears to be his life. He loathed his existence as a suffering man without any hope of relief. Therefore, Job wanted God to leave him alone or to grant him a respite from his misery. He would not live long, for his “days” were just a “breath.” According to the Septuagint, Job said, “For I will not live forever [into the age], that I should be patient” or that I should endure patiently. “Distance yourself from me, for my life is vain,” empty, or meaningless. Job had no reason to continue living and just wanted God to leave him alone for the short time he might yet live. (7:16)

The rhetorical question (“What [is] man [’enóhsh, a mortal]?”) implied that a mere mortal did not amount to anything. Therefore, Job could not understand why God would “make” man “great” (as one that should be the object of his concern) and set his “heart” (“mind” or “thought” [LXX]) on him or focus his attention on him. Job perceived this divine attention to have been the reason for his great suffering. (7:17)

In view of all that he had to endure, Job referred to God as visiting man every morning and testing him. There was no letup in the affliction and trials that each day brought. (7:18; see the Notes section regarding the Septuagint rendering.)

Job regarded himself as being the object of God’s constant watching and, therefore, being subjected to continual suffering. He wondered when God would finally look away from him, leaving him alone until he could “swallow [his] spittle” (“in pain” [added in LXX]). Job wanted to be left alone for just a brief time so that he might at last have some relief. (7:19)

Job could not understand what his sinning really did to God, the One watching man (’adhám, the earthling; “the One knowing the mind of men” [LXX]). The implication is that God, the One who is fully aware of what man does or thinks, was not personally harmed in any way. For this reason, Job wondered why God had made him a “mark” for himself or an object to be struck (God’s “accuser” [LXX] against whom he needed to act). In the Masoretic Text, the verse concludes with the question, “[Why] have I become a burden for myself?” An ancient Jewish scribal correction indicates that the question should end with “for you,” and the rendering of the Septuagint is “on you.” Thus Job represents himself as being like an unwelcome burden to God, one that is a source of irritation and displeasure. (7:20)

Instead of being subjected to continual suffering, Job wondered why God could not just pardon his transgression and “pass over” his guilt or not persist in holding it against him. In that case, he could have been allowed to die. He would then have been able to lie “in the dust,” and God could seek him but he would not be and so could no longer be afflicted. The Septuagint concludes with the thought that Job would go away “into the earth” or the ground and, in the morning, “be no more.” (7:21)

Notes

In verse 2, the Septuagint rendering refers to the slave or servant as one “fearing his lord” or master and “finding a shadow.”

Based on the markings of the Christian scholar Origen (who produced his Hexapla in the third century CE), the words of verse 8 were not found in the Septuagint text available to him. He added the corresponding Greek words of the phrase from the version of Theodotion. This version is thought to have been produced in the second century CE. It is either a translation of the Hebrew text or a revision of the Greek text based on the Hebrew text.

In verse 18, the Septuagint represents God as making a visitation until morning and judging man until his time of rest.

Job 8:1-22

Bildad the Shuhite (Baldad the Sauchite [LXX]) responded to the words of Job. The designation “Shuhite” may identify Bildad as a descendant of Shuah, the son of Abraham by his concubine Keturah. (8:1; Genesis 25:1, 2)

Bildad was dismissive of the expressions Job had made. He regarded the “words of [Job’s] mouth” as a “great wind” or as amounting to nothing more than air in motion. Therefore, he raised the rhetorical question, “How long will you say these things?” (8:2)

Bildad implied that Job had accused God of perverting what is just and right. He is quoted as asking Job, “Does God pervert judgment [or justice], and does the Almighty pervert righteousness [what is right]?” According to the rendering of the Septuagint, the second part of the question is, “Or will the one producing [or doing] all things pervert righteousness?” (8:3)

Bildad insinuated that the reason Job’s sons had perished was because of their having sinned against God. The Almighty “sent them into the hand of their transgression.” This signified that they were delivered up to the consequences of their serious guilt, coming into the “hand” or power of the transgression from the standpoint of the punishment that was inseparably linked to wrongdoing. (8:4)

Bildad indicated that the circumstances would change for Job if he were to look to or seek God and “supplicate the Almighty,” entreating him to be shown mercy. The Septuagint rendering could be understood as admonition for Job to “rise early” to pray to the “Lord Almighty” or eagerly to seek him to make his approach in prayer. (8:5)

Bildad contended that, if Job was “pure” or undefiled from moral corruption and “upright,” just, “true” (LXX), genuine, or honest, God would most certainly “rouse himself for [him]” or come to his aid. According to the Septuagint, God would “hear” or give attention to Job’s supplication. The Almighty would “restore” to Job a “habitation of righteousness.” This could mean that Job would be restored to the place that was rightfully his or that he would be restored to the place where he could live in an upright manner. (8:6)

Bildad claimed that, though Job’s “beginning” (“first things” [LXX]) or his past may have been small or insignificant, the “latter part” (“last things” [LXX]) would “grow exceedingly” or his future would be distinguished by increasing prosperity. According to the Septuagint, the “last things” would be “unspeakably many.” As indicated in verse 5, this would only be if Job were to seek God and to pray to him. (8:7)

Bildad implied that his comments were based on what had long ago been established as true. Therefore, he urged Job to inquire of the “former generation” (to consider the fund of knowledge that had come to the then-present generation from the ancients) and to consider or heed (literally, “establish” or “make firm”) what the “fathers” or ancestors had found to be true (literally, the “searched-out thing”). The Septuagint rendering could be understood to mean that Job was to investigate the things the “generation of the fathers” or ancestors had come to know. (8:8)

As far as the then-present generation was concerned, Bildad said, “For we [are of] yesterday,” or just recent arrivals with limited experience and knowledge, “and know nothing.” His reference to “our days [our life (LXX)] on earth” being like a “shadow” probably means that the time on earth is very brief like a shadow that quickly disappears and, therefore, is insufficient for any individual to come to know on his own the vast treasure of wisdom that the ancients had collectively acquired and that had been handed down to the then-existing generation. (8:9)

Bildad’s rhetorical question indicated that, if Job were to consult the wisdom of the ancients as it had been handed down to the then-existing generation, they would teach him and would “say” to him and, “from their heart,” express “words.” Thus he would learn what they had come to know and what had been stored in “their heart” or mind or had become like a deposit in their inmost selves. (8:10)

Bildad raised rhetorical questions for which the unmistakable answer is, No. “Can papyrus flourish in [an area where there is] no marsh? Can a reed grow in [an area where there is] no water?” The point of the questions may be that, just as plants need the right environment for growth, humans can by no means prosper if they are not living uprightly and, therefore, do not have God’s blessing. (8:11)

While still in its “freshness” (“on the root” [LXX], perhaps, newly sprouted), tender, or green and of limited height, the reed would not be useful and so would not be “plucked up” (“harvested” [LXX]). If the water were to dry up, the reed would wither before any other plant (any plant that is less dependent on an abundant supply of water). The Septuagint rendering could be understood to mean that, when supplied with water (literally, “before the drinking”), vegetation will not wither. (8:12)

Just as reeds dry up quickly without water, so, maintained Bildad, are the paths of “all those forgetting God.” Their paths or the ways in which they conduct themselves as persons who disregard what is divinely approved come to a disastrous end like reeds that wither when the water supply dries up. “The hope of the impious,” profane, or godless man “will perish.” According to the view of Bildad, this was because the godless one’s life ended in calamity, with nothing good for which to hope. (8:13)

In the next verse of the Hebrew text, the second word is the verb yaqóht. The verb yaqóht is commonly regarded as derived from the root qut, meaning “loathe.” If this is correct, the Hebrew text possibly could mean that the “confidence” of the godless man is to be loathed, for it will prove to be false or a mere delusion. His “hope” is a “spider’s house” or web — something that is fragile or tenuous. It is a hope that will not be fulfilled, but, like a spider’s web that can easily be destroyed, it will come to disappointment. According to the Septuagint, Bildad claimed that the “house” of the impious or godless man “will be uninhabited” and his “tent” or dwelling will prove to be like a “spider’s web,” fragile and readily destroyed. (8:14)

If the “house” mentioned in verse 14 is the same as the “house” referred to in this verse, the reference would be to a spider’s web. It would not stand if leaned against and would not remain if taken hold of. The Septuagint rendering identifies the “house” as that of the impious one. “If he shores up his house, it will by no means stand, and [if] he takes hold of it, it will by no means remain.” (8:15; see the Notes section.)

In the words that follow, Bildad likened the godless man to a plant that initially flourishes and then perishes. “Before” or under the “sun,” he is like a “fresh,” “moist” (LXX) or green plant, of which the “shoot” goes forth over the garden. This suggests that his offspring become numerous. (8:16; see the Notes section regarding the Septuagint rendering.)

The impious one appears to be secure like a plant that has its roots entwined around a “heap” (probably a “pile of stones” [as suggested by the reference to a “house of stones” that follows]). “He sees a house of stones.” This could mean that the godless man is like a plant rooted among rocks and, therefore, would be able to see a “house of stones” as his dwelling place. (8:17; see the Notes section regarding the Septuagint rendering.)

Bildad portrayed the impious man under the figure of a plant that is “swallowed up,” destroyed, or pulled up from the place where it was growing among rocks. That place is represented as denying that it had ever seen the plant. Accordingly, the godless man would be annihilated, obliterating all remembrance of him. (8:18; see the Notes section regarding the Septuagint rendering.)

Bildad is quoted as applying his words. “This [is] the exultation of his way, and others will sprout from the dust.” The way the godless man pursued appeared to prosper at the start and provided a basis for him to exult or to be joyful. That way, however, proved to be a way to annihilation. From the place where the impious one had formerly been, others would appear on the scene like plants sprouting up from the ground. The Septuagint rendering is explicit in indicating that what had been previously described is the “overthrow of the impious one.” “But from the earth” or ground, “something else will sprout.” The place where the lawless man was would not remain vacated. (8:19)

Bildad had maintained that godless persons are the ones who suffer and that the upright are exempt from the kind of affliction that befalls the impious ones. He said to Job, “Look! God will not reject the complete one” or the man of integrity (the “innocent one” or blameless one [LXX]), and “he will not take hold of the hand of evildoers.” In the Septuagint, two words for “not” appear in connection with the verb for “reject,” thus indicating that God would by no means reject the blameless one. Bildad’s contention was that the “hand” or power of godless persons would fail, for God would neither strengthen nor support it. According to the Septuagint rendering, God would not accept a “gift” or an offering from the godless one and respond favorably to him. (8:20)

Bildad implied that, if Job changed his ways and did what was right, God would fill his “mouth with laughter” and his “lips with shouting” (acknowledgment, confession, or thanksgiving [LXX]). Job would then have a life of happiness, with many occasions for laughter and joyous outcries. In the Septuagint, the words are not applied to Job but to “true,” genuine, or sincere persons. (8:21)

Bildad assured Job that his situation would improve if he were to make the needed changes. Persons who hated him would be “clothed with shame.” This could be because of again seeing Job prosper while they were experiencing adversity and being disgraced. As far as the “tent” or dwelling place of the wicked was concerned, it would be no more. This could mean that Job would not be affected by their plotting or their violent actions. According to the Septuagint, the enemies are the enemies of the true, genuine, or sincere persons, and the “way of life” or the “dwelling” of the godless ones will cease to be. (8:22)

Notes

In verse 15, the Septuagint rendering “by no means” serves to express the emphatic sense of the two Greek words for “not.”

The rendering of the first part of verse 16 in the Septuagint basically corresponds to the wording of the Hebrew text (“for he is moist under the sun”). The concluding part of the verse says that, “from his decayed matter” (ek saprías autou), a “shoot will go forth.” One conjecture is that the reading saprías is a scribal error and that the original reading may have been prasiás, meaning “garden plot.” If the extant rendering of the Septuagint is original, the thought could be that the godless man is like decaying matter and produces corrupt offspring.

The Septuagint rendering of verse 17 differs somewhat from the wording of the Hebrew text. “Upon a gathering of stones, he sleeps, and he will live in the midst of pebbles.” The Greek word for “sleep” (koimáo) may here mean “lodge.” Possibly the thought is that the godless man is like a plant that has its place on a pile of stones and so lives or grows in the midst of pebbles.

In verse 18, the Septuagint reads, “If it swallows him, the place will deny him. You have not seen such things.” This could suggest that the impious man is like a plant that is “swallowed” or seems to disappear as it is withering in its place. After disappearing from the place, it would be as if it never had been there. Bildad may be represented as saying that Job had never seen or recognized these things as occurring.

Job 9:1-35

Job responded to what Bildad had said. His response is introduced with the words, “And Job answered and said.” (9:1)

“Surely I know that [it is] so.” This may be an acknowledgment that Bildad and Eliphaz had made some valid comments, with the point of Job’s agreement being expressed in question form. “How can a man be righteous before God?” The thought appears to be that a person’s claim to be righteous or upright would not have any merit from God’s standpoint. What counted was God’s judgment. (9:2; 8:3)

No human could contend with God, either by entering into a controversy with him or by seeking to establish the rightness of one’s own case. Job is then quoted as saying, “He could [or would] not answer him once in a thousand.” If the reference is to one who could not answer God, the application would be to the one who would attempt to enter into a controversy with him. The words could also be understood to mean that God would not answer the person who thought to argue his case. Since the expression “once in a thousand” is not specific in its application, it could refer either to “once in a thousand [or very many] times” or to “once to a thousand [or a multitude of] questions. (9:3)

Translations vary in the significance their renderings convey. “Should one wish to contend with him, he could not answer him once in a thousand times.” (NAB) “Though one wished to dispute with him, he could not answer him one time out of a thousand.” (NIV) “Anyone trying to argue matters with him, could not give him one answer in a thousand.” (NJB) “If anyone does choose to argue with him, God will not answer one question in a thousand.” (REB) According to the Septuagint, God would “by no means” listen to anyone who wished to enter into judgment with him. This would be the case so that the individual could not gainsay one “word” or charge “out of a thousand.” There would be no way to win against God. (9:3; see the Notes section.)

Many translations are specific in identifying God as the one who is “wise in heart [thought or mind (LXX)] and mighty in strength.” No human could hope to win against God’s limitless wisdom and might. This is expressed in the rhetorical question, “Who has hardened himself against [or resisted] him” and succeeded (more literally, “come out whole” or “complete” [“endured before him” (LXX)])? (9:4; see the Notes section.)

The removal of mountains could refer to the changes effected by volcanic activity or massive landslides. Job would have perceived this as evidence of God’s matchless power. Regarding the removal of mountains, Job is quoted as saying that “they know not.” This aspect about not knowing in conjunction with the removal of mountains could denote that it takes place unexpectedly or without any prior warning. The overturning of mountains is attributed to God’s anger. (9:5; see the Notes section regarding the Septuagint rendering.)

God is referred to as shaking the “earth” or land out of its place (that which is “under heaven from the foundations” [LXX]). This is an apparent description of seismic activity. The land is poetically depicted as resting on “pillars” that violently move back and forth when an earthquake occurs. (9:6)

God is represented as commanding the sun, and it “does not rise.” He also “puts a seal around the stars.” The thought appears to be that, when the sky is overcast, the sun is not visible and so does not rise for earth’s inhabitants. Likewise, the overcast sky hides the stars, making it appear as though a seal has been placed over them. (9:7)

The sky (literally, the “heavens”) or the celestial dome is depicted as a tent that God stretches out by himself, with no one else assisting him. He is portrayed as trampling upon the “heights of the sea.” This suggests that God is in full control of the turbulent sea as if he were walking on the waves. According to the Septuagint, “He walks on the sea as upon the ground.” (9:8)

God appears to be identified as the maker of constellations — ‘ash, kesíl, kimáh, and the “chambers of the south” (possibly an expression applying to stars or constellations in the southern sky). Lexicographers commonly link kesíl to Orion and kimáh to Pleiades. The Great Bear constellation has been suggested as one possible identification for ‘ash. In the Septuagint, the first three Hebrew designations are rendered Pleiades, evening star (Venus), and Arcturus (“bear watcher”). The Vulgate rendering is Arcturus, Orion, Hyades (a cluster of stars in the Taurus constellation). (9:9)

God does “great things” beyond the capacity of humans to “search out” or to comprehend and “marvelous things” that are beyond numbering. According to the Septuagint, he does “great and unsearchable things, both notable and extraordinary, for which there is no number.” (9:10)

It appears that Job considered it impossible to have a one-on-one interchange with God or to contend with him. Whenever he passed him by or passed over him, Job could not see God. He could not discern him or know it when he moved onward. God remained imperceptible to Job. (9:11)

“Look!” Job said, “He [God] snatches away,” and Job recognized that no one could hinder God from doing so; or, as the Septuagint expresses the thought, “Who will return” what God has taken away? In his own case, Job would have considered the loss of his possessions and his children to have been the result of divine action. Nevertheless, no one would challengingly say to God, “What are you doing?” (“What did you do?” [LXX]) (9:12)

With apparent reference to times when God chooses to express his wrath, Job said that he “will not turn back his anger.” There would be no way to escape from God’s wrath. Even the “helpers of Rahab bowed” or stooped “beneath him.” In this context, “Rahab” probably is a designation for a powerful monster or sea monster, and its helpers would then be associated monsters. These helpers appear to represent God’s enemies, and the words about the “helpers of Rahab” could be understood to indicate that God, in his wrath, would subject his powerful foes to humiliating defeat. According to the rendering of the Septuagint, the “monsters” or sea monsters “under heaven were bowed beneath him.” (9:13)

Apparently because Job regarded himself to have become the object of divine wrath that even powerful monsters could not withstand, he realized that he could not possibly “answer” God or make a defense, choosing just the right “words” or arguments “with him.” The Septuagint rendering indicates that, if he listened to Job, God would judge his words. (9:14)

Recognizing that he could not win against God, Job said that he would not “answer” or contend with him despite being “righteous,” in the right, or innocent. “For [his] judgment” from God, he would have to plead for favor or mercy. According to the rendering of the Septuagint, God would not “listen” to Job even if he proved to be “righteous,” in the right, or innocent. (9:15; see the Notes section regarding the concluding phrase in the Septuagint.)

Job believed that, if he called out to him and he did respond, God would not listen (literally, “give ear”) to his “voice.” This probably means that Job thought that God, after responding to his call, would not listen to him when he would be presenting his case. (9:16)

In view of the calamity that had befallen him, Job came to think that God had no concern for him. Based on his perception, he felt that God continued to “crush” him or beat him down “with a storm” and to multiply his “wounds” or to increase his suffering “without cause.” Job simply could not understand why God could treat him in the manner that he did. (9:17; see the Notes section regarding the Septuagint rendering.)

Job never experienced any relief from his great suffering. Therefore, he felt that God would not let him get (literally, “return”) his “breath” (rúach). Although rúach can also mean “spirit” or “wind,” the context indicates that “breath” is the appropriate rendering here. There never was a brief respite for Job. God, as Job regarded his circumstances, continued to sate him or fill him “with bitter things.” (9:18)

The elliptical Hebrew wording could be understood to mean that, in a case before God, Job could not win. If strength is involved, God is mighty. If it is a matter of judgment or justice, Job asked as to who would “appoint,” or who would set the time for his case to be heard. According to the Septuagint rendering, God prevails by strength. “Who then can oppose his judgment?” (9:19)

With seeming reference to contending with God, Job felt that, even if he were “righteous,” in the right, or innocent, his own “mouth” would “condemn” him. Anything that he would say would only testify against him. Though he would be “complete,” blameless, or a man of integrity, God would pronounce him to be crooked. (9:20)

Regarding himself, Job said, “I [am] complete,” blameless, or a man of integrity. Nevertheless, he did not “know” or regard his “soul.” This could mean that, in his hopeless state, his existence as a person did not matter to him anymore. He loathed his life, which had become a life of misery. (9:21; see the Notes section regarding the Septuagint rendering.)

In the Hebrew text, the first two words are ’acháth (“one”) and hi’ (a pronoun that may here be understood as the neuter “it”). The apparent thought being conveyed is that there is no difference. It is all one and the same. The Septuagint does not contain any corresponding words. (9:22)

Job perceived no difference in the way God dealt with humans. Therefore, he said, “He [God] destroys the “complete,” blameless, or innocent, and the “wicked.” (9:22; see the Notes section regarding the Septuagint rendering.)

If a “scourge” or a calamity came, suddenly bringing death to many, Job did not believe that God exempted anyone but mocked at the trial or distress this brought upon the innocent ones. This mocking could be understood to mean that God was unconcerned that innocent persons had perished. (9:23; see the Notes section concerning the Septuagint rendering.)

Job did not see that upright persons had an advantage. As he observed, the “earth has been given into the hand” or power of the “wicked.” According to the Septuagint rendering, the upright are the ones who are delivered up into their hands or power. The covering of the faces of the judges of the earth refers to blinding them so that they render corrupt decisions. Job attributed this to God with the rhetorical question, “If not he, then who is it?” (9:24; see the Notes section.)

In his afflicted state, Job felt that his life would soon end. Therefore, he spoke of the passing of his “days” as being faster than a runner. His days fled away, without their seeing “good” or bringing any brightness into his life. (9:25; see the Notes section.)

From the standpoint of Job’s expectation that he would soon die, his days of misery went by like reed or papyrus boats on rivers, lakes, and seas. He likened the slipping away of his days to the rapid descent of an eagle, swooping down upon prey. (9:26; see the Notes section.)

Job thought about looking at his distressing situation differently. “If I say, I will forget my complaint, I will put off my face,” or change my countenance to end my sad expression, and be cheerful, he continued to be in distress (as evident from the words that follow). (9:27; see the Notes section.)

Job did not succeed in any attempts to view his afflicted state in a more positive way. He continued to be in fear of “all his suffering” or pains. Adding to his distress was his “knowing” or his firmly believing that God would not consider him innocent. (9:28; see the Notes section.)

Job wrongly concluded that God regarded him as guilty. This prompted him to raise the rhetorical question, “Why then do I labor in vain?” This may mean that he wondered why he should waste effort in trying to establish his innocence. In view of all he had to endure, he thought that nothing respecting himself mattered to God. (9:29; see the Notes section.)

Job believed that any measures he might undertake to cleanse himself would be of no avail. If he were to wash himself with snow, making himself clean with water from melted snow, and cleanse his hands with lye (cleanse himself with “clean hands” [LXX]), God (as the next verse indicates) would not treat him as being clean. (9:30)

Job felt that God would nullify his efforts to cleanse himself. He would plunge him into a “pit” or, according to the Septuagint, into “dirt.” Job would then be so filthy that his “garments” would abhor him. (9:31)

Job recognized that God was not a man or a mortal like he was, ruling out the possibility of his answering him or contending with him. Their agreeing to come together for “judgment” was not an option. (9:32)

If he were to make his case before God, Job believed that he would be at a disadvantage. Therefore, his desire was to have someone who would function as an “arbitrator” (yakhách [“mediator” [LXX]) between them, one who could “lay his hand on both” of them. The expression “lay his hand on both” may be understood to mean exercise authority over both of them for the purpose of rendering an impartial decision. According to the Septuagint, Job’s desire was to have their mediator present, one who could reprove and would hear the case between God and him. (9:33; see the Notes section regarding yakhách.)

Job wanted God to remove the “rod” (representative of the affliction to which he continued to be submitted) from upon him and not to let the fear of him “terrify” (“distract” or “distress” [LXX]) him. His desire was to be liberated from everything that served to restrain him from expressing himself freely. (9:34)

With the “rod” removed and his being freed from terrifying fear, Job would be able to speak to God without fear. He is then quoted as saying, “For not so am I in myself.” This could mean that Job did not then feel that he could speak without being afraid or that it was not customary for him to be in fear when speaking. The Septuagint rendering could be understood to mean that Job was not conscious either of guilt or of having been in fear when expressing himself. (9:35)

Notes

In verse 3, the Septuagint has two words for “not.” The emphatic sense thus expressed can be preserved with a rendering such as “by no means.”

Numerous translations are specific in applying the words of verse 4 to God. “God is wise in heart and mighty in strength; who has withstood him and remained unscathed?” (NAB) “God is wise and powerful who could possibly oppose him and win?” (CEV) “He is wise, he is all-powerful; who has stood up to him and remained unscathed?” (REB) The opening phrase has also been understood to apply to any person who could be considered wise and mighty. “Among the wisest and the hardiest, who then can successfully defy him?” (NJB)

According to the opening words of verse 5 in the Septuagint, God is the one who “ages mountains.” Possibly this could be understood to relate to the vegetation and trees that grow on the mountains. Vegetation dries up, and trees lose their leaves, are uprooted, and may be struck by lightning. These and other developments could be poetically referred to as aging.

In verse 15, the ancient Septuagint did not contain the concluding phrase, “I will plead [for] his judgment.” Origen (who produced his Hexapla in the third century CE) marked the words of this phrase as not found in the Septuagint text available to him. He added them from the version of Theodotion (a translator of the Hebrew text or a reviser of the Greek text based on the Hebrew text).

The opening phrase of verse 17 in the Septuagint may be rendered as a question. “Will he not destroy me with darkness?” This could signify that the calamity that had befallen Job plunged him into a state of darkness without any hope, and this state of darkness would terminate in his complete ruin.

In verse 21, the Septuagint conveys a meaning that differs from the extant Hebrew text. It quotes Job as saying, “For even if I behaved impiously, the soul does not know [it].” This could mean that Job himself was not aware of his having conducted himself in a godless manner. He thereafter said that he did know his life was being taken away.

The Septuagint rendering of verse 22 departs significantly from the extant Hebrew text. “Therefore, I [Job] said, Wrath destroys the great and the mighty.” The reference could be to God’s anger.

In verse 23, the Septuagint makes no application to God. It seems to indicate that worthless ones or morally corrupt individuals seem to fare well at death, whereas upright persons become the object of derision.

Verse 24 was missing in the Septuagint text available to Origen (see the note on verse 15), and he supplied the words from the version of Theodotion and marked the addition accordingly.

The last phrase of verse 25 in the Septuagint is elliptical. It reads, “They fled away and did not see.” The needed words to be added must be supplied from the Hebrew text. The days of Job fled away and did not see good.

Verse 26 of the Septuagint contains the rhetorical question as to whether ships leave a trace of their way or if a flying eagle does so when seeking prey.

In verse 27, the Septuagint indicates that, if Job were to say that he would forget about speaking or refrain from doing so, he would “groan.” His “face” or countenance would be “bowed down” in a state of distress and dejection.

According to verse 28 in the Septuagint, Job would shake in all his “members” or body parts. This was because he knew that God would not let him be innocent.

The Septuagint rendering of verse 29 suggests that, in Job’s view, God had found him to be impious. Therefore, he raised the question, “Why have I not died?”

In verse 33, the Hebrew word for “arbitrator” is the participial form of yakhách, which verb commonly means “reprove” or “rebuke.” In this context, the participle appears to relate to one having the authority to administer a reproof and, therefore, one who can arbitrate a dispute.

Job 10:1-22

Job’s “soul” or he himself loathed or was weary of his life on account of his distress. Therefore, he would not restrain himself in expressing his “complaint,” speaking out in his “bitterness” (literally, the “bitterness of my soul”). According to the Septuagint rendering, Job spoke of himself as “being wearied in [his] soul” or as having become worn out as by hard laboring. For this reason, he would, with groaning, “let loose [his] words” upon God. He would speak as one whom the bitterness of his soul (of his very being) had seized. (10:1)

Job asked God not to condemn him but to let him know why he was contending with him. The Septuagint quotes Job as saying to the “Lord, Teach me not to act impiously.” This is followed by the rhetorical question directed to God. “Why have you thus judged me?” This question indicates that Job regarded what had befallen him as a judgment from the Most High, but he did not consider it to have been fair. (10:2)

Job could not understand why it seemed good to God to oppress him or to submit him to great suffering. Regarding himself as the “work of [God’s] hands,” Job wondered how God could so despise the work of his hands, causing him to endure severe affliction. It seemed to Job that the wicked prospered, giving rise to his question as to why the Almighty did “shine upon” or favor the “counsel,” advice, or schemes of the wicked. (10:3)

Job considered what he had to endure to be a serious injustice. This moved him to direct the rhetorical questions to God, “Do you have eyes of flesh? Do you see like a man sees?” Whereas Job was aware that men often fail to deal justly, he could not comprehend why God acted toward him as if he had eyes of flesh and looked at matters in the same manner as a man might see things. (10:4; see Notes section regarding the Septuagint rendering.)

Job regarded the Almighty as the source of the distress that he continued to experience. It seemed to him that the eternal God acted as if he were pressured by the shortness of life in his dealings with him. This appears to have prompted him to ask whether God’s “days” (“life” [LXX]) were like that of mortal man or whether his “years” were like man’s “days” or lifetime. (10:5)

The rhetorical question raised in the previous verse is continued, with the focus being on what Job perceived as God’s dealing with him. In view of what he had to endure, Job felt that the Most High was seeking out his “iniquity” and searching for his “sin” in order to treat him harshly. (10:6)

Job believed that the Almighty was responsible for his suffering despite his knowing that he was not guilty of having committed serious transgressions or, according to the Septuagint, had not been impious. Nevertheless, Job had been left without any recourse or hope of relief from his misery, for no one could deliver him out of God’s “hand” or power. (10:7)

Job could not understand why the Most High was afflicting him, as he recognized himself as the work of God’s hands. Yet, although Job was his creation, the Almighty was in the process of destroying him thoroughly (literally, swallowing him up or engulfing him). The Septuagint indicates that, after fashioning and making Job, God changed his mind and struck him. (10:8)

Job’s implied appeal to God was to be shown mercy because of being just a frail human. He implored the Almighty to remember that he had made him “out of clay” or the elements of the ground and that he would return him to the “dust” or these elements. (10:9)

Job seemingly linked his coming into existence to his father’s milky seminal fluid. He attributed to God the transformation that then took place in his mother’s womb to the curdling of the milky substance. Directing his words to the Almighty, Job raised the rhetorical question, “Did you not pour me out like milk and curdle me like cheese?” (10:10)

With reference to what he perceived to be the divine working that shaped him in his mother’s womb, Job said regarding the Most High that he clothed him with “skin and flesh” and wove him together with “bones and sinews.” (10:11)

In the past, the Almighty had granted “life and unfailing love” (chésed) to Job. The Hebrew word chésed designates compassionate care and loving concern that expresses itself in action and, in the Septuagint, is here translated éleos (“mercy,” “pity,” or “compassion”). God’s “visitation” or watchful care had preserved Job’s “spirit,” possibly meaning Job’s “life principle.” (10:12)

The previous favorable circumstances had changed for Job. He had lost all his possessions, his children, and his health. This caused him to conclude that God always had in mind depriving him of everything and causing him to suffer. He is quoted as saying that God had “hidden” these things in his “heart” or within himself, and Job was sure about this, adding, “for this [was] with you” or “this was your purpose.” (10:13; see the Notes section regarding the Septuagint rendering.)

If or when he sinned, Job felt that God watched him, taking note of everything that he did. But the Almighty did not acquit him of his iniquity or “lawlessness” (LXX). Job apparently regarded his afflicted state as proof that he had not been forgiven any wrongs he may have committed. (10:14)

It appeared to Job that, regardless of how he conducted himself, he would experience affliction. If he acted wickedly or proved himself to be impious (LXX), “woe” to him. He would face calamity. If he revealed himself to be righteous or upright, he would not be able to raise his head like someone enjoying a noble standing. Job would be “sated with disgrace” and have to look upon his affliction or (based on another reading of the Hebrew verb) “be drenched with” it. According to the Septuagint, he would be “filled with dishonor.” (10:15)

If a person were to lift himself up or exalt himself, God would act against him. As Job said regarding himself, “Like a lion you hunt me and again act wondrously against me.” Job felt that the Almighty treated him like prey to be caught and destroyed and used his power to afflict him. The Septuagint represents Job as saying that God hunted him like a lion to be slaughtered and “again turned” to bring him to horrifying ruin. (10:16)

Job portrayed his situation like that of a man who is put on trial, with God “renewing” or bringing new witnesses against him. Moreover, the Almighty increased his vexation, or intensified his displeasure, against Job. The Masoretic Text concludes with an obscure wording that may literally be translated, “Changes and a host with me.” In the Septuagint, the verse concludes with the phrase, “You brought trials upon me.” The renderings of translations of the Hebrew text vary. “Changes and warfare [are] with me.” (Young) “Hardships assault me, wave after wave. (HCSB) “You bring fresh troops against me.” (ESV) “You always plan some new attack.” (GNT, Second Edition) (10:17)

In view of what Job perceived that God had done to him, he asked why he had brought him out of the womb. Job felt that he should have just died and no eye would have then seen him. (10:18)

If Job had died at birth, it would have been as if he had never existed. He would have been carried from the womb to the grave. (10:19)

Stressing the shortness of his life, Job raised the rhetorical question, “Are not my days few?” (“Is not my lifetime short?” [LXX]) Therefore, he longed for just a brief time of relief from his misery. Job wanted God to pause, to leave him alone to have respite. He yearned for God to turn attention away from him, permitting him to smile a little or to experience some welcome relief from his distress. According to the shorter text in the Septuagint, Job wanted God to grant him to “rest a little.” (10:20)

As Job believed that his life would soon end, he longed for a little relief from suffering before he would go to the realm of the dead, the “land of gloom and death’s shadow” (deep darkness) from which he would not return. (10:21)

The realm of the dead is portrayed as a “land of darkness” or, according to the Septuagint, a “land of eternal darkness, where there is no light.” In the Hebrew text, the description of the darkness is intensified. It is like the “gloom of death’s shadow and no order,” or a chaotic state where nothing can be recognized as having shape or form. The “land of darkness” is one where light is like darkness. In the Septuagint, this “land” is described as a place where the life of mortals cannot be seen. (10:22)

Notes

Printed texts of the Septuagint conclude verse 4 with the question, “Will you see like a man sees?” This question is not contained in the extant text of the Septuagint that was available to Origen (in the third century CE). He added it from the version of Theodotion and marked it accordingly. The added question is nearly identical to the preceding one and reads, “Do you behold like a mortal sees?”

In the Septuagint, the thought of verse 13 is expressed in a positive manner. With reference to God, Job said, “Because you have these things in yourself, I know that you are able to do everything, and nothing is impossible for you.” Based on the previous verse, “these things” would be the things God had granted to Job — life, mercy, and care. Within himself, the Almighty had the capacity to grant them according to his purpose.

Job 11:1-20

Zophar the Naamathite or, according to the Septuagint, the “Minaean” responded to Job. The Minaeans were an Arab people that may have descended from one of Abraham’s sons by Keturah. Earlier (2:11), the Septuagint referred to Zophar as “king of the Minaeans.” (11:1)

Zophar insinuated Job had spoken an abundance of words that were directed against God. This prompted him to raise the rhetorical question, “Should a multitude of words go unanswered, and should a man of lips be considered righteous?” The reference to a “man of lips” being regarded as righteous implies that mere talk or self-evaluation does not prove one is in the right. (11:2; see the Notes section regarding the Septuagint rendering.)

In the extant Hebrew text, Zophar’s expressions suggest that he considered the words of Job as mere chatter and as mockery of God. The comments of Zophar could be understood to mean that Job’s words may have been intended to silence men but that he should be put to shame for mocking. Translators have variously rendered the text. “Should your babble put others to silence, and when you mock, shall no one shame you?” (NRSV) “Is your endless talk to reduce others to silence? When you speak irreverently, is no one to take you to task?” (REB) “Do you think your talking strikes people dumb, will you jeer with no one to refute you?” (NJB) “Your prattle may silence men; you may mock without being rebuked.” (Tanakh [NJPS]) The Septuagint rendering expresses Zophar’s words as admonition to Job. “Do not be abundant in words” or talkative, “for no one is contending with you.” (11:3)

Zophar spoke of Job as saying that his “instruction” was “pure” or that the thoughts he expressed were right or sound. According to the Septuagint, he admonished Job not to say, “I am pure in works,” doing what is right, “and blameless before him [God].” In the extant Hebrew text, the words Zophar ascribed to Job with reference to God are, “I am clean in your eyes.” (11:4)

Believing that Job’s suffering had resulted from his grave sin, Zophar maintained that, if only God were to speak and “open [his] lips” or express himself to Job, he would reveal to him the error of his ways. (11:5; see the Notes section regarding the Septuagint rendering.)

Zophar reasoned that, if God were to speak to Job, he would tell him the “secrets of wisdom.” This could signify that the Almighty would reveal to Job just how limited his understanding was. The next Hebrew phrase is obscure. Literally, it may be translated, “for double in success.” This could mean that the concealed things of wisdom, when revealed, would lead to success far beyond expectations for those who acted in harmony therewith. Another possibility is that the reference to “double” indicates that there are two sides to wisdom — the revealed and the hidden — and both lead to success. The renderings of translations vary. “For true wisdom has two sides.” (NIV) “For wisdom is many-sided.” (NRSV) “The secrets of wisdom are twice as effective.” (NAB) “For wonderful are its [wisdom’s] achievements!” (REB) The secrets of wisdom “put all cleverness to shame.” (NJB) According to the Septuagint, God would declare to Job the “power of wisdom,” for it would be “double” to his. Another possible significance is that God would be manifest as being “double” as wise as, or exceedingly wiser than, Job. (11:6)

Zophar had concluded that Job’s suffering was the direct result of his godless conduct and, therefore, he said to him, “And know” or recognize that God has “forgotten” or overlooked part of “your guilt.” In this way, Zophar implied that Job’s distress was not as great as he actually merited. According to the Septuagint, the divine disclosure of wisdom would make Job know or recognize that the calamities that had befallen him from the Lord were what his sinning deserved. (11:6)

To emphasize that Job’s knowledge was far from complete, Zophar raised the question, “Can you find out the searched-out thing of God, or can you find out to the limit of the Almighty?” This question indicated that all that God had searched out — his deep things — were far beyond anyone’s comprehension. No one could come anywhere close to the “limit” of the Almighty’s unfathomable wisdom. (11:7)

The Septuagint rendering represents Zophar as asking Job, “Can you find the trace of the Lord, or have you reached the last things” or the limits “that the Almighty has made?” This question suggests that Job’s knowledge of God was so meager that he could not discover even a trace of him, and there was no way for Job to reach the “last things,” or the things that were the farthest away, that the Almighty had made or the limits that he had set. (11:7)

Zophar referred to the “limit of the Almighty” or his matchless wisdom as being like the “heights of heaven” and “deep as Sheol” or the realm of the dead. This “limit” was higher and lower than anything Job could possibly know. To contrast the “limit of the Almighty” with the limitations of Job’s capacity for doing and knowing things, Zophar followed up each description with a question. “What can you do?” “What can you know?” In the Septuagint, the focus is on the impossibility of Job’s reaching the limits of what the Almighty has made or done. “Heaven [is] high, and what will you do? But deep [as] the things in Hades; what do you know?” (11:8)

According to the words of Zophar regarding the “limit of the Almighty,” its “measure” is “long beyond the land [earth] and wide beyond the sea.” (11:9)

Zophar indicated that the Almighty exercises complete control over everything and that no one can stop him from accomplishing his purpose. If “he passes through,” “confines” or detains, or “summons” (calls for an assembly or summons for judgment), “who can hinder him?” The implied answer is, No one. In the Septuagint, the thought is expressed somewhat differently. If the Almighty were to “overthrow everything,” no one would challengingly say to him, “What did you do?” (11:10)

With continued focus on Job as being afflicted because of his transgressions, Zophar said that God “knows men of worthlessness” or men who are deceptive in word and deed. According to the Septuagint, God “knows the works of the lawless ones.” “And,” Zophar is quoted as continuing, “he sees iniquity, and does he not discern?” This could mean that God recognizes wrongdoing for what it is and will punish it. The Hebrew word for “discern” (bin) may also be rendered “consider.” Therefore, the phrase which includes this verb could mean that God, when seeing iniquity, does not need to consider it or to evaluate it. The Septuagint represents Zophar as referring to God as knowing wrongs (literally, “things that are out of place”) and not overlooking them. (11:11)

In Zophar’s view, an “empty” or “hollow man,” one who is seriously lacking in sound judgment, would not “gain heart” or come to have good sense. The Hebrew text could be understood to mean that this would be as inconceivable as for a wild ass or onager to give birth to a man. (11:12; see the Notes section.)

Zophar admonished Job to change his ways, telling him that, “if you firm up your heart,” or set your inmost self aright (“have set [or made] your heart pure” [LXX]), and “stretch out your hand” (“raise your hands” [LXX]) in supplication to God, a reversal of the distressing circumstances would occur. (11:13)

Continuing his exhortation, Zophar told Job that his situation would improve if he were to put the iniquity (“something lawless” [LXX]) in his hand far away from him and did not let wickedness (“injustice” [LXX]) reside in his tents or his habitation. (11:14)

Zophar had concluded that, if Job heeded his admonition, he would be able to “lift up” his “face without blemish” or hold up his head unashamedly as a man without any moral defect. Job would also be “established” (literally, “poured out” or “cast”) in a secure position. He would not be in fear. According to the Septuagint, Job’s “face” would shine “like clean water.” He would “strip off filth” or impurity, and “by no means” would he be afraid. In the Greek text, the emphatic sense of the expression “by no means” is conveyed by two words for “not.” (11:15)

At this point, the words of Zophar focus on what he considered would change for Job if he heeded his exhortation. Job would forget his “trouble” or suffering. He would “remember” it like “waters that have passed on” or flowed away. According to the Septuagint, Job would “forget trouble like a wave passing by,” and he would “not be terrified.” The former affliction would prove to be a faint, distant memory. (11:16)

Zophar’s words could be understood to mean that, for the repentant Job, the gloom associated with past suffering would be transformed into a life of greater brightness than that of a sunny day at noon. So bright would his day be that “darkness” could be likened to “morning” or the dawning of a new day. (11:17; see the Notes section.)

If Job took his admonition to heart, Zophar asserted that he would be secure, for he would be in possession of “hope” (one that would be fulfilled). He would “look around” (probably implying that he would see nothing that would give rise to anxiety), and he would “lie down” to sleep as one being in a state of “security.” The Septuagint rendering could be understood to mean that Job would be confident, for there would be “hope” for him. “From anxiety and care,” “peace” would dawn for him. Worries and concerns would give way to an inner calm and a sense of security and well-being. (11:18)

Zophar envisioned the future of Job (provided he acted on his admonition) to be peaceful. He would lie down to rest, with nothing making him afraid. Many would entreat him (literally, “his face”), desiring to have his favor. The Septuagint indicates that Job would be at rest, with no one fighting against him. Changing their attitude, many would entreat him. (11:19)

Zophar concluded with an implied warning to Job if he disregarded his words. “The eyes of wicked ones will fail.” As if struck blind, they would be unable to find a way out of their distressing situation. Any “escape” from calamity would “vanish for them.” Their hope would come to nothingness, with only death in view. Zophar is quoted as referring to “their hope” as a “breathing out of soul,” which expression could denote the “breathing out of life,” “exhaling the last breath,” or “dying.” (11:20; see the Notes section regarding the Septuagint rendering.)

Notes

In verse 2 of the Septuagint, Zophar is represented as admonishing Job to listen to his response. “The one saying many things also should listen in turn.” Then follows the rhetorical question, “Or does even the eloquent one [the one speaking many words] think he is righteous” or right? The concluding phrase differs significantly from the extant Hebrew text. “Blessed is the short-lived one born of a woman.” These words suggest that a good short life is a blessing.

In relation to verse 4, verse 5 in the Septuagint represents Zophar as saying that, if Job claimed to be pure in his deeds and “blameless before him,” how would it be possible for the Lord to speak to him? Printed texts of the Septuagint conclude verse 5 with the phrase, “and he will open his lips with you.” In the third century CE, this phrase was not contained in the Septuagint text available to Origen. He added it from the version of Theodotion and marked it accordingly.

In verse 12, the phrase that includes the reference to the “wild ass” or onager is obscure. Literally translated, the words are, “and donkey — wild ass — man is born.” To convey an understandable significance, words need to be added, and translators vary considerably in their interpretive renderings. “Will empty man then gain understanding, and the wild jackass be made docile?” (NAB) “Hence empty-headed people would do well to study sense and people who behave like wild donkeys to let themselves be tamed.” (NJB) “But it is easier to tame a wild donkey than to make a fool wise.” (CEV) “Stupid people will start being wise when wild donkeys are born tame.” (GNT, Second Edition) “A fool cannot become wise any more than a wild donkey can be born tame.” (NCV)

The rendering of verse 12 in the Septuagint is unusual and bears little resemblance to the extant Hebrew text. “But otherwise a man swims with words, but a mortal born of a woman is like a donkey of the desert [a wild ass or onager].” One conjecture is that the Greek word for “swims” (néchetai) should read enéchetai), meaning “caught” or “entangled.” This would indicate that a man is caught by his own words, his untruthful words. The emendation, however, still does not explain how a man could be like an onager.

When literally translated according to the basic significance (“And from noonday will arise duration”), the words at the beginning of verse 17 do not convey a comprehensible thought. For this reason, footnotes in a number of translations indicate that there is uncertainty about the meaning of the initial phrase.

The Septuagint rendering of verse 17 differs from the extant Hebrew text. With reference to Job, it says, “Your prayer [will be] like the morning star [Venus]; and from midday, life will arise to you.” Perhaps the thought is that Job’s prayer would reflect the joy and gratitude associated with the dawning of a new day and that his life would be free from distressing gloom as if it had its source in the brightest part of a sunny day.

With seeming reference to those who were hostile to Job, verse 20 in the Septuagint says, “But deliverance will leave them, for their hope [is] destruction, and the eyes of impious ones will melt away.” What these individuals hoped for would not materialize, but destruction or ruin would await them. Their eyes would never see good, as they would waste away.

Job 12:1-25

Job responded to the words of Zophar. In his comments, he also directed his expressions to Eliphaz and Bildad. (12:1)

Eliphaz, Bildad, and Zophar had misrepresented Job as having been guilty of serious transgressions that had led to his state of misery. Additionally, they had made themselves appear as possessing far greater wisdom than he did. This prompted Job to lash out, “Truly you [are the] people [so you are men (LXX)], and wisdom will die with you.” In this way, he sarcastically represented them as persons who had exalted themselves as being the people in possession of understanding and insight of such superiority that wisdom would perish at their death. (12:2; see the Notes section.)

Job did not give in to any feelings of insecurity regarding the life he had lived nor about his insight and understanding. He said to his companions, “I also [have] a heart (thinking faculties or understanding]. “I am not inferior] to you” (literally, “not falling from you” [that is, not falling to a lower position in relation to you]). The shorter text of the Septuagint reads, “Indeed I also have a heart like you.” In the Hebrew text, the verse concludes with the question, “And with whom [are there] not [such things] like these?” This question implied that nothing Eliphaz, Bildad, and Zophar had said included insights that were not commonly known. (12:3)

On account of the calamities that had befallen him and his afflicted state, Job had become a “laughingstock to [his] companions.” Possibly with reference to the past, he referred to himself as a man who called upon God and was answered. Yet he, who considered himself to be “righteous and complete” or “blameless” [LXX], had become a laughingstock or an object of derision. (12:4; see the Notes section.)

The extant Hebrew text is obscure. It could indicate that, “in the thought” of one who is at ease, either complacent or feeling secure, there would be “contempt” for “ruin” or misfortune, possibly for those who were suffering or for the calamity that did not affect the complacent one. The opening word of the Hebrew text may also be translated “torch.” When the rendering “torch” is adopted, the meaning could be: Persons who regarded themselves as secure would have contempt for a torch, especially one about to burn out. They would have no use for it. As persons who had no concern for the suffering of others, they would have considered the torch as suitable for persons about to slip. Even for those about to fall, there would have been little use for light from a torch. An interpretive rendering by J. N. Darby likens the one “ready to stumble with the foot” to a “lamp despised in the thought of him that is at ease.” Depending upon whether “torch” or “misfortune” is the rendering, it, in the thought of the person who is at ease or secure, is readied for those whose feet are about to slip or who are in a vulnerable state. (12:5; see the Notes section regarding the rendering of the Septuagint.)

Job spoke realistically about what he had observed. Men who despoiled, robbed, or dealt violently were at peace or secure in their tents or dwellings. Those who provoked God with their corrupt actions enjoyed security. (12:6)

The reference to the one “who brings god in his hand” may pertain to one who acts as if God or a god were in his “hand” or power so that he had nothing to fear. It is also possible to regard such a one as bringing a “god in his hand” by elevating his own “hand” or power to the level of a deity. Interpretive renderings vary considerably. “Those who provoke God dwell secure and so does anyone who makes a god of his fist!” (NJB) “They have their god in their pocket.” (NCV) “Their only god is their strength.” (GNT, Second Edition) “And those who provoke God are secure, those whom God’s hands have produced.” (Tanakh [NJPS]) (12:6; see the Notes section regarding the Septuagint rendering.)

The imperative “ask” is a singular verb in the Hebrew text and in the Septuagint. What the animals (“quadrupeds” [LXX]) and winged creatures or birds (collective singular in Hebrew but plural in LXX) would be able to tell the inquirer is revealed in verse 9 of the Hebrew text. (12:7)

The next imperative is to “speak to the earth,” letting it instruct, and to the “fish of the sea” so that they might make their declaration. According to Origen (in the third century CE), the Septuagint text known to him, as his marks indicate, did not contain the reference to the “fish of the sea.” He added them from the version of Theodotion. (12:8)

The answer to what animals, birds, fish, and the earth would be able to provide is revealed in question form. “Who among all these does not know that the hand of YHWH has done this?” The implied answer could be that YHWH, by his hand or his great power, has brought everything into existence. In this context, however, the focus has been on the reality that the wicked or violent ones may be among those who enjoy security. In the animal world, predators are the ones that, with claws and teeth, cause ruin among the herbivores or weaker predators that become their victims. Likewise, predatory humans bring ruin to many who live uprightly. Accordingly, what may be observed in the animal world indicates that what the “hand of YHWH has done” is to allow the stronger predatory ones to have greater security than their potential prey. (12:9; see the Notes section.)

YHWH has in his “hand” or power the “soul” or life of “every living thing” and the “spirit” or life breath of all “flesh of man,” all humankind, or, according to the Septuagint, “every man.” (12:10; see the Notes section.)

Job raised the rhetorical question, Does “not an ear test words as a palate tastes food?” Being the organ of hearing, the ear is represented as testing, determining, or evaluating what is said. Similarly, the palate is here associated with the sense of taste and as making a determination about food. The implied point of the question appears to be that Job possessed the capacity to evaluate what Eliphaz, Bildad, and Zophar had said, and he found it to be erroneous and distasteful. (12:11; see the Notes section.)

Job acknowledged that wisdom is associated with the aged or, according to the Septuagint, comes “with much time.” He also linked “understanding,” or the acquiring thereof, to “length of days” (“much living” [LXX]). There would still be a need for discernment (as the previous verse suggested) in order to evaluate what aged and experienced persons might say. Moreover, there is One in possession of far superior wisdom. (12:12)

God is the ultimate source of wisdom and the one who possesses matchless might. “With him [are] wisdom and power. To him [belong] counsel and understanding.” The “counsel” or guidance that he provides is always dependable, and his understanding or insight is never flawed. (12:13)

God’s power is revealed when he “tears down,” for no one can then “rebuild” (unless he allows it). Likewise, if he “shuts in” or confines a man, no one can “open” or effect release (unless he permits it). (12:14)

Job attributed other actions to God’s power. “If he withholds waters, then they dry up.” The Septuagint rendering identifies the “earth” or land as drying up if God “withholds the water.” Without the essential rains, vegetation withers and dies, and the land turns into a dry waste. If he sends out [the waters], then they “overwhelm” or flood the “earth” or land. According to the Septuagint, God completely destroys or devastates the land with the water. (12:15)

“With him” (God) are “strength and success.” His purpose will never fail to be carried out, and he will always be victorious. The rendering of the Septuagint focuses exclusively on God’s power. “With him [are] might and strength.” To God also belong “the one being misled and the one misleading.” Job understood that the Almighty had everything and everyone under his control, and this would include the masses who are misled and their leaders who mislead them. The Septuagint rendering highlights God’s wisdom. “With him [are] knowledge and insight.” (12:16)

God makes “counselors go barefoot,” letting them be taken into captivity stripped of their clothing and forced to march onward without their sandals. The Septuagint rendering is specific in referring to the counselors as being led away captive. God “makes fools of judges,” causing them to act like madmen without discernment. The Septuagint indicates that he maddens or confuses the “judges of the earth” or land. (12:17)

The consonants of the Hebrew word for “bond” and “discipline” are the same. According to the Masoretic Text, the vowel points indicate the meaning to be “discipline.” In this context, however, the designation “bond” fits better and may even be understood to refer to a girdle or a belt. Translators vary in their renderings about what God does. “He undoes the belts of kings.” (Tanakh [NJPS]) “He takes off the shackles put on by kings.” (NIV) “He loosens the bonds imposed by kings.” (NAB) If the assigned meaning is “belt,” the reference could be to the ungirding of kings in order to make them captives. When the significance is considered to be “bond,” the application could be to releasing from captivity those whom the kings had bound. The next phrase is, “and he binds a waistcloth on their loins.” This suggests that God is represented as stripping the kings of their royal attire and having them led away as captives wearing only a loincloth. (12:18; see the Notes section regarding the Septuagint rendering.)

God “makes priests go barefoot” as captives stripped of their garments and forced to march onward without their sandals. According to the Septuagint, God is the one “sending priests away as captives.” He “overthrows” those who are “firmly seated” (the “mighty ones of the earth” or land [LXX]), or those who appear to be in a secure position. (12:19)

God “takes away speech [literally, lip] from those who are trusted,” or from trustworthy counselors, leaving them with nothing to say when sound advice from them is needed. The Septuagint could be understood to say that he “changes” or frustrates the “lips of trustworthy ones,” making it impossible for them to provide good counsel. God “removes discernment” from “elders.” Without discernment, they are unable to judge properly and to serve as dependable guides for the people. The Septuagint says that “he knew the understanding of elders.” This may particularly refer to the divine recognition of their limitations in understanding. (12:20)

God “pours contempt on nobles, and a girdle of channels he loosens.” He allows nobles to be deprived of their dignified standing and to become objects of contempt or derision. The word “channels” does not fit this context, but the consonants of the Hebrew word could also be read as “strong ones” or mighty men. This significance is conveyed in a number of translations. God “unbuckles the belt of the strong.” (NJB) He “loosens the belt of the mighty.” (Tanakh [NJPS]) If the “strong” or mighty are regarded as warriors, this could signify that God disarms them, for soldiers commonly suspended the sword from the left side of the girdle. (12:21; see the Notes section regarding the Septuagint rendering.)

God “uncovers” or reveals “deep things out of darkness and brings death’s shadow to light.” “Deep things” could designate concealed things or mysteries. Though hidden from the understanding of humans, these “deep things” are known to him and revealed by him as he deems fit. He brings to light things that are hidden in “death’s shadow” or in the deepest darkness. (12:22)

Job attributed to God the making of nations great or strong so that he might destroy them. This would be by letting them develop into powerful nations and then later to be conquered. The “spreading out” of nations probably relates to territorial expansion. Yet, as Job expressed matters, God spreads out the nations so that he might “lead them away.” When conquered, the people would be led away as captives. (12:23; see the Notes section.)

God “takes away the heart” (the judgment or good sense) of the “heads,” chiefs, or leaders of the “people of the earth” or the land and makes them wander in a pathless waste (“on a way” or in a course “that they did not know” [LXX]). Lacking sound judgment, leaders cannot provide proper direction to the people. They themselves are lost as would be persons wandering in confusion in a trackless desert or, according to the Septuagint, on a path that is foreign to them. (12:24)

In their confused state, leaders of the people, when faced with serious problems or threats, would have no idea as to which course to pursue. “They grope in the dark without light.” God “makes them stagger like a drunkard.” In their helpless state, comparable to being in a drunken stupor, they would be unable to function as dependable guides for the people. (12:25)

Notes

In fifth-century Codex Alexandrinus, verse 2 includes the plural form of the Greek word for “alone” (mónos), and the verse may be rendered, “So you alone are men.”

In verse 4, the Septuagint does not include the phrase that refers to calling upon God. This phrase is somewhat obscure in the extant Hebrew text, and this has resulted in various interpretive renderings. “I am a laughingstock to my friends; I, who called upon God and he answered me, a just and blameless man, I am a laughingstock.” (NRSV) “I have always lived right, and God answered my prayers; now friends make fun of me.” (CEV) “I have become the sport of my neighbors: ‘The one whom God answers when he calls upon him, the just, the perfect man,’ is a laughingstock.” (NAB) “Anyone becomes a laughing-stock to his friends if he cries to God and expects an answer. People laugh at anyone who has integrity and is upright.” (NJB) “Yet I am a laughing-stock to my friends — a laughing-stock, though I am innocent and blameless; one that called upon God, but he afflicted me.”

Verse 5 of the Septuagint, the “righteous and blameless man” (verse 4) had been ordained “to fall under others for an appointed time” and “that his houses be plundered by lawless ones.”

The meaning conveyed in verse 6 of the Septuagint differs significantly from the thoughts expressed in the extant Hebrew text. One who is wicked should not trust that he will be considered “innocent — as many as provoke the Lord — as if there will not also be their trial.”

Origin, in the third century CE, marked the words of verse 9 as not having been included in the text of the Septuagint available to him. He supplied the missing words from the version of Theodotion.

When the words from verses 8b and 9 are omitted and not supplied from the version of Theodotion, the Septuagint (in verse 10) represents the quadrupeds, winged creatures or birds, and the earth as being able to make known that the life (literally, “soul”) of “all living things” and the “spirit” or life breath of “every man” are in God’s “hand” (his power) or under his control.

In verse 11, Rahlfs’ printed text contains the word ous (“ear”), but fourth-century Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus and fifth-century Codex Alexandrinus read nous (“mind”). The Septuagint rendering according to the oldest extant manuscripts is, “For indeed the mind distinguishes words, but the throat tastes foods.”

The rendering of the Septuagint in verse 18 departs significantly from the reading of the extant Hebrew text. It refers to God as “seating kings upon thrones.” The concluding phrase (“and he binds a belt around their loins”) was not in the Greek text of the Septuagint known to Origen in the third century CE. He added the words from the version of Theodotion and marked them accordingly.

In the third century CE, Origen did not find the opening phrase of verse 21 (“he poured out dishonor upon rulers”) in the Greek text of the Septuagint available to him. He added it from the version of Theodotion and marked it accordingly. With reference to God, the verse concludes, “But he healed the humble ones.”

Origen, in the third century CE, did not find verse 23 in the Greek text of the Septuagint available to him. He used the rendering of Theodotion to insert the words. In Rahlfs’ printed text, the concluding phrase of this verse is not included as part of the text that is marked as having been added, but this is an error. The added text reads with reference to God, “causing nations to wander and destroying them; spreading out nations and directing them.”

Job 13:1-28

Job’s comments were based on what his “eye” had seen and what his “ear” had heard and which it had considered or understood. Therefore, he did not doubt the validity of his expressions, especially since he understood what he had heard and had given consideration to it. (13:1; see the Notes section.)

Job did not view Eliphaz, Bildad, and Zophar as being superior to him, telling them that he knew what they knew. He was not inferior or, according to the Septuagint, inferior to them in understanding or good sense. (13:2; see the Notes section.)

Job was in no uncertainty about his having lived an upright life. Therefore, he indicated that he was willing to “speak to the Almighty” and that he would be pleased to argue with him or to present his case before him. The Septuagint indicates that, if God were willing, Job would present proofs before him, apparently regarding his innocence. (13:3)

Eliphaz, Bildad, and Zophar had drawn the wrong conclusions about Job, maintaining that the calamities which had befallen him resulted from the serious sins he had committed. Therefore, he referred to them as persons who were “smearing” or “plastering” with falsehood. In their view, their utterances were like medicinal balm that needed to be applied to Job, but their expressions were the wrong medicine (falsehood or misrepresentation). They had failed to give him comfort and so, as Job said, all of them were worthless or valueless physicians. The Septuagint refers to them as unjust or unfair physicians and as healers of the wrong things. (13:4)

Eliphaz, Bildad, and Zophar erred greatly in their claims about the reason for Job’s suffering. This prompted him to tell them that it would have been wisdom on their part if they had remained silent. Their silence would have meant that they would not have been accusing him falsely of wrongdoing. (13:5)

Job asked Eliphaz, Zophar, and Bildad to listen to him. “Hear now my reproof” (the “reproof of my mouth” [LXX]) or argument (the proof or evidence he was about to present to refute their assertions). The parallel expression is, “and give attention to the pleadings [judgment or decision (LXX)] of my lips.” (13:6)

With their words, Eliphaz, Zophar, and Bildad had represented God as rightfully punishing Job for serious transgressions. Job, however, knew that he had lived an upright life. This meant that the manner in which his companions defended God and misrepresented Job was unjust and deceitful. Therefore, he raised the rhetorical questions, “Will you speak injustice for God? And will you speak deceit for him?” (13:7; see the Notes section regarding the Septuagint rendering.)

Job felt that Eliphaz, Bildad, and Zophar had sided against him but with God. This prompted the rhetorical question, “Will you lift up [be partial] for him, or will you plead for God?” The question indicated that the three companions were guilty of partiality while endeavoring to make their case for the Almighty in his treatment of Job. (13:8; see the Notes section regarding the Septuagint rendering.)

Job was certain that Eliphaz, Bildad, and Zophar were wrong in attributing gross sins to him to explain the calamities he had experienced. He concluded that this would not be pleasing to God. Therefore, Job asked them whether it would turn out well for them if God searched them out or examined them, or if they could deceive him as one might deceive a “mortal” or a “mortal man.” (13:9; see the Notes section regarding the Septuagint rendering.)

“If in secret,” or unobserved by other people, Eliphaz, Bildad, and Zophar were to “show partiality” (literally, “lift up faces”), God would “rebuke” them. In the Hebrew text, two verb forms of the word for “rebuke” are found and, to express the emphatic sense, may be rendered “surely rebuke.” (13:10; for the Septuagint rendering, see the Notes section regarding verses 9 through 11.)

In connection with the previous verse, the rhetorical question points to the result for showing favortism. The very thing of which Eliphaz, Bildad, and Zophar had made themselves guilty when thinking they were advocating for God when wrongly attributing Job’s calamity to his having committed serious transgressions. “Will not [God’s] majesty terrify you, and the dread of him fall upon you?” The question indicated that fear would seize Eliphaz, Bildad, and Zophar for having incurred God’s anger for having attacked Job with their hurtful words and gross misrepresentations. (13:11)

Job referred to the arguments that Eliphaz, Bildad, and Zophar had presented as worthless, calling their “reminders” or maxims “proverbs of ashes” (sayings as valueless as ashes) and their defenses (bosses of a shield) “defenses of clay,” weak and unsubstantial. According to the Septuagint, their “pride” would be “equal to ashes,” being transformed into shame, and the body to clay. (13:12)

Job wanted Eliphaz, Bildad, and Zophar to be silent, letting him speak. Then, after expressing himself, Job was willing to accept whatever might come upon him. According to the Septuagint, their being silent would make it possible for him to have his say and to quiet or calm his fury. (13:13)

Job had directed his complaint against God. This is the apparent reason for the rhetorical question. “Why should I take my flesh in my teeth and put my soul [or life] in my hand [or palm]?” The two parallel expressions appear to have the same meaning — Why would Job be willing to risk his life to make his complaint and to defend his innocence before God? Possibly the words about taking his flesh in his teeth are based on the situation of an animal caught in the teeth of a predator. There would be little chance for the animal to break free and escape death. (13:14)

In the Septuagint, the words are not framed as a question. It reads, “Having taken my flesh [in my] teeth, I will even put my soul in [my] hand.” This rendering suggests that Job was prepared to risk everything — his flesh and his soul, life, or very being. (13:14)

Job was willing to accept the consequences for making accusations against God and arguing for his own innocence. Depending on which reading of the Hebrew text is followed, the initial phrase may be rendered differently. “Look! He will slay me; I will not wait.” This could mean that, even if God were to slay him, Job would not wait to speak out in his own defense. Another reading is, “I will wait for him.” This could signify that, even if God would slay him, he would still wait for him or not give up his hope or trust in him. Job is then quoted as expressing his determination to argue before God. “Yet I will defend my ways to his face.” He would argue that he had lived uprightly. (13:15)

The rendering of the Septuagint differs somewhat from the extant Hebrew text. “Although the Mighty One may lay hand on me, even as he has begun, I will indeed speak and present proof before him,” with Job’s apparent purpose being to establish his own innocence when arguing his case. (13:15)

Believing in his own uprightness, Job felt that “indeed this” (his willingness to make his defense) would be his “salvation” or deliverance from the dire consequences that could befall him for confronting God. This is because “no profane” or impious man could come before him or would risk doing so. According to the Septuagint, “deceit” could not enter “before him.” Job felt that God would recognize his blamelessness because of his being prepared for a confrontation. (13:16)

The imperative “listen” is made emphatic through the repetition of two forms of the verb (“listen to listen” [but “listen, listen” in the Septuagint]) and may be rendered “listen intently,” closely, or carefully. Job called upon Eliphaz, Bildad, and Zophar to listen to his “words” and his “declaration” or “announcement” that would be entering their “ears.” The Septuagint concludes the verse with the phrase, “for I will announce [in] your hearing.” (13:17)

“Look!” Thus Job focused attention on what he was about to say and then added that he had “arranged” or “set in order” his “judgment” or case. There was no uncertainty on Job’s part about the rightness of his position. “I know that I am righteous” or in the right (“will be revealed to be righteous” or in the right [LXX]). (13:18)

So sure was Job of his being in the right that he could ask, “Who is he who will contend with me” (or attempt to challenge my claim to be right)? If there were someone who would do so and prove him to be wrong, Job “would be silent and expire.” This could mean that he would accept the judgment and resign himself to breathe his last without personally having been vindicated. (13:19; see the Notes section about the concluding phrase in the Septuagint.)

Job directed his words to God, requesting that he not do “two things” to him. These “two things” are identified in the next verse. With the “two things” being things he would not have to face, Job would not hide himself from the “face” or presence of God. (13:20; see the Notes section regarding the Septuagint rendering.)

The “two things” referred to in verse 20 are identified. (1) Job wanted God to withdraw his “hand” far from him, and (2) he did not want to be terrified by the “fright” of God. This indicated that Job desired to be granted respite from his affliction and to be free to express himself without having to be terrified by the fright that had God as its source. (13:21)

In order that he might be heard, Job offered the Almighty two options. He could call or summon him, and Job would answer. Or God could let Job speak and then reply to him. The Septuagint expresses the two options somewhat differently. “You will call, but I will listen to [or obey] you; or you will speak, but I will give you an answer.” (13:22)

Job directed a question to the Almighty. “How many [are my] iniquities [sins (LXX)] and sins [my deeds of lawlessness (LXX)]?” This question implied that Job was unaware of having committed many serious sins. He wanted to know wherein he had erred, saying, “Make me know my transgression and my sin.” The Septuagint rendering is, “Teach me what they [the sins and the deeds of lawlessness Job had presumably committed] are.” (13:23)

Job could not understand why God hid his face from him, not giving him any favorable attention but becoming hostile, and reckoned him as his enemy. Believing that the Almighty had brought calamities upon him, Job thought of himself as being treated as a man who opposed him. (13:24)

In a rhetorical question directed to God, Job likened himself to a windblown leaf and dry chaff — things that merited no attention and which are unable to resist the force that is directed against them. “Will you frighten a driven leaf, and will you chase dry chaff?” In this manner, Job appears to have represented himself as helpless and powerless before God, the one whom he believed to have unleashed his great fury against him. (13:25; see the Notes section regarding the Septuagint rendering.)

Job referred to God as writing “bitter things” against him. This suggests that he perceived the Almighty as continuing to make a record of the injurious things that he purposed for him to experience. In the Septuagint, however, the writing is represented as a past event. Job appears to have been aware of wrongs he may have committed in his youth, but what troubled him is that the calamities that had befallen him and the suffering that he was still enduring seemed too excessive of a punishment for those sins. It was as if God had caused him to “inherit” (surrounded him with [LXX]) to an extreme degree the consequences of the wrongs of his youth. (13:26)

Job felt that God treated him like a prisoner under constant surveillance. He portrayed the Almighty as having confined his feet in stocks and watching all his ways or everything he did (his “works” [LXX]). Both the Hebrew text and the Septuagint use the expression the “roots of my feet,” probably meaning the “soles of my feet.” The Hebrew text indicates that God set a limit for the “roots” of Job’s feet. This could mean that Job considered himself completely hemmed in. According to the Septuagint, God had “reached” the “roots” or soles of Job’s feet, and this may denote that God had afflicted him from the top of his head to the bottom of his feet. (13:27)

Either Job likened himself or man generally to a “rotten thing” that wastes away (wearing out like a wineskin [LXX]) and to a garment that is eaten by moths. The thought appears to be that there was no good reason for God to focus attention on such a frail creature. (13:28)

Notes

With reference to the hearing of the ear in verse 1, the Septuagint does not include any corresponding expression for “considered it” or “understood it.”

In verse 2, the Hebrew expression commonly rendered “not inferior to you” may be literally translated “not falling from you.” It denotes that Job did not fall to a lower position in relation to Eliphaz, Bildad, and Zophar.

In the Septuagint rendering of verse 7, the reference is to speaking before the Lord, but no mention is made of “injustice.” The concluding part of the verse, however, refers to uttering “deceit before him.”

In verse 8, the thought expressed in the Septuagint does not correspond to the reading of the extant Hebrew text. Job asked his three companions, “Will you draw back? You yourselves, however, become judges.” Possibly in connection with verse 7, this could mean that Eliphaz, Bildad, and Zophar were being asked whether they would stop coming to the defense of God. The thought about being judges could indicate that they should judge Job impartially after no longer coming to God’s defense.

The Septuagint rendering of verse 9 represents Job as saying that it would be good if God were to search them out or to examine them. This is followed by a phrase that is completed in verse 10 and which phrase could be translated, “For, if doing all these things, you will be joined to him, he nevertheless will rebuke you.” Possibly the thought is that despite their doing everything to place themselves on God’s side and thus to become joined to him, he would rebuke Eliphaz, Bildad, and Zophar for wrongfully attacking Job with their words.

In verse 10, the concluding phrase in the Septuagint starts a question that is completed in verse 11. The initial part of this question reads, “If, however, even secretly you will show partiality [literally, you will admire faces], …”

In the Septuagint, the question that began in verse 10 is completed in verse 11, “…will not his terrors distress you, and fear from him fall upon you?” The rhetorical question indicated that the showing of partiality (as had Eliphaz, Bildad, and Zophar when responding to Job’s suffering by censuring him) would lead to God’s displeasure, resulting in great fear to anyone against whom it was expressed.

Origen (in the third century CE) did not find the words that conclude verse 19 in the Septuagint text available to him. He added them from the version of Theodotion (“for now I will be silent and expire”) and marked the addition accordingly.

In verse 20, the Septuagint rendering is much like the extant Hebrew text. “Two things you should deal to me” or grant me. The concluding phrase was not found in the Septuagint text available to Origen (in the third century CE). He added it from the version of Theodotion (“then I will not hide from your face”) and marked the addition accordingly.

In verse 25, the Septuagint rendering is more explicit than the Hebrew text in identifying Job as the one to whom the words applied. “Or will you be wary [of me] like a leaf agitated by a breeze? Or do you oppose me like grass carried by the wind?” A windblown leaf would not be something about which one would need to be cautious and there would be no point in fighting dry grass that is being carried away by the wind. So Job may be regarded as implying that there was no reason for God to treat him as he did.

Job 14:1-22

Commenting on the brevity of human life, Job said that “few” are the “days” or short is the life of a “man,” an earthling, or a “mortal” (LXX), and those days or that time is full of disquietude or trouble (“wrath” [LXX]). (14:1)

An earthling or mortal comes forth like a flower at birth and eventually ages, withering like a blossom and dying. The Septuagint refers to a mortal as dropping off (probably meaning dying) like a “flower that has blossomed.” With his life being short, he “flees like a shadow,” disappearing quickly, and ceases to exist. (14:2)

God is represented as opening his eyes upon a mere mortal (such as Job was) and who would soon no longer exist. According to the Hebrew text, Job perceived that this attention led to the severe judgment that had been rendered against him and had resulted in the loss of his possessions, the death of his children, and the continuance of his own physical affliction. This is indicated by the words directed to God, “and me you bring into judgment with you.” The Septuagint rendering is less specific in the application to Job. It reads, “Have you not also taken account of this one [the mortal born of a woman] and made him to enter before you into judgment?” (14:3)

Job recognized that no human could be flawlessly clean or pure. This is evident from the question, “Who can [bring] a clean [one or thing] out of an unclean [one or thing]?” (“For who will be clean from defilement?” [LXX]) Job’s answer to the rhetorical question was, “Not one.” The implication is that, on account of his flawed condition from birth, Job felt that he should have been shown mercy and not have been harshly judged as deserving to be punished so severely as he had been for all past transgressions since the time of his youth. (14:4)

When it comes to the length of life, Job concluded that, if a mortal’s “days are determined,” God is the one who does so. Regarding the Almighty, Job is quoted as saying about a mortal’s life, The “number of his months [is] with you. His bounds you have appointed, and he cannot go beyond [them].” This suggests that Job believed that a human’s life cannot be any longer than the divinely predetermined limit. The implication appears to be that, since God already controls the length of a mortal’s life, he should treat the individual mercifully and not punish him more severely than his transgressions as a flawed human merit. (14:5; see the Notes section regarding the Septuagint rendering.)

Although expressed in the third person singular, the request for God to “look away from him” appears to be one that Job made for himself. He wanted to have rest from his distress to get some enjoyment from “his day” or “life” (LXX) like a hireling does. A hired man looked forward to the end of the day when he would receive his wages and be able to rest from his toiling. (14:6)

Verses 7 through 12 refer to the outcome for a felled tree and for a man who dies. “For a tree,” there is “hope” of new life. When cut down, the part of the tree remaining in the ground may show signs of life (“it will sprout [again] [LXX]), and its “shoot” or branch (a collective singular in Hebrew) “will not cease.” It will continue to grow. (14:7)

The “root” of a felled tree may “grow old in the earth” or soil, and the remaining stump may die or decay in the ground (“in a rock” or in rocky ground [LXX]). (14:8)

At the “scent of water,” or when the roots can absorb moisture, the remaining part of the felled tree will sprout and, in time, produce branches like a young plant. (14:9)

In the case of a man, the observable circumstances differ from those of a felled tree. He “dies,” is prostrate (or is unable to rise from the sleep of death), and expires. The question (“Where is he?”) is left unanswered. Unlike the portion of a felled tree that remains in the soil and can sprout again, there is no sign of any life for a dead man who is buried in the ground. (14:10)

“Waters from a sea” or lake vanish, doing so during periods of severe, prolonged drought. “A river narrows and dries up.” There is no mention in this verse of the possibility of a change in these developments when abundant precipitation returns. Therefore, the drying up of a lake and a river may be understood to illustrate what happens to humans at death. They disappear from the earthly scene like water from a lake or river. (14:11)

At death, man lies down and does not rise again. The dead cannot stand up and begin a new life. “Until the heavens [are] no more,” dead humans will not get up on their own. A dead man will not be “roused out of his sleep” in death. (14:12; see the Notes section regarding the Septuagint rendering.)

Job’s words suggest that any hope that the dead would live again depended on the Almighty. He asked God to hide him “in Sheol,” Hades (LXX), or the realm of the dead, concealing him until the turning back of divine wrath so that he might be spared from continual suffering. Job wanted God to appoint a set time for him and to remember him. Such remembering would only be meaningful if it meant being brought back from Sheol or the realm of the dead. (14:13)

Job raised the question about whether a man who died would live again. In that case, he would “wait” or endure “all the days of [his] service [tsavá’ ]” until his “release” were to come. The Hebrew word here rendered “service” commonly relates to an army or “warfare” and here appears to designate the fight Job had in his afflicted state. He would be willing to put up with it, provided that it would end and that he would have the opportunity for a new life. In Hebrew, the word here translated “release” (chalipháh) basically means “change” and so may be understood to designate the change in the condition of Job or a release from the affliction he had been battling. The Septuagint rendering could be understood to indicate that, if a man were to die and then live again upon having finished the “days of his life,” Job would “wait” or endure until he would again be born or re-created. (14:14)

With apparent reference to the end of the time he would be hidden in Sheol, Job spoke of God as calling him, and he would then answer. As the “work of his hands,” the Almighty would long for Job. This appears to be the reason for directing his call to him. The rendering of the Septuagint differs somewhat in the significance it conveys. After referring to him as responding to God’s calling, Job is quoted as saying to him, “But do not reject the works of your hands.” (14:15)

If the words apply to the time when Job was suffering, they may be rendered as saying to God, “For now you number my steps,” which could mean that God observed Job’s every move and dealt with him accordingly. Then, at the time he would be calling Job because of longing for him as the “work of his hands,” this would change. The Almighty “would not keep watch” on Job’s sin. This significance is expressed in the New Jerusalem Bible. “Whereas now you count every step I take, you would then stop spying on my sin.” It is also possible to link the words of the entire verse to a positive change in Job’s condition. “For then you would not [missing in the Hebrew text but the “not” is added from the Syriac] number my steps, you would not keep watch over my sin.” (NRSV) “You would take care of me, but not count my sins.” (CEV) Another meaning for the words would be to apply them to Job while he continued to be afflicted. “Whereas now you count my every step, watching all my errant course.” (REB) This is the basic meaning conveyed in the Septuagint. “You have counted my pursuits” or practices, “and not one of my sins will pass by you.” (14:16)

Sealing up Job’s “transgression in a bag” and covering over (gluing over) his iniquity could mean preserving the record of his wrongdoing for a future day of reckoning or could signify completely putting the record of sin out of sight and forgetting about it. The significance depends on whether the previous verse is applied to Job’s state of suffering or to the time after God calls him as a man for whom he has a longing. The Septuagint relates the words to the period of Job’s affliction. “You, however, have sealed up my lawless deeds in a bag and marked down if I unwittingly transgressed anything.” (14:17)

A “mountain” may fall. Volcanic or seismic activity can cause huge portions of mountains to collapse and “fade away” or disappear. Avalanches, melting snows, freezing and thawing, heavy rains, and swollen, rapidly moving streams can destabilize mountain slopes and hillsides, causing extensive rock slides. A massive rock or boulder can be dislodged “from its place.” Features of the natural world that may appear immovable cannot withstand the power that God can bring to bear against them. This may be the implied message here and in the verse that follows. (14:18; see the Notes section.)

Water continually passing over stones can wear them smooth. Heavy rains and melting snows cause streams to flood. In this way, the “outpouring” of water “washes away” or erodes the “soil of the earth.” Job appears to have thought of God as destroying the “hope of man,” the mortal, in a similar progressive manner when permitting him no respite from calamities or suffering. (14:19; see the Notes section.)

Job referred to God as prevailing against a man, against a mere mortal, forever (to the point where he cannot recover), and man “passes on” or dies. The change or disfigurement of a man’s countenance could relate to the effect of the aging process or to what happens upon his death, and sending him away appears to mean sending him away to the realm of the dead. In the Septuagint, God is portrayed as pushing a man to the end, or thrusting him to his finish, causing him to be gone (to cease to exist in the realm of the living). The text of the Septuagint does not refer to the face or countenance of a man, but says of God that he set his face against the mortal “and sent him away.” (14:20)

In the realm of the dead, a man does not come to know if his sons have been honored nor does he perceive if they have been “brought low” or been disgraced. The Septuagint rendering suggests that the dead man ceases to know anything about the future size of his family. He does not know whether his sons have “become many” (whether there has been a significant increase in the number of his descendants), nor is he aware if his sons have “become few” or experienced a decrease in the number of offspring. (14:21)

The concluding verse could either relate to a man while he is enduring affliction or to the time after he has died. Only in his own “flesh” or body does the afflicted man feel pain, and only “his soul” or he himself mourns over the calamities that have personally affected him. If the reference is to a man after he has died, the words may indicate how his situation appears to the living. Maggots may be feeding on his flesh or dead body, which is in the process of decomposing. (Compare Job 24:20.) The corpse itself could be described as taking on a sad appearance. Covered with maggots, the flesh of the corpse appears as if it is subjected to pain, and the decomposing of the corpse makes the deceased (the dead “soul”) look as if it is in a state of mourning. There is also a possibility that the man’s “flesh” (as a collective singular) could apply to the relatives of the deceased who would experience pain on account of the loss of a loved one, and the “soul” (as a collective singular) could denote “slaves” (bought souls) who would mourn the death of a kindly master. It is unlikely, however, that this thought would be expressed in such an obscure manner. (14:22)

(Notes

In verse 5, the Septuagint expresses the basic thought of the Hebrew text in a different way. “And if his [a mortal’s] life on the earth [be] but one day, and his months are counted to him by you, you have set a time, and by no means shall he go beyond [it].” The certainty about not exceeding the predetermined length of life (regardless of how short it might be) is conveyed in the Greek text by two words for “not” and is here rendered “by no means.”

The Septuagint, in verse 12, indicates that a person, lying down in death, would not rise again “until heaven by no means [remains] sewn together.” In the Greek text, two words for “not” express the emphatic sense and it is here rendered “by no means.” Heaven, the sky, or the celestial dome appears to be alluded to as being stretched out like a tent. Accordingly, for heaven not to be sewn together suggests that the celestial dome would tear apart like a tent may rip apart at the seams.

Origen (in the third century CE) did not find the last phrase of verse 12 (“and they will not be awakened out of their sleep”) in any manuscript of the Septuagint available to him. He supplied it from the translation of Theodotion and marked the addition accordingly.

Job 15:1-35

“Eliphaz the Temanite” responded to Job. An epilogue in the Septuagint identifies Eliphaz as being of the “sons of Esau,” the twin brother of Jacob. (42:17e) This would agree with verses 10 and 11 of Genesis 36, where Teman is listed as a descendant of Esau. (15:1)

Eliphaz raised the rhetorical question, “Will a wise man answer with windy knowledge [give a reply of windy insight (LXX)] and fill his belly,” his body, or himself “with the east wind?” The implied answer is, No. With this question, Eliphaz represented Job as a man lacking in wisdom and dismissed his words as “windy knowledge,” or as being without value, amounting to nothing more than air in motion. In the summer, the “east wind” is a hot wind that passes over the arid desert and parches vegetation. Eliphaz implied that Job had filled himself with such a wind, and this could signify that the things to which he had given vent were ruinous like the hot wind from the east that dries up all greenery in its path. The question in the Septuagint is, “Did he [the wise man] fill [or satisfy] the distress in his belly” or stomach? The implied answer is that the wise man would not have done so with useless words. (15:2)

Dismissing what Job had stated as valueless, Eliphaz said that reproving with a “word” or mere talk (with words that should not be used for reproving [LXX]) would be of no benefit. He referred to the thoughts Job had expressed as “words” of no “profit” or as being worthless. (15:3)

Eliphaz condemned what Job had said as being an affront to God. He accused Job of having made “fear” (the reverential regard for the Almighty) ineffectual (literally, broken it [cast off fear (LXX)]). Moreover, Eliphaz claimed that Job hindered “meditation before God.” This suggests that Eliphaz perceived a certain plausibility in what Job had expressed but regarded it as injurious to those who would give ear to it, for it would interfere with their maintaining pure thoughts before God and praying in a respectful manner. The Septuagint rendering represents Eliphaz as telling Job that he had completed worthless sayings “before the Lord.” (15:4)

The words “for your iniquity teaches your mouth” indicate that Job’s expressions (which Eliphaz regarded as directed against God) condemned him as being corrupt. It was as if his badness instructed him to say what he did. According to the Septuagint, Job was “guilty” with the words of his mouth. Moreover, Eliphaz accused him of choosing the “tongue of crafty ones” or expressing himself like a deceiver whose statements sounded plausible. The Septuagint rendering indicates that Job “did not discern the words of the mighty ones,” probably meaning the words of prominent men who were known for their wisdom. (15:5)

Eliphaz claimed it was not he but Job’s own mouth that condemned him and his own lips that testified against him. This apparently was because Eliphaz considered Job’s expressions to have been an attack against God. (15:6; see the Notes section regarding the Septuagint rendering.)

Eliphaz insinuated that Job had expressed himself as if his origins reached back to the most remote times and thus had represented himself in possession of superior wisdom. This is apparent from the rhetorical question he directed to Job, “Were you the first man to be born, and were you brought forth before the hills?” In the Septuagint, the first part of the question reads like the extant Hebrew text but is preceded by the words that could be rendered, “What then?” The verse concludes with the phrase, “Or were you established before the dunes” or hills? Job had never made any claim to exceeding Eliphaz, Bildad, and Zophar in wisdom. He had only insisted in his not being in any way inferior in knowledge. (15:7)

By means of his question, Eliphaz insinuated that Job had represented himself as if he had been present at the council of God, listening to what was being said in the intimate assembly. In the Septuagint, the question is phrased somewhat differently. “Have you heard the teaching of the Lord?” This question implied thorough acquaintance with the complete record of divine instruction. The other question Eliphaz directed to Job was, “Do you limit wisdom to yourself?” Whereas Job had never claimed to have a monopoly on wisdom, the question of Eliphaz implied that Job had spoken as if he alone possessed it. In the Septuagint, the question is, “Did wisdom reach you” (you alone, no one else)? (15:8)

Job had rejected the erroneous conclusions of Eliphaz, Bildad, and Zophar regarding the reason for his suffering — conclusions that they regarded as reflecting real wisdom. This prompted Eliphaz to view Job as one who asserted having superior wisdom. He, therefore, insisted that Job did not know more than he, Bildad, and Zophar did, saying, “What do you know, and we do not know [it]? “What do you understand, and it [the understanding] is not with us?” (15:9)

Eliphaz indicated that he, Bildad, and Zophar had a basis for viewing themselves as outstandingly wise. Those known for wisdom, the men with gray hair and the aged were with them. Among them were those “greater in days” or older than Job’s own father. The words of Eliphaz suggest that his words should have been heeded as coming from a man recognized for his wisdom. (15:10; see the Notes section regarding the Septuagint.)

What Eliphaz designated as the “consolations of God” appear to have been his words and those of Bildad and Zophar that defended God as the one who afflicts those meriting chastisement but blesses them when they change their conduct. These men had implied that Job’s calamities and suffering had resulted on account of his serious wrongdoing. Job had rejected their words as not applying to him and as being of no comfort to him. Eliphaz believed that his expressions and those of Bildad and Zophar had been conveyed to Job “gently” so that he might abandon his wrong course. In the view of Eliphaz (as he expressed it in his rhetorical question), the “consolations of God” and the “word” or corrective message that was spoken “gently” to Job should have been enough for him to mend his ways. (15:11)

According to the Septuagint, Eliphaz claimed that Job had only been “scourged” for “few” of his “sins.” He accused him of having been arrogant and excessive in his speaking. (15:11)

Eliphaz directed another rhetorical question to Job. “Why does your heart carry you away, and why do your eyes flash?” The expression about Job’s “heart” may be taken to mean that Eliphaz considered him to be deranged in his thinking and to be emotionally out of control. In the Septuagint, his “heart” is referred to as “daring.” This could mean that his “heart” or his mental faculty allowed him to express himself as he did in a manner that his three companions considered to be an unwarranted attack against God. (15:12)

The flashing of Job’s eyes could relate to their flashing in anger or to rolling in expression of disagreement with the conclusions of Eliphaz, Bildad, and Zophar. In the Septuagint, the question relates to what Job’s eyes had focused upon. (15:12; see the Notes section.)

Eliphaz accused Job of turning his “spirit” or his attitude against God (venting “fury before the Lord” [LXX]). This is the apparent reason he deemed the “words” or expressions that came out of Job’s mouth as being irreverent and accusatory. (15:13; see the Notes section regarding the Septuagint rendering in connection with verse 12.)

With another rhetorical question, Eliphaz repeated the misrepresentation of God that had earlier been conveyed to him in a vision. (4:13-18) Whereas the Almighty trusted Job (1:8; 2:3), Eliphaz insisted that this was not the case. No man, no mortal, “can be “pure” (“blameless” [LXX]) before God, and no one born of a woman can be “righteous,” right, or upright. Thus Eliphaz asserted that Job was wrong in saying what he did, for he could not possibly be blameless before God. (15:14)

Confident that the earlier vision he had (4:13-18) revealed the truth to him, Eliphaz insisted that God had no trust in “his holy ones” or angels and that even the “heavens” were “not clean in his eyes.” This belief supported his view that Job definitely could not be guiltless before God. (15:15)

Believing that not even the heavens are clean or pure to God, Eliphaz contended that this most assuredly would be the case with one who is “abhorrent and corrupt,” a “man who drinks injustice [injustices (LXX)] like water” (a “drink” [LXX]). Although expressed in a general sense as applying to humans, the apparent intent is to describe Job as such a man. According to Eliphaz, Job was loathsome and rotten, a man who was inclined to engage in unjust practices as would be a person in the habit of drinking water and thirsting for it. (15:16)

Addressing Job directly, Eliphaz said, “I will tell you; listen to me. And what I have seen, I will relate.” These words indicate that Eliphaz wanted Job to pay attention to what he was about to say to him and that his remarks would be based on what he had personally observed or come to know. (15:17)

The comments of Eliphaz regarding the things he had seen included what wise men had imparted to younger generations since ancient times. These wise men did not conceal what they had received from their “fathers” or their wise ancestors. Thus, for his words, Eliphaz represented himself as having the support of the composite wisdom that had been passed on during the course of numerous generations. (15:18; see the Notes section.)

To the “fathers” or ancestors alone the “earth” or “land” had been given, and no “stranger” or alien “passed among them.” The thought appears to be that the wisdom of the ancestors was not corrupted by foreign influences. Their wisdom was that of natives in their own land and which wisdom had been faithfully handed down from generation to generation of native inhabitants. (15:19)

One of the conclusions of the ancient wise men was that the wicked one suffers pain “all the days” of his life or, according to the Septuagint, is in a state of anxiety during all his life. “And the number of years are stored up for the ruthless one.” As the Septuagint rendering suggests, the “pain” of the wicked one or the godless man could be his continual worry about being caught in his wrongdoing and punished for it. The “pain” could also relate to the miserable condition in which the corrupt man would continually find himself. A ruthless person or tyrant will have his allotted years of misery or, according to the Septuagint, the “years given to the mighty one” or tyrant “are numbered.” He will not be able to act in an oppressive and corrupt manner indefinitely. (15:20)

Regarding a wicked man, Eliphaz claimed that he would have the “sound of terrors in his ears” or, according to the Septuagint, “fear” in his ears. This could indicate that, on account of his guilty conscience, he would continually have a sense of uneasiness and dread. It would be as if the “sound of terrors” or approaching calamities always resounded in his ears. While “in peace” or in a state of seeming security and prosperity, this one would have a despoiler come upon him, seizing everything he has. The Septuagint says that “destruction” would come upon the godless man just when he thought of himself as being at “peace” or in secure circumstances. (15:21)

Eliphaz spoke of the godless man as not believing that he would “return out of darkness,” suggesting that he would be without any hope of ever escaping from the gloom of the miserable state in which he found himself. One of the calamities that could befall him is to be slain with the sword. His situation would be like that of a man for whom the sword was lying in wait. The Septuagint refers to him as “already” in the “hand of iron” or in the power of “iron” or a weapon. (15:22)

Eliphaz referred to the wicked man as “wandering for bread” or food. This may signify that he would be reduced to a state of poverty, forcing him to look for something to eat. In the extant Hebrew text, this is followed by an expression that may be rendered “where,” and could point to the difficulty the impious man would have in his search for food, as he would not know just where he might obtain it. According to the Septuagint, he has been “appointed” as “food for vultures.” This may mean that his slain corpse would lie exposed on the ground for vultures to feed upon. All that the wicked one knows is that a “day of darkness,” misfortune, or calamity is “ready at his hand” or about to befall him. The Septuagint rendering suggests that he “knows within himself” that he will end up as a “carcass” and that a “day of darkness” will distress him. (15:23)

In the view of Eliphaz, the godless man finds that “distress and anguish” terrify (“take hold of” or “seize” [LXX]) him, suggesting that troubles continue to assail him. Intense anxiety (distress and anguish) overpowers him “like a king ready for attack” or like a monarch who is well-prepared for battle. The wicked man is never free from a sense of fear and foreboding. In the Septuagint, the fate of the impious man is like that of a “commander falling in the first rank” or in the front line. (15:24)

Eliphaz identified the reason for the wicked man’s troubles as being that he “stretched out [raised (LXX)] his hand against God [the Lord (LXX)]” and “showed himself mighty” to the “Almighty” or defied him. The implied message to Job may here be that this is what he did when finding fault with God for having afflicted him. (15:25)

Eliphaz described the man who set himself in opposition to the Almighty as “running against him with a neck,” which probably means resisting him with a stiff neck or in a stubborn and defiant manner. The Septuagint indicates the running against the Almighty to have been “with insolence.” In his “running,” the godless man is like an attacking warrior with “his shields.” Ancient shields were commonly made of leather and were equipped with a metal boss or knob at the center. This boss served to provide additional protection during combat. The wording of the extant Hebrew text focuses on the “bosses” (the “thickness of the bosses of his shields”). (15:26; see the Notes section.)

Eliphaz described the godless man as covering “his face with his fattiness” and putting “fat upon his loins.” This wording suggests prosperous circumstances that are commonly linked to disregard for God. (15:27; compare Deuteronomy 32:15; Jeremiah 5:28; see the Notes section.)

The description of the habitation of the impious one could apply either to the desolation to which the place of residence would be reduced or to the actual habitation of the wicked one. Translations vary in their renderings. “He will inhabit ruined towns and houses where no one lives, houses crumbling to rubble.” (NIV) “But they will live in the ruins of deserted towns.” (CEV) “The city where he lives will lie in ruins, his house will be deserted, destined to crumble in a heap of rubble.” (REB) “He had occupied the towns he had destroyed, with their uninhabited houses about to fall into ruins.” (NJB) If the words apply to the existing circumstances of the lawless one, he is being portrayed as an impoverished person forced to live in ruins, an individual who chose this habitation as a hideout from which to engage in robbery, or a man involved in the destruction of cities. According to the Septuagint, the fate of the impious one will be for him to end up lodging in “desolate cities” and to enter “uninhabited [plural of aoíketos] habitations [plural of oikos (house)].” (15:28; see the Notes section.)

Eliphaz claimed that the wicked man “will not be rich” and that “his wealth” will not last. Whatever he may accumulate will only be in his possession temporarily. The concluding phrase in the extant Hebrew text could mean that his “property” (minlám) or what he acquired will not be spread out over the land. This significance is uncertain, especially since the meaning of the Hebrew word minlám is conjectural. The Septuagint says that “he will by no means cast a shadow upon the land.” This could indicate that he would have so very little as not even to cast a shadow. (15:29; see the Notes section.)

According to Eliphaz, the ungodly man will not “turn aside” or be able to depart or escape “out of darkness” or the gloom associated with trouble and misery. Possibly the calamity to befall the impious man is likened to that of a tree. A “flame” (possibly meaning scorching summer heat) “will dry up his shoot” (a collective singular designating “shoots,” twigs, or branches). He (like a withered tree) “will turn aside” or depart “by the wind of his [God’s] mouth.” The Septuagint rendering differs somewhat from the extant Hebrew text. “May wind wither his bud, and may his blossom drop.” (15:30)

According to Eliphaz, the godless one should not trust in “emptiness” or that which is worthless or corrupt, being misled (probably meaning deceiving himself that he would profit from his wrongdoing). There would be only one recompense for “emptiness” — “emptiness” or worthlessness. The Septuagint represents the words directed to the impious one to be, “Let him not trust that he will endure, for emptiness will turn out for him.” This suggests that he should not think that he will avoid a calamitous end. The course he has pursued will only produce emptiness or nothing of any value, gain, or benefit. (15:31)

“In not his day,” possibly meaning before the time that would be considered as having been allotted to him, the godless man would be paid in full or be recompensed for his corrupt actions. The reference to “his branch” not flourishing could indicate that none of his undertakings would succeed. (15:32; see the Notes section regarding the rendering of the Septuagint.)

Eliphaz appears to have likened the unsuccessful outcome the ungodly man would experience to crop failure. His outcome would be comparable to a vine that drops its unripe grapes and to an olive tree that sheds its blossoms. This comparison also suggests that he would be responsible for what would happen to him, as the vine and the olive tree are represented as the active agents in failing to bear good fruit. The Septuagint rendering conveys a message of adverse judgment to befall the impious one. “May he be harvested like an unripe grape before the hour” or before its proper time, “and may he drop like the blossom of an olive tree.” These expressions point to the judgment being a premature end for the godless one. (15:33)

In the view of Eliphaz, only the ungodly come to a calamitous end, “for the company of the profane ones is barren.” These words could indicate that all who may be identified as being part of the company of godless persons produce nothing that will be good and that everything they undertake will terminate in complete failure or in calamity for them. In the Septuagint, the “testimony of the impious one” is linked to “death.” This could signify that his premature death would bear witness to his having been godless. (15:34)

Among the lawless ones, a common practice was to use bribes to attain unworthy objectives or to pervert justice. In the words of Eliphaz, whatever gain they may have accumulated through bribery will be lost. “Fire consumes the tents of bribery.” According to the Septuagint, “fire will burn the houses of those taking bribes.” Nothing will remain of the “tents,” “houses,” or habitations of those guilty of giving bribes or of accepting bribes. (15:34)

Eliphaz described the ungodly as persons who conceive “trouble” or mischief and who bring forth wickedness or what is injurious, and “their womb” or “belly” prepares “deceit.” This may be understood to indicate that, in thought and deed, corrupt persons live lives characterized by wrongdoing, badness, and deception and, therefore, deserve the punishment that Eliphaz had previously described. The Septuagint refers to the impious man as conceiving “pains,” with “emptiness” or worthlessness being brought forth for him. As for his “womb” or “belly,” it “will bear deceit.” The words of the Septuagint suggest that, as the product of his deceitfulness, all the godless man will have in the end will be nothingness. (15:35)

Notes

In the Septuagint, verse 6 conveys the same basic thought as the extant Hebrew text. It reads, “May your mouth reprove you and not I, and your lips will testify against you.”

The words of verse 10 were not found in the manuscripts of the Septuagint that were available to Origen in the third century CE. He added them from the version of Theodotion and marked the addition accordingly. This added Greek text is basically the same as the extant Hebrew text.

The Septuagint rendering of verse 12 completes the thought about the eyes in verse 13. “Or what did your eyes set themselves upon, that you vented fury before the Lord?” The implication of the question is that Job had focused on the wrong things, and this had resulted in his being angry with God.

In verse 18, the concluding phrase may be literally translated, “and did not hide from their fathers.” This is also the literal rendering of the Septuagint. As their “fathers” or ancestors had died, the wise men would not be concealing wisdom from them. Therefore, translators have variously rendered the words according to a possible intended meaning. “Their ancestors have not hidden.” (NRSV) “What wise men relate and have not contradicted since the days of their fathers.” (NAB) “What wise men have declared, hiding nothing received from their fathers.” (NIV) “What has been handed down by wise men and was not concealed from them by their forefathers.” (REB) “The tradition of the sages who have remained faithful to their ancestors.” (NJB)

The words of verse 26 in the text of the Septuagint available to Origen in the third century CE contained no reference to a shield. He added them from the version of Theodotion and marked the addition accordingly. Printed texts of the Septuagint preserve the addition (“with the thickness of the back of his shield”).

The words of verse 27 were not found in the text of the Septuagint available to Origen in the third century CE. He added them from the version of Theodotion, marking the addition accordingly. The added text conveys the basic significance of the extant Hebrew text.

In verse 28, the expression “uninhabited habitations” preserves the literal sense of the Greek expression, for the adjective for “uninhabited” incorporates the word for “house.” The concluding phrase of this verse in the Septuagint differs from the extant Hebrew text. It reads, “But what they have prepared, others will carry away.” The thought appears to be that others will gain possession of everything the lawless ones had accumulated.

The rendering “by no means” in verse 29 of the Septuagint text preserves the emphatic sense of the two Greek words for “not.”

Verse 32 in the Septuagint could be literally rendered, “His pruning will be destroyed before the hour, and his twig will by no means flourish.” The thought could be that the “pruning” would be ruined because of having been performed before the proper “hour” or time. As a result of the ruined pruning, no twig or branch on the vine could flourish. The expression “by no means” preserves the emphatic sense of the two Greek words for “not.” It is also possible that, in this context, the Greek word for “pruning” (tomé) designates the harvest. In that case the meaning would be that the harvest would be ruined before the right time for it to be completed. In their application to the godless man, the words suggest that all of his undertakings will fail.

Job 16:1-22

Job responded to what had been said to him. His words are directed to all three men. (16:1)

Regarding the things Eliphaz, Bildad, and Zophar had said to him, Job told them, “I have heard many such things.” The words he had heard and which accused him of serious wrongdoing brought him no comfort. Therefore, he called all of them “comforters of trouble” (“comforters of bad” [LXX]) or worthless comforters. (16:2)

Job referred to the words of Eliphaz, Bildad, and Zophar as “words of wind” or empty words that did not apply in his case. He asked rhetorically when their “windy words” would have an end. The Septuagint reads, “When then? Is there order in words of wind [windy words]?” The rhetorical question implied that the worthless words of Eliphaz, Bildad, and Zophar served no beneficial purpose; they accomplished no good. (16:3)

The next rhetorical question was not found in the Septuagint available to Origen in the third century CE. He added it from the version of Theodotion and marked the addition accordingly. The added question reads much like the one in the extant Hebrew text, “Or what will disturb you, that you reply?” In this case, the pronoun for “you” is singular. Therefore, the question was directed to Eliphaz. It indicated that Job did not understand what had incited Eliphaz to respond to him in the way that he did. (16:3)

If Eliphaz, Bildad, and Zophar found themselves in the distressing circumstances that had come to be Job’s lot (literally, if their “soul” had been in place of his “soul”), he could speak as they did. He could “assemble words” against them (“jump at [them] with words” [LXX]) and mockingly shake his head at them. Their words had misrepresented Job and wrongly accused him of serious transgressions, and he could do the same if the situation were reversed. (16:4)

Job said that he would not do what the three men had done. If they were suffering as he was, he would “strengthen” them with the “words of [his] mouth,” providing comfort and encouragement. In the Septuagint, Job is quoted as saying, “But may there be strength in my mouth,” which could suggest that he desired his words to be meaningful. The “motion of [his] lips,” or the expressions that would pass his lips, would “cause darkness,” bringing relief as if concealing the pain from them as by darkness. According to the Septuagint, Job would not “spare” or restrain the “movement of the lips,” indicating that he would freely express himself and not hold back in speaking what he considered right under the circumstances. (16:5)

If Job spoke, his pain was not alleviated, and the pain remained even if he did not speak. In the concluding phrase, the Hebrew text contains the word mah, which can function as an interrogative (“what?”) but may also be used as a negative. This is reflected in the renderings of translations. “And though I forbear, what am I eased?” (Margolis) “And if I forbear, how much of it [the pain] leaves me?” (NRSV) “If I say nothing, is it [the pain] in any way reduced?” (NJB) “If I am silent, it [the pain] does not leave me.” (REB) The Septuagint rendering conveys the basic thought somewhat differently. “For if I speak, I will not pain the wound, but even if I shall be silent, how will I be wounded less?” This suggests that Job’s speaking would not increase pain from his affliction and his remaining silent would not lessen it. (16:6)

With seeming reference to God, Job said, “Indeed now, he has wearied me,” wearing him out with suffering. Then Job appears to have directed his words directly to God, “You have made all my company desolate.” This could mean that Job had been deprived of all who had formerly been part of his household — his children and his servants. According to the Septuagint rendering, God had reduced Job to a worn-out state, making him a “fool” (apparently in the eyes of those seeing him), a person in a condition of decay, and, therefore, an outcast. (16:7)

Apparently continuing to direct his words to the Almighty, Job is quoted as saying, “You have seized me.” The thought appears to be that God had taken hold of Job in order to afflict him. The divine seizure that Job perceived as having brought great suffering to him served as a witness against him, making it appear to others that he was an impious man. Then the Hebrew text concludes with the words, “My leanness [or lying (káchash)] has risen up against me, it testifies to my face.” This could mean that Job saw his affliction as an ever-present witness against him. The Hebrew word káchash, however, commonly denotes “lying.” In the Greek text of Theodotion, the word is rendered “lie.” If this is the meaning of the Hebrew, the thought could be that Job’s affliction proved to be a lying witness. (16:8; see the Notes section.)

It appears that Job referred to God as having “torn” him in “his wrath” and been hostile to him. Moreover, Job portrayed him as gnashing “his teeth” at him, apparently in expression of his anger. If the mention of Job’s “adversary” applies to God, he is being represented as “sharpening his eyes” against him. This would indicate that the Most High was focused on Job with hostile intent. “God is my hateful enemy, glaring at me and attacking with his sharp teeth.” (CEV) A number of translations, however, represent the adversary as not referring to God but as being a collective singular that designates Job’s enemies. “My enemies look daggers at me.” (NJB; REB) “My enemies lord it over me.” (NAB) The Septuagint rendering could be understood to indicate that God had treated Job with wrath and cast him down, gnashing his teeth against him. It concludes with the phrase, “Arrows of his raiders have fallen upon me.” This suggests that God used marauders against Job, which would agree with the prologue that mentions marauders as seizing his animals and killing his servants. (1:14, 15, 17; 16:9)

Job spoke of those who were hostile to him as opening wide “their mouth,” showing their teeth or acting as persons intent on harming him. In expression of “reproach,” mockery, or scorn, they struck him on the cheek. Together, they amassed themselves (literally, “made full”) as a group against Job. According to the Septuagint, “they ran at [him] together.” (16:10; see the Notes for additional comments regarding the Septuagint rendering.)

Job referred to God as giving him up to “lads” (‘awil [a collective singular in Hebrew]) and casting (form of ratáh in the Hebrew text) him into the “hands of the wicked.” In this case, many translators do not render ‘awil according to its usual meaning (“lads,” “boys,” or “young men”) but follow the reading of the Septuagint, which says the “unjust” (ádikos [a collective singular]). If the intended word is “lads,” this would indicate that youths who should have treated Job with respect mocked him or mistreated him. The Septuagint rendering is, “For the Lord gave me up into the hands of the unjust.” There is a question about the significance of the Hebrew word ratáh. A conjectural meaning is “wring out.” The commonly accepted view is that the Hebrew word should be read as yarát (“cast”), which agrees with the rendering of the Septuagint (“cast me to the impious ones”). In the “hands” or power of wicked or unjust persons, Job would have been subjected to hateful treatment and ridicule. (16:11)

Job had been “at ease” or in a state of peace, security, or well-being, but that changed. He attributed what happened to him to God, saying that he “shattered” (“effaced” [LXX]) him or reduced him to a state of ruin. God seized him “by the neck” (“by the hair” [LXX]) and pulverized him (“pulled out” his hair). Job felt that he was being attacked, referring to God as having set him up as a target. (16:12)

Job likened his distressing situation to a military attack, with God’s archers surrounding him and aiming their arrows at him. The Septuagint represents Job as saying that warriors surrounded him with spears or lances, thrusting them into his kidneys without sparing. In the extant Hebrew text, God is the one referred to as splitting open Job’s kidneys and not sparing or not showing any compassion. Job compared his wounding to having his gallbladder poured out on the ground. (16:13)

Job described God’s action toward him as an attack against a city, with his breaking through the fortifications, “breach after breach.” The Septuagint has Job referring to warriors casting him down, “fall upon fall.” Whereas the extant Hebrew text represents God as running against Job like a mighty man or warrior, the Septuagint indicates that warriors were running strongly at him. (16:14)

Sackcloth, a coarse cloth made from goats’ hair, was commonly worn in times of great distress or mourning. Job stitched together sackcloth, covering his bare skin (probably only his loins) with it. His thrusting his “horn” in the dust could denote his giving up his strength as if reducing it to the level of the ground. The Septuagint reads, “My strength was extinguished on the earth.” (16:15)

Weeping had reddened Job’s face. According to the Septuagint, his “belly” became “aflame from weeping.” A “shadow” (LXX) or “death’s shadow” on Job’s eyelids may refer to the blackness around his eyes that had resulted from his affliction. (16:16)

Job could not understand why he had been submitted to great suffering. Regarding himself, he said, There was “no violence [nothing unjust (LXX)] in my hands, and my prayer [was] pure.” He had not been guilty of acts of oppression or violence, and his prayers were sincere. (16:17)

Job appealed for the “earth,” land, or ground not to cover his blood (“blood of my flesh” [LXX]), with the apparent reason being that it could then continue to cry out for vindication. He also wanted there to be “no place” for his “cry.” This could mean that his outcry for a just judgment would not be given a place of rest and, therefore, would not cease to be heard. (16:18)

The “witness” Job had “in the heavens” is not identified. The reference to God in the next verse provides a possible basis for considering God to be his witness, the One whom he also called “my witness [fellow knower or corroborator (LXX)] in the heights.” Job did not doubt that he had lived an upright life and, therefore, believed that God also knew this and could testify to it. The Contemporary English Version rendering identifies God as the witness. “Even now, God in heaven is both my witness and my protector.” Another view is to regard the witness as a heavenly advocate. This is an interpretation reflected in the rendering of the New International Version for verses 19 and 20. “Even now my witness is in heaven; my advocate is on high. My intercessor is my friend as my eyes pour out tears to God.” (16:19)

Job’s companions, particularly Eliphaz, Bildad, and Zophar, were scorning him, viewing him and censuring him as a man guilty of serious wrongdoing and deserving of the calamities and suffering that had befallen him. With his companions having failed him, Job turned to the One who could vindicate him. To God, he “poured out” he eye, probably meaning that he gave way to tears when making his intense plea for vindication. The Septuagint makes no mention of companions but reads, “May my supplication come to the Lord, and may my eye weep [literally, drip] before him.” (16:20)

The significance of the words about deciding regarding a “man with God” and an “earthling” or man “with his fellow” depends on whether God is considered to be the witness mentioned in verse 21 or whether it is a heavenly advocate or possibly even Job’s outcry that is personified and in the presence of God as a defender. Translations vary in their interpretive renderings. “On behalf of a man he pleads with God as a man pleads for his friend.” (NIV) “If only there were one to arbitrate between man and God, as between a man and his neighbour!” (REB) “Before God my eyes drop tears, that he may do justice for a mortal in his presence and decide between a man and his neighbor.” (NAB) “God is the one I beg to show that I am right, just as a friend should.” (CEV) “Let my anguish [reflected in the tears Job shed and in his outcry] plead the cause of a man at grips with God, just as a man might defend his fellow.” (NJB) (16:21; see the Notes section regarding the Septuagint rendering.)

Job felt that his vindication needed to come soon, for he believed that it would not be long before he would die. The Hebrew text refers to a “number” of “years” as coming. In the Septuagint, the text reads, “But numbered years have come,” suggesting that they had ended. Job thought that he would be going the “way” from which he would not return. He would be heading for the realm of the dead. (16:22)

Notes

In the third century CE, Origen did not find the words of verse 8 in the Septuagint available to him. He marked them as having added them from the version of Theodotion. The added words differ somewhat from the extant Hebrew text. “And you took hold of me; for a testimony it became. And my lie rose within me. It was answered back to my face.” The “lie” could refer to the false testimony that had resulted through the suffering that befell Job, and this “lie” was hurled at his face or at him.

In verse 10, the initial phrases of the Septuagint differ from those in the extant Hebrew text. There is no mention of the “mouth” and the “teeth.” Job is quoted as saying that “he [God] assailed me with the darts of [his] eyes.” This may be understood to mean that God focused on Job with a hostile purpose. The striking on Job’s “cheek” with “something sharp” may refer to suffering that was afflicted on him.

The Septuagint rendering for verse 21 is, “But may it be proof to a man before the Lord.” In this context, the reference may be to Job’s desire to have the proof of his innocence presented before God. Origen, in the third century CE, did not find corresponding words for the additional phrase of the extant Hebrew text in the Septuagint available to him. He marked them as having been added from the version of Theodotion (“and [to] a son of man for his fellow”).

Job 17:1-16

Job’s “spirit” was “broken,” crushed, or reduced to a state of ruin. This may be understood to mean that his mental outlook was one of hopelessness. His “days” were “extinguished,” indicating that the remaining time of his life was quickly drawing to a close. Job perceived that only the grave lay ahead for him. (17:1)

Both the Hebrew and Greek words for “spirit” can also mean “wind,” and this is the apparent meaning in the Septuagint. Instead of referring to Job’s spirit, the Septuagint has Job saying that he is “destroyed,” being carried away by “wind.” This suggests that Job thought of himself as having been broken into small pieces which the wind could readily blow away. Although he pleaded “for burial,” he did “not find it.” He continued to live in a severely afflicted condition. (17:1)

Job was faced with repeated expressions of mockery or ridicule. They surrounded him. His “eye” continued to see manifestations of rebellion as would a man dwelling among rebels. According to the Septuagint, Job appears to have prayed to the point of being “weary.” This thought is followed by his question, “And what have I done?” The question could suggest that Job was not aware of anything that would have caused God not to respond to his petitions and, therefore, he wondered what he had done that could account for his receiving no answer. Another possibility is that Job may have been asking what he had accomplished with all his prayers. (17:2)

The opening imperative sim basically means “put.” That which is to be “put” or “laid down” is not stated, but the next imperative provides the needed clarification (“go surety for me with yourself”). Accordingly, the reference is to laying down or giving a pledge and thereby becoming the guarantor. Job’s apparent appeal was for God to function as his guarantor, with the possible reason being for Job to establish his innocence. Neither his companions nor any other human would be willing to function as a guarantor for him. This appears to be the implied sense of the rhetorical question, “Who [is] he [who] will strike himself into my hand” (shake his hand with mine to go surety for me)? (17:3; regarding the Septuagint rendering the Notes section.)

With apparent reference to God, Job said, “For you have hidden” or “closed their heart from insight.” “Their heart” appears to designate the reasoning faculties of Eliphaz, Bildad, and Zophar. The wrong evaluation of Job in his state of affliction revealed that their reasoning faculties were closed to sound understanding. “Therefore,” God, as Job appears to have pleaded, would not “exalt” them as the wise men they regarded themselves to be. (17:4; see the Notes section.)

The opening phrase could be rendered, “He tells on companions for a portion” or a share. This appears to describe the action of an informer who is willing to betray his companions or friends for gain. Possibly Job is likening Eliphaz, Bildad, and Zophar to such informers because of the hateful ways in which they had expressed themselves to him, condemning him as a wrongdoer who deserved the calamities and suffering that had befallen him. The punishment for such a disloyal informer is, The “eyes of his sons” or children “will fail.” His offspring would be reduced to a state comparable to blindness. (17:5; see the Notes section.)

Job believed that God was responsible for all the calamities that had befallen him. Therefore, he spoke of God as having made him a “byword of peoples” or caused his name to be used in expressions of mockery. Job had become a man in whose face others spit. This was an act of extreme contempt. According to the Septuagint rendering, Job had become a “laughingstock” among peoples. There is no mention of spitting. (17:6)

Job’s words about his sight could be translated, “My eye has become dim from grief [ká‘as].” This could mean that his vision had been impaired from the grief or vexation he had experienced on account of his losses and his diseased condition. In other contexts, the Hebrew word ká‘as can denote “anger. This is how the term is rendered in the Septuagint. “My eyes have become dim from anger.” If “anger” is the correct sense, the reference could be to the divine anger that Job believed to have been expressed against him. (17:7)

Physically, Job had been reduced to an emaciated state, with all of his “members” or “limbs” having become “like a shadow.” There is no reference to this in the Septuagint. It represents Job as considering himself under attack. “I am greatly besieged by everyone.” (17:7)

“At this” (Job’s distressing situation according to the preceding words), “upright persons are appalled,” astonished, dazed, or bewildered. It is not something that they can understand. Nevertheless, Job represented them as not siding with those who were attacking him. This appears to be the thought he expressed when saying, “An innocent man arouses himself against a profane [or godless] man.” In the Contemporary English Version, the words are interpretively rendered to portray Eliphaz, Bildad, and Zophar in unfavorable light. “People who are truly good would feel so alarmed, that they would become angry at my worthless friends.” The rendering of the Septuagint does not support this specific meaning. It reads, “May the righteous one rise up against the transgressor” or “lawbreaker.” (17:8)

The righteous man would “hold to his way.” Despite what had befallen him, Job believed that righteous persons would not deviate from the right course they had been pursuing. The man with “clean hands,” one who had not defiled himself with corrupt or oppressive practices, would increase in “strength” (“take courage” [LXX]), becoming ever stronger in his resolve to live uprightly. (17:9)

Two different readings are found in the Hebrew manuscripts for the opening words of verse 10 (“but all of them” and “but all of you”). Though supported by only a few manuscripts, the reading “but all of you” fits the context better. It appears that Job told his companions to “come on again,” resuming their attacks against him. Nevertheless, he would not “find a wise man” among them. According to the Septuagint, he would not find “truth” in them. Their expressions would be erroneous, not applying in Job’s case. (17:10; for additional comments about the Septuagint rendering, see the Notes section.)

Job thought of his life as coming to a close. His “days” had “passed. His “plans” were “torn apart” or shattered — the “desires” of his “heart.” Whatever plans he might have had, whatever he desired, had come to nothingness, leaving him in a hopeless state. The Septuagint rendering could be understood to indicate that Job’s days passed “in groaning” and that his “heartstrings” had been broken, indicating that he suffered great physical and emotional pain. (17:11)

It may be that Job referred to Eliphaz, Bildad, and Zophar as having made “night” into “day,” with “light” being “near to darkness.” In his state of affliction, Job found himself in a state of gloom, comparable to a dark night. Certain comments of the three companions suggested or implied that, if Job repented of his wrong ways, darkness would be followed by “light” or bright prospects would be near to his previous darkness. Their words, however, brought no comfort to Job but were comparable to their declaring “night” to be “day.” (17:12; see the Notes section.)

If Job “waited” or kept on enduring, his final “house” or dwelling place would still be “Sheol,” “Hades” (LXX), or the realm of the dead. He had no hope of a brighter future. In the “darkness” of the realm of the dead, Job would spread his couch as if lying down to rest in the sleep of death. (17:13)

In the realm of the dead, Job would have no parents to whom he could direct his words or who could comfort him. He expressed his hopelessness by calling the “pit,” or his future grave, “my father.” To the “worm” or “maggot” (a collective singular) that would be feeding on his corpse, he said, “my mother and my sister.” According to the Septuagint, Job called upon death to be his “father” and decay to be his “mother and sister.” (17:14)

With his only perceived future being the realm of the dead, Job asked, “And where then [is] my hope? And my hope — who will see it?” As far as he was concerned, there was no hope for him, and no one could see a nonexistent hope. In the Septuagint, there is no reference to seeing Job’s hope. It represents him as saying, “Will I see my good things” or “goods?” Job, as a man who believed that he was about to enter the realm of the dead, had no hope of ever seeing his “good things.” (17:15)

Job envisioned Sheol or the realm of the dead as a permanent place of confinement like a place with “bars.” There, to the “bars of Sheol,” “they” (the “hope” about which Job asked where it was, and the “hope” about which he asked who “will see it”) would descend. In the Septuagint, the question is whether his “good things” or goods would descend with him into Hades. The extant Hebrew text concludes with the thought about whether the descent to “dust,” to “quietness” (or to the rest of death), would be “together.” Origen, in the third century CE, did not find any corresponding words in the Septuagint available to him. He added them from the version of Theodotion and marked the following addition to indicate this, “Or will we descend together to the mound” or the burial place? (17:16)

Notes

The Septuagint rendering of the words in verse 3 departs significantly from the extant Hebrew text. It reads, “And strangers have stolen my possessions.” According to the prologue (1:14, 25, 17), marauders had seized Job’s bovines, female donkeys, and camels. The added words from the version of Theodotion (as Origen [in the third century CE] identified them with marks) have no relationship to this development (“Who is this one? Let him be joined to my hand.”)

The words of verse 4 were not found in the Septuagint available to Origen in the third century CE. He added them from the version of Theodotion and marked the addition accordingly. The added words are virtually identical to those of the extant Hebrew text. “For you have hidden their heart from insight; therefore, you will by no means exalt them.” The expression “by no means” preserves the emphatic sense of the two Greek words for “not.”

Verse 5 of the Septuagint opens with a phrase that Origen supplied from the version of Theodotion and marked accordingly. This phrase could be rendered, “He will announce evils in part” or “to the party.” The next phrase is found in the Septuagint. It relates to the effect the loss of Job’s sons or children had on him. “My eyes were melted away over [my] sons.” The thought could be that he wept so much that his eyes seemed to be dissolving with tears.

A possible meaning for the opening words of verse 10 in the Septuagint is that Job told his three companions to “fix themselves firmly” in their views. The next phrase (“and come indeed”) is, according to Origen (in the third century CE), added from the version of Theodotion.

The words of verse 12 were not found in the Septuagint available to Origen in the third century CE. He added them from the version of Theodotion and marked the addition accordingly. The Greek rendering reads much like the extant Hebrew text. “They have made night into day. Light [is] near, away from the face of darkness.”

Job 18:1-21

Bildad the Shuhite (Baldad the Sauchite [LXX]) replied to what Job had said. His being called a “Shuhite” may indicate that he was a descendant of Shua, the son of Abraham by his concubine Keturah. (18:1; Genesis 25:1, 2)

Bildad raised a rhetorical question. “Until when [or how long] will you set snares for words?” In Hebrew, the verbs in this verse (“you set” and “you consider,” understand, or discern) are plural. Possibly the use of the plural implied that Job, by reason of what he had said, was one of the godless men and so could be addressed as just one of them instead of as an individual. The expression about setting “snares for words” could refer to putting a restraint on words. Translators have variously rendered the question. “How soon will you bridle your tongue?” (REB) “When will you put an end to words?” (NAB) “How long will you talk?” (CEV) In the Septuagint, the verbs are singular and the question is, “How long until you cease [speaking]?” (18:2; for another interpretation of the plural verbs, see the Notes section.)

It appears that Bildad asked Job to consider, think, or show some discernment, not continuing to talk in a godless or senseless manner. He seems to have intended this as a condition for continuing the discussion, concluding with the words, “Afterward we will speak.” The Septuagint reads, “Refrain, that we also these things [autoí] may address.” The pronoun autoí could apply to the things Job had said and concerning which Bildad, Eliphaz, and Zophar could speak after Job had stopped talking. (18:2)

Job had previously told Eliphaz, Bildad, and Zophar to make inquiry of the animals, the winged creatures, the fish of the sea, and they would tell them what had come about by the “hand” or power of YHWH. (12:7-9) Seemingly, with apparent reference to this, Bildad objected that Job had reckoned him along with Eliphaz and Zophar as “beasts” or animals. In the Septuagint, the thought is expressed differently. “Why have we been silent before you as if we were quadrupeds” (animals that cannot speak)? (18:3)

The concluding phrase in the Hebrew text contains a form of the verb tamáh. This verb has been linked either to tamé’ (to be unclean) or to the Aramaic tammém (to be stopped up, clogged in one’s reasoning, or stupid). Therefore, Bildad may either be represented as asking whether Job considered him and his companions as “unclean” (like beasts) or lacking in good sense. (18:3)

Bildad portrayed Job as “tearing himself in his anger,” probably meaning that his fury was directed against God because of what had happened to him. Then Bildad raised the rhetorical question, “Will the earth be forsaken for your sake, and a rock be removed from its place?” The thought appears to be that the universe did not revolve around Job. Regardless of how great his anger might be, the order in the natural world and, by implication, the moral order and what God may do or permit would not be changed for his sake. (18:4; regarding the Septuagint rendering, see the Notes section.)

According to Bildad, the consequences for wrongdoing were inescapable. The “light” of the “wicked” (“impious” [LXX]) “will be extinguished, and the flame of his fire will not shine.” Whatever prosperity and cheerfulness (comparable to light that dispels gloom) the wicked may experience will come to an end, and nothing resembling the light from a flame will shine in their case. The Septuagint says that “their flame will not go up.” (18:5)

Bildad represented the life of the wicked man as being one of perpetual darkness or gloom, with nothing to brighten his days. In the wicked one’s tent or dwelling, “light” will be “dark,” and the light of “his lamp above him will be extinguished.” (18:6)

Regarding the wicked or godless man, Bildad said that his “strong steps” (literally, “steps of vigor”) would be “cramped” or “restricted.” This suggests that his power would fail him as if the strength of his legs were reduced to the point of preventing his forward movement. The Septuagint rendering departs significantly from the extant Hebrew text. “Least ones” or insignificant ones are represented as pursing the possessions of the godless man. Their success in doing so appears to be implied. (18:7)

As far as any “counsel,” “plan” or “scheme” is concerned, it would fail and cause the overthrow or downfall of the lawless man. A similar thought is expressed in the Septuagint. “May his counsel cause him to stumble.” (18:7)

Bildad spoke of the fate of a wicked or godless man in terms of what happens to an animal that is trapped. He is cast into a snare “by his feet,” and “he walks on network” or on a net as might be spread over a pit. The Septuagint rendering may be translated. “But his foot has been cast into a trap. May he be ensnared in a net.” (18:8)

Bildad continued his description about the fate of the lawless man. A “trap” will snatch him “by the heel,” and a “snare” will hold him fast. (18:9; regarding the Septuagint rendering, see the Notes section.)

Like an animal that does not see the trap in its path and is ensnared, the godless man will be caught as by a concealed rope in the ground and as by the trap that lies in his path. In the third century CE, Origen added similar words from the Greek text of Theodotion, marking the addition accordingly. The Septuagint available to him did not contain the words of this verse. (18:10)

Bildad described the situation of the lawless man as being one of constant fear of calamity. All around him, terrors frighten him and pursue him “at his feet” or his heels. The Septuagint rendering expresses the thought somewhat differently. “May pains from round about destroy him, and may many come around his feet with intense hunger,” possibly meaning like hungry beasts of prey ready for the kill. (18:11)

According to Bildad, the godless man’s strength would be as if “hungry,” indicating that it would fail. “Calamity” would be ready “for his stumbling.” This suggests that the corrupt man’s fall would not have any recovery in prospect. The Septuagint rendering is, “But an unprecedented downfall is prepared for him.” (18:12)

The calamity that befalls the lawless man will consume parts of “his skin.” Likewise the “firstborn of death” will consume his limbs. The expression “firstborn of death” probably designates the disease that leads to certain death. In the Septuagint, the thought expressed differs from the extant Hebrew text. “May the toes of his feet be devoured, but death will consume his beautiful things [possibly meaning everything that contributed to his former splendor].” (18:13)

“His confidence,” or everything in which the godless man trusted for his well-being and security, “will be torn from his tent” or dwelling, and he will be made to march to the “king of terrors” (probably a designation for “death” personified). Other interpretations of the Hebrew text are found in translations. “He is plucked from the safety of his home, and death’s terrors escort him to their king.” (REB) “He will be torn from the shelter of his tent, and you will drag him to the King of Terrors.” (NJB) “He is torn from the security of his tent and marched off to the king of terrors.” (NIV) The Septuagint rendering is, “But may healing be torn from his habitation, and may distress seize him by royal decision.” These words suggest that there be no recovery for the lawless man, and that a royal judgment against him bring him to a distressing end. (18:14)

“Something not his” or not belonging to the lawless man would “dwell in his tent.” The reference to “sulfur” in the next phrase (“sulfur will be scattered upon his habitation”) may indicate that a destructive agent is meant — something that would bring ruin to the abode of the corrupt man. (18:15; see the Notes section.)

Bildad indicated that absolutely nothing from the godless man would remain. He would have no descendants. Apparently likening the corrupt man to a tree, Bildad said that “his roots” beneath him “will dry up,” and his “branch” above “will wither.” (18:16; see the Notes section.)

Bildad indicated that not a trace of the lawless man would remain. Any memory of him “will perish from the earth,” and he will have “no name in the street.” All evidence of his having existed will be obliterated. (18:17; see the Notes section.)

Bildad portrayed the reversals the lawless man would experience to his being shoved “from light” (seeming well-being, prosperity, and security) “into darkness” (calamity and gloom) and driven out of the land. The Septuagint rendering is shorter than the extant Hebrew text. “May he [God] shove him from light into darkness.” (18:18)

“Among his people,” the godless man would have “no offspring and no descendants.” His entire family line would come to an end, with not a single survivor in his former dwelling places. According to the Septuagint, he would not be known “among his people.” All knowledge about him would be obliterated as if he had never existed. In the land “under heaven,” his “house” would not be preserved, but others would live in what formerly belonged to him. (18:19)

The end of the lawless man would cause shuddering among people everywhere. “At his day,” the time when no trace of him or any link to him would remain, people of the west (literally, those who come after) would be appalled, and horror would seize those of the east (literally, the former or those who come before). (18:20; see the Notes section.)

Concluding his comments about the final outcome for a corrupt man, Bildad said, “These [are] the dwellings of the unjust man, and this [is] the place of the one who does not know God.” With these words, Bildad implied that what had befallen Job proved that he was a man who had been guilty of injustice and oppression and who did not know God or had no relationship to him as a man whom he approved. (18:21; see the Notes section.)

Notes

Another interpretation for the plural verbs in verse 2 would be to consider the words of Bildad to be directed to Eliphaz and Zophar. “What prevents you others from saying something? Think — for it is our turn to speak!” (NJB) This meaning, however, does not have the support of the Septuagint rendering.

In verse 4, the Septuagint rendering differs from the wording of the extant Hebrew text. “Anger has used you,” which could mean that anger had gotten the best of Job and consumed him. “What then? If you die, will [the land] under heaven be uninhabited, or mountains be overthrown from [their] foundations?”

In verse 9, the Septuagint available to Origen in the third century CE only had the words, “And may snares come upon him.” He supplied the remainder of the text from the version of Theodotion and marked it accordingly. “He will strengthen those thirsting after him.” This could mean that God is the one who would strengthen those yearning for him as thirsty ones would long for water. Another meaning could be that “those thirsting” are “against him” or against the godless one and would be thirsting or longing for his destruction.

A number of translators have rendered the initial phrase of verse 15 according to an emendation based on Ugaritic. “Fire settles on his tent.” (REB) “Fire resides in his tent.” (NIV) This verse was missing from the Septuagint available to Origen in the third century CE. He used the words from the version of Theodotion and marked his addition accordingly. The added Greek text reads, “He [or it (possibly meaning a destructive agent)] will encamp in his tent in his night. His beautiful things will be oversown with sulfur.” This rendering does not support an emendation of the Hebrew text based on Ugaritic, and the first phrase somewhat resembles the wording of the New Jerusalem Bible. “You can live in his tent, since it is no longer his.”

For the wording of verse 16, Origen used the version of Theodotion because he did not find it in the Septuagint available to him. The Greek words that Origen marked as having been added do not depart significantly from the reading of the extant Hebrew text. “Beneath, his roots will be dried up; and above, his harvest will fall.” Perhaps this refers to the dropping of the fruit before it matures.

The Septuagint rendering of verse 17 may be translated to read, “May remembrance of him be destroyed from the earth.” This is followed by words from the version of Theodotion that Origen did not find in the Septuagint available to him in the third century CE. The words that Origen marked (as contained in Rahlfs’ printed text) may be literally rendered “and there exists a name to him upon the face outside.” This could mean that the godless man would only have a name as an outcast.

In verse 20, the Septuagint rendering reflects a literal reading of the Hebrew text. “The last ones groaned for him, but the first ones had wonder” or were astonished.

Verse 21 in the Septuagint is worded to apply to unjust persons generally. “These are the houses of the unjust ones and the place of those who do not know the Lord.”

Job 19:1-29

Job responded to Bildad. In his comments, he included Eliphaz and Zophar. (19:1)

Eliphaz, Bildad, and Zophar had not comforted Job. Therefore, he raised the rhetorical question about how long they would pain or torment (“weary”) him (literally, “my soul”) and crush him with their words. (19:2)

All three men had reproached Job, attributing his suffering to presumed serious failure to live an upright life. Up to this point, only five of their lengthy speeches have been quoted. Therefore, the reference to their reproaching Job “ten times” could signify doing so repeatedly or a complete number of times. In the Septuagint, there is no mention of “ten times.” It quotes Job as attributing his suffering to God. “Only know that the Lord has made me thus.” This could mean that Job believed that God had reduced him to the afflicted state in which he found himself. (19:3)

Eliphaz, Bildad, and Zophar made assumptions about Job based on his distressing circumstances, but they had no evidence that he had made himself guilty of serious transgression. Considering the severity of Job’s affliction, they should have been ashamed to add to his pain. But, as he said to them, they were not ashamed to deal harshly with him or to wrong him. According to the Septuagint, they spoke against him. The words “not shaming me” could indicate that the three men did not restrain themselves from shaming Job, failing to show him respect. They “pressed” upon him or were hostile to him, adding to his distress. (19:3)

In case he had indeed erred or gone astray, Job pointed out that his error “lodged” or remained with him. It would be a matter of his concern alone. He would be accountable for his actions and would have to bear the consequences. Eliphaz, Bildad, and Zophar would not be injured or affected. (19:4; see the Notes section regarding the additional words in the Septuagint.)

Job accused Eliphaz, Bildad, and Zophar of magnifying or exalting themselves against him, reproving him as an interior lacking in understanding and as one guilty of serious wrongdoing. They argued or decided against him that his “reproach,” or the humiliation that had resulted from his calamities and suffering, was deserved. The Septuagint represents Job as saying, “But you assail me with reproach.” (19:5)

Job felt that he did not deserve to be submitted to great suffering. Therefore, he said to his companions that they should “know” or recognize that God had wronged (troubled [LXX]) him. He likened what had befallen him to having a net encircle him, and he attributed this action to God. (19:6)

Job cried out, “Violence!” This apparently was regarding the violent or harsh treatment to which he had been subjected. But there was no answer from God. Job called out for help, but justice was not rendered in his case. He received no assistance. (19:7; see the Notes section regarding the Septuagint rendering.)

Job referred to God as having “walled up” his “way” so that he could not pass, being prevented from getting out of the distressing state in which he found himself. The Septuagint indicates that Job could not escape from his completely hemmed-in condition. He felt that God had set “darkness” upon his “paths,” making it impossible for him to see a way out of his distress. According to the Septuagint, God had put darkness upon Job’s face, depriving him of any hope that relief would come. There was absolutely nothing that brightened Job’s day. (19:8)

Job spoke of God as having stripped him of “glory” and taken the “crown” from his head. His “glory” could designate his wealth, and his “crown” could refer to the dignified standing that he had formerly enjoyed. Both had ended for him. (19:9)

Job represented God as having broken him down (ripped him apart [LXX]) round about or on every side. Regarding the result of this action, he said, “I am gone” (“I was gone” [LXX]). This suggests that he had been reduced to a state of utter ruin. Job’s “hope” had been “pulled up,” uprooted, or “cut down” (LXX) “like a tree,” ceasing to exist. (19:10)

In view of his great suffering, Job spoke of God as having “kindled” his “anger” against him and reckoned him as his “adversary,” as a man toward whom he was intensely hostile. According to the Septuagint, God treated Job horribly in his anger. (19:11)

Job described what had happened to him as if God had led an enemy force against him. His “troops” had come together against Job and besieged him, encamping around his “tent.” (19:12; see the Notes section regarding the Septuagint rendering.)

Job believed that God had put his “brothers” or relatives far from him. Persons who knew him or his intimate acquaintances had become like total strangers. Avoided by everyone, he had been left without any comfort from relatives or acquaintances. The Septuagint indicates that Job’s “brothers” or relatives who had distanced themselves acknowledged strangers rather than him. With reference to Job, his “friends” had become “merciless,” treating him like an outcast. (19:13)

Individuals who were close to Job, probably his relatives, forsook him (literally, “ceased” [took no notice of him (LXX)]), and those who knew him, his intimate acquaintances, or (according to the Septuagint) persons who knew his “name” forgot him. They ignored him and gave no consideration to his need for comfort. To them, he was like a man who no longer lived. (19:14)

“Guests” in Job’s house and his maidservants regarded him like a stranger. “In their eyes,” he had become a foreigner. The Septuagint contains the expression “neighbors of my house.” This probably designates Job’s nearest neighbors. (19:15)

Slaves or servants were expected to obey their master’s command and to perform the tasks he assigned to them. For a servant of Job not even to respond to his calling him revealed gross disrespect. The servant treated Job as if he had no authority over him and as if he did not even exist. “With [his] mouth,” Job implored or begged his servant. The implication is that even then his servant did not respond. (19:16)

Job referred to his “spirit” as having been loathsome to his wife. This could mean that his breath was foul or that he himself had become loathsome to her. The expression “sons of my womb” could designate offspring that came from the same womb as Job did and so could apply to his brothers. To them, Job was repulsive. According to the Septuagint, the relatives were “sons” of Job’s concubines. (19:17; see the Notes section for additional comments about the Septuagint rendering.)

Youths or “young children” were expected to respect their elders, but they “rejected” or despised Job. Whenever he stood up, they spoke against him. (19:18; see the Notes section regarding the Septuagint rendering.)

Job’s closest confidants (“men of his intimate group” [“the ones knowing (him)” (LXX)]) abhorred him. Persons whom he loved turned against him. Not a single one of his friends stood by him. All forsook him like a man to be shunned. (19:19)

Job’s “bone” clung to his “skin” and a thin layer of “flesh.” This suggests that all his bones had become visible, with virtually only the skin covering them. The Septuagint represents Job as saying that his “flesh” decayed in or under his “skin.” (19:20)

The expression about escaping with the “skin of one’s teeth” has come to be understood as meaning barely escaping with one’s life. It is not likely, however, that this is the significance of the Hebrew words. They appear to describe how Job perceived his physical condition. Perhaps the thought is that he saw himself as a man who, in his diseased state, had been left as mere skin and bones, with even his teeth being visible through his skin. The Septuagint rendering is, “But my bones are held in the teeth.” Although obscure, this Greek rendering indicates that the translator did not understand the Hebrew text to relate to a narrow escape. (19:20)

Directing his words to Eliphaz, Bildad, and Zophar, Job pleaded, “Have compassion for me, have compassion for me, O you my companions (friends [LXX]), for God’s hand has touched me.” He believed that God (the Lord [LXX]) had used his “hand” or power against him to afflict him, and so his companions should have looked upon him as an object of pity. (19:21)

Job had concluded that God afflicted him. Therefore, when he directed his attention to Eliphaz, Bildad, and Zophar, he raised the rhetorical question, “Why do you pursue,” persecute, or torment “me like God [the Lord (LXX)] does?” With their hurtful words and misrepresentations, they had torn into Job’s “flesh.” So his question was whether this did not satisfy them and prompt them to change their attitude toward him. (19:22)

Eliphaz, Bildad, and Zophar completely discounted everything that Job had said. This may be his major reason for desiring that his words would be committed to writing (forever [“into to the age”], LXX), inscribed in a scroll. If the reference is to a metal scroll, the Hebrew word for “inscribed” (chaqáq [“cut in”]) would be especially appropriate. (19:23; see the Notes section.)

Job wished that a permanent record would be made of his words, being inscribed with an “iron stylus and lead,” hewn into rock for all time to come. This could mean that, with an iron stylus, the impressions would be made in rock and then filled in with lead. (19:24; see the Notes section.)

Job was certain that he was innocent and, therefore, believed that he would be vindicated. This appears to be reflected in his words, “And I know my redeemer” or repurchaser (one who would see to his vindication) “lives.” According to the Septuagint, Job knew that this one “is eternal,” indicating that he believed that the eternal God would effect his release or liberate him “upon the earth.” The Hebrew text (“and coming after me, he will arise upon the dust”) could suggest that, although Job would die and return to the dust, his redeemer or repurchaser would there “arise upon the dust” and vindicate him. (19:25)

Job is quoted as saying, “And after my skin, which they have struck off — this: And from my flesh, I will see God.” Perhaps the reference is to the ravages of the affliction that destroyed Job’s skin. Nevertheless, he appears to have been so sure of his future vindication as a man who had lived uprightly that he spoke of seeing God, apparently in the role of his vindicator, and this would be certain even “from” or apart from his “flesh or without his physical organism remaining. (19:26; see the Notes section regarding the Septuagint rendering.)

Job is represented as confidently expressing his hope of seeing God, apparently in the role of his vindicator. Whereas “another” or no stranger would see God, Job would. His own eyes would see him. Within Job, his “kidneys” or his deepest emotions, had failed. This could indicate that, as he longed for the time when he would “see” God, he was completely drained emotionally. (19:27; see the Notes section regarding the Septuagint rendering.)

Job’s words to Eliphaz, Bildad, and Zophar may be rendered as a question, “How do we pursue” or persecute “him?” His answer was that, according to them, he himself was to blame, “the root of the matter being found in me.” (19:28; see the Notes section regarding the Septuagint rendering.)

Eliphaz, Bildad, and Zophar had falsely accused Job of being a wrongdoer whom God was punishing for his serious transgressions. He, therefore, warned them that their attacks against him would lead to punitive judgment. He represented this judgment as a “sword,” telling them that they should be in fear for themselves on account of the sword, for “wrath” would come upon “iniquities” calling for the “sword.” Eliphaz, Bildad, and Zophar would then know that there is judgment (shaddín). (19:29; see the Notes section.)

Notes

In verse 4, the Septuagint adds Job’s acknowledgment about speaking a “word” that is “unnecessary” or inappropriate. Then follows the phrase, “and my words stray and are not [spoken] at the [right] time.”

Verse 7 in the Septuagint does not mention violence. It quotes Job as saying, “I laugh at reproach, and I will not speak.” This could mean that Job ignored the reproach and remained silent.

The thought expressed in verse 12 of the Septuagint rendering depends on the meaning of the word peiratérion, which commonly designates a “trial” or “test.” It has also been understood to apply to a “marauder band.” Accordingly, either God’s “trials” or “marauder bands” had come together against Job “in [his] ways.” They surrounded him, “lying in wait.” It is possible that the phrase “in my ways” is to be linked to Job’s being surrounded in his ways or in every course that he chose to follow.

In verse 17, the Septuagint says that Job “entreated” his wife “and, flattering, summoned the sons of [his] concubines.”

Verse 18 in the Septuagint does not mention youths or young children. It may be understood to say that both Job’s wife and the sons of his concubines always (literally, “into the age” or forever) rejected him.

In verse 23, the Septuagint rendering expresses Job’s desire to have his words written as a question concerning who would do so.

In the third century CE, Origen did not find the initial phrase of verse 24 (“with an iron and lead stylus”) in the Septuagint available to him. He added it from the version of Theodotion and marked the addition accordingly. In the Septuagint, the concluding phrase is, “or be engraved in rocks.”

The Septuagint rendering of verse 26 seems to express Job’s hope of future restoration. With reference to what God would do, Job is quoted as saying, “to raise up my skin, [which] endured these things.” The text then continues, “For from the Lord, these things have been accomplished on me.” “These things” could designate all the developments that had affected Job.

Verse 27 of the Septuagint continues the thought about “these things” that were mentioned in the previous verse. They are things of which Job was aware in himself, which his “eye had seen and not another” eye, and all that had been completed for him in his “bosom.”

In the Septuagint the thought of verse 28 differs somewhat from the extant Hebrew text. “But even if you say, What shall we say before him?” The next phrase was not found in the Septuagint text available to Origen in the third century CE. He marked the words that he added from the version of Theodotion (“and the root of the matter we will find in him”).

In verse 29, there is a measure of uncertainty about the significance of the Hebrew expression shaddín. Renderings such as “judgment” or “judge” have the support of the Targum and the Vulgate (iudicium [“judgment”]). The Septuagint uses the word hýle (“matter” or “substance”).

According to the Septuagint rendering of verse 29, Job cautioned Eliphaz, Bildad, and Zophar about resorting to a “cover-up” or a concealment of the truth. He warned them, “For anger will come upon lawless ones, and then they will know where their matter,” substance, or basis “is.” The implication is that divine anger would be expressed against them. What they regarded as having substance would then be exposed as not having any basis.

Job 20:1-29

“Zophar the Naamathite” responded to what Job had said. In the Septuagint, Zophar is called the “Minaean.” The Minaeans were an Arab people who may have been descendants of Abraham by his concubine Keturah. (20:1)

The comments of Job caused Zophar to be greatly troubled. He is quoted as telling Job, “Therefore, my thoughts answer me and [that] on account of my hastening within me.” The “hastening” may relate to an internal upheaval or agitation that prompted the thoughts that Zophar expressed when responding to Job. Renderings in modern translations convey a variety of meanings. “My troubled thoughts prompt me to answer because I am greatly disturbed.” (NIV) “My thoughts urge me to answer, because of the agitation within me.” (NRSV) “My thoughts urge me to reply to this, and hence the impatience that grips me.” (NJB) “My distress of mind forces me to reply, and this is why I hasten to speak.” (REB) The Septuagint rendering represents Zophar as saying that he did not think Job would counter things said to him in the manner he did. He is then quoted as using the second person plural when saying, “And you understand also no more than I.” It would appear that the primary reference is to Job, with the plural including others like him. (20:2)

Zophar referred to the words of Job as “discipline of my insult,” meaning “discipline” or “correction” that he considered to be insulting to him. The words that follow (“and a spirit from my understanding answers me”) may indicate that Zophar believed that the words with which he intended to answer Job had come to him by inspiration or from a spiritual source. Translations vary in their interpretive renderings. “A spirit beyond my understanding answers me.” (NRSV) “My understanding inspires me to reply.” (NIV) “A spirit beyond my understanding gives me the answers.” (REB) “Now my mind inspires me with an answer.” (NJB) (20:3; see the Notes section.)

In his reply to Job, Zophar appealed to what he regarded as having been known from ancient times. He indicated that Job should have known what he was about to relate — words he considered as being true and applying since man was placed “upon the earth.” (20:4; see the Notes section.)

Like Eliphaz and Bildad, Zophar believed that the calamities that befell humans were punishment for wrongdoing. Therefore, he maintained that the “exultation of the wicked [is] brief, and the joy of the godless one but for a moment.” Whatever joy the corrupt person may have was certain to come to a swift end. With these words, Zophar implied that this is what happened to Job, for he lost everything and had been gravely afflicted. According to the Septuagint, the “rejoicing of the impious ones [is] an extraordinary downfall, and the joy of the lawless ones [is] destruction.” Their rejoicing or joy end in calamity. (20:5)

Zophar commented regarding the exalted position a corrupt man might attain. This one’s loftiness or excellency (si’) might “mount up to the heavens, and his head” might “reach to the clouds.” According to the Septuagint, the reference is to the offerings a godless man might make, with the possibility of his “gifts” ascending to heaven and his “sacrifice” touching the clouds. (20:6; see the Notes section.)

Despite the dignified standing, the lawless man may come to have, Zophar said that he would perish forever “like his own excrement.” The Septuagint indicates that he would be utterly destroyed just when it seemed he was firmly established. Persons who had formerly seen him would then ask, “Where is he?” (20:7)

Zophar likened the end of the wicked man to a dream that is quickly forgotten. “Like a dream, he will fly away, and they will not find him.” The corrupt man would vanish from the earthly scene, being no more remembered than is a dream. In the Septuagint, the reality that the impious man will not be found is expressed emphatically with two words for “not,” and the complete phrase may be translated, “will by no means be found.” “He will be chased away,” or banished from remembrance, “like a vision of the night.” The Septuagint says that “he has flown away like a nocturnal apparition.” (20:8)

Zophar believed that the godless man would, in the end, completely vanish. An “eye that saw him” would no longer see him, and “his place,” where he carried out his activities, would see him no more. In the third century CE, Origen did not find the words of this verse in the Septuagint available to him. He added them from the version of Theodotion and marked the addition accordingly. The added words convey the basic meaning of the extant Hebrew text. “An eye observed and will not continue” to do so, “and his place will notice him no longer.” (20:9)

Even the “sons” or children of the godless man would suffer. According to Zophar, they would be reduced to such a low state that they would seek the favor of the poor. As far as the lawless man was concerned, he would have to give up what he accumulated. “His hands will return his wealth.” The Septuagint rendering departs from the reading of the extant Hebrew text. It says, “May inferiors destroy his sons, but may his hands kindle miseries.” (20:10)

Zophar believed that a premature death could be one of the punitive judgments a lawless man might experience. “His bones,” or his physical frame, may still have the strength of youth, “but with him it will lie down in the dust,” the dust of his burial place. (20:11; see the Notes section.)

Zophar described the effect the practice of wrongdoing has on the godless man. “In his mouth,” wickedness might have a “sweet taste,”and he might “hide it under his tongue,” savoring it. (20:12; see the Notes section.)

Zophar continued the description of the lawless one’s attachment to wickedness. He might “have compassion” for it, treating it as something dear to him. The godless man does not let wickedness go but “holds it” or savors it in “his mouth.” (20:13)

In the third century CE, Origen added the words of this verse from the version of Theodotion, for they were not contained in the Septuagint available to him. According to the Greek text that Origen marked as having been added, the godless man will neither spare nor leave evil behind. He “will hold it in the midst of his throat.” (20:13)

Zophar’s description suggests that the practice of wrongdoing was like sweet-tasting food to a lawless man. “In his stomach,” however, “his food is turned to the “gall of serpents,” possibly the venom of cobras. (20:14; see the Notes section.)

Zophar indicated that the lawless man would not be able to retain the riches he had accumulated. He “has swallowed wealth,” but he “will vomit it up.” “God will cast it out of his belly.” The Septuagint rendering differs from the extant Hebrew text. It says that unjustly gathered wealth “will be vomited out.” A “messenger” or an angel “will drag it out” from the house of the godless man. (20:15)

According to Zophar, a corrupt man “will suck” the venom of serpents (“wrath of dragons” [LXX]), possibly meaning the “venom of cobras.” “May the tongue of the viper kill him.” (20:16; see the Notes section.)

Zophar indicated that the lawless man would “not look upon rivers, streams of torrents of honey and curds.” “Rivers” and “streams” are expressions that suggest abundance. The godless man would be deprived of having an abundant supply of honey and curdled milk, as if these provisions had dried up like a stream during the dry season. In the Septuagint, the reference is to his not seeing “milk of pastures nor pastures [or supplies] of honey and butter.” (20:17)

Zophar represented the godless man as deriving no benefit from his labors. The gain from his work he would have to give back. It would be like “food” that he would not be able to swallow for nourishment. From the “strength,” or the derived profit, of engaging in trade, the lawless man would not get any enjoyment. According to the Septuagint, his toiling for wealth would be to no purpose and in vain. He would “taste” nothing from it. There would be nothing of gain for him. What there would be for him is described as “tough,” “unchewable,” and something that cannot be swallowed. (20:18)

Regarding the reason for the punitive judgment to come upon the lawless man, Zophar spoke of him as crushing and abandoning the poor, oppressing them and leaving them without anything. The Septuagint refers to him as crushing the “houses of many powerless ones” or the lowly ones who had no one to help them. This suggests that he destroyed their humble dwellings and then made use of the land for his own purpose. Either through fraudulent or violent means, the impious man would seize a house that he himself had not built. (20:19)

That the godless man would not know “ease” or quietness in his belly could indicate that his greed would never leave him satisfied. He always would be consumed with the desire to acquire more by whatever means possible. His “delights” or desirable things could designate all that he acquired but which, in the end, would not enable him to “slip away” or escape calamity. The Hebrew text is somewhat obscure, and this accounts for various interpretive renderings. “They knew no quiet in their bellies; in their greed they let nothing escape.” (NRSV) “Surely he will have no respite from his craving; he cannot save himself by his treasure.” (NIV) “Since his avarice could never be satisfied, now all his hoarding will not save him.” (NJB) “Because his appetite gave him no rest, he let nothing he craved escape him.” (REB) (20:20; see the Notes section regarding the Septuagint rendering.)

After the corrupt man had “eaten” or consumed what he had seized, there would be nothing left. His ravages would leave only devastation. Therefore, his goods or his prosperity would not “be firm” or last. According to the Septuagint rendering, “his goods will not flourish.” (20:21; see the Notes section.)

“In the fullness of his sufficiency,” or at the time the godless man had attained the peak of his prosperity (“but when he would suppose already to be filled” or “satisfied” [LXX]), he would come to be in distress (“will be afflicted” [LXX]). “All the force” (literally, “hand”) of misery, or the force that a “sufferer” experiences (“every distress” [LXX]), would come upon him. (20:22)

Zophar appears to have referred to what God will do to the corrupt man when his “belly” has been filled or when he is enjoying prosperity. God will then “send into him his burning” or fierce “anger,” causing it to come upon him like “rain” or a downpour “into his bowels.” (20:23; see the Notes section.)

When referring to what awaited the godless man, Zophar indicated that something worse would befall him upon his taking flight from danger. “He will flee from a weapon of iron.” A “copper” or “bronze bow will pass through him.” The “copper bow” may designate a wooden bow that was mounted with copper or bronze. It would be the arrow from this bow that would strike the wicked man. The Septuagint says that he will “by no means” be delivered from the “hand” or power “of iron” (an iron weapon). It concludes with the words, “May a copper” or “bronze bow wound him.” (20:24; see the Notes section.)

The extant Hebrew text does not identify what is “drawn out” and “comes out” from the back of the corrupt man. Based on the rendering of the Septuagint, the reference is to an “arrow.” “May an arrow pass through his body.” “Lightning” coming out of “his gall” could indicate that a gleaming arrowhead would penetrate his gallbladder. The Septuagint says, “May lightnings go about in his habitations.” The concluding phrase of the Hebrew text is, “Upon him [be] terrors.” These words were not found in the Septuagint available to Origen in the third century CE, but he added them from the version of Theodotion and marked the addition accordingly. (20:25)

“All” or complete “darkness” is “hidden” for the “treasures” of the corrupt man. This suggests that his riches would be lost to him as if swallowed up by the darkness that had been reserved for them (as if this future darkness had been concealed while the treasures were being accumulated). The Septuagint rendering is, “But may all” or complete “darkness await him.” (20:26)

“Fire” that is “not blown upon will devour” the godless man, “will consume what remains in his tent” or his dwelling. This would leave no one and no item behind of all that had belonged to him. In being described as “fire” that is “not blown upon,” it could apply to a thunderbolt. The Septuagint rendering differs somewhat from the extant Hebrew text. “Unquenchable fire will devour him. May a foreigner do evil to his house,” depriving him of everything that had belonged to him. (20:26)

According to Zophar, heaven and earth would bear witness against the lawless man, exposing his wrongdoing. The “heavens will reveal his iniquity, and the earth will rise up against him.” (20:27)

The extant Hebrew text indicates that the “increase” of the godless man’s “house will roll away” or “depart.” This could mean that all the possessions he had obtained would be lost to him. A number of translations, however, do not render the verse according to the vowel pointing of the Masoretic Text. Instead of using a word for “increase,” “produce,” “yield,” or “possessions,” they have chosen the term “flood.” “A flood will carry off his house, rushing waters on the day of God’s wrath.” (NIV) “The flood shall sweep away his house with the waters that run off in the day of God’s anger.” (NAB) The Septuagint provides a measure of support for a rendering that points to the destruction of the house as by a flood. “May destruction pull his house to [its] end.” In the Hebrew text, the concluding phrase is, “flowing away in the day of his wrath.” Translators often have been specific in identifying this to be the wrath of God. (20:28)

Zophar concluded that the calamities to which he had referred were the “portion of a “wicked man” or an “impious man” (LXX) “from God” (the “Lord” [LXX]) and the inheritance of his word from God.” This “inheritance” may be understood to be the appointed allotment that God had decreed for the corrupt man. As the “word” that expressed what this “inheritance” would be for the lawless one, it is called “his word.” The Septuagint refers to this inheritance as the “possession” appointed “to him” from the “overseer” — from God the one who would be watching him. By his words, Zophar implied that what had befallen Job was God’s judgment against an impious man. (20:29)

Notes

Origen, in the third century CE, used the words from the version of Theodotion for the phrases in verse 3. This is because he did not find them in the text of the Septuagint available to him. The text reads, “I will hear discipline of my shame” (instruction or correction that is intended to shame me), and a spirit from understanding answers me.” This could mean that Zophar here designated the words of Job as being far from a “spirit of understanding” or insight. Another possible significance could be that a spirit from Zophar’s understanding prompted him to answer.

The initial phrase of verse 4 was not found in the Septuagint available to Origen in the third century CE. He added it from the version of Theodotion and marked it accordingly. With the supplied words, the Greek text may be rendered, “Have you not known these things from before now — not since man was placed upon the earth?”

There is uncertainty about the significance of the Hebrew word si’ (verse 6). Suggested meanings include “loftiness,” “excellency,” and “pride.”

In the third century CE, Origen did not find the words of verse 11 in the Septuagint available to him. He added them from the version of Theodotion and marked the addition accordingly. The added text reads, “His bones were filled with [the strength of] youth, and it will lie down with him upon a burial mound.”

Origen did not find the words of verse 12 in the Septuagint available to him in the third century CE. He used the text from the version of Theodotion and marked the addition accordingly. This Greek rendering is basically the same as the extant Hebrew text.

In verse 14, the Septuagint rendering departs significantly from the reading of the extant Hebrew text. Regarding the godless man, it says that he “will by no means be able to help himself.” The rendering “by no means” conveys the emphatic sense that is expressed with two Greek words for “not.” The concluding phrase of verse 14 was not found in the Septuagint available to Origen in the third century CE. He marked the words as having been added from the version of Theodotion (“gall of an asp in his belly” or “stomach”). The added words, however, do not logically follow the initial phrase of the Septuagint text.

Verse 16 illustrates that caution is in order when quoting from the book of Job. The speeches of Job, Eliphaz, Bildad, Zophar, and Elihu were not divinely inspired. Therefore, one should not read into the poetic language an understanding of the natural world that far transcended the knowledge of the ancients. Instead, one should expect to find expressions that reflect erroneous views regarding the natural world. Verse 16 is a case in point. The venom of a serpent is not injected into its prey through the tongue but through the fangs.

The initial phrase of verse 20 in the Septuagint could be understood to indicate that, for the godless man, there was no deliverance or security from possessions. Origen, in the third century CE, used the version of Theodotion for the concluding part of the verse and marked the added words accordingly. This part was not found in the Septuagint available to him. It reads, “In his desire, he will not escape” or he will not be delivered.

The opening phrase of verse 21 was not found in the Septuagint available to Origen in the third century CE. He marked it has having been added from the version of Theodotion. The added phrase may be translated, “There is nothing remaining of his food” or “provisions.”

In verse 23, the thought about filling “his belly” was not found in the Septuagint available to Origen in the third century CE. He added it from the version of Theodotion (“if by some means he would fill his belly”) and marked the addition accordingly. The Septuagint text that follows may be rendered, “May he [God] send upon him the fury of wrath. May he pour pains upon him.”

In verse 24, the rendering “by no means” preserves the emphatic sense of two Greek words for “not.”

Job 21:1-34

Job replied to the words of Zophar. As in the case of his previous responses, he also included Eliphaz and Bildad in his comments. (21:1)

“Listen, listen to my words,” Job said to Eliphaz, Bildad, and Zophar, “and let this be your consolations.” The repetition of verb forms for “listen” constituted Job’s request for the three men to listen attentively. That was the only consolation or comfort that he asked them to express toward him. The Septuagint words the thought differently. “Listen, listen, to my words, that this consolation [will] not [be] for me from you.” This rendering suggests that Job wanted his three companions to listen attentively to him so that they would stop their hurtful talk which they considered to be consolation for Job. (21:2)

Job asked his companions to “bear” with him, allowing him to speak. Then, after he had finished talking, the one whom Job specifically addressed could “mock on.” In the Hebrew text, the verb for “mock on” is singular and so may be understood as directed to Zophar who had been the last one of the three men to speak. In the Septuagint, however, Job is represented as directing his words to all three men. “Lift me up,” or bear with me, “and I will speak. Then you will not laugh me to scorn.” (21:3)

The implied answer to Job’s rhetorical question would be that his “complaint” (“refutation” or “argument” [LXX]) had not been directed to a man, an earthling, or a mortal, but to God. In view of the calamities that had befallen him and the suffering to which he had been subjected, Job asked, “Why should not my spirit” (or temper) “be short?” (“Why should I not be angry?” [LXX]) (21:4)

Job asked Eliphaz, Bildad, and Zophar to look at him or to take notice of him in his afflicted state. Their doing so should have caused them to be appalled or horrified. The act of putting the hand on the mouth would have been an expression of astonishment and fright. It would not have been a time for opening the mouth to speak. Job’s imperative to put the hand on the mouth is expressed with a singular verb and could be understood to apply to Zophar as the one who had spoken last or could have been directed to all of them individually. In the Septuagint, the verb for “lay” is a plural participle, and the entire phrase may be translated, “laying the hand on the cheek” (not “mouth” as in the extant Hebrew text). (21:5)

When Job remembered or thought about the condition in which he found himself, he was terrified. Shuddering took hold of his “flesh” or his entire body. The Septuagint refers to “pains” as taking hold of his “flesh.” (21:6)

Eliphaz, Bildad, and Zophar had insisted that the wicked are consistently the ones who suffer, but Job had seen repeated evidence to the contrary. Therefore, he raised the rhetorical question, “Why do the wicked [impious (LXX)] live” (not dying prematurely in expression of God’s punitive judgment)? They attain old age and end up being mighty in power or prominent and influential. According to the rendering of the Septuagint, “they become old, even in wealth.” (21:7)

Among the wicked or impious, Job had observed that their children were “established” or settled securely in their presence, and “their offspring before their eyes.” They had not lost their sons and daughters like Job had. (21:8; see the Notes section regarding the Septuagint rendering.)

Job had noticed that, among the wicked or impious, “their houses” were “safe from fear” or secure. According to the Septuagint, their houses prospered, and there was no fear anywhere. No “rod” (“whip” or “scourge”) of punishment from God had come upon them. (21:9)

Job observed that the corrupt man did well in raising livestock. His bull consistently sired, and his cow calved without experiencing loss. The Septuagint rendering indicates that the bovine did not miscarry and that the pregnant cow came through safely or well and did not “stumble” or end up with a mishap. (21:10)

Anciently, a man’s fathering many children was considered to be very desirable. Job referred to godless ones as sending forth their little ones “like a flock” or in great number. Their children danced, suggesting that they were well and happy. According to the Septuagint, impious ones were like sheep that did not age, and their children were playing before them. (21:11)

Godless ones or their children enjoyed themselves in singing to the accompaniment of tambourine and harp (stringed instrument and kithara [LXX]). They responded with rejoicing to the “sound of the pipe” or flute (psalms or songs [LXX]). (21:12)

Job observed that, even in their death, wicked ones did not suffer. They wore out or passed “their days with good” or in prosperity. As expressed in the Septuagint, they finished their life with good things. “In a moment,” they went down to Sheol, dying peacefully without suffering an extended period of painful illness. The Septuagint refers to them as falling asleep in the “rest of Hades,” that is, in a peaceful rest in the realm of the dead. (21:13)

Job noticed that the impious had no regard for God. In attitude, they said to the Almighty, “Depart from us, and we do not desire knowledge of your ways.” They wanted to be as distant as possible from God and did not want to know the ways that he approved, as they had no desire to follow them. (21:14; see the Notes section.)

Wicked ones felt that there was nothing to be gained from a relationship with God. Job represented them as saying, “What is the Almighty, that we should serve him? And what benefit do we get if we encounter him [with a request]?” In their estimation, they were better off without God. (21:15; see the Notes section.)

Even though Job had observed wicked ones prospering, he appears to have recognized that their “good things” were “not in their hand” or under their complete control. The thought could be that they prospered because God permitted it. As far as Job was concerned, he shunned the ways of the godless ones. Their “counsel,” purpose, or objective was far from him, totally contrary to the manner in which he chose to live his life. (21:16)

In the Septuagint, the wording differs from the extant Hebrew text. It says that the “good things” of the impious ones “were in their hands,” suggesting that they had control of their possessions. With reference to God, Job is quoted as saying, “He does not look upon the works of the impious ones,” giving no favorable attention to any of their activities or achievements. (21:16)

Although Job did not follow the ways of the wicked ones, he still recognized the reality that they often did not experience punitive judgment for their wrongdoing. He asked rhetorically, “How often is the lamp of the wicked extinguished and their calamity comes upon them?” The implication is that there are many occasions when the bright prospects and joy of the wicked do not end as when darkness or gloom replaces the light of a lamp that has been extinguished. They often escape calamity. The Hebrew text concludes with the implied thought that God does not in every case distribute “pains” to the wicked “in his anger.” (21:17; see the Notes section.)

Job continued rhetorically to make the point about the wicked continuing to prosper. He raised the question about how often the wicked are “like straw before wind” and “like chaff a storm carries away,” coming to their end like mere refuse. (21:18; see the Notes section.)

If the wicked personally do not experience punitive judgment during their lifetime, the claim might be that “God stores up” the unrequited iniquity of the wicked man “for his sons” or children. Job countered with the thought that the wicked man should be punished for his own wrongdoing. God should recompense it to him so that “he may know” or personally experience the punitive judgment. (21:19; see the Notes section.)

Job believed that the wicked one should be punished for his own vile deeds. “Let his eyes see his ruin [slaughter (LXX)], and let him drink of” or experience “the wrath of the Almighty.” The Septuagint concludes with the words, “And from the Lord, may he not escape,” indicating that he should not be delivered from having the divine punishment administered to him. (21:20)

For his offspring to suffer punishment would have no effect on the deceased wicked man. Job expressed this with the words, “For what does he care for his house” or household “after him, and the number of months is cut off?” He would have no awareness of any member of his household after he has died, and the number of the months of his allotted life has ended. (21:21; see the Notes section.)

Perhaps the thought that underlies the rhetorical question about teaching God knowledge is that this is what Eliphaz, Bildad, and Zophar tried to do. They considered calamities and suffering to be the divine punishment for wrongdoing, insisting that this is the way God governed the affairs of humans. In effect, they taught God that this is what they expected from him. Job’s rhetorical question did not agree with this kind of teaching. “Will anyone teach knowledge to God, and he [is the one who] judges high ones?” With God being the judge even of those occupying the most exalted position, anyone who presumed to teach knowledge to God would be presumptuous. (21:22; see the Notes section.)

Job observed that life could turn out altogether differently for one individual than for another. At the time of death, one person may still be “in his full strength” (literally, “in his full bone,” meaning either without serious illness and infirmity or in a prosperous state of well-being), “all of it at ease and in quiet,” at peace, or secure. This could denote that the person had enjoyed prosperity and good health throughout life. (21:23; see the Notes section.)

The initial phrase of verse 24 describes the man who prospered during his lifetime in terms that are of uncertain meaning. This accounts for a variety of renderings. “His pails are full of milk” (Tanakh [JPS, 1985 edition]) “His loins full of milk.” (NRSV) “His loins full of vigor.” (REB) “[His] thighs padded with fat.” (NJB) “His figure is full and nourished.” (NAB) The Septuagint refers to “his inwards” as being “full of fat.” Regarding the “marrow of his bones,” the Hebrew text says that it is “watered” or moist, and the corresponding word in the Septuagint may be rendered “diffused.” The basic thought of the verse appears to be that the man was not emaciated or decrepit but vigorous. (21:24)

Another man dies “bitter” with reference to his “soul” or as a person whose life was filled with hardships and suffering. He was a man who never ate, tasted, or experienced a “good thing.” (21:25)

Although the lives of people may prove to be different, death is the eventuality all of them face. Job is quoted as saying, “Together they will go down in the dust, and worms” or maggots (“decay” [LXX]) “will cover them,” feeding on their decaying corpses. (21:26)

Job understood the arguments of Eliphaz, Bildad, and Zophar. They had accused him of serious wrongdoing, indicated that his calamities and suffering were the deserved punishment from God for his transgressions, and called upon him to change his ways. They, however, were wrong, and Job told them, “I know,” or understand, “your thoughts and the schemes” or means by which “you do violence against me.” They acted violently against him when they, without any proof, accused him of being a corrupt man. The Septuagint rendering indicates that Job knew them and that they were daring, reckless, or bold in their attack against him. (21:27)

Job expressed the basic contention of Eliphaz, Bildad, and Zophar by means of a question, telling them, “For you say, Where [is] the house of the noble, and where [is] the tent — the habitations of the wicked?” The implication was that their dwelling places had ceased to exist because of their evil conduct and vile practices. Therefore, in the view of the three men, the losses and suffering Job had experienced established his guilt, for he would still have been in possession of everything if he had been guiltless. (21:28; see the Notes section.)

Job indicated that those who traveled were aware that the conclusions of Eliphaz, Bildad, and Zophar were wrong. He did so by raising the question about whether they had not asked those traveling on the roads and whether they did not acknowledge the “signs” or proofs to which these travelers could point. The Greek text of Theodotion represents Job as telling Eliphaz, Bildad, and Zophar not to treat the “signs” as foreign or to discount them. (21:29)

Based on their observations, travelers knew that a wicked man could end up being spared “in the day of calamity,” and the wicked could escape the “day of wrath” or the time when disaster struck.(21:30)

Job implied that no one even tells the wicked one “to his face” about “his way,” exposing it as evil and reproving him. No one repays him for what he has done. (21:31)

The wicked one’s corpse is carried to the grave, indicating that he is given an honorable burial. “Watch is kept over his tomb.” Even his dead body appears to be represented as being secure. (21:32)

With a wicked man being buried in a valley or a ravine, the clods of the valley at the burial site would be “sweet” or pleasant to him. The reference to “all men” following after him and to a countless multitude “before him” could apply to the many in the funeral procession. It is also possible that those following after him are persons who imitate his corrupt way of life, whereas the countless multitude “before him” could be the many from past generations who lived godless lives. (21:33)

The evidence that wicked ones often escape punitive judgment proved that the arguments of Eliphaz, Bildad, and Zophar were wrong. Therefore, Job could say that they offered comfort vainly, expressing nothing that consoled him in his afflicted state. Their replies to him “remained unfaithfulness,” for their comments were untrustworthy and treacherous. The concluding words of the Septuagint could be understood to indicate that Job had no rest from the three men. In view of their repeated attacks, this would certainly have been the case. (21:34)

Notes

In verse 8, the initial phrase of the Septuagint says, “Their sowing according to the soul.” This “sowing” could designate their seed or offspring, and could indicate that their offspring flourished just as the impious ones desired.

In verse 14, the Septuagint conveys the same thought as does the extant Hebrew text. The exception is that the impious one (singular) is represented as making the expression. In the Hebrew text, the words are the sentiments of the wicked ones (plural).
.
The words of verse 15 were not found in the Septuagint available to Origen in the third century CE. He marked them as having been added from the version of Theodotion. The Greek rendering is, “What is the Self-sufficient One, that we should serve him? And what benefit [is it], that we should encounter him [with a request]?”

In verse 17, the Septuagint rendering is in agreement with the words of Bildad. (18:6) “The lamp of the impious ones will be extinguished, and the overthrow will come upon them, and pains will seize them on account of anger.” The reference to “anger” could mean that God’s wrath would be directed against them, causing them to experience pains or suffering. According to the Hebrew text, Job disagreed with the words of Bildad. He observed that the wicked continued to prosper as if light from a lamp was shining for them, dispelling darkness or gloom in their lives.

The Septuagint rendering of verse 18 indicates that the godless ones “will be like chaff before wind or like dust that a whirlwind has taken away.”

The initial wording of verse 19 in the Septuagint differs from the extant Hebrew text. “May his possessions desert [his] sons.” The possessions of the godless one would be lost to his children. Origen, in the third century CE, marked the concluding phrase of verse 19 as having been added from the version of Theodotion. “He [God] will repay him, and he [the godless one] will know” or experience the recompense. These words were not found in the Septuagint available to Origen.

Origen, in the third century CE, did not find the words in verse 21 in the Septuagint available to him. He marked them as having been added from the version of Theodotion. The Greek text is, “For what is his desire in his house” or household “after him?” “And the numbers of his months have been allotted to him.” A dead man has no desire or will respecting his house or the members of his household. No months of his life are left remaining.

In verse 22, the Septuagint rendering represents God as the one doing the teaching. “Is it not the Lord who teaches insight and understanding? And he will judge murders [acts of murder or massacre].” The Hebrew participle for “high ones” begins with the letter resh (R), and the word meaning “murders” or “acts of murder” starts with the letter daleth (D). These two letters are easily confused, and this probably accounts for the rendering “murders” in the Septuagint.

In the third century CE, Origen did not find the words of verse 23 in the Septuagint available to him. He marked them as having been added from the version of Theodotion. The added Greek text reads, “This one shall die in the strength of his simplicity, and completely comfortable and prosperous.”

The words of the entire section from verse 28 through verse 33 were missing in the Septuagint available to Origen in the third century CE. He marked them as having been added from the version of Theodotion. The added Greek text reads much like the extant Hebrew text.

Job 22:1-30

Eliphaz the Temanite (Thaimanite [LXX]) responded to Job. His being called the “Timanite” provides a basis for considering him to be a descendant of Esau, the twin brother of Jacob. (Genesis 36:10, 11) An epilogue in the Septuagint is specific in identifying him as being of the “sons of Esau.” (22:1; 42:17e)

Eliphaz implied that God had nothing to gain from his dealings with Job or anyone else, ruling out any partiality in his treatment of individuals and indicating that nothing would interfere with his meting out just punishment. This implication took the form of a rhetorical question, “Can a man benefit God?” The answer is, No. Humans can do absolutely nothing for God. (22:2)

The concluding phrase could be understood to mean that a man in possession of wisdom or insight could benefit himself but not the Almighty. This significance is conveyed in a number of translations. “Can a human being contribute anything to God, when even someone intelligent can benefit only himself?” (NJB) “Though to himself a wise man be profitable!” (NAB) The extant Hebrew text has also been translated to indicate that a wise man would not benefit or be of use to God. “Can even a wise man benefit him?” (NIV) “Can he benefit even from the wise?” (REB) “Can even the wisest be of service to him?” (NRSV) The rendering of the Septuagint departs significantly from the reading of the extant Hebrew text. “Is it not the Lord who teaches insight and understanding?” (22:2; see the Notes section.)

In the view of Eliphaz, the Almighty would not have any particular delight if Job were righteous nor would there be any gain for him if Job made his ways complete, sound, or blameless. Whatever Job did or did not do would not result in anything being given to God. In the Septuagint, the thought is expressed similarly. “For what does it matter to the Lord if you were blameless in works?” The concluding phrase was not found in the Septuagint available to Origen in the third century CE. He marked the following words as added from the version of Theodotion, “Or [what] benefit that you make your way simple [or sincere]?” (22:3)

Eliphaz asked whether God reproved Job for his “fear” or his reverential regard for him, entering into judgment with him. The Septuagint rendering is, “Or taking account of you, will he reprove you, and will he enter into judgment with you?” The implied answer to the question in the Hebrew text would be that God’s reproof of Job and his entering into judgment with him would not be because he feared him or had a reverential regard for him. Eliphaz did not believe that Job feared God. The implied answer to the question in the Septuagint could be that, after taking account of Job, God would reprove him and judge him. Another possible meaning would be that there was no arrangement for Job to appear with God for judgment or for a trial, and God would not then make an accounting of Job or present his case regarding him. (22:4)

Although without proof that Job had committed serious transgressions, Eliphaz did not hold back from making accusations that he regarded as meriting God’s punitive judgment. He rhetorically asked Job, Is “not your evil great [abundant (LXX)]?” Then Eliphaz made the unsubstantiated claim that there was “no end” to Job’s “iniquities.” According to the Septuagint, he asked, “And are not your sins innumerable?” (22:5)

Eliphaz accused Job of taking pledges from his “brothers” or fellows for nothing, without cause, or when he had no justification for it. He spoke of Job as having stripped “garments of naked ones,” seizing what amounted to the last garment these poor and barely clothed people had. (22:6)

Eliphaz portrayed Job as a man without compassion, a man who refused to give a drink of water to the exhausted one and “bread” or food to the hungry person. (22:7)

According to the Hebrew text, “the land” is linked to an “arm” or power. This appears to be the way in which Eliphaz alluded to Job as a man who used his power to seize the land of others. He also referred to one whose “face” had been “lifted up” or one who had been shown partiality as a person entitled to reside in the land. This suggests that Eliphaz believed Job had no right to the land that had formerly been under his control or thought Job had no regard for the rightful ownership of others to the land. Translations vary in their interpretive renderings of the Hebrew text. “As if the land belonged to the man of might, and only the privileged were to dwell in it.” (NAB) “Is the earth, then, the preserve of the strong, a domain for the favoured few?” (REB) “Though you were a powerful man, owning land — an honored man, living on it.” (NIV) “The land belongs to the strong; the privileged occupy it.” (Tankah [JPS, 1985 edition]) “[You] handed the land over to a strongman, for some favoured person to move in.” (NJB) The Septuagint represents Eliphaz as indicating that Job “admired” the “faces” of certain ones or acted with partiality toward them and let them reside on the land. (22:8)

Eliphaz accused Job of sending widows away “empty,” giving them nothing in their time of need, and of having “crushed” the “arms of fatherless ones.” This crushing of arms appears to relate to harsh and oppressive treatment. The Septuagint rendering may be translated, “And you afflicted orphans.” (22:9)

Believing that Job had been guilty of serious wrongdoing, Eliphaz asserted that this was the reason for his suffering, telling him, “Therefore, snares surround you and sudden terror [extraordinary conflict (LXX)] disquiets you.” The Hebrew word here rendered “disquiets” (bahál) denotes “hastens” in certain contexts, and this is the rendering of the Septuagint (speúdo). (22:10)

Eliphaz likened what he believed to have rightly befallen Job as “darkness” or gloom without any ray of light, making it impossible for him to see. (“The light resulted in darkness for you.” [LXX]) He also likened the calamities that had befallen Job to his being covered with a deluge of water. The Septuagint quotes Eliphaz as saying that Job, “having slept,” ended up being covered with water (in the form of troubles and affliction). (22:11)

Eliphaz raised the rhetorical question, “Is not God high in the heavens?” The affirmative answer to this question could have implied that, from this exalted position, God observed everything taking place on the earth. This thought is expressed in a more direct way in the Septuagint. “Does not the One inhabiting the heights observe?” In the extant Hebrew text, the directive for Job to “see” or to look at the highest (literally, “head”) stars, noting that they were “high,” or far above the earth, may have been intended to impress upon him that God is above them and so looks down upon them. The Septuagint rendering is significantly different. With reference to God, it says, “And he has humbled those carried” or carried away “by arrogance.” (22:12)

Eliphaz asserted that Job did not believe God could always observe developments on the earth. He claimed that Job said, “What does God [the Strong One (Theodotion)] know? Can he judge through a dark cloud?” (22:13; see the Notes section.)

Eliphaz represented Job as considering “clouds” to prevent God from seeing happenings on the earth below as he “walks on the vault [literally, circle] of the heavens.” (22:14; see the Notes section.)

Eliphaz had wrongly concluded that Job led a corrupt life. Therefore, he asked, “Will you keep to the old way that wicked men [unjust men (Theodotion)] have trod?” (22:15)

Regarding the wicked or “unjust men” (Theodotion), Eliphaz said that they “were snatched away prematurely” (literally, “not time”). “Their foundation” — everything they imagined to be stable and enduring — was swept away [literally, poured out] as by a “river.” Nothing remained that gave evidence of their former existence. The version of Theodotion represents “their foundations” as being like a “flooding river.” This could mean that the things on which unjust men relied like foundations were as destructive as a river that overflowed its banks. (22:16; see the Notes section.)

Eliphaz referred to the wicked as saying to God, “Depart from us.” They wanted to be left alone and not to be held accountable for their actions. The extant Hebrew text follows their words with a question. “And what can the Almighty do to them?” In this case, translators usually have followed the Septuagint rendering, ending the question with “to us” (not “to them”). The question represents the wicked as believing that the Almighty would not do anything for them nor to them. (22:17; see the Notes section.)

Whereas the wicked denied that the Almighty could do anything for them, Eliphaz said that “he filled their houses with good” or “good things” (LXX). According to the extant Hebrew text, Eliphaz then said, “And the counsel of the wicked is far from me.” He refused to adopt their way of thinking and acting. The Septuagint represents the Almighty as the one who has nothing to do with the “counsel,” purpose, or aim of the impious ones. “But the counsel of the impious ones [is] far from him.” (22:18)

As apparent from verse 20, the righteous or upright ones “see” or witness the judgment that is executed against the wicked. They “are glad” (“laughed” [LXX]) that the godless ones have been punished for their wrongdoing. The “innocent one” or “blameless one” (LXX) “mocks” or “derides” the wicked as persons who rightly have been condemned. (22:19; see the Notes section.)

Eliphaz quoted the upright ones as saying that their “adversaries” (a collective singular in the Hebrew text) had been “cut off” and that “fire” had consumed what they left behind (or who among them had been left remaining). The wicked had met their end, and nothing remained of their possessions, or not even one among them had survived. “Surely our foes are destroyed, and fire devours their wealth.” (NIV) “Truly these have been destroyed where they stood, and such as were left, fire has consumed!” (NAB) (22:20; see the Notes section.)

Eliphaz advised Job to change his attitude toward God, being of use to him (sakhán), agreeing with him, or submitting to him, and being at peace with him or no longer making complaints against him. If Job did this, “good” would come to him. According to the Septuagint, Eliphaz told Job to “become hard” or firm when he endured. Then his “fruit” would be or result in “good things.” (22:21; see the Notes section.)

Eliphaz entreated Job to accept the “law” or instruction (an “utterance” [LXX]) from God’s “mouth” and to “lay up his words” in his “heart.” He wanted Job to treasure what God revealed and to act in harmony therewith. (22:22)

On the basis of what had befallen Job and the expressions he had made, Eliphaz believed that Job had gravely transgressed and strayed from God. Therefore, he admonished him to return to God, saying, “If you return to the Almighty, you will be built up.” Job’s distressing circumstances would then end, and he would again prosper. According to the Septuagint, Eliphaz said to Job, “If you return and humble yourself before the Lord, you shall have put injustice far from your dwelling.” In the extant Hebrew text, the concluding phrase sets forth what Job needed to do, but the good result for following through is expressed in verse 26, where the sentence is completed. The concluding phrase is, “If you remove unrighteousness” or injustice “from your tents …” (22:23)

Eliphaz advised Job not to trust in riches but to treat them as if they had no more value than the dust of the ground. He told him that his circumstances would change “if [he] put gold in the dust and Ophir [the fine gold for which Ophir was famed] in the rock [among the rocks or pebbles] of wadis.” The region of Ophir has not been identified with any known location. (22:24; see the Notes section.)

Eliphaz exhorted Job to make the Almighty as the most precious to him — like gold and silver. Linked to the Hebrew noun for “silver” is the word toh‘aphóhth, concerning the meaning of which there is uncertainty. In relation to silver, it has been suggested that the reference is to silver ingots or silver in large piles. Translators vary in their renderings (“silver in double measure” [REB], “silver piled in heaps” [NJB], “precious silver” [NRSV], “choicest silver” [NIV], and “sparkling silver” [NAB]). The Septuagint conveys a different meaning. “Therefore, the Almighty will be your helper from enemies, and he will bring you back pure like silver tested by fire.” (22:25)

In the view of Eliphaz, Job would “delight himself” in the Almighty, provided he followed through on the admonition he had given him. This delight may refer to the joy Job would have when living in harmony with God’s will. The Septuagint says that he would “speak boldly” or openly “before the Lord.” Job would also “lift up” his “face to God,” confidently looking to him for help and guidance. According to the Septuagint, he would be “looking up to heaven [God’s place of dwelling] cheerfully,” suggesting that he would do so with joy and a clear conscience. (22:26)

Regarding what would happen if Job heeded his exhortation, Eliphaz said, “You will pray to him [God], and he will hear you.” This meant that God would respond favorably to Job’s petitions. Furthermore, whatever he had promised when making vows, Job would pay. The Septuagint rendering indicates that God would “give” to Job, making it possible for him to pay his vows, or to offer what he had promised when having vowed. (22:27)

Eliphaz indicated that, if Job lived uprightly, any decision he might make respecting a “matter” would be “established” or would succeed. Also a “light” would “shine” on his “ways,” enabling him to see the course that he needed to follow. The Septuagint rendering is, “And he [God] will restore to you a habitation of righteousness, and light will be on your ways.” This could mean that Job’s place of dwelling would be one where righteousness or justice distinguished all dealings. (22:28)

The extant Hebrew text could be translated, “When they abased, you said, Pride.” This reference to “pride” may mean exaltation from a state of abasement. The one who saves the “lowly of eyes” or the humble ones, though not specifically identified, is God. Translators have rendered the somewhat obscure text in ways that are not expressed or implied in the Hebrew text. “For he brings down the pride of the haughty, but the man of humble mien he saves.” (NAB) “When men are brought low and you say, ‘Lift them up!’ then he will save the downcast.” (NIV) “For he casts down the pride of the arrogant, but he saves those of downcast eyes.” (NJB) (22:29; see the Notes section.)

With apparent reference to God, the extant Hebrew text says, “He delivers one who is not innocent.” The Greek version of Theodotion, however, says, “He will deliver the innocent one.” Apparently when viewing Job as restored to God’s favor, Eliphaz (according to the Hebrew text) said that one not innocent would be delivered “through the cleanness of [Job’s] hands.” The thought could be that, because God would deliver Job from a calamity that would not be specifically directed against him, persons who were not blameless as he was would be delivered at the same time because of Job’s clean hands or pure conduct. (22:30; see the Notes section.)

Notes

The wording of the question in verse 2 of the Septuagint is identical to that of verse 22 of chapter 21.

The words for verses 13 through 16 were not found in the Septuagint available to Origen in the third century CE. He marked them as supplied from the version of Theodotion.

In verse 14, the words Origin marked from the version of Theodotion differ from the extant Hebrew text. God is the one represented as having the “clouds” as his “hiding place” and not being seen. He is referred to as the one who “will pass through the circle of heaven.”

In verse 16, translations vary in the way they express what happens to the foundation. “Their foundation was washed away by a flood.” (NRSV) “Whose foundations were swamped by a flood.” (NJB) “Their very foundation flowing away like a river.” (REB) “And their foundation poured out like a river.” (Tanakh (JPS, 1985 edition)

The opening phrase of verse 17 in the Septuagint departs from the wording of the extant Hebrew text. It basically expresses the same question in two ways. “They say, What can the Lord do to us? Or what can the Almighty bring upon us?”

The initial phrase of verse 19 expresses the same thought as does the initial phrase of Psalm 107:42.

In the third century CE, Origen did not find the words of verse 20 in the Septuagint available to him. He marked them as having been added from the version of Theodotion. The addition may be rendered, “Truly their substance disappeared, and fire will consume their remnant” (or what has remained).

In the context of verse 21, the imperative form of the Hebrew word sakhán has been variously understood (“be of use,” “agree,” “be reconciled,” “come to terms,” “submit,” and “acquaint yourself”).

Origen marked the words of verse 24 as having been added from the version of Theodotion. The Greek text of that version differs from the reading of the extant Hebrew text and may be translated, “You will place upon a mound in a rock [a cave in a crag] and Ophir like a rock of a wadi.”

The words of verses 29 and 30 were not found in the Septuagint available to Origen in the third century CE. He marked them as having been added from the version of Theodotion. The Greek text of verse 29 may be rendered, “For he humbled him, and you will say, He behaved pridefully.” This appears to mean that God humbled the arrogant one and that Job would acknowledge that this resulted because the individual had acted arrogantly. The concluding phrase of verse 29 in the Septuagint could be understood to mean that God would save the one with downcast eyes or the one who regarded himself as lowly and needy before God.

In verse 30, the Greek version of Theodotion does not include others in the deliverance. It quotes Eliphaz as saying to Job, “And you will be preserved through your clean hands” or your pure conduct.

Job 23:1-17

Job responded to the words of Eliphaz. His response primarily consisted of expressions about his desire to present his case before God and his perception regarding how God had treated him. (23:1)

Job’s words could be translated, “Also today my complaint [is] rebellion. My hand is heavy upon me on account of my groaning.” He had complained against what he perceived to be God’s unjust treatment of him. Apparently for this reason, he appears to have equated his complaint with rebellion. For Job’s hand to be heavy could mean that his power had been made heavy or had become weighted down so as to be drained because of his great suffering that gave rise to groaning. (23:2)

The Septuagint rendering differs significantly from the reading of the extant Hebrew text. It quotes Job as saying, “And I truly know that the refutation is out of my hand, and his hand has become heavy upon my groaning.” These words suggest that Job recognized that he could not argue successfully against God, and he believed that God’s hand or power had been directed against him, causing him to suffer and to intensify his groaning. Instead of following the extant Hebrew text that refers to “my hand,” numerous translators have chosen to follow the Septuagint reading that refers to “his hand” or God’s hand as being “heavy.” “Even today my thoughts are embittered, for God’s hand is heavy on me in my trouble.” (REB) “Even today my complaint is bitter; his hand is heavy in spite of my groaning.” (NIV) “My lament is still rebellious; despite my groans, his hand is just as heavy.” (NJB) “Today I complain bitterly, because God has been cruel and made me suffer.” (CEV) (23:2)

Job desired to know where he might find God so that he could come to his “established place.” His reason for wanting to find God is set forth in the next verse. According to the Septuagint rendering, Job wondered who would know that he could find God and “arrive at an end” or come to a resolution about the distressing situation in which he found himself. (23:3)

If he could appear before God, Job would present his case before him and, as he is quoted as saying, “I would fill my mouth with arguments” or set forth reasons that he was in the right and that God should not have been treating him unjustly. The Septuagint indicates that Job wanted to express his “judgment” or judicial case before God and fill his mouth with proofs or arguments. (23:4)

Job desired to know the “words” God would use to make his reply to his arguments. He, in turn, would perceive or consider what was being said to him. (23:5)

Job raised the rhetorical question as to whether God would contend with him in the “greatness of [his] power,” acting toward him in an overbearing manner. In answer to his own question, he replied, No. Job was certain that God would give heed to him. According to the Septuagint, God would not threaten Job. (23:6)

“There,” at the location of God’s habitation, an “upright man” (as Job was) could argue his case. If he could do so, Job was confident that God, his “judge,” would “deliver” him “forever” or let him escape from what he perceived to be the judgment against him in the form of affliction. (23:7; see the Notes section regarding the Septuagint rendering.)

Job wanted to find God, but he could not. He expressed his failure with the words, “Look! I go to the front” (or the “east”), “and he is not there; and to the back” (or the “west”), “and I do not perceive him.” (23:8; see the Notes section regarding the Septuagint rendering.)

Job continued to comment on the impossibility of finding God. When he conducts his activity to Job’s “left” (or to the north), Job cannot behold him. God turns to the right (or to the south), and Job cannot see him. (23:9; see the Notes section.)

Whereas Job could not find him, God knew the “way” with him, or everything Job did and also at which location. Job invited God to try him, confidently adding, “and I will come forth like gold.” The Septuagint quotes Job as saying regarding God, “For he already knows my way, and he has judged [or tried] me like gold.” (23:10)

Countering the unfounded accusations of Eliphaz, Bildad, and Zophar, Job said that his “foot” had held fast to God’s “steps,” indicating that he had adhered closely to a divinely approved course of conduct. He had kept God’s way and not turned aside from it, consistently living an upright life. The Septuagint represents Job as saying that he would “go forth” with God’s “precepts,” observing them in all his actions. He had kept God’s ways and had resolved that he would “by no means turn aside.” (23:11; compare Psalm 17:5; see the Notes section.)

Job had not departed from the commandment of God’s lips or the expressions of his revealed will. The Septuagint represents him as saying, “From his precepts also, I will by no means depart.” The Hebrew text quoting Job’s words that follow may be translated literally, “From my enactment, I have hidden the words of his mouth.” Possibly “my enactment” could be understood to apply to the principle by which Job guided his life. His “hiding” the words of God’s “mouth” could signify that he treated them like precious treasure that one conceals from view. The Septuagint rendering has Job saying, “But in my bosom, I have hidden his [God’s] words,” treasuring them. (23:12; see the Notes section.)

The Hebrew phrase that literally may be translated, “and he in one,” could mean that God has one purpose. The answer to the rhetorical question (“and who can turn him?”) would be that no one can turn him from carrying out his objective. “And his soul desires, and he will do [it].” Nothing will stop him from doing what “his soul” or he himself desires. In view of the measure of obscurity involving the initial phrase, translators have variously rendered the verse. “But once he has made up his mind, who can change it? Whatever he plans, that he carries out.” (NJB) “But he stands alone, and who can oppose him? He does whatever he pleases.” (NIV) “He is one; who can dissuade Him? Whatever He desires, He does.” (Tanakh [JPS, 1985 edition]) “When he decides, who can turn him from his purpose? What he desires, he does.” (REB) “But he had decided, and who can say him nay? What he desires, that he does.” (NAB) “But he alone is God, and who can oppose him? God does as he pleases.” (CEV) The Septuagint rendering is, “But if he also has judged thus, who is the one to contradict him? For what he has desired, he also has done.” (23:13)

Job recognized that God would “complete” what he had decreed or appointed for him (literally, “my enactment” or “my decree”). The concluding phrase (“and many such things with him”) could mean many like things that God had previously determined to be his dealings with Job. Translators have variously rendered the phrase referring to “many such things.” “No doubt, then, but he will carry out my sentence, like so many other decrees that he has made.” (NJB) “His mind is full of plans like these.” (REB) “And many such things may yet be in his mind.” (NAB) “And many such plans he still has in store.” (NIV) There are no corresponding words for this verse in the Septuagint. After the words in verse 13, it continues with those in verse 15. (23:14)

On account of what he perceived God to have appointed for him, Job was disquieted or terrified “before his face” or in his presence. When he considered what might be in store for him, Job was in “dread of him.” (23:15; see the Notes section regarding the Septuagint rendering.)

Believing that God had afflicted him, Job said that “God [the Lord (LXX)] has made my heart weak,” soft (LXX), timid, or fearful. In his “heart” or inmost self, Job feared what he might still have to face. He added, “And the Almighty has disquieted” or troubled (“hurried” or put great pressure on [LXX]) “me.” Job found himself in a state of constant fear and anxiety. (23:16)

Job spoke of not having been “annihilated by darkness.” This could mean that his state of suffering was one of great darkness. Yet that darkness had not brought an end to his life. The Septuagint expresses a different thought. Job is quoted as saying, “For I did not know that darkness would come upon me.” That “darkness” came upon him in the form of unexpected calamities and great personal suffering. The concluding phrase of the Hebrew text may be translated, “And from my face, he covers thick darkness.” (“But before my face, gloom covered.” [LXX]) The thought could be that God concealed the thick darkness or gloom from Job’s face, not providing him with any indication that his possessions, children, and health would be ripped away from him suddenly. (23:17)

Notes

In verse 7, the wording of the Septuagint differs considerably from that of the extant Hebrew text. “For truth and reproof [are] from him” (God), “and may he bring my judgment to an end.” With the desired end of what he considered to be a judgment from God, Job would cease to suffer.

The Septuagint rendering of verse 8 departs significantly from the wording of the extant Hebrew text. “For I will go to the first things, and I am no more. But what do I know about the last things?” Based on the preceding context, the “first things” could relate to Job’s presentation of his case and the setting forth of his arguments. Job would do so until he was no more or until he no longer lived. As to the “last things” or the developments that would follow, Job had no knowledge.

Origen, in the third century CE, marked the words of verse 9 as having been added from the version of Theodotion. He could not find them in the Septuagint available to him. The wording of the Greek version of Theodotion is similar to that of the extant Hebrew text. When God did something “on the left,” Job did not grasp it. Should God encircle him “on the right,” Job would not “see” it.

In verse 11 and 12, the expression “by no means” preserves the emphatic sense of the two Greek words for “not.”

In the Septuagint, the words of verse 15 directly follow those of verse 13 and so relate to the reality that God will do exactly what he desires. Job is quoted as saying, “Therefore, I am hastening because of [epí] him. But being admonished, I gave heed to him,” acting on the admonition. In the context, other meanings for the Greek preposition epí could be “to” or “about.” Job’s “hastening” could relate to his hurrying to do what he could to plead with God no longer to want to afflict him. This “hastening” could also denote that Job was zealous about God. After the words of the Septuagint, there is an addition from the version of Theodotion. Origen marked this addition accordingly. It reads somewhat like verse 15 in the extant Hebrew text, “Over this, from his face” (or from his presence), I would be troubled. I shall consider and shall be terrified of him.”

The obscurity of the Hebrew text in verse 17 has given rise to a variety of interpretive renderings. “Yes, would that I had vanished in darkness, and that thick gloom were before me to conceal me.” (NAB) “Yet I am not reduced to silence by the darkness or by the mystery which hides him.” (REB) “Yet I am not cut off by the darkness; He has concealed the thick gloom from me.” (Tanakh [JPS, 1985 edition]) “Yet I am not silenced by the darkness, by the thick darkness that covers my face.” (NIV) “The darkness having failed to destroy me, I am plunged back into obscurity by him!” (NJB) “God has covered me with darkness, but I refuse to be silent.” (CEV)

Job 24:1-25

Job raised the question about why the Almighty had not “stored up times” — times for godless ones to be punished for their wrongdoing. It troubled him that those who knew God or who had a relationship with him as his worshipers did not “see his days.” These would be the days for corrupt individuals to experience punitive judgment. According to the Septuagint, Job’s question was, “But why did hours escape notice by the Lord,” or why did the time during which he could have taken action against godless ones “escape” his notice? (24:1)

From this point onward, Job is quoted as describing the evil practices of corrupt individuals and the misery they brought upon others. To steal land, they moved “borders” or “boundary markers.” Through acts of violence or oppression, they seized the flock of others and then pastured the animals as their own. In the Septuagint, the words of this verse continue as part of the question from the previous verse. Job is quoted as asking why the “impious ones” overstepped the “border,” seizing “a flock with a shepherd.” The implication of the question appears to be that they had succeeded with their evil deed without being punished for it. (24:2)

Merciless oppressors “drove away” or took the donkey (“beast of burden” [LXX]) of fatherless children or orphans, depriving them of a valuable animal they needed for transport, burden bearing, and agricultural labor. For a pledge, these evil men seized a widow’s bovine — an animal that was used for the essential work of threshing and plowing. (24:3)

The poor had to be on guard against corrupt men, staying out of their way. This is because these men would force the poor “from the road.” In the Septuagint, the thought is expressed concerning the pernicious effect of corrupt individuals on the lowly ones. “They turned the powerless from the righteous way” or from the right course of conduct. The “needy ones of the land” had to hide themselves from corrupt men to protect themselves from their violent or oppressive actions. (24:4; see the Notes section.)

The obscure Hebrew text appears to represent the needy as going forth to labor in the wilderness to procure food for their children as do onagers in the desert. Translators vary in their interpretive renderings. “Like wild asses in the desert, these go forth to their task of seeking food; the steppe provides food for the young among them.” (NAB) “The poor rise early like the wild ass, when it scours the wilderness for food; but though they work till nightfall, their children go hungry.” (REB) “Like wild desert donkeys, they go out to work, searching from dawn for food, and at evening for something on which to feed their children.” (NJB) “The poor are trampled and forced to hide in the desert, where they and their children must live like wild donkeys and search for food.” (CEV) (24:5; see the Notes section.)

“In the field,” the needy reaped fodder for the godless one and gleaned the “vineyard of an evil man.” According to the Septuagint, “they harvested a field” not theirs “before [its] hour” or season, and the “powerless” labored in “vineyards of the impious without pay and without food.” Job’s expressions indicate that corrupt men, besides escaping punishment for their wrongdoing, often had power on their side, whereas lowly and godly individuals suffered. (24:6)

The oppressed poor “lie naked without clothing, and they have no covering in the cold.” In this case, the expression “naked without clothing” may be understood to mean scantily clad and lacking an outer garment with which to cover themselves when lying down to sleep at night. The Septuagint represents the harsh oppressors as letting “many” lie down to sleep “naked without garments” (plural of himátion, a Greek word that can designate an “outer garment.”) The reason that many had to sleep without a garment to cover them was that the oppressors took away the “covering for their soul” or their person, probably taking the outer garment as a pledge for the repayment of a loan. (24:7)

Without protection from the elements, the oppressed poor became drenched with the “rain of the mountains,” the downpours that occur on the side of the mountain slopes nearest to the direction from which the storm clouds roll in. Lacking shelter, the needy would “cling to the rock,” possibly trying to find cover under a rocky overhang, in a crevice, or in a cave. (24:8; see the Notes section.)

Ruthless oppressors “snatched a fatherless child from the breast.” They would seize the young child of a widow, possibly for the repayment of a loan, and reduce the youngster to perpetual slavery. From the poor, they took a pledge as security for a loan. This pledge would have been something essential — an outer garment, a hand mill, or the upper grindstone of a hand mill. The Septuagint does not mention the taking of a pledge. It refers to the oppressors as humiliating “one who had fallen,” which could apply to a person who had experienced calamities, a refugee, or an outcast. (24:9)

“Naked,” the needy went about “without clothing,” probably meaning insufficiently clad. Though themselves hungry, they carried the “sheaf,” apparently what they had harvested for an oppressor. The Septuagint says that “they [ruthless oppressors] let the naked sleep in an unjust manner.” This suggests that the oppressors dealt unjustly with the poor, probably taking outer garments as security for the repayment of loans and thus forcing the needy to sleep without being able to cover themselves. (24:10)

In this context, the Hebrew word shúrah has been understood as applying to a row or to a supporting wall for terraces. This is reflected in the renderings of modern translations. “They press the oil in the shade where two walls meet.” (REB) “They crush olives among the terraces.” (NIV) “Between the rows they press out the oil.” (NAB) “Between rows [of olive trees] they make oil.” Thus the lowly or powerless people labored for oppressors but received no benefit from their work. They also trod the winepress but remained thirsty, not being able to drink of the product of their labor. (24:11; see the Notes section regarding the Septuagint rendering.)

On account of attacks, those about to die groan, and the “soul of the wounded” (the wounded themselves) cry for help. “God pays no attention.” In the Masoretic Text, the verse ends with the word tiphláh, meaning “unseemliness.” This suggests that Job represented God as not being concerned about the outcries of those who suffered or as not considering his disregard for their outcries as improper. The consonants of the word tiphláh are the same for the noun “prayer,” which is the rendering of the Syriac. Accordingly, Job could be understood as saying that God did not listen to the prayer of those crying out to him for aid. (24:12)

The rendering of the Septuagint departs from the reading of the extant Hebrew text. It indicates that the lowly or powerless ones were cast out from cities and their own houses, and the “soul of the infants,” or the young children themselves, groaned greatly. Then, with apparent reference to God, Job raised the question, “But why has he not acted to visit them?” Such a visitation would have meant granting the afflicted his favorable attention and ending their suffering. (24:12)

Persons designated as “rebelling against light” acted contrary to what light represents — the things that are good, right, noble, or just, and which can be practiced openly for all to see. They are the things that are not concealed like the deeds that are carried out under the cover of darkness. Rebels against light did not recognize “its ways,” refusing to follow the course of conduct that light manifests as upright, for upright conduct does not have to be hidden from view. They did not “stay” in the paths of light or the paths that light reveals to be right and good. (24:13; see the Notes section regarding the Septuagint rendering.)

At the time there is light or daylight, the murderer may kill poor and needy or afflicted ones. During the night, under the cover of darkness, he may steal. (24:14; see the Notes section regarding the Septuagint rendering.)

The adulterer responds to the sensual arousal to which his seeing the married woman has on him. Therefore, the “eye of the adulterer” is poetically represented as the agent that acts, waiting “for the twilight” or dusk and saying to itself that an “eye will not see me.” Under the cover of darkness, no one would see the adulterous act. The reference to making a “covering of the face” could indicated that, besides taking advantage of the cover of darkness, the adulterer also conceals his face to make sure that he is not recognized by anyone. (24:15; see the Notes section.)

Job described the activity of robbers. Under the cover of “darkness,” they dug into walls of mud-brick houses. During the day, robbers kept themselves shut up in their dwellings. As persons who engaged in robbing at night, they did “not know the light” or the daylight hours. (24:16; see the Notes section.)

To robbers, the morning was “death’s shadow” or deep darkness, for they could not carry out their activity in the daylight without being noticed. They recognized the “terrors of death’s shadow” or deep darkness, for the “light” that was deep darkness to them would expose what they were doing and lead to their being caught and punished. It is also possible that, because of their engaging in robbery at night, they were acquainted with the troubles and fears associated with nighttime. (24:17; see the Notes section.)

The phrase “he is swift [light or nimble (Theodotion)] on the face of waters [water (Theodotion)]” has been interpretively translated in a number of ways. “Such men are scum on the surface of the water.” (REB) “Those sinners are filthy foam on the surface of the water.” (CEV) “May they be flotsam on the face of the water.” (Tanakh [JPS, 1985 edition]) These and similar renderings are conjectural. (24:18)

Because they acquired their possessions through robbery, Job referred to their “portion” or “tract” in the land as “cursed.” The Septuagint reads, “Cursed be their portion upon the earth” or the land. In the Septuagint there is no corresponding wording for the next phrase in the extant Hebrew text (“one does not face toward vineyards”). Interpretive renderings of the Hebrew text include: “No labourer will go near their vineyards.” (REB) “May none turn aside by way of their vineyards.” (Tanakh [JPS 1985 edition]) “No treader turns to their vineyards.” (NRSV) “Their portion of the land is cursed, so that no one goes to the vineyards.” (NIV) (24:18)

“Drought, even heat, snatch away snow waters,” and “Sheol, those who have sinned.” Water from melted snow may dry up during periods of drought or when it gets hot. Likewise, in the end, sinners disappear off the earthly scene, being snatched away by Sheol or the realm of the dead. The Septuagint rendering does not resemble the extant Hebrew text. With apparent reference to oppressors, it says, “May their plants upon the land appear dried up, for they seized the armful of orphans.” These ruthless oppressors seized the very little that orphans had, possibly the grain they had gleaned. Therefore, as part of the curse on the land, their plants should wither. (24:19)

In the prologue, the earth is represented as a mother to which Job indicated he would return at death. (1:21) This provides a basis for concluding that the “womb” which “forgets” the godless man is the womb of the earth or the earth itself. In the Contemporary English Version, the interpretive rendering is, “Forgotten here on earth, and with their power broken, they taste sweet to worms.” In the realm of the dead, the carcase is subject to being food for the “worm” or maggot. Therefore, the deceased is referred to as being sweet to a worm. Having vanished from the realm of the living, the dead man would no longer be remembered. The corrupt man proved himself to be unrighteous or unjust. Therefore, as the extant Hebrew text concludes, “unrighteousness” or “injustice will be broken like a tree.” (24:20; see the Notes section regarding the Septuagint rendering.)

“Feeding on the barren woman who does not bear” may refer to exploiting a widow who never had a child that could aid her in her time of need. The harsh oppressor is also spoken of as doing no good for a widow. This suggests that he took advantage of her in her vulnerable state. According to the Septuagint, the impious one did not treat a barren woman well and had no compassion for a weak woman or a widow. (24:21)

Although “God” is not specifically mentioned as acting against “mighty ones,” some translators make this explicit in their renderings. “Yet God in his strength carries off the mighty.” (REB) “But God’s mighty strength destroys those in power.” (CEV) “But God drags away the mighty by his power.” (NIV) Other translators either have not rendered the text to apply to God or have represented God as not taking action against the powerful ones. “Though he has the strength to seize bulls, may he live with no assurance of survival.” (Tanakh [JPS, 1985 edition]) “Yet God prolongs the life of the mighty by his power.” (NRSV) In the Septuagint, the words relate to the action of the oppressor. “But in fury, he overthrew the powerless ones.” (24:22)

The concluding phrase of the extant Hebrew text says that the godless man would “rise up and not trust in life,” apparently meaning that he would not be sure of his own life. The Septuagint rendering is, “Therefore [because of what he did to powerless ones], he will be no means trust in his own life.” The expression “by no means” preserves the emphatic sense of the two Greek words for “not,” indicating that the oppressor would in no way feel secure about his own life. (24:22)

The extant Hebrew text appears to represent Job as saying that God grants “security” to oppressors, “and they are supported.” This could mean that God permitted them to have a false sense of security on which they relied, thinking that no calamity would befall them. He, however, had “his eyes upon their ways,” watching what they were doing and determining whether or when to take action against them. The Septuagint rendering expresses the thought of the verse as relating to punitive judgment. When “infirm” or “sick,” let the impious man “not hope to be healed. But he will fall by disease.” (24:23)

Job is represented as saying that corrupt persons are exalted for a little while and then cease to be. “They are brought low” or toppled from their lofty position. “Like all” or everyone else, “they are gathered in,” possibly meaning like stalks of grain that have been cut off. “And like heads of grain, they wither” or “droop.” Thus they are portrayed as coming to their end. The Septuagint says that the “loftiness” or arrogance of the godless man “injured many, but he withered like a mallow [plant] in the heat or like an ear of grain that of itself had fallen from the stalk.” (24:24)

Job believed that what he had related was true. If what he had said was not so, he raised the rhetorical question as to who would prove him to be a liar and make out his word as amounting to nothing. In the Septuagint, the concluding phrase, as indicated by the way Origen marked it, was added from the version of Theodotion (“and will he set” or represent “my words as nothing?”) (24:25)

Notes

Origen, in the third century CE, marked the concluding phrase in verse 4 as having been added from the version of Theodotion. It was not found in the Septuagint available to him. The added words of the Greek text read much like those in the extant Hebrew text. “Together, the meek [or needy] of the land have hidden.”

In verse 5, the Septuagint rendering departs from the reading of the extant Hebrew text. “And they have become like donkeys in a field, going forth on [or departing from] their own activity because of me.” This could mean that, because of what had happened to Job, they were forced to leave their former activity or they had to go forth to find something else to do. Origen marked the concluding phrase as having been added from the version of Theodotion. “Sweet to him was bread for [his] young ones.” This could mean that for the needy man it was something sweet to have bread for his children.

In the third century CE, Origen marked the initial phrase of verse 8 (“they are wet from drops [of rain] of the mountains”) as having been supplied from the version of Theodotion. The words of the Septuagint follow. “On account of not having shelter, they surrounded themselves with rock.” This action could include their taking cover in a cave located in rocky terrain.

The Septuagint rendering of verse 11 differs from the reading of the extant Hebrew text. With apparent reference to godless men, it says that they were unjustly lying in wait in “narrow places and did not know [recognize and live by] the “righteous,” right, or just “way.”

In verse 13, the Septuagint refers to the godless as being “upon the earth and not knowing.” Their not knowing could apply to their deliberate failure to acknowledge what is right and to conduct themselves accordingly. “They did not know the way of the righteous,” indicating that this way was foreign to them, “nor did they walk in its paths.” They rejected it as the course they should have been following.

The Septuagint rendering of verse 14 departs significantly from the reading of the extant Hebrew text. God is apparently being represented as the one who recognized the “works” of the impious ones and “handed them over to darkness,” letting these corrupt individuals be without the light of his guidance to practice their evil ways. The concluding phrase of verse 14 (“and at night he will be like a thief”) is an addition from the version of Theodotion. In the third century CE, Origen marked this addition accordingly, for he did not find it in the Septuagint available to him. The added phrase does not fit the preceding context.

In verse 15, the Greek text is taken from the version of Theodotion and corresponds to the reading of the extant Hebrew text. From this point onward, there is no text in the Septuagint until the concluding phrase of verse 18. Origen marked the phrases in the missing section as having been added from the version of Theodotion.

Verse 16 of the Greek text of the version of Theodotion conveys the same meaning as the extant Hebrew text.

The wording of verse 17 of the Greek text of the version of Theodotion and that of the extant Hebrew text are basically the same.

Verse 20 in the Septuagint differs from the extant Hebrew text. It appears to indicate that the sin of the impious one “was remembered,” with the apparent purpose being that punitive judgment would follow. That sin, “like the mist of dew,” seemingly is represented as not becoming visible to observers. The verse concludes with the words, “But may what he did be repaid to him, and may every unrighteous one be broken like a rotten tree.”

Job 25:1-6

Bildad the Shuhite (Sauchite [LXX]) responded to Job. The designation “Shuhite” may have identified Bildad as a descendant of Shuah, a son of Abraham by his concubine Keturah. (25:1; Genesis 25:1, 2)

With reference to God, Bildad said that “dominion and fear” are “with him,” indicating that he is the Sovereign for whom all should have fear or reverential awe. “In his heights” or the high heaven, “he makes peace,” exercising full control and ensuring that everything is harmonious. (25:2; see the Notes section.)

The rhetorical question of Bildad appears to highlight God’s greatness. “Is there [any] number to his armies, and upon whom does his light not rise?” The “armies” could designate either the stars or the angels. Based on what Bildad would have been able to observe, the more probable reference is to stars, and God’s light may be understood as applying to the sun. (25:3; see the Notes section.)

With a rhetorical question, Bildad repeated the view that Eliphaz had expressed earlier and which he had based on a vision (4:12-17; 15:14), “How can a man [a mortal (LXX)] be righteous before God [the Lord (LXX)], and how can one born of a woman be clean [cleanse or purify himself (LXX)]?” Thus Bildad insinuated that God could not possibly trust Job and consider him to be in the right, for no human was righteous or clean before God. (25:4)

Continuing to imply that God would not look upon Job as acceptable to him, Bildad claimed that “even the moon” was “not bright” to him, and the “stars” were “not clean in his eyes” (“before him” [LXX]). In the Septuagint, the initial phrase indicates that, “if” God “commands the moon, then it does not shine.” (25:5)

Based on the contention that no human could be righteous or pure before God, that even the moon was not bright to him, and that the stars were unclean in his sight, Bildad concluded with the words, “How much less a man, a maggot; and a son of man, a worm.” With these words, Bildad implied that Job could not possibly be in the right and acceptable to God, for he was nothing more than a maggot or a worm. (25:6; see the Notes section.)

Notes

In verse 2, the first word of the Hebrew text is the infinitive absolute hamshél (a form of the verb mashál). It is commonly rendered “dominion.” The initial phrase in the Septuagint is tí gár prooímion (for what parable [introduction, introductory statement, or preamble]). This rendering may have arisen when the translator read the Hebrew text as the interrogative particle ha (“what”) and the noun mashál (“saying,” “wise saying,” or “proverb”). The implication of the Septuagint rendering (“for what introduction or fear is there with him …?”) could be that God’s manner of dealing does not require an introduction or an explanation and that no fear exists with him. In the Septuagint, the question is completed with the phrase, “the one making everything in the highest.”

Instead of a corresponding noun for the Hebrew word shalóhm (“peace”), a form of the adjective sýmpas (“whole” or “aggregate” and here translated “everything”) is found in verse 2 of the Septuagint. This may be because the Septuagint translator read shalém (“whole” or “complete”) instead of shalóhm (“peace”).

In verse 3, the interpretive renderings of translation vary, with some mirroring parts of the Septuagint. “His squadrons are without number; at whom will they not spring from ambush?” (REB) “Who can count his armies? Against whom does his lightning not surge forth?” (NJB) “Who can count his army of stars? Isn’t God the source of light?” (CEV) The Septuagint translator appears to have read the consonantal Hebrew text differently than the vowel pointing of the Masoretic Text indicates, and the rendering itself departs significantly from the extant Hebrew text. “For would anyone assume that there is deferment for marauders, and upon whom will there not come an ambush from him?”

In verse 6, the Septuagint rendering begins with the words, “But alas, man [is] decay” or “decayed matter.” In Rahlfs’ printed text, the concluding phrase reads like the extant Hebrew text. There is manuscript evidence indicating that this phrase may have been added from the version of Theodotion.

Job 26:1-14

Job replied to the words of Bildad. His comments appear also to have been intended for Eliphaz and Zophar. (26:1)

The words of Bildad, as well as those of Eliphaz and Zophar, had neither helped Job nor strengthened him in his afflicted state. Therefore, he was moved to say sarcastically, “How you have helped one with no power! How you have saved,” delivered, or rescued the “arm with no strength!” (26:2; see the Notes section regarding the Septuagint rendering.)

The counsel or advice Job had received proved to be of no benefit to him. Therefore, he said, “How you have counseled one with no wisdom, and you have made known insight in abundance.” Job had been given useless counsel and nothing reflected insight or sound wisdom. Individually, Eliphaz, Bildad, and Zophar had uttered an abundance of words that did not apply in Job’s case. (26:3; see the Notes section regarding the Septuagint rendering.)

Eliphaz, Bildad,and Zophar had been guilty of making unfounded accusations against Job and saying nothing that would have been comforting to him. He rightly asked a question that was appropriate for each of them. “To whom have you spoken words, and whose breath has proceeded from you?” They had forgotten to whom they were speaking, and the source of their expressions was questionable. In the vision Eliphaz claimed to have seen, God trusted no one, especially not a mere man, and Bildad had repeated this misrepresentation. (4:13-19; 25:4-6) Therefore, the “breath” or the source of inspiration was a lying source. (26:4)

Although Job suffered greatly and believed that God had wrongly afflicted him, he acknowledged his greatness and matchless power. So great is this power that Job spoke of the “Rephaim” as trembling. In this context, the designation “Rephaim” probably applies to the deceased, suggesting that even the realm of the dead, the realm where silence prevails and all activity has ceased, would be set in commotion through the manifestation of God’s might. Land areas rise above the sea, making it appear that the water lies underneath the land. This seems to be the basis for the representation of the Rephaim or the dead as being below the waters and those dwelling in them. (26:5; see the Notes section.)

Humans cannot peer inside the realm of the dead, for the deceased have vanished from the earthly scene. Before God, however, “Sheol” (Hades [Theodotion]) is “naked,” or the realm of the dead is fully exposed. There is “no covering for Abaddon” or destruction (the place of corruption or decay). (26:6)

God’s “stretching out the north” may poetically describe his action in having made the northern sky appear above the land as if it had been stretched out like a tent. “He hangs the earth” or land “upon nothing.” In relation to the celestial dome there is nothing to which the earth or land is attached. It is not suspended from the sky. (26:7)

Clouds are here portrayed as vessels in which God “binds up waters.” Yet the cloud mass that the ancients perceived as being “under” the waters is not ripped apart by their weight. (26:8)

The ancients regarded God as being above the clouds. For this reason, he is represented as using a cloud to cover the “face of [his] throne” or to spread “his cloud over it.” The Greek version of Theodotion says that God “holds fast the face of [his] throne.”(26:9)

The “boundary between light and darkness” is where the sun is seen to rise and to set. There, at the horizon, the sea reaches the perceived beginning of the celestial dome and its own “circle” beneath that dome. From this standpoint, God is represented as having drawn a “circle upon the face [or surface] of the waters” of the sea. (26:10)

The sky looks like a dome or vault above the land and the sea, and the mountains can appear as though they are touching it. These “mountains” poetically are called “pillars,” which do tremble during periods of seismic activity. This development is attributed to God and, therefore, the “pillars of the heavens” are spoken of as being “astounded at his rebuke.” (26:11; see the Notes section.)

God is portrayed as having control over the sea. His disturbing the “sea by his power” may refer to his whipping up high waves by means of storms. The smiting of “Rahab by his understanding” could relate to a triumph over the great primeval sea monster. According to the Septuagint, God “calmed the sea with power and wounded the sea monster by understanding,” knowledge, or skill. (26:12)

By God’s “wind” or “spirit,” the “heavens” are transformed to “fairness” or are cleared of clouds. “His hand,” or the manifestation of his power, brought about the piercing of the “fleeing serpent.” The expression “fleeing serpent” may be a designation for a monster like the mighty Leviathan. According to the Septuagint, the “bars” or “barriers of heaven fear” God, and he, by his “decree,” killed the “rebellious dragon.” (26:13)

The things that had been related about God are called the “extremities,” fringes, or “parts” (Theodotion) “of his ways.” They are much like a mere sketch. The impressive displays of divine power are but a “whisper of a word” that “has been heard of him.” They resemble the faint echo of a spoken word. With the “whisper” being impressive and giving rise to astonishment, who would be able to comprehend the full display of God’s might — the “thunder of his power” or the manifestation of his power in a manner that resembled loud thunder? (26:14; see the Notes section.)

Notes

In verse 2, the Septuagint represents Job as asking rhetorical questions that differ from the wording of the extant Hebrew text. “To whom are you attached, or whom are you about to help? Is it not one with much strength and whose arm is powerful?” The questions suggest that what was being said to Job could not possibly have been meant for him in his weak and afflicted condition.

Verse 3 in the Septuagint represents Job as indicating that Bildad (or all three men individually) had given counsel to the One who has “all wisdom” or to God himself. The verse may be rendered, “Whom have you counseled? [Is it] not the One who has all wisdom? Or whom will you follow? [Is it] not the One who has the greatest power?”

From verse 5 through to the end of verse 11, the phrases are marked as having been added from the Greek version of Theodotion and not being included in the Septuagint existing in the time of Origen. In verse 5, the question is, “Will giants be brought forth underneath the water and its neighbors [possibly meaning whatever lies adjacent to the water]?”

In verse 11, the Greek version of Theodotion refers to the “pillars of heaven” as being “spread out.” This could be understood to mean that mountains were spread out below a celestial vault as if providing support for it.

In the Septuagint, the initial part of verse 14 is from the version of Theodotion as Origen marked it in the third century CE. “Look! These [are] the parts of his way, and we will listen to him at the droplet of his word” or to the briefest message from him. The Septuagint then concludes with the words, “But [as for] the strength of his thunder, who knows when he will go into action?”

Job 27:1-23

Job continued to speak. (27:1)

The words “as God lives” (the “Lord lives” [LXX]) constitute a solemn declaration or oath by which Job expressed his determination to set forth the truth. He believed that God had “taken away” or denied his “judgment,” justice, or right, not dealing with him in a just manner. The Septuagint refers to the Lord as having judged him. Job also spoke of the Almighty as having made his “soul” (or him himself) “bitter,” causing him to lose his property and his children and plaguing him with a loathsome and painful affliction. (27:2)

As long as Job had “breath” within him and the “spirit of God,” or the God-given life breath, in his “nostrils,” he would do what is mentioned in the next verse. The introductory words expressed Job’s solemn resolve to state the truth for as long as he might live. (27:3)

Job had solemnly determined not to speak “unrighteousness” or falsehood (“lawless things” [LXX]) with his lips and not to utter deceit with his tongue. His resolve was to be truthful at all times, never lying and never deceiving others. According to the Septuagint, his “soul” (he himself) would not give thought to “injustices.” For Job, it was unthinkable even to consider his resorting to injustice as an option to attain a particular objective. (27:4)

Eliphaz, Bildad, and Zophar had repeatedly claimed that Job’s suffering was a punishment from God for his serious transgressions. In response to this, Job declared that he would not “justify” them or concede that they were right in their assessment of him. Until he died, or as long as he continued to live, he would not “turn aside” his “completeness,” integrity, or innocence from himself. He would continue to insist that he had led an upright or blameless life. (27:5)

Job determined to “hold fast” to his “righteousness” and would not “let it go.” These words reveal that he would persist in clinging to the conviction that he was innocent and in the right when denying that he was suffering because of having made himself guilty of serious wrongdoing. Job’s “heart,” or his inmost self, did not “reproach” or condemn him for any of his days or for the way he had conducted himself during all the time that had passed. According to the Septuagint rendering, Job was not conscious within himself of having engaged in inappropriate practices. (27:6)

Despite the calamities that had befallen him and the affliction he was enduring, Job believed that adverse judgment could befall lawlessness ones. Therefore, he said, “Let my enemy be like the wicked one, and the one rising up against me like the unrighteous one.” He thus expressed his desire that those who were hostile to him would share the same fate as wicked or unrighteous persons. The rendering of the Septuagint focuses on the calamitous outcome to Job’s enemies. “But may my enemies be like the overthrow of impious ones and those rising up against me like the ruin of transgressors.” (27:7)

Job recognized that godless ones were persons without any hope. This is reflected in the rhetorical question, “For what hope” would the godless one have when God “cuts him off, when God takes away his soul [or life]?” In the Septuagint, the question is, “What hope does the impious one have, that he clings [to it]? When he trusts in the Lord, will he be delivered?” Godless persons have no basis for any hope of restoration subsequent to the execution of God’s judgment against them or of deliverance from calamity if they were to cry out to him. (27:8)

When “trouble comes upon” the godless person, “will God hear his cry” for aid? The implied answer to the rhetorical question is, No. (27:9; see the Notes section regarding the Septuagint rendering.)

Regarding the godless one, Job raised more rhetorical questions. “Will he take delight in the Almighty? Will he call upon God at all times?” As a transgressor, the godless person would not find any delight in God and would not be in the habit of approaching him in prayer. (27:10; see the Notes section regarding the Septuagint rendering.)

Job told Eliphaz, Bildad, and Zophar that he would “teach” them about the “hand [or power] of God” (“declare to [them] what is in the hand of the Lord” [LXX]) as was evident from his activity. He also would not hide from them (lie regarding [LXX]) “that which [is] with the Almighty.” That which Job would not conceal appears to be what he perceived to be the manner in which God deals. This would be based on what he had personally experienced and also observed in the case of others. (27:11)

Job felt that Eliphaz, Bildad, and Zophar had all “seen,” apparently the very things he intended to draw to their attention. Yet, instead of responding to him in keeping with what they had seen, they expressed sentiments that did not apply to him. Job, therefore, raised the question, “Why, then, have you become altogether vain [or men who uttered merely empty words]?” According to the Septuagint rendering, Job told them that they knew they were throwing nothingness upon nothingness, or piling up meaningless comments that did not fit his circumstances. (27:12)

When considered in the context of Job’s expressions, the words indicate that the godless man is not in a secure position and cannot count on escaping punishment for his wrongdoing. Job referred to the “portion of the wicked man” that would come from God and the “inheritance” oppressors (powerful ones [LXX]) would receive “from the Almighty.” That “portion” or “inheritance” is punitive judgment. (27:13)

Adverse judgment from God could impact the sons or children of a wicked man. Although he might come to have numerous sons or children, a “sword” could be in store for them, ending their life. They also could come to be in poverty and “not be satisfied with bread,” experiencing severe hunger. The Septuagint says that the sons would be slaughtered and, if they did reach adulthood, would be beggars. (27:14)

The expression “in death” probably means “by plague.” As applying to the sons that survive the death of the wicked man and any siblings, they would be buried as persons who had died from “plague” or pestilence. Their widows would not lament their death. According to the Septuagint, no one would pity their widows. (27:15)

A godless man may prosper, piling up “silver like dust” and “clothing [gold (LXX)] like clay.” Anciently, the possession of many garments was a sign of wealth. So the accumulation of garments or gold basically has the same significance. (27:16)

In the final outcome, the upright person may end up wearing the garment of the godless man, and the “innocent one will share the silver.” The Septuagint says that the “righteous” or upright ones “will gain” all the things of the impious one, and the “true ones” or honest persons “will possess his goods.” (27:17)

The godless man “builds his house like a moth and like a booth that a watchman makes.” A “house like a moth” may designate the case that a clothes moth caterpillar makes from fibers of the material on which it feeds. The booths or simple shelters for watchmen in fields and vineyards were commonly constructed of tree branches and leaves. Accordingly, what the godless man built was fragile and would not endure. (27:18; see the Notes section.)

The wealth of a godless man can be very transitory. He may lie down to sleep and, upon awakening, may have nothing to gather. Upon opening his eyes, he may find that he possessions are gone. According to the Septuagint, the impious man may lie down rich but does not add to his wealth. The concluding phrase, according to the way Origen marked it in the third century CE, is added from the version of Theodotion. The added text may be rendered, “He opened his eyes, and he is not [rich].” (27:19)

“Terrors” may overtake the godless man “like a deluge,” or suddenly like a flash flood. “In the night,” a strong wind may carry him off. His end may come as by a flash flood or as by a powerful wind that leaves behind a path of destruction. In both cases, the ruin comes about suddenly and unexpectedly. According to the Septuagint, “pains,” like “water” (as from a flood), met up with the impious man, overwhelming him. In the “night,” dense darkness “took him away,” This could mean that the calamity that ended his life occurred under the cover of darkness. (27:20)

The swift end of the godless man is likened to his being carried off by the east wind — a scorching wind from the desert — and going away. This wind is represented as whirling him “from his place.” (27:21; see the Notes section.)

The east wind may be represented as hurling itself against the wicked man without compassion or restraint. He would try to run away from its “hand” or power, but the implication is that he would not succeed. The words of this verse have also been interpreted in a way that does not apply to the east wind. “Pitilessly he [the wicked man] is turned into a target, and forced to flee from the hands that menace him.” (NJB) (27:22)

It may be that the wind is here personified and represented as clapping its “hands” at the lawless man and “whistling at him” scornfully “from its place.” Another possible meaning is that the one or ones seeing deserved punishment inflicted on the wicked man would rejoice that his end had come and that he would no longer be able to engage in acts of oppression and injustice. This would give rise to the clapping of the hands and the whistling. Both meanings are found in modern translations. “It [the east wind] claps its hands at him and whistles at him from its place.” (Tanakh [JPS, 1985 edition]) “At last, the wind will celebrate because they [the wicked] are gone.” (CEV) “His downfall is greeted with applause, and he is hissed wherever he goes.” (NJB) (27:23; see the Notes section.)

Notes

In verse 9, the initial question found in the Septuagint is, “Will the Lord listen to his supplication [the supplication of the godless one]?” The phrase that ends the question in the extant Hebrew text starts the question that is completed in the next verse. “Or when distress comes upon him, does he have any confidence before [God]?” No godless person could be confident that God would come to his aid during his time of distress.

According to the Septuagint rendering of verse 10, the implied answer to the second question would be that God will not listen to the impious one when that one calls upon him.

The Septuagint rendering of verse 18 could be understood to say that the house of the impious man is like that of a moth (the case the clothes moth caterpillar makes from fibers of the material on which it feeds) and like that of a spider (a spider’s web).

From verse 21 to the end of the chapter, no part of the wording that corresponds to the extant Hebrew text was found in the Septuagint that was available to Origen in the third century CE. He added the words from the version of Theodotion and marked them accordingly. The Greek text of Theodotion reads much like the extant Hebrew text.

In verse 23, the Masoretic Text says, “their hands at them” (not “his hands at him”). This is also the reading found in the critical edition of the Göttingen Septuagint and in translations based on this Greek text.

Job 28:1-28

Already in ancient times, humans found ways to extract metals from the earth. As Job noted, there was a location “for silver” or a place where silver could be mined (a “place from which it comes” [LXX]). There also was a “place” to find gold, which people refined. (28:1)

For their use, men obtained “iron from the ground.” According to a literal reading of the Hebrew text, “One will pour out stone [into] copper.” This is commonly understood to mean that ore is smelted to produce the metal. The Septuagint says that copper is “hewn like stone.” (28:2)

Possibly the reference to an “end being put to darkness” refers to using lamps in which olive oil served as fuel to provide illumination for mining operations. To the farthest limits man searched out “stone” or ore in “darkness” and “death’s shadow” or deep darkness. This would have been in made-made underground shafts and tunnels. The Septuagint says that “he sets order to darkness.” This could refer to God as the one who brought light to the darkness or to man as the one who used light from lamps to dispel the gloom. (28:3; see the Notes section.)

“In a valley,” away from areas where travelers would pass, men sank shafts. The reference to “being forgotten from foot” suggests that the mining operations were carried out in an uninhabited area through which people would usually not have traveled. Suspended from ropes and in a remote location away “from men,” miners would swing back and forth in the shafts. (28:4; see the Notes section.)

“Out of the earth” or the soil “comes bread,” or the grain that is ground into flour for baking bread. Under the earth, the activity is referred to as an overturning “like fire.” This could refer to mining operations. The process of extracting metals and precious stones from the earth is comparable to the effects of a destructive fire. (28:5; see the Notes section.)

The “stones” (or the veins in rock) of the earth are the “place of the sapphire,” a precious gem of corundum and, in this context, probably the deep blue variety. Also in the earth is “dust of gold,” which could refer to gold flecks. The Greek version of Theodotion refers to a “mound” (a mound of earth) as containing gold. (28:6)

The “pathway” could include the one in the remote location for mining operations and the underground shafts and tunnels there. No “raptor” knows or is acquainted with this pathway, and the “eye of a falcon” (’ayyáh), though known for keen vision, “has not seen it.” The Hebrew word ’ayyáh is thought to imitate the cry of the raptor. Suggested lexical meanings for the designation include falcon, hawk, kite, and black kite. The Greek text from the version of Theodotion says “vulture” (gyps). (28:7)

The pathway unfamiliar to raptors is also one on which no proud beasts (literally, “sons of pride”) or powerful predators “have trodden,” and no lion has passed over it. In the Greek version of Theodotion, the Hebrew expression that can designate “proud beasts” is literally translated “sons of braggarts” or proud boasters. (28:8)

While engaging in mining operations, “man sets his hand to the flinty rock.” According to the Greek version of Theodotion, “he stretched out his hand” either with a sharp-edged rock or in a quarried space (akrótomos). The Greek word akrótomos is an adjective and can apply to something that is sharp, chiseled, sharp edged, or roughly quarried. Miners excavated tunnels underground in mountainous terrain, and so man could be said to “overturn mountains by the roots.” (28:9)

“In the rocks,” man “hews out channels” (literally, “streams”). The objective is to locate precious metals and gems. Then man’s “eye sees every precious thing.” The Septuagint says that man “divided whirlpools of rivers” and then represents Job as saying, “Every valuable thing my eye saw.” (28:10)

Man “binds up streams from weeping.” If this relates to mining operations, the reference would be to damming up subterranean streams to facilitate access to precious stones and metals. Man brings to light that which was hidden from view below the surface of the ground. (28:11)

The wording of translations that do not follow the vowel pointing of the Masoretic Text is different. “He explores the sources of rivers.” (NJB) “He probes the wellsprings of the streams.” (NAB) “They also uncover the sources of rivers.” (CEV) According to these renderings, the objective of the exploration is to bring hidden things to light. The Septuagint says that man “uncovered the depth of the rivers, and he displayed his power to light.” This could mean that, through his explorations and his efforts to extract precious stones and metals, man revealed his power in the light or made it visible. (28:11)

In this context, “wisdom” does not designate the human capacity for applying knowledge to attain certain objectives or to handle problems that may arise. It relates to God’s wisdom as revealed in his dealings. What he may do or permit in keeping with his purpose is not something human intellect can systematize or grasp. For humans, the wisdom of which God is the source calls for a reverential response to him as the one who alone understands it. (28:23, 28) In relation to this wisdom, the rhetorical question is raised, “Where shall wisdom be found, and where [is] the place of understanding?” The words that follow indicate where it cannot be found in the human realm. (28:12)

According to the extant Hebrew text, man “does not know its evaluation” or cannot fully comprehend the great worth of the wisdom that has God as its source. The Septuagint says of a mortal that he “does not know its way” or really understand the workings of this wisdom. “It is not found in the land of the living” or in the realm of human life and activity. The Septuagint says that it will “not be found among men” or humans. (28:13)

The wisdom of which God is the source cannot be found or discovered in the deepest place or in the sea. Job represented the “deep” (the “abyss” [Theodotion]) as saying, “It is not in me”; and the sea as saying, “It is not with me.” (28:14; see the Notes section.)

In this context, the Hebrew word segóhr, which can mean “encasement” or “enclosure” (Hosea 13:8), is (based on Akkadian) considered to designate gold. Modern translations have variously rendered the word (“red gold” [REB], “solid gold” [NAB, NJB], “gold” [NRSV], “finest gold” [NIV]). In exchange for the wisdom that has God as its source, one cannot give gold nor weigh out an amount of silver as its price. This wisdom simply cannot be bought. (28:15; see the Notes section.)

The location of Ophir has not been positively identified with a known location. This region was anciently famed for its fine gold. Wisdom, however, “cannot be weighed” or estimated against (“compared with” [Theodotion]) “precious” or highly valued “onyx [a semiprecious stone] and sapphire” (a precious stone, probably deep blue in color). It was of far greater worth. (28:16; see the Notes section.)

“Gold and glass,” or the value thereof, “cannot equal” wisdom, and a “vessel of refined gold” would not have been of sufficient worth to be given in exchange for it. (28:17)

The reference to “coral and crystal” not being mentioned indicates that these precious items also did not have sufficient value to buy wisdom. In the extant Hebrew text, the last word is peniním, which has been understood to designate “pearls,” “rubies,” “coral,” and “red coral.” Its relationship to a “bag” or “bagful of wisdom” is not specifically expressed. This accounts for a variety of renderings in modern translations. “A pouch of wisdom is better than rubies.” (Tanakh [JPS, 1985 edition) “A parcel of wisdom fetches more than red coral.” (REB) “It surpasses pearls.” (NAB) “The price of wisdom is beyond rubies.” (NIV) “Better go fishing for Wisdom than for pearls!” (NJB) The Greek text that was added from the version of Theodotion reveals that the Hebrew text was not well understood. It says, “Celestial items and gabis [a transliteration of the Hebrew word rendered “crystal”] will not be brought to mind,” possibly as a purchase price for wisdom. “And you, draw wisdom above the innermost things” Perhaps this means that one should prefer wisdom to the precious things that are concealed in the earth and are the most difficult to find or to extract. (28:18)

The “topaz of Cush [Ethiopia (Theodotion)] cannot compare with” (“will not be equal to”) wisdom. It “cannot be weighed” (“compared with” [Theodotion]) or estimated against “pure gold.” Wisdom is far too precious. (28:19)

Verse 20, with slightly different wording, repeats the thought expressed in verse 12 (which see). (28:20)

“Wisdom” and the “place of understanding” are basically parallel expressions. Therefore, either one may be considered as “hidden from the eyes of all the living,” for it cannot be found through human effort. God is the source of wisdom. According to the Septuagint, it has escaped the detection of “every man.” The extant Hebrew text and the Greek text that Origen marked as added to the Septuagint from the version of Theodotion indicate that wisdom also “was concealed from the birds of heaven.” Although possessing keen vision and able to see from a vantage point above the land while in flight, birds cannot locate the place where wisdom is found. (28:21; see the Notes section.)

“Abbadon” (or Destruction personified) and Death say, “With our ears we have heard a report of it [wisdom].” This indicates that, just as in the case of the land of the living, wisdom is not found in the realm of the dead. It is as if only a rumor about wisdom has been heard there. (28:22; see the Notes section.)

God is the One who has “understood” the “way” to wisdom. He alone is the One who knows how it can be obtained. He also knows “its place” or where it is to be found. The Septuagint rendering reads much like the extant Hebrew text. “God has established its way well, and he knows its place.” (28:23)

God “looks to the ends of the earth,” and “he sees under all of the heavens.” According to the Septuagint, “He observes everything under heaven,” or everyone and everything in the earthly realm. The Septuagint then identifies him as the One who made everything and as knowing it. The concluding phrase of the Septuagint reads, “since he knows everything on the earth he has made.” With nothing being concealed from his sight, God, unlike man, knows where the place for finding wisdom is located. (28:24)

The Hebrew text represents God as making a “weight” for the “wind.” This could mean that he gives it power or that he controls the force of the wind. The Septuagint rendering identifies God as knowing the “weight of winds and the measures of water.” This wording suggests that he knows the force winds can exert and the amount of water available to be allotted for rain. The Hebrew text seemingly refers to the distribution of water in the form of precipitation. It says regarding God that “he meted out waters by measure.” (28:25)

The reference to a “decree for the rain” may refer to the path that rain seems to follow as it descends. This “decree” is attributed to God. He is also said to make a “way” or path for the “lightning of thunders.” The expression “lightning of thunders [literally, sounds]” could refer to a thunderbolt, for it appears to travel a path to the ground. (28:26; see the Notes section regarding the Septuagint rendering.)

What God saw is not specifically identified, but the Hebrew pronominal suffix is feminine gender (as also is the pronoun in the Greek version of Theodotion). This provides a basis for considering the reference to be to wisdom. A number of modern translations are specific in their renderings. “It was then he saw wisdom.”(REB) “Then he saw wisdom.” (NAB) “Then he looked at wisdom.” (NIV) Regarding it, the verse continues, “he declared it, established it, and also searched it out.” In relation to his creative work, God “declared” wisdom. This could signify that he determined how it would be applied, thus defining its function. He “established” or prepared it for its role. His “searching it out” could refer to finding out what wisdom could accomplish by putting it to the test through use. (28:27; see the Notes section.)

In the case of humans, what true wisdom is has been divinely revealed. The “fear of the Lord,” or a reverential regard for the Almighty God, is “wisdom,” and to “turn away from evil” (evils [LXX]) is “understanding.” An upright life distinguished by a wholesome fear of God is thus identified as one that manifests wisdom or understanding. It is the proper use of knowledge and the right response to the dictates of a God-given conscience. (28:28)

Notes

The wording of verse 3 that corresponds to that of the extant Hebrew text is, according to the marks of Origen, taken from the Greek version of Theodotion. “And he carefully examines every limit: stone — darkness and death’s shadow, …” Possibly the meaning is that “stone” or ore is found in places that light does not reach. The introductory phrase of verse 4 completes the sentence (“a narrow channel of a wadi away from [or because of] dust”). There is no way to be sure how this obscure phrase relates to mining operations.

In verse 4, the wording of the Septuagint that is not added from the version of Theodotion differs significantly from the extant Hebrew text. “Those of mortals forgetting the righteous way became weak.” By ignoring the right way, the divinely approved course, individuals end up in a weak or helpless state. They are left without God’s aid and guidance.

Starting with verse 5 through to the initial phrase of verse 9, the marks of Origen in the third century CE indicate that the Greek text was added from the version of Theodotion, for it was not contained in the Septuagint available to him.

According to the marks of Origen in the third century CE, the wording of verses 14 through 19 is added from the Greek version of Theodotion.

In verse 15, the Greek version of Theodotion retained the meaning “enclosure” for the Hebrew word segóhr. The initial phrase reads, “He will not give an enclosure instead of it.” In this case, however, some translators have chosen the meaning “massiveness,” that is, a massive pile of gold.

In verse 16, the Greek text supports the meaning onyx for the Hebrew word shóham, but there is considerable uncertainty about whether this is the correct significance. The Septuagint is inconsistent in how it renders shóham. The Greek terms include berýllion (beryl), prasinos (“light green” stone), sárdion (sardius), smáragdos (“bright green” stone, probably emerald), and soóm (possibly carnelian).

Without the addition from the Greek version of Theodotion, the Septuagint text of verses 21 and 22 reads, “It [wisdom] has escaped detection from every man. But we have heard of the report of it” or “of its fame.” In the version of Theodotion, the introductory phrase to the words about having heard is, “Destruction and Death said.”

Verse 26 in the Septuagint says, “When he [God] had thus done, he calculated rain.” This possibly could be understood to mean that, since God created everything, including winds and water, he also calculated the amount of rainfall. The next phrase, according to the marks of Origen in the third century CE, was added from the Greek version of Theodotion. This obscure phrase is, “and a way in the quaking — sounds.” Possibly the thought is that God prepared a way for the rumble of the sound of thunder. This sound is comparable to that caused by the shaking or quaking of the land during an earthquake.

The initial phrase of verse 27 in the Greek text corresponds to the reading of the extant Hebrew text (“then he saw it and declared it”). Origen, in the third century CE, marked this phrase as having been added from the Greek version of Theodotion. When the added phrase is omitted, the text of the Septuagint appears to relate to what God has done in relation to the rain. “Having prepared, he kept track.”

Job 29:1-25

Job continued to speak. His words are introduced in the same way as they were earlier. (27:1) “And Job added, taking up his discourse [literally, proverb or proverbial saying], and said.” (29:1)

Job wished that he could again be in the circumstances he enjoyed in past months (“months of old”), in the “days” or the time “God watched over [him],” assuring his well-being. (29:2; see the Notes section.)

In the past, the “lamp” of God had shone on Job’s head, and he walked by God’s “light through darkness.” He had benefited from God’s guidance and safeguarding as if the course he pursued had been illuminated, revealing hazards and lighting the way to a successful outcome. (29:3)

Job referred to his being in his “days of autumn,” or at the start of the year. He was then in the prime of his life. Job was favored with the “counsel of God” in his tent, his dwelling, or in his whole household. As a recipient of the “counsel of God,” Job was in the position of a confidant or a confidential friend, like a man with whom God shared his secret counsel. (29:4; see the Notes section.)

In former times, the Almighty was with Job, guiding and blessing him. According to the rendering of the Septuagint, Job was exceedingly flush or prosperous. As a family man, he had his children all around him. (29:5)

Job likened his former prosperous state to his washing his “steps,” or the path he traveled, “with milk.” “And rock poured out streams of oil” for him. This suggests that olive trees growing in rocky terrain yielded abundant fruit for producing olive oil. The Septuagint represents Job as portraying his prosperity somewhat differently. His “ways flowed with butter,” and his “mountains” or hills “flowed with milk.” (29:6; see the Notes section.)

In the community, Job was a highly respected elder. As such, he “went out” to the gate of the city and prepared his seat in the square or in the open area near the gate where judicial matters were handled. The Septuagint refers to his going into the city early and says that his seat was placed in the squares. (29:7)

When young men saw Job in his prepared seat, they hid themselves out of respect for him. Persons of advanced age showed their high regard for Job by rising from a seated position and then continuing to stand. (29:8)

Princes or leaders among the people stopped speaking (literally, “refrained from words”). They laid their “hand on their mouth” (a “finger on [their] mouth” [LXX]), remaining silent while waiting for Job to speak. (29:9)

The “voice of nobles was hidden” or reduced to silence as if smothered. Nobles did not express themselves until Job did so. Their complete silence proved to be as if “their tongue cleaved to their palate,” not being able to move in order to make an utterance. (29:10; see the Notes section.)

When an “ear heard,” either what Job said or from others about him, he was pronounced “happy,” fortunate, or blessed. Both meanings about what was heard are expressed in the interpretive renderings of modern translations. “Everyone was pleased with what I said.” (CEV) “On hearing me, people congratulated me.” (NJB) “Whoever heard of me blessed me.” (NAB) “Whoever heard of me spoke favourably of me.” (REB) When understood to apply to what Job said, the reference could be to the times when he, as an elder, expressed his judgment at the city gate. “And when an eye saw,” or observed Job, it approved (literally, “bore witness” or gave favorable testimony), indicating that Job received commendation from the one who saw him. (29:11; see the Notes section.)

Job delivered the poor one who cried out, probably on account of oppression or unjust treatment; and he also brought relief to the afflicted fatherless one who had no helper. According to the Septuagint, Job “delivered the poor one out of the hand” or power of the “mighty one” or the oppressor. With reference to himself, he is then quoted as saying, “And I helped the orphan who had no helper.” (29:12)

The one about to perish could have been a person so destitute as barely able to exist or one who was about to die. That one’s blessing came to be upon Job, apparently for the help the individual had received from him. A number of translations are more explicit than the Hebrew text in the way they refer to the one about to perish. “The blessing of those in extremity came upon me.” (NAB) “He who was threatened with ruin blessed me.” (REB) “I received the blessing of the lost.” (Tanakh [JPS, 1985 edition]) “The man who was dying blessed me.” (NIV) The dying man’s blessing rested on me.” (NJB) Job made the “heart of the widow” utter a joyous cry. Through his compassionate response to her needs, Job caused the widow to be joyful in her heart or in her inmost self. (29:13; see the Notes section.)

Job conducted himself uprightly and rendered just judgments, treating everyone impartially. Therefore, his “righteousness” was like a garment that he put on. It clothed him, identifying him as an upright man. His judgment or justice proved to be like a robe and a turban. This would have been the usual attire and, therefore, represented what could be expected from Job — just treatment and right action. The Septuagint refers to Job as putting on righteousness and being clothed with judgment or justice “like a double cloak.” (29:14)

Job offered aid to the blind and the lame. Therefore, he spoke of himself as being “eyes to the blind” (an “eye of the blind” [LXX]) and “feet to the lame” (a “foot of the lame” [LXX]). (29:15)

Job was concerned about the poor and came to their aid. Therefore, he spoke of himself as having been a “father” to them (the “powerless ones” [LXX]). He was willing to “search out” or to investigate the cause of a stranger, granting him an impartial hearing. According to the Septuagint, Job investigated a legal case that he did not know or with which he was unfamiliar. (29:16)

Job spoke of the decisive action he took against the lawless one, depriving him of the power to injure others. He also brought relief to those whom the unrighteous one had mistreated. Job said, “I broke the fangs [molars or teeth (LXX)] of the unrighteous one and made [him] drop the prey [the one whom he victimized] from his teeth.” The Septuagint indicates that Job removed the prey from the midst of the teeth of the unrighteous or the unjust. (29:17)

Job believed that he would die a peaceful death after having enjoyed a long life. “And I thought [that] I will die in my nest,” possibly meaning in my own home surrounded by my family. Job referred to living a long time as multiplying his “days like the sand” or the grains of sand. The Septuagint represents Job as expressing himself to the effect that his lifespan would be long, referring to living a long time “like the trunk of a palm tree.” (29:18)

Job likened his past flourishing state to that of a tree, with his “root spreading out to the waters” and “dew” remaining “all night” on his “branch.” (29:19; see the Notes section.)

Job referred to his “glory,” or his state of honor, as “fresh [new (Theodotion)] with [him],” suggesting that it was never diminished. The “bow in [his] hand” may be regarded as representing his strength, and Job spoke of it as showing newness or always being in peak condition. (29:20; see the Notes section.)

Especially when Job spoke as a respected elder in the community, people listened to him and waited for what he had to say. When he provided counsel or advice, they remained silent, accepting what he stated. (29:21)

After Job’s “word,” or after he had finished speaking, no one else spoke. According to the Septuagint, they did not “add” to what he had said. Job’s word “dropped upon them,” which could mean that, as the next verse suggests, it descended gently upon them like refreshing rain. The Septuagint indicates that people became overjoyed when Job spoke to them. (29:22)

People waited for Job as they would for needed rain. “They opened their mouth as for spring rain,” eager to receive his words as if thirsting for them. The Septuagint says that, “as the thirsting earth” or the parched land received or waited for the rain, so did people for what Job said. (29:23)

When Job “smiled” at people, showing that he was favorably disposed toward them, they could hardly believe it. This would have been because his smile of favor was unexpected but highly valued and greatly desired. According to the extant Hebrew text, Job is quoted as saying, “And they did not cast down the light of my face.” This wording suggests that external factors did not change Job’s pleasant countenance. With the exception of the verb, the Greek text that was added from the version of Theodotion reads much like the Hebrew text. “The light of my face did not fail” or become downcast. This rendering indicates that Job maintained a cheerful and pleasant countenance. Numerous modern translations, however, have emended the text to convey a variety of meanings. “When my face lit up, they lost their gloomy looks.” (REB) “Mourners took comfort from my cheerful glance.” (NAB) “They never expected a sign of my favor.” (Tanakh [JPS, 1985 edition]) “The light of my face was precious to them.” (NIV) “They watched my face for the least sign of favor.” (NJB) (29:24)

In his prominent position as a highly respected man, Job “chose their way” or the course that others then followed. Among peers, he sat as “head” or chief. His standing was like that of a “king” among his “troops.” Job was like a man who comforted mourners. (29:25; see the Notes section.)

Notes

In verse 2, the Septuagint represents Job as asking who would place him “in a month” of “former days,” a time when he fared well and prospered, with God watching over him.

Verse 4 of the Septuagint refers to Job as saying that he “pressed closely” on his ways. This could indicate that he pursued his course confidently and steadfastly. The concluding phrase could be understood to mean that God made a visit to Job’s house as would a friend or that God exercised oversight of his house, looking after the interests of Job’s entire household.

The rendering “milk” in verse 6 of the Hebrew text has the support of a few manuscripts. The Masoretic Text contains the word chemáh, meaning “wrath.” Unlike the word “milk,” the noun “wrath” does not fit the context.

The opening phrase of verse 10 in the Septuagint indicates that those who “heard” what Job said pronounced him happy. According to the marks of Origen in the third century CE, the concluding phrase of this verse was added from the Greek version of Theodotion. It is, “and their tongue cleaved to their throat.”

Origen, in the third century CE, marked the initial phrase of verse 11 as having been added from the Greek version of Theodotion. This added phrase reads much like the extant Hebrew text. “For an ear heard and pronounced me happy” or fortunate. The wording of the Septuagint that follows departs somewhat from the reading of the extant Hebrew text. “An eye [that] saw me turned away.” This could mean that, in deference, the individual looked down.

The opening phrase of verse 13 is, according to the marks of Origin in the third century CE, an addition from the Greek version of Theodotion. This added phrase reads much like the Hebrew text. “May a blessing of the one perishing come upon me.” The wording of the Septuagint thereafter follows this addition. “The mouth of the widow blessed me.”

According to the marks of Origen in the third century CE, the wording of verses 19 and 20 was added from the Greek version of Theodotion. The rendering of verse 19 is much like the reading of the extant Hebrew text but does not identify the root as being Job’s root (“my root”) and does not refer to his “branch.” “The root was widened out upon the water, and dew will settle on my crop.” This rendering suggests that abundant water and dew brought success to Job’s agricultural operations.

The concluding phrase of verse 20 in the Greek version of Theodotion departs somewhat from the reading of the extant Hebrew text. “And my bow will go forth in his hand.” This may mean that Job’s “bow” was in God’s hand or under his control, indicating that he was the one who strengthened and protected Job.

Based on the marks of Origen in the third century CE, the wording of verse 25 was added from the Greek version of Theodotion. It conveys the same meaning as does the extant Hebrew text.

Job 30:1-31

In view of the calamities that had befallen Job, men younger than he laughed at him. Job would have rejected their fathers to be put with the dogs of his flock, refusing to entrust them with what probably was regarded as the lowest level of responsibility possible. The expression could well have been a proverbial description of men who were regarded as worthless and useless. (30:1; see the Notes section.)

Probably concerning those who derided him, Job raised the rhetorical question as to what he could have gained from the “strength of their hands?” The implied answer was, Nothing. These men were incapable of doing anything, for vigor had perished from them. (30:2; see the Notes section.)

The men who mocked Job were generally regarded as the dregs of society. They did not even perform work as hired laborers and subsisted on what they could find to eat. They had no strength for hard work, as their diet was inadequate. Job is quoted as describing them as without vigor “from want and hunger.” The Hebrew adjective galmúd follows the word for “hunger.” Its usual meaning is “unfruitful” or “barren.” The rendering in the Greek version of Theodotion is ágonos (“barren,” “sterile,” or “childless”). In this case, however, the Hebrew adjective galmúd could indicate the hunger to be unsatisfied or severe. Another possibility is that the individuals are being described as emaciated. Their gnawing “dry ground” could refer to their eating any edible plant or root they could find in uncultivated desert areas. (30:3)

The Hebrew adverb ’émesh follows the noun translated “dry ground.” In other contexts, ’émesh means “last night” or “yesterday,” but this significance does not really fit with the preceding words nor with the words that follow (“waste and desolation”). One possible meaning could be that the “dry ground” was already waste and desolate at a former time. Another interpretation would be to consider the meaning “last night” for ’émesh to designate the “dry ground” or barren desert as a place of darkness or gloom like the night. The Greek version of Theodotion appears to refer to those who were sterile or childless as having fled “yesterday” from an arid land to escape “distress and misery.” (30:3; see the Notes section.)

Those who mocked Job could be found plucking “salt herbs” (one possible meaning for the Hebrew word mallúach) growing alongside a bush. The Hebrew phrase “by a bush” could also mean “leafage of a bush” (perhaps “wormwood”). This accounts for the various renderings in modern translations. “In the brush they gathered salt herbs.” (NIV) “They used to pick saltwort among the scrub.” (NJB) “They plucked saltwort and wormwood.” (REB) “They plucked saltwort and shrubs.” (NAB) “They pick mallow and the leaves of bushes.” (NRSV) Depending on which reading of the Hebrew text is followed, the ones whom Job mentioned either used the root of broom trees for fuel to warm themselves or for food. Both meanings are found in modern translations (“for warmth the root of broom” [REB]; “to warm themselves the roots of broom” [NRSV]; “their food was the root of the broom tree” [NIV]). It may be noted, however, that the root of the broom tree, being bitter and nauseating, is not suitable for food. (30:4; see the Notes section.)

The Hebrew text appears to represent those who mocked Job as worthless men who were “driven out” from society. After them, people would shout out as one would after a thief. The Septuagint conveys a different meaning. It quotes Job as saying, “Thieves have risen up against me.” (30:5)

The outcasts from society who laughed at Job had to make their abode on the steep slopes of ravines through which streams flowed during the rainy season. They would have to dwell in holes in the ground and in “rocks” or clefts and caves in rocky terrain. According to the Septuagint, their homes were “holes” or “caves” in the rocks. (30:6)

Among bushes, the outcasts would “bray” or cry out. They would “huddle under nettles.” This could mean that they availed themselves of the shade tall nettles provided during the heat of the day or that they collected nettles for food. (30:7; see the Notes section.)

Job referred to those who mocked him as “sons of a senseless one” or men devoid of good sense, and also as “sons without name” or men of disrepute. As lowlifes, they had been “scourged” out of the land as if driven out with a whip. The Septuagint refers to their reputation as “extinguished from the earth” or the land. (30:8)

To the disreputable outcasts, Job had become the subject of their taunting song (their “kithara” [LXX], the stringed instrument that accompanied their song of mockery). He was also a “byword” to these lowlifes. (30:9)

Although themselves outcasts, the men who derided Job detested him and kept themselves far away or aloof. In expression of their contempt, they did not withhold spit from his face. (30:10)

The Kethib reading of the Hebrew text is “his cord,” whereas the Qere reading is “my cord.” This gives rise to different meanings of the text. If the reading is “his cord,” the initial phrase of the verse could mean that God loosed the cord by which he formerly had restrained those who mistreated Job. The reference to “my cord” would refer to Job’s cord, with the cord designating either a bowstring or a tent cord. Loosing Job’s bowstring would have meant depriving him of his strength or his position of authority and reducing him to a helpless state. For God to have loosed Job’s tent cord would have resulted in his being in a vulnerable position that subjected him to injury. His circumstances would have been comparable to that of a tent that can collapse when its cord is loosed. Job was “humbled” or afflicted by the mistreatment he experienced. Men who were the very dregs of society “cast off restraint” before Job’s “face” or in his presence. (30:11; see the Notes section.)

Translators vary in their interpretive renderings, identifying either God or those who taunted Job as acting against him. “Because God has loosed my bowstring and humbled me, they have cast off restraint in my presence.” (NRSV) “Now that God has unstrung my bow and afflicted me, they throw off restraint in my presence.” (NIV) “God has destroyed me, and so they don’t care what they do.” (CEV) “Indeed, they have loosed their bonds; they lord it over me, and have thrown off restraint in my presence.” (NAB) “They run wild and savage me; at sight of me they throw off all restraint.” (REB) The Septuagint rendering conveys yet another meaning. “For he opened his quiver [and] did evil to me.” This rendering suggests that God attacked Job as if removing arrows from his quiver and shooting them against him. (30:11)

Job referred to the hateful treatment he experienced from the rabble. He likened it to a “brood” or an “offshoot” (a collective singular in Hebrew) rising up on his right hand, the side where supporters should have been but where they appeared as attackers. According to a literal rendering of the Hebrew text, Job is quoted as saying, “They sent my feet.” This has been variously translated. “They lay snares for my feet.” (NIV) “They send me sprawling.” (NRSV) “They put me to flight.” (Tanakh [JPS, 1985 edition]) These men also “cast up ways of destruction” against Job or devised means to harm him or to bring about his ruin. According to the marks of Origen, the wording is from the Greek version of Theodotion. It may be rendered, “On the right of a shoot [or offspring], they rose up; they have spread out their foot and prepared roads of their destruction for me.” Possibly this could be understood to mean that those who attacked Job were like new sprouts that had sprung up and had set their feet in motion to make their approach, determined on doing him injury. (30:12)

Job spoke of those who assailed him as breaking up his “path.” This could mean that they made it impossible for him to get away from their attacks. According to a literal reading of the Hebrew text, Job is then quoted as saying, “They benefit from my calamity.” This could refer to their maliciously delighting in seeing Job afflicted and humiliated. Translators have variously interpreted the Hebrew text. “They promote my calamity.” (NRSV) “They further my calamity.” (Margolis) “They succeed in destroying me.” (NIV) The concluding phrase of the Hebrew text says, “not one helping them.” This could be understood to mean that their action against Job really did not help or benefit them in any way. Another possibility is to consider the phrase as relating to the breaking up of Job’s path. They acted on their own, with no assistance from anyone. Translators have commonly interpreted the phrase to indicate that no one stopped those who mistreated Job. “They attack with none to stay them.” (NAB) They “scramble up against me unhindered.” (REB) “No one restrains them.” (NRSV) Aside from the wording that Origen marked as from the Greek version of Theodotion (“my paths were obliterated”), the Septuagint text does not resemble the extant Hebrew text. It says, “For he took off my robe.” This suggests that God took away Job’s dignity, the dignity that the robe represented. (30:13)

As if having made a wide breach, Job’s assailants came against him. “Amid the devastation [sho’áh]” (like the ruin occurring when a wall is breached), they rolled on as in waves. The Hebrew word sho’áh has been understood to mean “storm” and, by extension, the effect a storm can have. Modern translations have variously rendered the text. “Amid the uproar they come on in waves.” (NAB) “Amid the crash, they roll on.” (NRSV) “At the moment of a crash they come in waves.” (REB) “Amid the ruins they come rolling in.” (NIV) “They roll in like raging billows.” (Tanakh [JPS, 1985 edition]) (30:14; see the Notes section regarding the Septuagint rendering.)

“Terrors” or frightful calamities (“pains” [LXX]) had “turned” on Job, overwhelming him. His “honor” or dignity was “pursued as by wind.” This meant that his noble standing was ripped away from him as by a violent storm. His “deliverance,” or the possibility of relief from his suffering, had passed away like a cloud that disappears from sight without bringing any rain. According to the Septuagint rendering, Job said, “My hope is gone like the wind, and my deliverance like a cloud.” He was left without hope and with no indication that his well-being would ever be restored. (30:15)

Job is quoted as having said that his “soul” was “poured out” within him and that “days of affliction” had taken hold of him. In this case, the Hebrew word for “soul” may be understood to refer to life. Apparently Job sensed that his life appeared to be slipping away as if it were being poured out from inside him, and his days were filled with suffering. (30:16; see the Notes section.)

During the night it seemed to Job that his “bones” were being bored away from him. His entire frame must have been wracked with intense pain. The agony that “gnawed” Job took no rest, causing no letup in his suffering. According to the Septuagint rendering, Job’s bones were inflamed, suggesting that he felt as if his whole organism was on fire. The concluding phrase of the Septuagint reads, “But my sinews are loosed” or dissolved. Thus Job is represented as saying that, in his diseased state, his entire organism was falling apart. (30:17; see the Notes section.)

The Hebrew word chaphás basically means “search.” In certain contexts, however, it denotes “disguise.” A literal rendering of the initial phrase could be, “With great strength, my garment is disguised.” A possible meaning for this obscure wording might be that the disease had so disfigured Job that the garment he wore seemed to have changed its appearance from when he used to wear it while enjoying good health. Another way to view the text is to consider the “garment” to refer to Job’s outward appearance that had become totally unrecognizable. Possibly because of his pain, the garment itself seemed to encompass him uncomfortably as if it were the collar of his tunic. (30:18)

The obscurity of the wording of the verse accounts for a variety of interpretive renderings in translations. “In his great power God becomes like clothing to me; he binds me like the neck of my garment.” (NIV) “Violently, he [God] has caught me by my clothes, has gripped me by the collar of my coat.” (NJB) “And God has shrunk my skin, choking me to death.” (CEV) “My garments are all bespattered with my phlegm, which chokes me like the collar of a garment.” (REB) “One with great power lays hold of my clothing; by the collar of my tunic he seizes me.” (NAB) “With great effort I change clothing; the neck of my tunic fits my waist.” (Tanakh [JPS, 1985 edition]) The Septuagint rendering lends support for renderings that attribute to God the action involving the clothing. “With great strength, he has seized my garment.” (30:18; see the Notes section.)

In view of the suffering and mistreatment he had experienced, Job felt as though God had thrown him “into the mire” or, according to the Septuagint, regarded him as “equal to clay.” Afflicted and humiliated, he had become “like dust and ashes.” Job viewed himself as having been treated as valueless — mere dirt. The Septuagint concludes the verse with Job saying, “My portion [is] in the earth [the ground or the dust of the ground] and ashes.” (30:19)

In his distress, Job cried out to God, but he did not answer (“hear” or “listen to” [LXX]) him. The concluding phrase reads, “I stand, and you observe.” This suggests that God did nothing to help Job. He only looked at him. (30:20; see the Notes section.)

Job regarded God as the source of the calamities that had befallen him. Therefore, he spoke of God as having “turned cruel” toward him. The Septuagint refers to God as attacking Job mercilessly. “With the might of [his] hand” or his great power (“strong hand” [LXX]), God had become hostile to Job or, according to the Septuagint, had scourged him. (30:21)

Job felt that God had “lifted” or swept “him up on the wind” and made him ride the turbulent tempest. This suggests that Job perceived himself as helplessly buffeted by the distress that had come upon him. The Septuagint rendering indicates that God appointed pains for Job. In the Hebrew text, the verse concludes with a phrase that may be translated, “You melt me with success” (tohshiyyáh). This could mean that Job thought God had been successful in dissolving him or bringing him to complete ruin. With different vowel points, the consonants of the word tohshiyyáh can mean “noise,” and this has been understood to relate to a tempest. A number of translations reflect this significance in their renderings. “The tempest tosses me about.” (REB) “And [you] blow me to pieces in a tempest.” (NJB) “You toss me about in the storm.” (NIV) (30:22; see the Notes section.)

In view of his affliction, Job spoke of knowing that God would “return” him to death (or to the nonexistent state in which he had been prior to his conception and birth) and “to the house appointed [literally, house of appointment] for all the living.” This “house” apparently designates the realm of the dead. The Septuagint says that Job knew that death would destroy him. It concludes with the words, “For the earth [is] the house of every mortal.” This could refer to the reality that all mortals return to the dust of the earth at death. (30:23)

A literal rendering of the extant Hebrew text would be, “Yet not in a heap of ruins does one stretch out a hand; and in his disaster, [he makes] a cry [for help] to them.” Completely covered in a “heap of ruins,” one cannot stretch out a hand for aid. When still alive and not under a pile of rubble after a disaster, a person can cry out to others for assistance. While this meaning is possible if “pile of ruins” has a literal significance, it is by no means certain. The Hebrew text is obscure, and the interpretive renderings of translations vary greatly. “Surely He would not strike at a ruin if, in calamity, one cried out to Him.” (Tanakh [JPS, 1985 edition) “Surely one does not turn against the needy, when in disaster they cry for help.”(NRSV) “Yet should not a hand be held out to help a wretched man in his calamity?” (NAB) “Yet have I ever laid a hand on the poor when they cried out for justice in calamity?” (NJB) “Yet no beggar held out his hand to me in vain for relief in his distress.” (REB) “No one refuses help to others when disaster strikes.” (CEV) The Septuagint rendering suggests that the reference is to suicide. “Oh, if I would be able to lay hands on myself, or indeed entreat someone else, and he would do this for me.” (30:24)

Job apparently directed his rhetorical questions to God. “Did I not weep for him whose day was hard? Was [not] my soul [I myself] grieved for the needy one?” Job felt keenly for those who were suffering, but implied that God did not show such compassionate feelings for him. According to the Septuagint rendering, Job wept “over every powerless one” or oppressed person, and he “groaned when he saw a man in distress.” (30:25)

Job looked for “good,” or relief from his affliction, and “evil came” in the form of more suffering. He “waited for light,” longing for a brighter future, “and darkness came,” plunging him into even greater distressing gloom. (30:26; see the Notes section.)

Job referred to his “inward parts” as boiling or being in a constant state of ferment and not being still. There was no letup in his distressing internal turmoil. “Days of affliction” met him, filling his days with suffering. (30:27; see the Notes section.)

Job’s being dark or blackened could refer either to his being in a state of gloom or his having a sickly dark pallor on account of his diseased condition. He went about without sunshine, meaning either that his skin had been darkened but not from sunshine or that there was nothing to brighten his day. Modern translations convey variations of both meanings. “I go about blackened, but not by the sun.” (NIV) “My skin has become dark, but the sun didn’t do it.” (NIRV) “Suffering has scorched my skin.” (CEV) “I go about in gloom, without the sun.” (NAB) “I go about in sunless gloom.” (NRSV) “I go about dejected and comfortless.” (REB) According to the Septuagint, Job went about groaning without a muzzle or without any kind of restraint. He stood up in the assembly, or among a gathering of people, and cried out for help, with the implication being that no one came to his aid. (30:28)

Job had become a detested outcast, comparable to being isolated with animals in remote areas. Accordingly, he referred to himself as a “brother of jackals” (“sirens” or mythical creatures [LXX]) and a companion of ostriches (“daughters of an ostrich”). (30:29)

Apparently having changed to a sickly dark pallor, Job’s skin was black. He is quoted as saying, “My skin blackens from me.” What happened to the skin in relation to Job is expressed by the phrase “from me,” suggesting that the blackened skin peeled. The reference to his bones burning from heat may indicate that Job had a high fever. (30:30; see the Notes section.)

For Job, instrumental music ceased to be associated with joyous occasions as it had formerly. His “harp” or lyre became an instrument for mourning, and his pipe accompanied the sound of those who were weeping. According to the Septuagint, his “psalm” or song had come to be “for wailing to him.” (30:31)

Notes

In verse 1, the Septuagint does not mention younger men. It says, “But now they laughed at me. Now the least ones admonished me in turn.” The next phrase, according to the marks of Origen in the third century CE, was added from the Greek text of Theodotion. This phrase indicates that Job treated “their fathers with disdain.” Then the text of the Septuagint resumes with the words, “whom I did not esteem to be worthy of the dogs of my pastures,” or the dogs used for shepherding the flocks.

In verse 2, modern translations vary in applying the description either to the young men who mocked Job or to their fathers. When the renderings are specific in their application in verse 2, this is also the case in the entire section that ends with verse 8. Since the focus of verse 1 is on those who mocked Job, it appears preferable to consider the words of verses 2 through 8 as applying to them and not specifically to their fathers.

The marks of Origen in the third century CE indicate that the wording of verse 2 was supplied from the Greek version of Theodotion. It reads much like the extant Hebrew text. “And indeed the strength of their hand — what [is it] to me? For them, a finish perished.” Perhaps this means that they could bring nothing to completion. A common interpretive rendering applies the perishing of the “finish” to the perishing of the full term of their life.

The wording of verse 3 and the first phrase of verse 4 was added from the Greek version of Theodotion. Origen marked it as such in the third century CE.

In verse 4, the Greek version of Theodotion refers to those who derided Job as men who broke off salty plants in a noisy place (literally, “on a sounding”). Perhaps the words “on a sounding” designate a location where the wind howled. Then, according to the rendering of the Septuagint that follows, the food of these men was salty plants. They were without honor, despised, and lacking in “everything good.” On account of “great hunger,” these men chewed the “roots of trees.”

According to the marks of Origen in the third century CE, the initial phrase of verse 7 is an addition from the Greek version of Theodotion. It may be rendered, “In the midst of pleasant sounds, they will cry out.” Possibly the sounds could be those of the wind and the rustling of vegetation. Regarding the outcasts from society, the concluding phrase of the Septuagint says, “Under the wild brushwood, they live.”

The marks of Origen in the third century CE indicate that the phrase about restraint in verse 11 was added from the version of Theodotion. It may be rendered, “And they have cast off the restraint of my face.” This could mean that they cast off the restraint that Job’s presence formerly had on them.

In verse 14, the rendering of the Septuagint represents God as the one acting against Job. “With his arrows, he shot me down. He treated me as he wanted. With pain, I have been defiled.” The calamities that had befallen Job were like arrows that had pierced him. Job regarded his suffering as coming from God. Job’s pain made him an unclean man to those who saw him in his diseased condition.

The wording of the initial phrase of verse 16, according to the marks of Origen, was added from the Greek version of Theodotion. It basically corresponds to the wording of the extant Hebrew text. “And now my soul will be poured out upon me.” The concluding words of the Septuagint text follow. “But days of pains take hold of me.”

In verse 17, the Hebrew text represents Job as attributing the boring of the bones to the night, for it would have been then when he experienced the greatest pain. “Night bores my bones from off me.”

The marks of Origen indicate that the wording of the concluding phrase of verse 18 was taken from the Greek version of Theodotion. “He has encircled me like the collar of my tunic” (chitón, a transliteration of the Hebrew word for “tunic” or “garment”). This suggests that God had bound Job tightly, or subjected him to great distress, as if encircling him like the collar does the neck.

The concluding phrase of verse 20 (“they stood and gazed at me”) is, as Origen marked it, taken from the Greek version of Theodotion. Those who saw Job in his afflicted state just stared at him, doing or saying nothing that would have brought him comfort.

The marks of Origen indicate that the concluding phrase of verse 22 was added from the Greek version of Theodotion. This phrase may be rendered, “And you toss me away from deliverance.” The wording indicates that Job had no hope that God would grant him relief from suffering.

In verse 26, the Septuagint rendering includes a form of the verb epécho, which basically means to “hold” or “hold fast.” This results in a reading that differs somewhat from the extant Hebrew text. “But I held fast to good things. Look, days of evil met me instead.” Although Job was intent on adhering to the things that were good or right, he ended up experiencing days filled with trouble. The reference to “days of evil” corresponds more closely to the concluding phrase of verse 27 in the extant Hebrew text.

Origen marked the wording of verse 27 as having been added from the Greek version of Theodotion. The concluding phrase reads much like the concluding phrase of verse 26 of the Septuagint text. “My belly boiled and will not be still; days of affliction overtook me.”

The wording of verse 30 in the Septuagint is much like that of the extant Hebrew text. “And my skin has been greatly blackened, and my bones from heat.”

Job 31:1-40

Job spoke of having “made a covenant with [his] eyes,” determining to what he would refuse to give his attention. In view of this covenant or prior agreement, he raised the question, “How then could I look upon a virgin” (with improper desires)? According to the Greek version of Theodotion, Job would not take notice of or think of a virgin in an improper way. (31:1; see the Notes section.)

The rhetorical question suggests that there would be an adverse judgment from God if Job had not acted in harmony with the “covenant” he had made. “And what [would be my] portion of God from above, and what [would be my] inheritance of the Almighty from on high?” The implication is that he would not receive a desirable share or inheritance. The Greek version of Theodotion frames the rhetorical question similarly. “And what has God apportioned from above, and [what is] the inheritance of the Self-sufficient One from on high?” (31:2)

The answer to the next rhetorical question would be that the unrighteous one would experience calamity (“destruction” [Theodotion]) and those working iniquity or lawlessness would face disaster (“estrangement” [Theodotion], becoming outcasts). (31:3)

Job believed that God was fully aware of everything he did. This is evident from his rhetorical question, “Does he not see my ways [my way (Theodotion)]? And all my steps he numbers.” His numbering or counting all of Job’s steps suggests that no act of his escaped God’s attention. (31:4)

Job raised the point as to whether he had walked in “falsehood” (shav’). In other contexts, the Hebrew word (shav’ basically means “emptiness,” “nothingness,” or “vanity.” Here it probably relates to engaging in dishonest practices. According to the Septuagint, the question is whether he had walked with scorners or mockers. The concluding thought is whether Job “hastened to deceit” with his foot, having been quick to deceive others to attain base objectives. (31:5)

For God to “weigh” Job in a “just balance” would mean that God would judge his conduct aright. Job believed that he had lived uprightly and, therefore, concluded that God (the “Lord” [LXX]), based on just evaluation, would “know” or recognize his “completeness,” integrity, or innocence. (31:6)

Job was willing to bear the consequences if his step had turned aside from the right way, if his “heart” or he in his inward self had gone after his “eyes” that had viewed objects of attention in an impure way, or if any spot of uncleanness from corrupt actions adhered to his hands. According to the Septuagint rendering, the reference to the hands relates to touching “gifts” or accepting bribes. (31:7)

If Job had been guilty of the corrupt acts previously mentioned, he thought it right for his labors to be cursed. He would sow seed, but another one would eat the produce. Whatever would grow for him, he would have considered it just retribution for it to be uprooted. Another significance for the concluding phrase would be that Job’s descendants be rooted out. This is because the plural Hebrew word tse’etsa’ím can designate either offspring or produce. The Septuagint rendering points to the meaning offspring. It quotes Job as saying, “May I become rootless on the earth.” (31:8)

Other actions Job deemed deserving of a curse were if his “heart” had been “enticed by a woman” and if he had “lain in wait” at the door of his fellow or companion. Lying in wait at his associate’s door (“her doors” [LXX]) would have been for the purpose of seizing an opportunity to satisfy his passionate desire for his fellow’s wife. (31:9)

Job is quoted as expressing the deserved curse with the words, “May my wife grind for another man and may others bow down over her.” In view of the reference to an adulterous course in the previous verse, these words suggest that others would violate Job’s wife. A number of translations are specific in conveying this significance. “May my wife be another man’s slave, and may other men enjoy her.” (REB) “Let my wife go and grind for someone else, let others have intercourse with her!” (NJB) “Then may my wife grind for another, and may others cohabit with her!” (NAB) The Septuagint rendering has Job saying, “Then may my wife also please another, and may my little children be humiliated.” (31:10)

With apparent reference to adultery, Job is quoted as using the word zimmáh. This Hebrew word basically means “plan” or “device.” In this context, it denotes a shameful act. It would be an “iniquity” or “guilt” for “judges,” requiring them to render a judgment against the guilty party. The Septuagint rendering refers to the husband’s anger that is directed against the adulterer. “For the fury of anger is uncontrollable [when it comes to] defiling a man’s wife.” (31:11)

The shameful act of adultery “would be a fire that consumes to Abaddon” or to destruction. If Job had made himself guilty, he would expect all his yield to burn to the root, indicating that nothing would be left of his possessions. The Septuagint rendering represents the fire as burning in “every part.” Wherever it reaches, the fire would destroy everything from the root up or totally. (31:12)

Job considered it a grave wrong to disregard the cause of his manservant or maidservant were they to bring a complaint against him. (31:13)

Job recognized that, if he disregarded the complaint of his male or his female servant, God would not look favorably upon him. By means of rhetorical questions, Job acknowledged that he would have no defense before God, the ultimate Lord or Master, if he had not given attention to the cause of his servants. “What then will I do when God rises up? And when he makes a visitation [for judgment], what shall I answer him?” (31:14)

Job regarded his servant just as much of God’s creation as he himself was and as deserving to be treated accordingly. He expressed this with the rhetorical questions. “Did not He who made me in the womb make him? And did not [the same] One form him in the womb?” The Septuagint rendering expresses the basic thought somewhat differently. “Is it not even as I came to be in a womb, and these [my servants] came to be? And we came to be in the same belly?” The process of conception and birth was identical. (31:15)

For Job to have held back poor ones “from [their] desire” would have meant his callously disregarding their need and failing to respond to it. To cause the eyes of a widow to fail may refer to the effect on her from a deliberate refusal to come to her aid or defense. It would have added to her grief, causing her to shed tears to such an extant that her vision would have become blurred. The Septuagint rendering indicates that Job responded compassionately to persons in distress. Powerless or helpless ones did not end up missing or lacking what they needed. Job did not let the “eye of a widow fail.” (31:16)

Job recognized that it would have been a serious wrong for him selfishly to have eaten his morsel alone and not to have the fatherless one or orphan also partake of it. (31:17)

From his youth, the fatherless one “grew up with [him]” as if Job had been his caring father. Based on the context, the female whom Job guided or assisted could have been a widow or an orphaned girl. From his earliest recollection, or “from the womb of [his] mother,” he had been willing to come to her aid. A number of translations are more specific than is the Hebrew text (and the Septuagint rendering) in identifying the ones whom Job helped or the One who cared for Job. “The boy who said, ‘From my youth he [Job] brought me up,’ or the girl who claimed that from her birth I guided her.” (REB) “But from my youth I reared him as would a father, and from my birth I guided the widow.” (NIV) “Since the time I was young, I have cared for orphans and helped widows.” (CEV) “I, whom God has fostered father-like from childhood, and guided since I left my mother’s womb.” (NJB) “Though like a father God has reared me from my youth, guiding me even from my mother’s womb.” (NAB) (31:18; see the Notes section.)

When he saw someone perishing because of not having a garment or enough clothing to provide adequate warmth, or a poor man with nothing to cover himself (probably for the night), Job, as evident from the next verse, made provision for the individual. (31:19; see the Notes section.)

Job would have responded with compassion, giving clothing to the needy one. For this apparent reason, Job spoke of the individual’s loins as blessing him. There would have been an expression of gratitude for the covering the loins received. With the fleece of Job’s sheep, the poor man would have warmed himself. (31:20; see the Notes section.)

Job acknowledged that he would have merited a curse if he had raised his hand against the fatherless one (orphan [LXX]) because of seeing personal “help in the gate.” Raising a hand against the fatherless one would have denoted taking advantage of that one’s vulnerability with threats and intimidation to attain base objectives. Seeing “help in the gate” meant having the support of elders sitting in judgment at the city gate. A number of translations are more explicit in their renderings than is the Hebrew text. “If I have raised my hand against the fatherless, knowing that I had influence in court.” (NIV) “If I have raised my hand against the innocent, knowing that those who would side with me were in court.” (REB) “If I have raised my hand against the innocent because I saw that I had supporters at the gate.” (NAB) In the Septuagint, the reference is to reliance on much help remaining. (31:21)

The curse that Job felt he would have merited if he had used his power against a defenseless fatherless one or orphan would have been for his shoulder blade to fall from his shoulder and for his arm to be broken from its socket. This would have reduced him to a helpless state. In the Hebrew text, the expression rendered “from its socket” literally reads, “from its stock” or “reed.” So another possible meaning is that the lower arm be broken from the upper arm. The Septuagint quotes Job as saying, “May my shoulder separate from the collarbone, and my arm be broken from my elbow.” (31:22)

Job knew that escape from God’s power was impossible. To him, the prospect of “calamity from God” as a punishment for wrongdoing was a terror or very frightening. This indicates that a wholesome fear was a factor in restraining him from corrupt conduct. The Septuagint says, “For the fear of the Lord restrained me.” Job recognized that before divine “majesty,” he had “no power.” (31:23; see the Notes section.)

Job recognized that it would have been wrong for him to make gold his trust or to have called fine gold his confidence. God alone was the one to be trusted at all times. Material riches could easily be lost and so were an unreliable basis for security. (31:24; see the Notes section.)

Job acknowledged as a serious error if he had rejoiced because his wealth was great and because his “hand” had acquired (literally, “found”) much. If his full attention had been on his riches as the source of his joy and he had regarded all that he attained as the product of his own effort, he would have been guilty of ignoring God. In the case of the concluding phrase, the Septuagint quotes Job as saying, “And if also I laid my hand upon innumerable things” (or if many riches had come into his possession, with these being the chief focus of his attention). (31:25)

According to the Hebrew text, Job is quoted as saying, “If I have looked at the light when it shone.” This refers to his looking at the light from the sun, apparently in a worshipful way (as is suggested by the words of verses 27 and 28). The Septuagint, though specific in mentioning the sun, conveys a meaning that differs from the extant Hebrew text. “Or do I not indeed see the shining sun eclipsed.” This could denote that the light of the sun was progressively diminished as the evening approached. Regarding the moon, the Hebrew text continues, “and the splendid moon moving,” or the moon in its splendor or brightness moving across the night sky. Also in this case, the seeing of the moon is of a worshipful nature. The Septuagint refers to the waning of the moon. Then, regarding what happens to the light of the sun and the moon, the Septuagint rendering suggests that the diminishing of the light of the sun and the moon does not originate with these two celestial bodies, “for it is not in them.” (31:26)

If Job’s “heart” or he in his inner self had been “deceived secretly,” or enticed in a manner hidden from the view of fellow humans, and his “hand” had “kissed [his] mouth,” this would have been a serious transgression (as expressed in the next verse). With the action of the kiss referred to as proceeding from the hand, it appears that the hand was then used to throw a kiss to the sun or the moon. (31:27; see the Notes section.)

The idolatrous act mentioned in the previous verse would have been an “iniquity” or, according to the Septuagint rendering, “accounted” as the “greatest lawlessness.” An act of worship directed to the sun or the moon, to mere creations, would have meant being “false to God above,” to the Creator. According to the Septuagint, Job, if he had engaged in this idolatrous practice, would have “dealt falsely before the Lord Most High.” (31:28)

Job recognized it to be a serious wrong for one to express joy over the calamity befalling an enemy. He is quoted as expressing this thought with the words, “If I have rejoiced at the ruin of one hating me or exulted when evil overtook him.” The Septuagint rendering is similar, “And if also I became gratified at the fall of my enemies and my heart said, Good!” As evident from the next verse, Job did not manifest such a malicious spirit. (31:29)

Job did not let his mouth sin by asking for a curse against the soul (the person or life) of one who hated him. The Septuagint rendering refers to Job as acknowledging that a curse on him would have been merited if he had expressed malicious joy when calamity befell one who had been hostile to him. “Then may my ear hear the curse of me.” The concluding thought in the Septuagint appears to represent Job as saying that he would rightly become a topic of conversation by his “people” for doing evil or practicing lawlessness (or as one experiencing evil or affliction). (31:30)

The expression “men of [Job’s] tent” could identify members of his household or persons who were guests in his tent. Based on what these individuals observed, they could say, “Who is there that has not been satisfied with [Job’s] flesh” or meat? The implied answer is that everyone in Job’s home received an ample portion of food. No one was neglected. (31:31; see the Notes section regarding the Septuagint rendering.)

Job welcomed strangers into his home. No stranger or traveler ever had to lodge outside on the street. Job’s doors were open to anyone who needed a place to stay for the night. (31:32)

Job was willing to acknowledge his transgressions. He was not like a man who concealed his transgressions, hiding his iniquity in his bosom. He did not conceal his iniquity as if he had put it out of sight in the upper fold of his garment. The Septuagint rendering is, “And if I also, having sinned unintentionally, hid my sin.” The implication is that Job did not resort to concealment even if the sin was unintentional. (31:33)

Job openly admitted when he was in the wrong. He was not like persons who fear a great multitude and, therefore, seek to keep up appearances by concealing their transgressions. The “contempt of families” who would come to know about his errors did not terrify him. He continued to be open about his expressions and his routine of life. Job did not conduct himself like a man who remained silent and did not venture out of the entrance of his home because of shame or embarrassment. According to the Septuagint, Job “was not overawed by a great crowd” from openly speaking before them, apparently admitting his wrong. This would have been the case even if he had permitted a powerless or helpless man to leave his door with an empty bosom or with nothing having been given him to fill his need. (31:34)

Job desired that there might be someone who would listen to him. His words “here [is] my mark” seem to represent Job as saying that the defense he had made was like a legal document to which his mark or signature had been affixed. According to that signed defense, Job wanted the Almighty to answer him. Apparently referring to God as an adversary or an opponent in a legal case, Job appears to refer to receiving “an indictment written by my adversary [literally, man of my dispute].” (31:35; see the Notes section regarding the Septuagint rendering.)

Job had no self-doubts about his having maintained upright conduct. He was willing proudly to carry the written indictment of his adversary or opponent (whom he perceived to be God on account of the calamities that had befallen him) upon his shoulder and to bind it upon him as if it were a crown. This suggests that Job was confident that he would be able to answer every charge that might be directed against him. (31:36; see the Notes section regarding the Septuagint rendering.)

To his opponent (whom he thought to be God), Job would declare the “number of [his] steps” or set forth his entire course of life. Confident of the rightness of his case, he would make his approach to him boldly as would a prince. (31:37; see the Notes section regarding the Septuagint rendering.)

Job acknowledged that he merited a curse on his land if he had been ruinous toward it and it cried out against him and the furrows did weep. Continual exploitation of the land without letting it lie fallow periodically would have contributed to making it less productive. As land not properly cared for, it is here represented as crying out over mistreatment. The reference to weeping indicates that the furrows presented a sad sight on account of bad agricultural practices. The Septuagint also refers to the weeping of the furrows, but it introduces the verse with the words, “if the land ever groaned over me.” This groaning would have been because of the way the land had been treated. (31:38)

Eating the produce of the land “without silver,” the common medium of exchange, could signify eating the produce without having duly compensated the hired workers for their labors. The Hebrew text concludes the verse with the words, “and the soul of its owners I have caused them to breathe out.” This could mean that, through the mistreatment of workers, Job would have caused them to breathe out their “soul” or the life that was their own, bringing them to the point of complete exhaustion. The Hebrew text is obscure, and this has given rise to a variety of interpretive renderings. “If I have … grieved the hearts of its [the land’s] tenants.” (NAB [Verses 38 and 39 are inserted after verse 8.]) “If I have … broken the spirit of its [the land’s] tenants.” (NIV) “If I have … left my creditors to languish.” (REB [Verses 38 and 39 are inserted after verse 28.]) “Nor have I cheated my workers and caused them pain.” (CEV) “If I have … made its [the land’s] [rightful] owners despair.” (Tanakh [JPS, 1985 edition) “If I have … caused the death of its [the land’s] owners.” (NRSV [This rendering represents the breathing out of the “soul” or life to be death.]) (31:39; see the Notes section regarding the Septuagint rendering.)

If Job had been guilty of the acts he previously described, he understood that this would have merited a curse on his land. “Instead of wheat, let thorns” (“nettles” [LXX], a collective singular in Hebrew and Greek) “grow” (“come forth to me” [LXX]) on the land; “and instead of barley, stinking things” (a collective singular in Hebrew) or noxious weeds (a “bramble” [LXX], a collective singular). With this expression, the words of Job ended. (31:40)

Notes

The words in verses 1 through 4 were not found in the Septuagint available to Origen in the third century CE. He marked them as having been added from the Greek version of Theodotion.

The marks of Origen for the wording in verse 18 indicate that it was supplied from the Greek version of Theodotion. This verse has Job saying that, from his youth, he “reared like a father” and, from his “mother’s womb, gave guidance.”

Without the addition of the wording from the Greek version of Theodotion, the Septuagint continues the thought of verse 17 in verse 19 with what Job would have failed to do — if he “overlooked a naked man perishing and did not clothe him.”

In verse 20, the Septuagint continues the sentence from verse 19 with the words, “if powerless” or helpless ones “did not bless me” (for coming to their aid), “and their shoulders were warmed with the fleece of my lambs.”

According to the marks of Origen, the wording of the concluding phrase of verse 23 was added from the Greek version of Theodotion. This phrase reads, “On account of his load, I will not endure.”

The initial phrase of verse 24, according to the marks of Origen, was taken from the Greek version of Theodotion. It reads, “If I have made gold my strength.” These words are followed by the Septuagint rendering, “and if also I have relied upon precious stone.”

In verse 27, the first phrase (“and if my heart was deceived secretly”) is, according to the marks of Origen, an addition from the Greek version of Theodotion. Thereafter the Septuagint continues, “and if also I placed my hand upon my mouth [and] kissed [it].”

In verse 31, the Septuagint rendering differs from the extant Hebrew text. It represents Job as making an expression about his female servants. “But if also my maidservants often said, Who may give us of his flesh [meat] to be satisfied?” The implied answer to their question appears to be that this was never the case, for they benefited from Job’s generous provisions. This seems evident from his words, “I was very kind.”

According to the marks of Origen, the Greek text of the initial phrase of verse 35 (“Who might give me a hearing?”) was added from the version of Theodotion. The Septuagint continues, “But if I had not feared the hand of the Lord, also the document, which I had against someone, I would have put upon my shoulders …” This rendering suggests that, because Job did fear God, he would not be carrying any document on his shoulders that indicated his intent to engage in a legal dispute.

Verse 36 in the Septuagint continues with the thought about the document. If it had not been for his fear of the “hand of the Lord,” Job would have put this document upon his “shoulders as a crown and read it aloud.” He, however, had a reverential fear of God and did not do this.

In verse 37, the Septuagint rendering suggests that, if he did not have a fear of God, Job would not have torn up the document and handed it back to the person who had to comply with its requirements. This document evidently was one that obligated the individual to repay a debt, for the verse concludes with the thought that Job had taken “nothing from the debtor.”

The opening phrase of verse 39 in the Septuagint refers to Job as saying, “And if also I have eaten its strength [what the land produced] alone, without price.” The next phrase could be rendered, “and if I, [by] having cast out, grieved the soul of the owner of the land.” This could be understood to refer to evicting the rightful owner from his land and thereby grieving his soul or him.

Job 32:1-22

“The three men” (“his three friends” [LXX]), Eliphaz, Bildad, and Zophar, stopped answering Job or, according to the Septuagint, discontinued “contradicting” him. This was because “he [was] righteous in his own eyes” (“righteous before them” [LXX]). Job had continued to insist that he had lived an upright life, not one that merited the kind of suffering to which he thought God had submitted him. They, however, had claimed that his calamities must have come upon him on account of his godless conduct. (32:1)

Elihu (Elious [LXX]), a young man who had listened to Job’s words and the replies of Eliphaz, Bildad, and Zophar, is identified as the “son of Barachel [Barachiel (LXX])] the Buzite of the family of Ram.” If the designation “Buzite” (Bouzite [LXX]) applies to a descendant of Buz, the son of Abraham’s brother Nahor (Genesis 22:20, 21), this would mean that Elihu was a descendant of Abraham’s nephew. The Septuagint says that the family of Ram (concerning whom only the name is known) resided in Ausitis, the same region as did Job. (1:1) An epilogue in the Septuagint refers to the “land of Ausitis” as bordering Idumea and Arabia. (42:17b) Elihu became angry with Job “because he justified himself rather than God.” Repeatedly Job had spoken of God as the one who had afflicted him, whereas he personally had not lived contrary to his ways. (32:2)

Elihu’s anger was also directed against Job’s three associates. According to the Masoretic Text, this was because Eliphaz, Bildad, and Zophar “had not found an answer” (“counter response” [LXX]) to what Job had said but had “declared Job to be wicked” or in the wrong. In this case, the reference to “Job” is marked as a scribal correction for the reading “God.” The Septuagint, however, agrees with the reading of the Masoretic Text. It indicates that Eliphaz, Bildad, and Zophar represented Job as “impious.” (32:3)

Elihu had respectfully waited until Job had finished speaking (literally, “waited on Job with words”) and perceived that his three associates had nothing further to say. Whereas Elihu would have spoken earlier, he had held back from doing so because the men were “older in days” than he was. (32:4; see the Notes section regarding the Septuagint rendering.)

Seeing that there was “no answer in the mouth of the three men,” Elihu became inflamed with anger. He felt impelled to speak out when he perceived that Eliphaz, Bildad, and Zophar had been unable to provide an answer to Job’s words. (32:5; see the Notes section.)

When Elihu the son of Barachel the Buzite began to speak, he acknowledged his being “young in days [time (LXX)],” much younger than Eliphaz, Bildad, and Zophar to whom he respectfully referred as “aged.” Out of regard for them as elders, he held back and feared to express his “knowledge” or his view about Job’s situation. (32:6; see verse 1 for comments about Elihu.)

Elihu had concluded that “days [time (LXX)],” or those who had lived for considerable time, “should speak, and a multitude of years,” or those who had lived a long time, “should teach wisdom.” On the basis of experience gained over the course of many years, the aged should have been able to impart wise instruction. (32:7)

Elihu did recognize that age in itself did not make an individual wise. There is a “spirit” in man, the “mortal.” In the parallel expression, this spirit is called the “breath of the Almighty,” and Elihu identified it as giving mortals understanding or, according to the Septuagint, it “teaches,” imparting understanding or instruction. (32:8)

Recognizing the Almighty as the source of wisdom, Elihu indicated that the “great ones” or prominent men are not always wise nor do the aged understand “judgment,” sound reasoning, or what is right. The expression “great ones” is the rendering of the plural form of the Hebrew adjective rav, meaning “much,” “many,” “chief,” or “great.” If the meaning “many” is chosen, it could be understood to refer to those who had lived many years. In the Septuagint, the corresponding term is the plural form of polychrónios (“long-lived”), designating those of advanced age. (32:9)

Aware that wisdom was not the exclusive possession of the “great ones,” the “long-lived ones,” or the aged, Elihu decided to speak, saying, “Listen to me. I, even I, will declare my knowledge,” or what he had come to know. The Hebrew verb for “listen” is second person singular, and thus may be understood as directed to the men individually. (32:10)

Elihu had “waited for the words” of Eliphaz, Bildad, and Zophar, wanting to hear what they had to say in response to Job. He “gave ear” to their “understanding,” or listened to their reasoning about Job’s situation. The phrase about their “searching out declarations” could apply to their efforts to decide just what to say. The Septuagint rendering departs from the reading of the extant Hebrew text. It represents Elihu as requesting that Eliphaz, Bildad, and Zophar “give ear” or listen to his words. He would speak, and they would hear or listen. According to the marks of Origen in the third century CE, the phrase about “searching out” was added from the Greek version of Theodotion but differs from the wording of the extant Hebrew text. This phrase reads, “until you have tested words.” This could refer to Eliphaz, Bildad, and Zophar as making an examination of what Elihu would say. (32:11)

Elihu considered what the three men said to Job. He then concluded that none of them had corrected Job, truly answering his words. They were unable to establish that Job was in the wrong. (32:12; see the Notes section regarding the Septuagint rendering.)

After Elihu had pointed out the failure of Eliphaz, Bildad, and Zophar to answer Job satisfactorily, he admonished them not to say, “We have found wisdom. Let God defeat [nadáph] him.” The thought appears to be that Elihu did not want the three men to conclude that they had properly assessed Job’s situation and had provided wise reproof to him but that he is the one who had disregarded their helpful words. Therefore, for them to say, “Let God defeat him, not man” could be understood to mean that they expected God to vindicate the position they had taken when reproving Job. God would reveal Job to be in the wrong, whereas they had not been able to convince him of this. (32:13; see the Notes section.)

Job had defended himself against the contentions of Eliphaz, Bildad, and Zophar, directing his words against them. He, however, had not directed any words against Elihu, and Elihu determined not to answer Job with the “speeches” or the kind of comments the three men had made. His words would not follow their reasoning. (32:14; see the Notes section regarding the Septuagint rendering.)

Elihu described the state in which Eliphaz, Bildad, and Zophar had been left after Job made his last reply. They were “terrified” or “dismayed,” having been shocked to silence by Job’s words. “They answered no more, and words moved away from them,” for they were at a complete loss as to what to say in reply. (32:15; see the Notes section.)

Elihu waited, but Eliphaz, Bildad, and Zophar said nothing. They just stood there, having no more to say to Job. (32:16; see the Notes section.)

As no one spoke a word, Elihu felt free to express his answer to Job. He decided to state his “part” or to have his say and to disclose his “knowledge” or to make known his view of Job’s situation. The Septuagint rendering does not correspond to the wording of the extant Hebrew text but functions only as a brief introduction. “But replying, Elihu [Elious] said.” (32:17)

Whereas the others were silent, having no words to say, Elihu was “full of words.” The “spirit of [his] belly” or the agitation that Elihu sensed within himself “constrained” him,“pressed upon” him, or impelled him to speak. The Septuagint quotes Job as saying, “I will speak again, for I am full of words. For the spirit of [my] belly is killing me.” This rendering suggests that the pressure within him to make known his pent-up expressions proved to be more than he could stand. (32:18)

Having held back from speaking, Elihu felt as if his belly was like a wineskin with the wine inside fermenting but having no vent. The Septuagint refers to his belly as being like a bound-up wineskin of fermenting sweet new wine. He felt as if his belly was like new skin bottles or wineskins ready to burst on account of the strain the fermentation process exerted. The Septuagint rendering has Elihu likening his belly to “burst bellows” of a metal worker. (32:19)

In order for him to have relief from the pressure he felt within him, Elihu had to speak. He had to open his lips to utter words and answer Job. (32:20; see the Notes section.)

Elihu indicated that he would be impartial in his expressions. This is apparent from the words that he would not “lift up the face of a man,” showing favoritism or according the individual undue honor. The Septuagint indicates that he would “by no means” feel shame before a man, assuming the position of an inferior before him. Elihu would not bestow a title on a man or on an earthling, according him an honor that amounted to flattery. The Septuagint rendering could be understood as either meaning that Elihu would “by no means” have undue regard for a mortal or be ashamed before him. (32:21; see the Notes section.)

Elihu stated that he did not “know” how to give a title or flatteringly to elevate another human. The Septuagint says that he did not know how to “marvel at a face,” to show favoritism, or to accord undue honor. If he were to do so, then the “moths” should consume him. The extant Hebrew text, however, refers to God as acting against him if he were to bestow flattering titles. Elihu is quoted as saying, “Quickly my Maker would carry me away” or put an end to me. (32:22)

Notes

In verse 4, only the initial phrase is part of the Septuagint text. “But Elious [Elihu] waited to give an answer to Job.” According to the marks of Origen, the Greek text that follows was added from the version of Theodotion (“because they were older in days than he”).

Origen’s marks identify the wording of verse 5 as having been added from the Greek version of Theodotion. The wording corresponds to that of the extant Hebrew text.

Origen marked the wording of verse 12 as having been added from the Greek version of Theodotion. In connection with the previous verse, the thought of the added text is that Elihu would speak “until” he could understand Eliphaz, Bildad, and Zophar. The remainder of the verse from the version of Theodotion basically conveys the same meaning as does the extant Hebrew text.

The form of the Hebrew word nadáph in verse 13 basically means “scatter.” In this context, however, “defeat” is an appropriate rendering. Renderings found in modern translations include “vanquish” (NAB, NRSV), “rebut” (REB), and “refute” (NIV). A number of Hebrew manuscripts do not contain a form of nadáph but have a form of hadáph (“push away” or “drive away”) or radáph (“pursue”). In the Septuagint, the participle is a form of the verb prostíthemi, which often denotes “to add” or “to increase.” The rendering of the Septuagint could be understood to indicate that, because Eliphaz, Bildad, and Zophar had added themselves or joined themselves to the Lord (as his defenders), they had found wisdom.

Verse 14 in the Septuagint may be rendered, “But you permitted a man to speak such words.” This could mean that Eliphaz, Bildad, and Zophar had allowed Job to utter words that were left unanswered, providing him with the opportunity to express the thoughts that he did.

According to the marks of Origen in the third century CE, the wording of verse 15 was added from the Greek version of Theodotion. It is much like the Hebrew text, with a somewhat different thought expressed in the concluding phrase. This concluding phrase could be understood to mean that Eliphaz, Bildad, and Zophar “of themselves made words old” or made an end to words, ceasing to speak.

The marks of Origen identify the wording of verse 16 of the Greek text to have been added from the version of Theodotion. This Greek rendering is basically the same as the extant Hebrew text.

In verse 20, the thought the Septuagint conveys is basically the same as that of the extant Hebrew text.

The expression “by no means” preserves the emphatic sense of the two Greek words for “not” that appear twice in verse 21.

Job 33:1-33

The words that may be rendered “and now” appear to have served to focus Job’s attention on Elihu’s request that he “hear” or listen to what he had to say and “give ear” or attention to “all” his “words.” (33:1)

The introductory word “look” and a particle of entreaty seemingly function as a plea for Job’s attention to what Elihu would be expressing. “I open my mouth,” said Elihu; “my tongue speaks on my palate.” In the Septuagint, there is no corresponding phrase for “on my palate,” with the focus being only on the tongue as the organ of speech. (33:2)

Elihu linked his “words” to the “uprightness of [his] heart,” suggesting that his speaking would be rightly motivated by his inmost self to state the truth. According to the Septuagint, his “heart” was “clean” or “pure in words,” which could mean that the words his inner self prompted him to speak would be “pure.” The “knowledge” of Elihu’s “lips,” or the knowledge his lips would be used to impart, would be expressed in a pure or sincere manner. (33:3)

Elihu acknowledged God as the source of his existence and, by implication, also the source of the insightful words he would speak. He referred to the “spirit of God” as having made him and the “breath of the Almighty” as giving him life. According to the Septuagint, the “breath of the Almighty” is what taught him. This rendering is more specific in indicating that Elihu purposed to express divinely taught words. (33:4)

If Job could do so, Elihu asked him to give him an answer to what he would be saying. The words “set in order before me” could mean for Job to prepare what he would say in response to Elihu’s comments. For Job to take his stand may refer to his taking a position in relation to Elihu. The Septuagint rendering suggests that this would be a confrontation between Elihu and Job. “Take a stand against me, and I against you.” (33:5; see the Notes section for additional comments regarding the Septuagint rendering.)

Elihu stressed that he did not consider himself in any way superior to Job. He is quoted as saying, “Look, I [am] as you are to God” or exactly what you are. “From clay I was formed, even I.” Like Job, Elihu was but an earthling made from the elements of the earth and he recognized himself as such. The Septuagint conveys the same basic thought. “From clay you were formed as I also [was]. From the same [substance] we were formed.” (33:6)

Elihu assured Job that he did not need to be terrified or overwhelmed by fear from him and that pressure on his part would not be heavy on him. As to what effect Elihu would not have on Job, the Septuagint says, “no fear of me will distract” or distress “you, nor will my hand be heavy upon you.” These words suggest that Elihu had determined not to add to Job’s burden of affliction. (33:7)

Elihu had been present when Job expressed himself. Therefore, he said to him, “Indeed, you have spoken in my ears [or hearing], and I have heard the sound of [your] words.” (33:8; see the Notes section regarding the Septuagint rendering.)

Elihu summarized Job’s view of his situation. Job regarded himself as “clean without transgression,” as “pure” (“blameless” [LXX]) and as not having “iniquity” in himself. According to the Septuagint, Job had spoken of himself as “blameless” because of his not having acted lawlessly. (33:9; compare 10:7; 16:17; 23:11, and 29:14 for the way in which Job expressed himself.)

Elihu spoke of Job as contending that God had found occasions (“blame” or a basis for censure [LXX]) against him and accounted him as his enemy. (33:10; compare 13:24; 16:9, and 19:11, where Job expressed himself to this effect.)

Elihu quoted words Job had said about God. (13:27) Job had referred to God as having confined his “feet in stocks” and watched all his ways. The language suggests that Job felt confined like a prisoner under constant surveillance. (33:11)

The initial interjection “look” appears to focus attention on the expressions Job had made about God. Elihu pointed out that Job had not been “just” or right. This, as Elihu continued, was because “God is greater than man,” the mortal. The implication is that God and his activity are not to be judged by human standards. In the Septuagint, the thought is expressed with a rhetorical question directed to Job. “For how can you say, I am righteous [just or right], and he [God] has not listened to me? For eternal is he who is above mortals.” Being above mortals and timeless or eternal, God is not limited by time in any way with reference to what he may do or allow. As the Sovereign above mortals, he is free to choose the best time to act and for the right reasons. (33:12)

Elihu asked Job rhetorically, “Why do you contend against [God] that he will not answer [for] all his matters [plural form of davár]?” The implication of the question appears to be that God does not have to account to anyone, and that Job erred in insisting that God should provide him with an answer as to why he had brought calamity and suffering upon him. According to the Septuagint, Elihu quoted Job as raising the question about God. “But you say, Why has he not listened to a word of my case?” The question implied that God had completely ignored Job and not concerned himself in any way about him. (33:13; see the Notes section regarding davár and the renderings of various translations.)

Whereas Job had concluded that God did not respond to him, Elihu maintained that God does speak “once, even twice.” Seemingly with reference to man, Elihu said, “He does not perceive it” or recognize the communication as applying to him. The Septuagint expresses the thought someone differently. “For may the Lord speak once, but the second time in a dream.” (33:14)

According to Elihu, one of the ways in which God speaks or conveys a message is “in a dream, in a vision of the night.” This is at a time “when deep sleep falls upon mortals” while they are in bed slumbering. The Septuagint indicates the time to be when people meditate or think at night after having gone to bed. It is then as when “fearful dread falls upon men” while they slumber. (33:15)

Elihu believed that God “uncovers” or opens the “ear” (“mind” [LXX]) of men or mortals, providing revelations to them by means of dreams or night visions. His “sealing their discipline” or “instruction” could signify that God authenticates the message thus conveyed as originating from him. The Septuagint indicates that God frightens people with “fearful sights,” dreams, or visions. (33:16)

According to Elihu, God’s purpose in conveying a message to a man, an “earthling,” is to turn him aside from his deed (“from injustice” or wrongdoing [LXX]), apparently to stop him from undertaking a wrong course, and to “cover” the pride of a mighty man or to make him realize his helplessness. According to the Septuagint, God’s objective was to save the individual’s “body from a fall.” (33:17)

Elihu believed that there were times when God keeps back an individual’s “soul” or life from the “pit” or from a place of burial. According to the Septuagint, “he spares his soul” or life “from death.” The parallel expression in the Hebrew text is that God keeps back the person’s life “from perishing by a weapon.” In the Septuagint, the reference is to the individual’s being spared “from falling in war.” (33:18)

Elihu considered sickness to be a means by which God disciplines. A person may be “reproved” or chastened with “pain” (“softness” or infirmity [LXX]) while bedridden. The “strife of his bones” may be “continual.” A man’s entire organism may feel as though a fierce battle is raging without letup within him. In the Greek text, the reference to the bones is marked as having been added from the Greek version of Theodotion. This rendering differs somewhat from the Hebrew text. “And a multitude of his bones becomes numb.” (33:19)

For a man who is seriously ill, food can become loathsome. According to Elihu, the man’s “life” or his very existence makes “bread” repugnant, and “his soul” or he himself abhors delicacies (“food of desire” or what would usually be highly desirable food). The Septuagint rendering indicates that he would “by no means” be able to partake of any edible portion of food. (33:20; see the Notes section.)

The ravages of disease can emaciate a man, wasting away “his flesh from sight” or so that seemingly no flesh remains. “His bones,” which were not seen, become visible beneath the skin. With the flesh having been wasted away, the bones would have been reduced to a state of “bareness.” This meaning regarding the bones has the support of the Septuagint rendering (“and he [the afflicted man] shows his bones bare”) and appears to be the sense of the Hebrew wording (“bareness of his bones [that formerly] were not seen”). The measure of uncertainty about the significance of the Hebrew text, however, has given rise to various interpretive renderings. “And his bones are rubbed away till they are invisible.” (Tanakh [JPS, 1985 edition]) “His bones are loosened and out of joint.” (REB) “And his bones, once invisible, appear.” (NAB) (33:21)

Regarding the afflicted man, Elihu said, “His soul [or he himself] draws [drew (LXX)] near to the pit” (the place of burial or “death” [LXX]) “and his life to those causing death,” possibly meaning whatever might end his life. The Septuagint refers to “Hades,” or the realm of the dead, as the destination for “his life.” (33:22)

Although from a human standpoint it may appear that a man is on the verge of death, this may not necessarily prove to be the case. “If for him” according to Elihu, there were to be a “messenger,” a representative, or an “angel,” a “mediator” or an advocate, “one among a thousand, to declare to a man his uprightness,” his life (as the next verse indicates) would not end. The reference to “uprightness” could apply either to what is right or upright for the man or to the man’s being upright or innocent. Both meanings are found in modern translations, but the renderings are more specific than is the Hebrew text. “If then there be for him an angel, one out of a thousand, a mediator, to show him what is right for him and bring the man back to justice …” (NAB) “Yet if an angel, one of a thousand, stands by him, a mediator between him and God, to expound God’s righteousness to man and to secure mortal man his due; …” (REB) “Then, if there is an Angel near him, a Mediator, one in a thousand, to remind him where his duty lies, … (NJB) “If he has a representative, one advocate against a thousand to declare the man’s uprightness, …” (Tanakh [JPS, 1985 edition]) “One of a thousand angels then comes to our rescue by saying we are innocent.” (CEV) The Septuagint rendering does not support making the application to the man’s uprightness or innocence, but its wording departs significantly from the extant Hebrew text. “If there are a thousand death-bearing angels [or messengers], by no means will one of them wound him if he determine in his heart [or in his inmost self] to turn to the Lord and declare to a man his own complaint [the complaint against him or his own fault] and reveal his folly.” This rendering suggests that the man would need to turn to the Lord and to confess his wrongdoing to another man. (33:23; see the Notes section.)

The “messenger,” angel, mediator, or advocate would be gracious to or take pity on the afflicted man, saying, “Deliver him from going down to the pit” (the burial place). “I have found [or obtained] a ransom,” a basis for rescuing him from death. Based on Elihu’s comments in verses 27 and 28, the “ransom” or basis for deliverance from death could be the repentance of the individual. If the advocate is correctly identified as the one making the plea for the afflicted man, this plea could be understood as being directed to God. A number of translations are explicit in identifying the one requesting the deliverance but differ in the application and interpretation of the Hebrew text. “The angel will beg for mercy and say: ‘Save him from death. I have found a way to pay for his life.’ (NCV) “He’ll be gracious to him. He’ll say to God, ‘Spare him from going down into the grave. I know a way that can set him free.’” (NIRV) “The angel shows kindness, commanding death to release us, because the price was paid.” (CEV) “God will be gracious and say, ‘Set him free. Do not make him die, for I have found a ransom for his life.’” (NLT) (33:24; see the Notes section regarding the Septuagint rendering.)

Instead of remaining in an emaciated condition, the afflicted man would be restored to good health. Elihu continued the wording of the request for the restoration of the man when saying, “Let his flesh be fresher [rutapásh] than from youth. Let him return to the days of his youthful vigor.” The Septuagint refers to “his flesh” as being made tender like that of an infant and his being restored to manhood among men. Both the Hebrew text and the Septuagint suggest that the man’s skin would come to have a youthful or healthy appearance, and he would once again come to have the strength of an adult male. (33:25; see the Notes section regarding the verb rutapásh.)

The man who is spared from death will pray to God, and God will grant him acceptance. “He will see” God’s face, or will come into his presence, with a joyous “shout.” This suggests that he would make his approach in a confident manner as a man sure of being looked upon as approved. God “will return” (shuv) to the man, the “mortal,” “his righteousness.” This is often thought to mean that God will repay a man for his righteousness or uprightness. The Hebrew verb shuv, however, basically means “return.” So it may be that God “returns” to the man the righteous or right standing that he had formerly enjoyed. In the Septuagint, the corresponding verb for the Hebrew word shuv is a form of apodídomi, meaning “give back,” “return,” or “restore,” and the word for man is plural (not singular as in the Hebrew text). (33:26; see the Notes section.)

Depending upon which reading of the Hebrew text is followed, the man who was spared from death “will sing before men and say” or “he will behold before men and say.” His expression will be an acknowledgment of wrongdoing. “I sinned and perverted [what was] right, and it was not requited [literally, not equaled] to me.” These words indicate that God’s mercy had been extended to him, delivering him from what appeared to be certain death. According to the Septuagint, the man will “blame” or rebuke himself, “saying, What have I completed” or done? And he [God] has not tried” or afflicted “me” to the extent “I had sinned.” (33:27)

Elihu quoted the man who had been shown mercy as saying, “He [God] has redeemed my soul [my life or me myself] from going down into the pit” or the burial place, “and my life will see light” or the light of life as one who will continue to live. (33:28; see the Notes section.)

Elihu focused attention on what he was about to say with the interjection that may be rendered “look.” Regarding the divine action he previously had described, Elihu said, “All these things God does two times, three [times] with a man.” God does not limit his dealings with a man to just one time but provides him with additional opportunities to change his course. (33:29; see the Notes section.)

Elihu indicated that God’s purpose in dealing with a man is so that his life might be preserved and that the individual would have his approval. He expressed this purpose with the words, “to bring back his soul from the pit to be lighted with the light of life.” The expression “lighted with the light of life” could refer to being able to enjoy the light associated with the realm of the living instead of entering the darkness or gloom associated with the realm of the dead. According to the Septuagint rendering, Elihu quoted the man as saying, “But he [God] rescued my soul [my life] from death so that my life” (I as a living person) “may praise him in the light.” By being delivered from death, the individual would be able to continue enjoying the light of life and to praise God for the deliverance and all the resultant blessings. (33:30)

Elihu asked Job to “pay attention” (“give ear” [LXX]), to “listen” to him, and to “be silent,” for he intended to continue speaking. (33:31; see the Notes section.)

If Job had anything to say, Elihu invited him to respond to him. He then added his reason, “for I desire to justify you.” This could mean that Elihu wanted to clear Job of the unfounded accusations that Eliphaz, Bildad, and Zophar had made against him. (33:32; see the Notes section.)

If Job had no words to say in response to him, Elihu made the request, “You, listen to me. Be silent, and I will teach you wisdom.” The wisdom Elihu intended to impart related to what he considered to be the right view of Job’s situation. (33:33; see the Notes section.)

Notes

In verse 5, the Septuagint says, “If you can, give me an answer to these things,” the thoughts that Elihu would be expressing. There is no corresponding phrase for the Hebrew words “set in order before me.” The word appearing in the Septuagint is a form of hypoméno, which (depending on the context) can mean “endure,” “wait,” “remain,” or “stand firm.” In this case, translators of the Septuagint have chosen either “wait” or “endure.”

The Septuagint contains the concluding words of verse 8 (“I have heard the sound of your words”). Based on the marks of Origen in the third century CE, the initial phrase (“only you said in my ears”) were added from the Greek text of Theodotion.

Depending on the context, the Hebrew word davár may be rendered “word,” “thing,” “matter,” or “affair.” In verse 13, the plural form of davár is followed by the third person singular suffix (“his”) and may be translated “his words.” Translators who have chosen the meaning “words” commonly render the expression either as “my words” (meaning Job’s words) or in other ways avoid using “his words,” which would not fit the context of verse 13. “Why do you contend against him, saying, ‘He will answer none of my words’?” (NRSV) “Why do you complain to him that he answers none of man’s words?” (NIV) “Why then plead your case with him, for no one can answer his arguments?” (REB) “Why then quarrel with him for not replying to you, word for word?” (NJB)

In verse 20, the rendering “by no means” preserves the emphatic sense of the two Greek words for “not.” The concluding phrase of the Greek text is, according to the marks of Origen, an addition from the version of Theodotion. This added text differs from the reading of the concluding phrase in the extant Hebrew text. The added Greek text is, “And his soul [he himself] will desire food.”

The expression “by no means” for the Septuagint rendering of verse 23 preserves the emphatic sense of the two Greek words for “not.”

In verse 24, the Septuagint rendering departs significantly from the extant Hebrew text. It may be understood to indicate that God will see to it that the man “does not fall into death, and he will renew his body like [new] paint on a wall and fill his bones with marrow.” Accordingly, the afflicted man would be rescued from death and restored to a vigorous state.

The only occurrence of the Hebrew verb rutapásh in the Bible is in Job 33:25. This verb is commonly thought to mean “grow fresh,” but this is by no means certain.

In verse 26, the Septuagint refers to one “vowing [or praying] to the Lord” and indicates that “it” (or “he”) “will be acceptable.” “And he will enter with a clean” or pure “face with an utterance.” This could mean that the man would be coming into God’s presence in purity or sincerity with an utterance as an expression of joy and gratitude.

The marks of Origen in the third century CE indicate that the Greek text for verses 28 and 29 was added from the version of Theodotion. Its wording differs from the extant Hebrew text. Verse 28 opens with the petition, “Deliver my soul” (me or my life) for it “not to go into corruption and [that] my life will see light.”

Verse 29 of the Greek text of Theodotion reads, “Look, all these things the Mighty One does three ways with a man.” This rendering suggests that God may repeatedly deal with a man but in different ways.

In verse 31, the Greek wording about remaining silent (based on the marks of Origen) is supplied from the text of Theodotion’s version.

According to the marks of Origen, the wording of the Greek text of verse 32 was added from the version of Theodotion. It reads much like the extant Hebrew text. “If there are words, answer me. Speak, for I want you to be justified.”

The marks of Origen indicate that the wording of the Greek text of verse 33 was added from the version of Theodotion. This text corresponds to that of the extant Hebrew text. “If not, you listen to me. Be silent, and I will teach you wisdom.”

Job 34:1-37

Elihu continued to speak. This is introduced with the words, “And Elihu answered and said.” (34:1)

Elihu appears to have directed his words to Eliphaz, Bildad, and Zophar, referring to them as “wise” and “knowing” and called upon them to “hear [his] words” and to “give ear” or pay attention to him. Rahlfs’ printed text of the Septuagint concludes with the words, “Give ear to the good” (or pay attention to what is good). (34:2)

Elihu represented the ear as testing words or evaluating what is said. He likened what the ear did regarding words to what the palate (“throat” [Theodotion]) did when tasting food. Based on verse 4, the point he seemingly endeavored to make was that he wanted those whom he addressed to give serious attention to his words and then determine whether they expressed the truth about Job. (34:3; see the Notes section and 12:11, where Job used almost the same words to make his point.)

Apparently regarding the thoughts he planned to express, Elihu said, “Let us choose judgment for ourselves. Let us determine what is good among ourselves.” For Eliphaz, Bildad, and Zophar to “choose judgment” and to “determine what is good” would have meant for them to choose what was right when making a decision and to ascertain what was “good” or right when evaluating Job’s case. (34:4; see the Notes section.)

Any decision involving the case of Job would have required considering what he had expressed. Elihu did this when quoting Job as having said, “I am righteous” or innocent, “and God [the Lord (LXX)] has taken away my judgment.” The Septuagint rendering could be understood to indicate that the Lord had refused to consider Job’s case. Although he personally felt that he was upright and not guilty of serious sin, Job believed that God had dealt unjustly with him, not granting him an opportunity to make his defense before him. (34:5)

The wording of the Hebrew text is obscure regarding the thought Elihu next attributed to Job. A literal rendering could be, “Shall I lie about my judgment [mishpát]”? My arrow [is] mortal without transgression.” If the words are rendered as a question and the Hebrew noun mishpát is understood in its basic sense to mean “judgment,” the question may be as to whether Job would lie about the judgment (in the form of suffering) that had been expressed against him. It would have been senseless for him to do so. Job considered the suffering to which he had been submitted as being like a mortal wound from an arrow. The words “without transgression” indicate that Job insisted that he had not committed the kind of transgression that would have merited being afflicted as he had been. (34:6)

The obscurity of the Hebrew text has resulted in a variety of interpretive renderings. “Would I lie about my case? My wound is incurable, though I am without transgression.”(HCSB) “Would I lie about my right? I have been hurt so that I cannot be healed, but I have done no wrong.” (NLV) “I am innocent, but they call me a liar. My suffering is incurable, even though I have not sinned.” (NLT) “Instead of getting a fair trial, I am called a liar. I have been seriously hurt, even though I have not sinned.” (NCV) “Even though I’m right, he [God] thinks I’m a liar. Even though I’m not guilty, his arrows give me wounds that can’t be healed.”(NIRV) “Notwithstanding my right I am set at nought; in my wound the arrow rankles, sinless though I am.” (NAB) “I declare the judgment against me false; my arrow-wound is deadly, though I am free from transgression.” (Tanakh [JPS, 1985 edition]) “Job also argues that God considers him a liar and that he is suffering severely in spite of his innocence.” (CEV) “He [God] has falsified my case; my state is desperate, yet I have done no wrong.” (REB) With reference to the Lord, the Septuagint rendering could be translated, “He was false with my judgment.” (34:6; see the Notes section.)

Job had repeatedly expressed himself to the effect that God had treated him unjustly. Elihu apparently considered this to be mockery directed against God and raised the question, “What man [is] like Job who drinks mockery like water?” The reference to “like water” may relate to the fact that Job made his expressions without any hesitancy. (34:7; see the Notes section.)

In the light of verse 9, the words of verse 8 indicate that Elihu considered Job as placing himself on the side the evildoers because he thought a man did not benefit from trying to please God. Elihu is quoted as referring to Job as one who “goes in company with evildoers and walks with wicked men.” (34:8; see the Notes section.)

Elihu represented Job as saying that it does “not benefit a man” to take delight in or to please God. This was because Job repeatedly said that he had lived uprightly and yet had been subjected to great suffering, affliction that he believed God had brought upon him. (34:9; see the Notes section regarding the Septuagint rendering.)

Elihu appealed to men or “mortals of heart,” or men with understanding, to “hear” him or to listen to what he had to say. He insisted that (contrary to what Job had said about the way God had treated him) “far be it from God to act wickedly and [from] the Almighty to do wrong.” According to the Septuagint rendering, Elihu is the one indicating that it was unthinkable for him “to act impiously before the Lord and to pervert justice before the Almighty.” (34:10)

To establish that God is not unjust in his treatment of humans, Elihu said, “For [according to] an earthling’s [a man’s] work, he [God] will repay him; and in a man’s way, he will find him.” In Elihu’s view, God repays individuals on the basis of their deeds and, as the One who finds them in their way or their course of life, deals with them according to what their conduct deserves. (34:11; see the Notes section.)

Elihu summed up the point about the rightness of God’s dealings when saying, “Most certainly God will not act wickedly, and the Almighty will not pervert judgment” or treat anyone unjustly. In the Septuagint, this thought is expressed with rhetorical questions. “But do you think the Lord will do what is inappropriate” (or wrong)? “Or will the Almighty pervert judgment” or justice? (34:12)

God is not answerable to anyone. This is the apparent thought of Elihu’s rhetorical questions. “Who has put him in charge over the earth? Or who placed the inhabited land, all of it, [under him]?” God is the supreme authority, for he is the Creator. The Septuagint rendering is specific in identifying God as the one who “made the earth.” This is followed by the rhetorical question, “And who is the One making [the things] under heaven and everything existing [there]?” (34:13)

If God were to “set his heart” on a man and “gather his spirit and his breath to himself,” the individual would not continue to live. In this context, God’s setting “his heart” may refer to focusing his attention to act against the man, and the gathering of “his spirit and his breath” would denote depriving him of the life principle and the breath that sustains it. The initial phrase of the Hebrew text also contains the wording that may be rendered “to himself,” and “set” could be understood to mean “direct” (“direct his heart to himself”). A number of modern translations reflect this significance in their renderings. “If he were to turn his thoughts inwards …” (REB) If He but intends it … (Tanakh [JPS 1985 edition]) “If it were his intention … (NIV) (34:14; see the Notes section concerning the Septuagint rendering.)

Without the “spirit” or life principle, “all flesh will perish together,” and man, the “earthling, will return to the dust” or to the elements of the ground. According to the Septuagint rendering, “all flesh will die together, and every mortal will return to the earth [or ground] from which he was also formed.” (34:15)

The imperative to “hear” or listen is a second person singular verb and may be understood as being directed to Job. Elihu prefaced the words “hear this” with “and if understanding.” This could mean “if you, Job, have understanding.” The Septuagint rendering may be translated, “Lest he [God] admonish [you], hear [or listen to] these things.” The imperative to listen is stressed with the additional words, “Give ear to the sound of my declarations [words (LXX)]” or let the sound of what I say be accepted responsively. (34:16)

Job believed that God had dealt unjustly with him, implying that God was not a lover of justice. The comments of Elihu counter this with rhetorical questions. “Shall indeed the one hating judgment [or justice] exercise control? And will you condemn one [who is] righteous [and] mighty?” One who hates justice should not be in a governing position, and Job would most assuredly not have condemned the one who is both mighty and righteous. Accordingly, God who has control over everything could not possibly be one who hates justice. He is the Almighty and righteous, and this rules out any valid basis for faultfinding. The Septuagint rendering is even more specific in focusing on the Almighty. “Behold [Job] the One hating lawless deeds and the One destroying the wicked ones, [the One who is] eternally righteous.” (34:17)

Elihu indicated how wrong it was for Job to charge God with dealing unjustly. He did this by asking whether one would “say to a king,” you are a “worthless one,” and to “nobles,” you are “wicked.” If it was understood to be wrong to make such expressions about men in high station, it would be even more serious to imply that God was unjust. The Septuagint rendering refers to the one who would “say to a king, You are acting lawlessly,” as being impious or ungodly. (34:18; see the Notes section.)

What Elihu next said about God made it clear that it was wrong for Job to maintain that he was unjust in his treatment of him. Elihu referred to God as one who “does not lift up the face of princes,” or does not show partiality to them by reason of their exalted standing among people. He does not give more consideration to a noble than to a poor person. He treats all without partiality, for “all of them” are the “work of his hands.” (34:19; see the Notes section regarding the Septuagint rendering.)

It appears that Elihu made the point about God’s impartiality by referring to the reality that all humans die. No one receives preferential treatment. “In a moment [people] die, even at midnight.” They may die suddenly and unexpectedly. People are “shaken” or experience turmoil and “pass away” from the land of the living. The “mighty are taken away without a hand,” or with no violent action being directed against them from a human source. (34:20; see the Notes section regarding the Septuagint rendering.)

Elihu indicated that God’s judgments are just, for nothing escapes his attention. “His eyes [are] on the ways of a man, and he sees all his steps” or every move he makes. According to the Septuagint rendering, God is an “observer of the works of men”; and of the things they do, nothing is hidden from him. (34:21)

Evildoers cannot find a place of “gloom and death’s shadow” or deep darkness where they can hide themselves from God. There is no escape from his observation and from his judgment. (34:22)

According to the extant Hebrew text, God “does not appoint [a time for] a man to go before [him] in judgment.” He can act whenever he chooses and does not need to arrange for a judicial hearing beforehand — the kind of hearing that Job wanted. The Greek text, which Origen identified with his marks as having been added from the version of Theodotion, may be understood to say that God will not set something additional on men or impose on them any requirement besides what he had previously revealed. (34:23; see the Notes section.)

God “breaks mighty ones,” bringing them to their end “without search” or “investigation.” Already knowing everything about them and their activity and conduct, he does not need to undertake any additional examination. God sets others in the place of the mighty ones who were deposed. The Septuagint rendering departs significantly from the reading of the extant Hebrew text. God is identified as the one “comprehending unsearchable things, honorable things also, and extraordinary things for which there is no number.” This suggests that there is nothing beyond the realm of God’s knowledge. (34:24)

Respecting the “mighty ones,” God “knows their works.” He is fully aware of everything they do. “In the night,” when they do not expect it, God overturns the mighty ones (apparently for corrupt deeds and oppression), and they are crushed. (34:25; see the Notes section.)

God strikes individuals as or among wicked ones, doing so in the public place where others will see their punishment. According to the Septuagint rendering, God extinghished or put an end to the ungodly. They were visible before him, indicating that he knew what they were doing and, on that basis, executed his judgment against them. (34:26)

God’s punitive judgment befell individuals “because they turned aside from following him,” disregarding his authority over them. They had no regard for any of “his ways,” refusing to live uprightly. The Septuagint says that “they turned aside from the law of God and did not recognize” or observe “his precepts.” (34:27)

The ones against whom God executed judgment were guilty of mistreating and oppressing lowly ones. As a consequence, “they caused the outcry of the poor to come to him.” Because “he hears the outcry of the afflicted,” or responds to it, God acted against the oppressors. (34:28; see the Notes section.)

For God to remain quiet would mean for him not to take any action, and Elihu’s words suggest that no one can rightly condemn him for this. Likewise for him to deal in a manner that brings about quietness would provide no valid basis for leveling a charge against him. If the meaning is giving quietness, it could signify ending circumstances that result in trouble, suffering, or oppression. The hiding of God’s face would denote his turning attention away or refusing to take action. Without any evidence of activity from God, no one would behold him. This could be understood as applying to a nation and to a man in the same way. There is a measure of ambiguity in the Hebrew text, and this has resulted in a variety of renderings. “When He makes quietness, who then can make trouble? And when He hides His face, who then can see Him, whether it is against a nation or a man alone?” (NKJV) “When He is silent, who will condemn? If He hides His face, who will see Him, be it nation or man?” (Tanakh [JPS, 1985 edition]) “But if he remains silent, who can condemn him? If he hides his face, who can see him? Yet he is over man and nation alike, to keep a godless man from ruling …” (NIV) “But if he is still silent and no one can move him, if he veils his face, so that no one can see him, he is taking pity on nations and individuals.” (NJB) This rendering suggests that, out of compassion for nations and individuals, God refrains from executing punitive judgment. (34:29; see the Notes section.)

When God does take action, it is so that a godless man will not reign and that there be no one ensnaring people or leading them into a sinful course. The Greek text of Theodotion represents God as causing “a hypocritical man to reign because of the discontent of the people.” This could mean that, on account of the discontent of the people with their governing authority, they end up with a king whose exercise of rulership proves to be contrary to his words and promises. (34:30)

Translators have rendered the words about what is said to God as part of a question or a statement, and they also have commonly supplied an object for the Hebrew verb rendered, “I have borne.” Although the Hebrew text does not specifically address Elihu’s words to Job, a number of translators convey this significance in their renderings. “For has anyone said to God, ‘I have borne punishment; I will not sin any more’ …?” (ESV) Has he said to God, ‘I will bear [my punishment] and offend no more’ …?” (Tanakh [JPS, 1985 edition]) “Job, you should tell God that you are guilty and promise to do better.” (CEV) “Job, have you confessed your sins to God and promised not to sin again?” (GNT, Second Edition) The Greek version of Theodotion conveys a different thought. God is called the “Mighty One,” and the words said to him are, “I have received” (or “I have taken”); I will not take a pledge.” There is no object for the verb that can be rendered “have received” or “have taken.” It could mean that, because of having been the recipient of blessings, the individual would not take pledges from others for the repayment of loans. If the significance is “I have taken,” the thought could be that in the past the individual did take pledges but promised not to do so in the future. (34:31)

According to Elihu’s comments, the one asked to teach is God, and the one making the request is either any individual or Job himself. The petition is, “Teach me what I do not see” or recognize. Then, upon becoming fully aware of his error, the individual (or Job) would promise not to repeat the wrong. (34:32; see the Notes section.)

Elihu’s question for Job was whether it should be on the basis of his personal judgment that God should requite even though he personally had rejected. In the Hebrew text, the verb for “reject” has no object. The implied object could be God or what God was doing. In view of Job’s insistence that God had dealt unjustly with him, Elihu appears to have represented this as Job’s rejection of God or of God’s manner of governing affairs. Therefore, if Job knew a better way, Elihu told him to choose, whereas he personally would not do so. The implication is that, unlike Job, he did not find fault with God or with what God did. Elihu then told Job, “Declare what you know” or make known a superior way for God to govern. (34:33; see the Notes section.)

Elihu concluded that Job would not have the support of wise men. Men or mortals of understanding (literally, “men” or “mortals of heart”) and any “wise man” who might hear what Elihu said would censure Job (as evident from the next verse). The Greek version of Theodotion contains similar wording but concludes with the phrase, “but a wise man heard [or listened to] my word.” (34:34)

Wise men would tell Elihu that “Job speaks without knowledge” and that his “words” are not the product of insight. This was because Job maintained that God had been unjust in his dealings with him. (34:35)

Elihu wanted Job to be tested to the limit (apparently that he might see his error), for his “answers” or responses were like those of wicked men. He considered Job to have aligned himself with wicked men when referring to God as being unjust. According to the Septuagint rendering, Elihu called upon Job to “learn” and not to continue giving “an answer like senseless ones.” (34:36; see the Notes section.)

From Elihu’s perspective, Job had sinned when he contended that God had afflicted him without justification. He also maintained that Job had added rebellion to his sin. This could be because he found fault with Job’s wanting to face God personally to present his cause and to establish that his suffering was undeserved. The reference to Job’s clapping as an act of derision may indicate that Elihu understood Job’s expressions about what God had done to him as constituting mockery. Elihu then concluded with the thought that Job had multiplied words “against God.” (34:37; see the Notes section regarding the Septuagint rendering.)

Notes

The marks of Origen in the third century CE indicate that the wording of the Greek text for verses 3 and 4 was added from the version of Theodotion. This wording is much like that of the extant Hebrew text.

In verse 6, the concluding phrase was, according to the marks of Origen, added from the Greek version of Theodotion. “My arrow [is] violent without injustice.” The thought appears to be that the suffering to which Job had been afflicted was like an arrow that had hit him with violence even though he had not been guilty of unjust acts.

The marks of Origen in the third century CE indicate that the Greek wording of verse 7 was added from the version of Theodotion. This wording corresponds to the reading of the extant Hebrew text.

Without the addition from the Greek version of Theodotion, verses 6 and 8 read, The Lord “was false with my judgment, [though I was] not sinning nor being impious, nor shared I a way with those doing lawless deeds, to go with the impious.” This Septuagint rendering indicates why Job regarded the judgment to which he had been submitted to have been unwarranted.

The wording of verse 9 in the Septuagint differs from that of the extant Hebrew text. “For you should not say, There will be no visitation of a man, and [there is] a visitation of him by the Lord.” This could be understood to mean that God does make a visitation for judgment, and so one should not say that there is no such visitation.

In the Greek text of verse 11, the concluding phrase is (based on the marks of Origen) added from the version of Theodotion. It is a literal rendering of the Hebrew text, “and in a man’s way, he will find him.”

The Septuagint rendering of verse 14 starts a sentence that is completed in verse 15. “For if he should want to constrain and hold onto the spirit with himself, all flesh will die together.”

The marks of Origen in the third century CE indicate that the wording of the concluding phrase of verse 18 was added from the Greek version of Theodotion. This phrase refers to one who would say “to rulers, O most impious one.”

In verse 19, the Septuagint rendering continues the description of a disrespectful (an impious) man. Such a one would have no shame or respect “before the face [or person] of an honorable man,” nor would he “know” (or recognize that it was fitting) to give “honor to men” of dignified standing so as show respect for them (literally, “admire their faces”).

The Septuagint rendering of verse 20 refers to the outcome for the impious ones. It would be “in vain for them to cry out” for help “and petition a man, for they dealt unlawfully, turning aside powerless ones.” They refused to alleviate the suffering to which oppression had subjected helpless persons.

In verse 23, the Septuagint, without the addition from the Greek version of Theodotion, reads, “For the Lord observes everyone.” This is why lawless ones will not escape punishment.

The marks of Origen indicate that the concluding phrase of verse 25 was added to the Greek text from the version of Theodotion. This phrase differs from the reading of the extant Hebrew text. It is, “and he [God] overturns night, and they [the lawless ones] will be humbled” or brought low.

The wording for the Greek text of verses 28 through 33 was not found in the Septuagint available to Origen in the third century CE. He marked this section as having been added from the Greek version of Theodotion. The Greek text of verse 28 conveys the same thought as does the extant Hebrew text.

Verse 29 of the Greek version of Theodotion reads much like the extant Hebrew text. “And he will cause quiet, and who will condemn [him]? And he will hide [his] face, and who will see him? And against a nation and against a man together” or in the same way.

The wording of verse 32 in the Greek version of Theodotion differs somewhat from the extant Hebrew text. “I will see apart from myself; show me.” Perhaps the thought is that, on his own, he could not see or understand what he had done wrong but would be able to do so if God were to reveal it to him. The verse concludes with the words, “If I have practiced injustice” (wrongdoing or unrighteousness), “I will not continue” (to do so).

In verse 33, the wording of the Greek version of Theodotion, though obscure, does resemble the extant Hebrew text. “Will he not exact it from you?” This could mean, Will not God repay you for the wrong you did? “For you will reject [God’s way of dealing], for you will choose [another way] and not I [Elihu]. And [you, Job] speak what you knew” (as a better way in your estimation).

In the Hebrew text, verse 36 opens with ’avi, which can be the noun “father” with the first person singular suffix (“my”). This significance has the support of the Vulgate, which reads pater mi (“my father”), and the one so designated would be God. Numerous modern translations, however, do not render ’avi as “my father” but represent ’avi as an expression of entreaty. “Would that Job were tried to the limit.” (Tanakh [JPS, 1985 edition]) “If only Job could be put to the test once and for all.” (REB) “Kindly examine him thoroughly.” (NJB) These renderings are based on linking ’avi to the Arabic word bayya and then defining ’avi as meaning “would that.”

Job 35:1-16

Elihu continued to speak. The introductory words are the same as in the opening verse of chapter 34. “And Elihu answered and said.” (35:1)

Elihu directed a rhetorical question to Job. “Do you think this to be judgment” (or justice)? He then quoted Job as saying, “My righteousness before God.” The reference to “righteousness before God” implied that Job regarded himself as being in the right, for he believed that God had wrongly subjected him to suffering. The Septuagint rendering is more direct in reproving Job. “What [is] this [that] you thought in judgment? Who are you that you said, ‘I am righteous before the Lord’?” The words “in judgment” suggest that Job is being represented as regarding himself to be in the right, insisting that God had no reason to mistreat him. Elihu, however, considered that Job, a mere mortal, was presumptuous in claiming to be righteous before God. This is evident from the challenging words, “Who are you that you said”? (35:2)

Elihu represented Job as raising the question as to what advantage he had from living an upright life and whether he really was better off because of not sinning. In the Septuagint, the question Elihu attributed to Job is, “Having sinned, what shall I do?” Perhaps this is to be understood to mean that his sinning would have made no difference in the way his life turned out. (35:3)

Elihu purposed to answer the questions he had attributed to Job. He would answer Job and the companions with him. The Septuagint rendering is specific in identifying these companions as Job’s “three friends,” Eliphaz, Bildad, and Zophar. (35:4)

Elihu directed attention to the “heavens” or to the sky above, telling Job to “look up to the heavens and see.” He also wanted Job to note that the “clouds” were high above him. The implication appears to be that God is far higher than humans and that it was wrong for Job to judge God as having wronged him without any justification. (35:5)

Elihu raised rhetorical questions. “If you have sinned, what have you done against [God]? And if your transgressions are increased, what do you do to him?” The implied answer is that humans cannot personally harm God by their sinful acts or transgressions. In the Septuagint, the questions basically read the same but do not include an equivalent for the third person singular suffix (“him”). (35:6)

Again using rhetorical questions, Elihu focused on whether anyone could possibly benefit God. “If you are righteous” or upright, “what do you give to him? Or what does he receive from your hand?” There is absolutely nothing any human could give to God that would prove to be gain for him. (35:7; see the Notes section.)

Whether a person is wicked or righteous impacts fellow humans but not God. This is the thought Elihu expressed. “Your wickedness [affects] a man like yourself; and your righteousness” (your honest dealings) a “son of man” or a fellow earthling. (35:8; see the Notes section.)

“Because of a multitude of oppressions” that are committed and which cause much suffering, people “cry out,” doing so in their distress and for relief from mistreatment. “Because of the arm of the mighty” (or the power oppressors use against them), “they call out for help,” longing to be rescued from their difficult situation. (35:9; see the Notes section.)

Apparently based on what he had observed, Elihu concluded that people may cry out in distress, but they do not really think about God or earnestly seek him. No one says, “Where [is] God my Maker who gives songs” (or provides occasions for songs) “in the night?” The “night” could refer to a time of gloom or distress, and “songs” would then be sung when relief came. (35:10; see the Notes section regarding the Septuagint rendering and additional comments about the word “songs.”)

Elihu recognized that the wisdom God teaches humans is superior to that of the “beasts of the earth” or the land animals. He has also made humans wiser than the “birds of the heavens” (or the birds that fly above the earth). In possession of greater God-given wisdom than beasts and birds, humans should be looking to God their Maker. The implied thought of Elihu’s words could be that humans should cry out to God in sincerity, revealing their having greater wisdom than animals and birds that cry out to God for their food. (Compare Job 38:41 and Psalm 147:9.) According to the Septuagint, Elihu acknowledged that God had set him apart from the “quadrupeds of the earth” and from the “birds of heaven.” As one set apart from quadrupeds and birds, Elihu, as verse 14 says, expected to be saved from harm. (35:11)

Elihu referred to people as crying out but said that God does not “hear,” listen, or respond to their outcry. The apparent reason is that they were not in an acceptable condition before God and did not appeal to him in sincerity. They remained arrogant in their attitude and did not conduct themselves in a divinely approved manner. So it was “because of the pride of evil men” that God did not listen to their pleas and respond favorably. (35:12; see the Notes section.)

God does not hear (or listen to) vanity or emptiness, which would include cries for help that are not expressed in sincerity and with due humility. The Almighty will not regard any outcries that are mere emptiness or worthlessness. (35:13; see the Notes section.)

After having pointed out that the Almighty would not listen to outcries that were mere empty pleas, Elihu may be understood as saying that God would be even less inclined to listen to Job’s defense. He referred to Job as having said that he did not see God, that the case (which he had presented) was before him, and that he was waiting for him (for God’s response to his defense). It is also possible that Elihu’s words about waiting were directed to Job. The thought would then be that Job’s case was before God and he should patiently wait for God’s response. Modern translations are more specific or interpretive when conveying one of these two ways to understand the text. “He will listen to you even less when you say that you do not see him, that your case is before him, that you must wait for him.” (NCV) “So he certainly won’t listen to you. When you say you don’t see him, he won’t hear you. He won’t listen when you state your case to him. He won’t pay attention even if you wait for him.” (NIRV) “And how much less when you say, ‘I cannot see him, my case is open and I am waiting for him.’” (NJB) “Though you say, ‘You do not take note of it,’ the case is before Him; so wait for Him.” (Tanakh [JPS, 1985 edition]) “Even though you say that you see him not, the case is before him; with trembling should you wait upon him.” (NAB) “The worse for you when you say you do not see him! Humble yourself in his presence and wait for his word.” (REB) (35:14; see the Notes section.)

Elihu’s words (“and now because his anger does not punish, and he does not know folly greatly”) could be a continuation of what he represented Job as having said. It is also possible that these words may state the reason for what Job said but which statements Elihu referred to as “emptiness” or foolish talk. This difference in meaning is reflected in the renderings of modern translations. “Or [when you (Job)] say, ‘His [God’s] anger never punishes, he does not seem aware of human rebellion.’” (NJB) “And further [when you say], that his anger never punishes and he does not take the least notice of wickedness.” (NIV) “And now, because his anger does not punish, and he does not greatly heed transgression, Job opens his mouth in empty talk.” (NRSV) “But now, because God does not grow angry and punish, because he lets folly pass unheeded, Job gives vent to windy nonsense.” (REB) The basic message of the Hebrew text appears to be that there were times when God did not express his anger against those who deserved punishment, making it appear as though he did not know about the wrong. According to the Greek version of Theodotion, the rendering is (including part of verse 16), “And now, because no one is looking upon his wrath, and he did not know exceeding transgression, also Job, acting foolishly, opens his mouth.” This could be understood to mean that no one is seeing any evidence that God has expressed his wrath against evildoers, appearing as though not knowing or being aware of serious wrongdoing. As a consequence of this, Job spoke foolishly or in ignorance. (35:15; see the Notes section.)

Elihu referred to Job as opening his mouth in emptiness or senseless talk and multiplying words “without knowledge.” This is because Elihu considered Job to have seriously erred when representing God as having been unjust by causing him to suffer. In effect, Elihu spoke of Job as a man who did not know what he was talking about or who uttered nonsense. (35:16; see the Notes section.)

Notes

According to the marks of Origen in the third century CE, the Greek text for the second question in verse 7 was added from the version of Theodotion. It reads much like the extant Hebrew text. “Or what will he receive from your hand?”

Based on the marks of Origen, the wording of the Greek text from verses 8 and 9 and the first phrase of verse 10 was added from the version of Theodotion. The Greek rendering of verse 8 is much like the reading of the extant Hebrew text. “Your impiety [is] for a man, one like you; and your righteousness to a son of man.”

In verse 9, the added text from the Greek version of Theodotion differs somewhat from the extant Hebrew text. “Because of the many, those falsely accused will cry out. They will call out for help because of the arm [or power] of the many.”

In verse 10, the Septuagint does not mention “songs.” It says that God “appoints the watches of the night.” A number of modern translations also do not contain the rendering “songs.” The words found in these translations include “strength” (NRSV, Tanakh [JPS, 1985 edition]) and “protection” (REB), and these renderings are based on a link of the Hebrew word zemír (“song”) to a somewhat similar Arabic root (dmr).

In verse 12, the wording of the opening phrase in the Greek text (according to the marks of Origen) was added from the version of Theodotion. It corresponds to the reading of the extant Hebrew text, but it does not fit the words of the Septuagint that follow. Without the addition, the concluding phrase of verse 12 could be understood to say that Elihu was set apart “from the insolence of the wicked.” This suggests that God would not allow arrogant, wicked men to harm Elihu.

In verse 13, the rendering of the Septuagint departs significantly from the reading of the extant Hebrew text. “For the Lord does not wish to see” things that are inappropriate or wrong. The next sentence is completed in verse 14. “For he, the Almighty, is an observer of those carrying out lawless deeds.”

In verse 14, the Septuagint rendering about the Almighty in the role of an observer of those engaging in lawless acts is followed by the words, “and he will save me.” This suggests that Elihu believed the Almighty would deliver him from lawless ones who desired to harm him. The concluding part of the verse could be rendered, “And plead before him if you are able to praise him as he is.” This could mean that Job, if he were to plead his case before God, should be able to praise him as the God he truly is. It would not be as Job had represented God when maintaining that he had dealt unjustly with him.

The marks of Origen indicate that verses 15 and 16 of the Greek text have been added from the version of Theodotion.

In verse 16, the Greek text of Theodotion refers to Job as weighing down or burdening his words “in ignorance.” Possibly this could mean that Job made his words burdensome to those hearing them.

Job 36:1-33

Elihu continued speaking. His comments are introduced with the words, “And Elihu added” or continued “and said.” (36:1)

Elihu wanted Job to bear with him a little, for he still had more to say in God’s defense (literally, “words for God”). The Septuagint does not include a reference to God. It represents Elihu as asking Job to remain with him or wait for him a little while so that he could “teach” him, for, within himself, he still had more “speech.” (36:2)

Elihu intended to obtain “knowledge from afar.” This could mean that his objective was to draw on knowledge from the full range of sources available to him or that he considered God to be the source of the knowledge he would impart and, therefore, a source that is far away from the human realm. In his statements, he purposed to ascribe “righteousness” or what is right to his Maker, whereas Job had spoken of God as being unjust in his treatment of him. According to the Septuagint rendering, Elihu would speak what is righteous, right, or just, doing so through his “works.” Possibly his “works” could be understood to include his attitude, manner when speaking, and the substantive and truthful content of his words. (36:3)

Elihu provided the assurance that his words would not be false. It appears that he regarded God as the source of his knowledge. This may be reflected in his comment, “one complete [flawless or perfect] in knowledge is with you,” seemingly through the words that Elihu intended to speak. A number of translators, however, make the application directly to Elihu. “A man of sound opinions is before you.” (Tanakh [JPS, 1985 edition]) “Before you stands one whose conclusions are sound.” (REB) The rendering of the Septuagint is a continuation of verse 3 and may indicate that Elihu would, through his works, speak “in truth” or with sincerity “and [utter] no unrighteous” or misleading “words.” The concluding phrase, “unjustly” or wrongly “you understand” could indicate that Job had misunderstood and wrongly spoken of God’s dealings with him. (36:4)

The interjection rendered “look” apparently served to focus the attention of Job on what Elihu was about to say in his defense of God. Although pointing to God as being “mighty,” Elihu indicated that this did not affect his dealings with lowly humans. God does not “reject” anyone on the basis of his might or his matchless power that makes him far superior to his creation. The Septuagint rendering is more explicit than is the extant Hebrew text. Elihu called upon Job to recognize that “the Lord will by no means reject the innocent one.” The Hebrew text concludes with the thought that God is “mighty in strength of heart.” In this case, the Hebrew expression “strength of heart” is commonly understood to mean “strength of understanding.” Another possible significance is “steadfast in purpose.” A number of translations render the Hebrew text according to emendations and convey very different meanings. “God, I say, repudiates the high and mighty.” (REB) “Behold, God rejects the obstinate in heart.” (NAB) “God does not reject anyone whose heart is pure.” (NJB) (36:5; see the Notes section.)

Emphasizing God’s justice or righteousness, Elihu said that he does not preserve the life of (make or keep alive) the wicked one and that he gives “judgment” to, or renders justice for, the “humble,” the afflicted, or the poor. In the Greek version of Theodotion, the initial phrase is rendered emphatically with two words for “not” and may be translated, “By no means will he make alive [or grant life to] the impious.” (36:6; see the Notes section.)

Elihu declared that God does not withdraw his “eyes from the righteous one.” He continues to look out for the interests of upright persons, seating them “with kings on the throne forever, and they will be exalted” or elevated to a high station. The Greek text of Theodotion refers to God as seating the righteous “in victory,” suggesting that he will make them triumphant. (36:7)

Elihu acknowledged that the righteous may experience adversity. “If they are bound in fetters” (as persons taken captive), “caught in cords of affliction” or poverty (as persons reduced to a needy state or submitted to oppression), they (as Elihu’s words in the next verse indicate) may thus become recipients of God’s discipline. (36:8)

Through the distress that God allows to come upon the righteous, “he declares to them their work and their transgressions,” exposing that they had assumed a prideful bearing. The affliction is thus revealed as discipline that serves to humble the righteous ones so that they might remain in an acceptable condition before God. According to the Greek version of Theodotion, God’s purpose in declaring to them “their works and their transgressions” is so that “they will be strong.” This could mean that they will be strong or firm in their adherence to what is right. (36:9)

Elihu indicated that God, by means of affliction, “uncovers the ear” of the righteous to be responsive to instruction, making them realize wherein they needed to make changes in their conduct or disposition. In this way, God commanded that “they turn from iniquity,” abandoning attitudes and actions that he disapproved. The shorter Greek text of Theodotion says, “And he [God] said that they should turn from injustice” or wrongdoing. (36:10; see the Notes section.)

“If,” according to Elihu, individuals listened to or obeyed and served God by choosing to do his will, “they will finish their days in good” (“in good things” [Theodotion]) or in prosperity “and their years” in pleasantness (“in dignity” or “in comeliness” [Theodotion]). Their life would turn out well for them, and they would find the years that pass to be enjoyable. (36:11)

As to those who fail to obey God, Elihu said, “they will perish by a weapon.” This suggests that their life would end prematurely by violent means. Their dying “without knowledge” could mean that they would die as senseless persons who foolishly chose to live a corrupt life. According to the Septuagint rendering, God does not deliver the impious ones “because they do not wish to know” him or to have a relationship with him as his approved servants. Although they had been admonished, they were unresponsive. (36:12)

Persons “profane of heart” or who are completely corrupt in their inmost selves lay up (literally, “set”) “anger.” This could mean that they store up for themselves the wrath that God will express against them for their vile deeds. Another possible significance would be that these individuals harbor anger. The Greek version of Theodotion refers to these persons as “hypocrites [in] heart” or individuals who hide their real aims under a false appearance or with lies. They “will set wrath.” This could mean that they set God’s anger against themselves. The Greek text could also be understood to mean that these hypocrites set their heart in wrath, being motivated to lash out in fury against others. When God “binds” these impious ones or punishes them like captives, they will not cry out to him as persons seeking his aid. (36:13; see the Notes section.)

Elihu said regarding those who disregard God that “their soul,” or they themselves, “will die in youth” or experience a premature death. Their life will end in disgrace “among male prostitutes.” The Septuagint quotes Elihu as saying, “May their soul [the impious themselves] surely die in youth, and their life [be] wounded by messengers” or “angels” (of death). (36:14)

Elihu regarded affliction or suffering to be God’s means to deliver those who are afflicted. He apparently viewed suffering as a form of divine discipline to awaken within those who were afflicted the realization that they needed to change their conduct. In this way, God used the affliction to rescue them from a course of life that would have been hurtful to them. God “uncovers their ear by oppression” or “distress.” This could mean that the distress they experience chastises them, making them more responsive to God and the need to live in harmony with his requirements. (36:15; see the Notes section regarding the Septuagint rendering.)

With reference to Job, Elihu seemingly indicated that what had befallen him was God’s means to “allure” him out of the “mouth of distress” into a broad place where he would no longer be hemmed in or restrained by affliction. The distress itself (as Elihu previously mentioned) would prompt Job to change his attitude and course of action, restoring him to the fullness of God’s favor. “And the comfort of [his] table,” or that which would be placed on his table, would be “full of fatness” or rich and satisfying fare. Accordingly, Job would again return to a prosperous state. (36:16; see the Notes section.)

If the thought is that Job was full of the judgment of one who is wicked, this could mean that he had taken that one’s side when maintaining that God had dealt unjustly with him. For this reason, judgment and justice would then take hold or would be expressed against him. The much shorter text of the Septuagint says that “judgment” or justice “will not fail for righteous ones.” This suggests that upright persons would ultimately have justice rendered in their case. Although not specifically expressed in this verse, the general context points to God as the source of the favorable outcome. (36:17)

The Hebrew noun sépheq has been linked to a root meaning to “clap the hands” or one applying to “abundance.” If the application is to “clapping,” the thought may be that “wrath” could incite Job to the clapping of his hands as a gesture of mockery. The words of Elihu could then constitute a warning that anger over what he was experiencing should not incite him to mock or scorn God. A number of translations are more explicit in conveying this significance than is the extant Hebrew text. “Beware that wrath does not entice you into scoffing.” (NRSV) “Don’t let your anger and the pain you endured make you sneer at God.” (CEV) Those who prefer the meaning “abundance” for the noun sépheq emend the Hebrew text in a variety of ways. This is reflected in the renderings of a number of modern translations. “Be careful that no one entices you by riches.” (NIV) “Beware of being led astray by abundance.” (NJB) “Let anger at his affluence not mislead you.” (Tanakh [JPS, 1985 edition]) “Do not be led astray by lavish gifts of wine.” (REB) According to the Septuagint, wrath would come upon impious ones because of the “gifts” or bribes “they would receive for injustices” or for corrupt actions. (36:18)

The extant Hebrew text includes Elihu’s warning to Job that he should not let a “large ransom” lead him astray. In this case, the “large ransom” may be understood to designate a bribe. A number of modern translations make this explicit in their renderings. “Beware … of being corrupted by expensive presents.” (NJB) “Do not let bribery warp your judgement.” (REB) “Do not let a large bribe turn you aside.” (NIV) (36:18)

A form of the Hebrew verb ‘arákh is linked to the word that may be rendered “cry for help.” The basic meaning of ‘arákh is “arrange” or “set in order,” but this does not fit the wording of the initial question. Translators commonly resort to following a variety of emendations, and this has led to numerous different renderings. “Will your cry avail to keep you from distress, or will all the force of your strength?” (NRSV) “Would your wealth or even all your mighty efforts sustain you so you would not be in distress?” (NIV) “Will that wealth of yours, however great, avail you, or all the resources of your high position?” (REB) “Will your limitless wealth avail you, all your powerful efforts?” (Tanakh [JPS, 1985 edition]) “Your reputation and riches cannot protect you from distress.” (CEV) None of these renderings, however, really apply to Job’s circumstances, for he had lost his riches and the position of respect that he formerly enjoyed. He had been reduced to a sickly and helpless state. Perhaps the question is whether Job could do anything to make his outcry effective in the face of God’s judgment. The answer would be, No. In his distress, “all forces of strength,” or every bit of limited strength that Job could muster, would be of no avail. An entirely different thought is expressed in the Septuagint rendering. Elihu told Job not to let his mind willingly turn him aside from the “petition of powerless ones in distress.” (36:19; see the Notes section.)

Elihu cautioned Job not to long for (literally, “pant after”) “the night” or the time of darkness. It is then that “peoples go up” or depart from their place. In this context, “the night” appears to refer to a time of judgment when peoples are forcibly taken away or perish. Another possibility is that longing for the “night” could refer to seeking the world of darkness, the gloomy realm of the dead to which peoples depart from their place suddenly and unexpectedly. Modern translations contain a variety of interpretive renderings that contain wording that has no basis in the extant Hebrew text. “Have no fear if in the breathless terrors of the night you see nations vanish where they stand.” (REB) “Do not long for the night, to drag people away from their homes.” (NIV) “Do not crush people you do not know to install your relations in their place.” (NJB) “Nor can you find safety in the dark world below.” (CEV) (36:20; see the Notes section.)

Elihu believed that Job was wrong in saying that God had been unjust when causing him to suffer. This appears to be the reason for his telling Job to guard himself not to turn to iniquity and then adding, “for this you have chosen rather than affliction.” Instead of accepting his affliction as discipline that could benefit him, Job, by his expressions, had shown a preference for saying things that Elihu considered to be evil. (36:21; see the Notes section.)

Instead of finding fault with God as he considered Job to have done, Elihu focused on exalting God and thus implied that this is what Job should be doing. The initial interjection rendered “look” served to direct Job’s attention to what Elihu was about to say. “God is exalted in his power.” The astonishing things God does give evidence of his great power, thus revealing him to be the Almighty, the one who is exalted far above all intelligent creatures. Through his works and his dealings with humans, he provides instruction. Appropriately, therefore, Elihu raised the question, “Who is a teacher like him?” The implied answer is that, as an instructor (or, according to the Septuagint, a “mighty one”), God has no equal. (36:22; see the Notes section.)

By means of rhetorical questions, Elihu pointed out that no one has the right to challenge God, telling him what to do, how to do it, or what course to take. “Who has appointed [or prescribed] his way for him?” In the Septuagint, the question is, “And who is examining [or testing] his works [as might one for the purpose of making an evaluation]?” “And who can say, He has done injustice [or wrong]?” (36:23)

Elihu admonished Job to remember to extol God’s work or to laud all of his activity. The admonition in the Septuagint is, “Remember that his works are great,” deserving to be praised and to be regarded with reverential awe. In the Hebrew text, the verse concludes with the thought that “men [mortals] have sung” about his work. They have made his doings the subject of songs of praise and thanksgiving. (36:24; see the Notes section.)

Elihu indicated that God’s work or activity is clearly discernible. “All men” or “earthlings” (a collective singular in Hebrew) “have looked upon it.” “From afar” (as God carries out his activity far from the earthly realm), “mortals” (a collective singular in Hebrew) can see. The Hebrew suffix rendered “it” is masculine gender and can be translated both “he” and “it,” for Hebrew does not have neuter suffixes. A number of modern translations are specific in making the application to God. “All mankind gazes at him; the race of mortals look on from afar.” (REB) “From down here on earth, everyone has looked up and seen how great God is.” (CEV) (36:25; see the Notes section.)

Elihu recognized that there was abundant reason for praising God. He is “great, beyond our knowledge.” His wisdom and might are impossible for humans to fathom, for there is nothing in the earthly realm that could be used for comparison purposes. He is eternal and, as Elihu, expressed it, the “number of his years” is unsearchable. These years can neither be comprehended nor counted. (36:26; see the Notes section.)

Elihu regarded rain as providing evidence about God’s greatness. He attributed to God the drawing up of “drops of water” and the filtering (zaqáq) of rain “from his mist.” The Hebrew word zaqáq basically means “refine” and, therefore, “filter” appears to be an acceptable rendering in this context. According to the Septuagint, the “drops of rain are counted for him” (God). This is followed by the Greek text added (according to the marks of Origen) from the version of Theodotion. “And they [the raindrops] will be poured out with rain into a cloud.” (36:27; see the Notes section about the renderings of modern translations.)

Elihu continued, saying that the “clouds pour down.” They drop upon “man” or the “earthling” (a collective singular designating humans) “abundantly.” Copious rain descends upon people from above. According to another view, the Hebrew word for “man” or “earthling” (adhám) refers to the “ground” and that the Hebrew word that has been rendered as an adverb “abundantly” (rav [great, many, or much]) should be understood as applying to “showers.” One translation that reflects this view is the Revised English Bible. “The rain-clouds pour down in torrents, they descend in showers on the ground.” The Septuagint does not support such a rendering. It refers to “mortals” and not the ground. “And clouds overshadow countless mortals.” (36:28; see the Notes section.)

To the ancients like Elihu, the formation of clouds and the roar of thunder that accompanied lightning were a mystery. Therefore, he asked about who could understand the “spreadings of a cloud, the crashings of his pavilion.” The “spreadings of a cloud” could refer to the way the blue sky becomes overcast. With his words, Elihu poetically portrayed God as being surrounded by clouds as if the cloud mass was his pavilion. From there, the rumbling of thunder proceeded. The wording of the Greek version of Theodotion that was added to the Septuagint (according to the marks of Origen) refers to the “spreadings of a cloud” as being the “equal” or “measure” of God’s “tent.” (36:29)

“Look,” Elihu continued, God “scatters his lightning about him, and the roots of the sea he covers.” In this context, the Hebrew expression “roots of the sea” appears to designate the seabed, for roots are at the bottom of trees and other plants. Lightning lights up the dark sky, and so light may here be portrayed as penetrating to the bottom of the sea and thus covering it. (36:30; see the Notes section.)

If rendered “for by these he judges peoples,” the words of Elihu could indicate that God can use wind, downpours, and lightning to execute punitive judgment. It is, however, possible that judging here relates to ruling or exercising dominion, which could also include making provisions for humans. This general sense is conveyed in a number of modern translations. “This is the way he governs the nations.” (NIV) “By these things He controls peoples.” (Tanakh [JPS, 1985 edition]) “Thus he sustains the nations.” (REB, which translation inserts these words after verse 28). Rain and storms supply the water that is essential for crops to grow. Accordingly, Elihu concluded, “He [God] gives food in abundance.” (36:31; see the Notes section.)

Elihu represented God as covering “light” (“lightning,” in this context) with his hands or having it under control for his use and commanding it to strike (literally, “meet” or “encounter”). The Greek version of Theodotion contains a literal rendering that obscures the seeming meaning of the Hebrew text. “In [literally, upon] his hands, he has covered light, and he commanded concerning it [literally, her] in encountering.” The nearest antecedent for the feminine pronoun (“her”) is the noun “food” in the previous verse, but how this could relate to meeting or encountering is not readily apparent. One interpretation of the text attributes to God the appointment of one over the food, one who would be meeting him. This significance, however, is foreign to an actual encounter with God. (36:32)

Elihu’s words may be translated, “Its roaring announces concerning him. Domestic animals [a collective singular in Hebrew] [announce his] anger against injustice.” The rendering “injustice” is based on vowel pointing that differs from the Masoretic Text. If the vowel points of the Masoretic Text are followed, the reference would be to “one coming up” or to “what is coming up.” The Hebrew text could be understood to portray the rumble of thunder as announcing God’s coming for judgment and domestic animals, by their agitation, making known his coming in anger. Another possible meaning is to interpret the roaring to announce the coming of a storm and the domestic animals doing so by their changed behavior. The obscurity of the Hebrew text has given rise to numerous different renderings in modern translations. (36:33; see the Notes section for the renderings of modern translations and the wording of the Greek version of Theodotion.)

Notes

In verse 5, the expression “by no means” is a rendering that conveys the emphatic sense of two Greek words for “not.” According to the marks of Origin in the third century CE, the Greek wording of the phrase “mighty in strength of heart” was added from the version of Theodotion.

Based on the marks of Origen, the Greek text of verses 6 through 11 (with the exception of the initial phrase of verse 10) was added from the version of Theodotion. The wording of the Greek text is much like that of the extant Hebrew text. Without the addition, the Septuagint reads, “Know, however, that the Lord will by no means reject the innocent one, but he will listen to the righteous one.” The expression “by no means” preserves the emphatic sense of the two Greek words for “not.” (36:5, 10)

The Greek text of verse 13, according to the marks of Origen, was added from the version of Theodotion.

In verse 15, the wording of the Septuagint rendering differs from that of the extant Hebrew text. God’s judgment upon the impious is to be expressed against them “because they oppressed the weak and the powerless one.” The concluding phrase may be rendered, “But he will make manifest the judgment of the meek.” This may point to an approved judgment from God for them.

The wording of verse 16, according to the marks of Origen, was added to the Greek text from the version of Theodotion. The rendering resembles the extant Hebrew text but conveys a somewhat different meaning. “And more than that, he diverted you out of the mouth of the enemy. An abyss — a pouring over underneath it. And your table full of fatness descended.” This obscure wording could be understood to mean that God maneuvered Job out of the “mouth of the enemy,” a mouth that was like an abyss with turbulent water at the bottom, and the former prosperity of Job had descended into this abyss.

In verse 19, the phrase about “strength” (“and all those fortifying strength”) is added to the Greek text from the version of Theodotion, but it is unrelated to the words of the Septuagint that precede it.

The wording of verse 20, according to the marks of Origen, was added to the Greek text from the version of Theodotion. It is similar to the reading of the extant Hebrew text and may be rendered, “You should not drag away [at] night [so that] peoples go up instead of them.” To convey a comprehensible meaning some have added “mighty men.” Peoples would be left unprotected and forced to go up or to depart instead of the mighty men who had already been dragged away at night.

In verse 21, the Septuagint rendering quotes Elihu as saying to Job, “But be on guard not to do inappropriate things” or to carry out wrongs. According to the marks of Origen, the remainder of the Greek text is an addition from the version of Theodotion. “For you have chosen for this one on account of poverty.” One way to link this phrase to the wording of the Septuagint would be to resort to an editorial change, making “this” refer to Job’s choosing to do “inappropriate” or wrong things because of the state of poverty to which he had been reduced.

The marks of Origen indicate that the initial phrase of verse 22 was added to the Greek text from the version of Theodotion. “Look, the Strong One will prevail [or will fortify] by his strength.”

According to the marks of Origen, the concluding phrase of the Greek text for verse 24 is added from the version of Theodotion. There is no mention of singing. The text refers to the “works” as ones “over which men ruled.” This could apply to man’s having been granted dominion over God’s earthly creative works. (Compare Psalm 8:5-8.)

Based on the marks of Origen, the Greek wording of the first phrase of verse 25 was added from the version of Theodotion. The phrase may be rendered, “Every man has seen for himself.” These words are followed by the rendering of the Septuagint (“how many mortals are being wounded”).

The Greek wording of verse 26, based on the marks of Origen, was added from the version of Theodotion. This wording differs from the extant Hebrew text. “Look, the Strong One [God] [is] great [literally, much or abundant], and we will not know [him], and the number of his years [is] also infinite.” These words of Elihu suggest that God is so great that humans simply cannot grasp this, and thus he remains incomprehensible to them.

In verse 27, the renderings in modern translations convey various meanings. “He forms the droplets of water, which cluster into rain, from His mist.” (Tanakh [JPS, 1985 edition]) “He holds in check the waterdrops that filter in rain through his mists.” (NAB) “For he draws up the drops of water; he distills his mist in rain.” (NRSV) “He draws up the drops of water, which distill as rain to the streams.” (NIV) “It is he who makes the raindrops small and pulverises the rain into mist.” (NJB)

According to the marks of Origen, the Greek text of the initial phrase of verse 28 was added from the version of Theodotion. This phrase may be rendered, “Age-old things will flow.” Perhaps the thought is that downpours can produce rushing streams that sweep vulnerable old things away. Additionally, the Septuagint contains an expanded text, which concludes the verse with words indicating that God “appointed an hour” or a time for domestic animals and that “they know” their appointed time of “rest.” This is followed by the rhetorical question, “Is not your mind astonished over all these things, and does not your heart depart from the body?” This suggests that the effect is so overwhelming as to make it seem that the “heart” or the thinking faculty leaves the body when the things perceived of God’s activity are of a nature that simply cannot be comprehended. It then appears as if the reasoning faculties have left the body.

The marks of Origen indicate that the Greek wording of verse 30 was added from the version of Theodotion. It reads, “Look, he [God] stretches out edo upon him, and he has covered the roots of the sea.” The word “edo” is a transliteration of the Hebrew expression rendered “his lightning.”

The wording of verses 31 through 33 is (according to the marks of Origen) an addition to the Greek text from the version of Theodotion. In verse 31, the Hebrew expression rendered “in abundance” consists of a preposition and the participial form of the verb kavár. The verb kavár means “to make many” or “to multiply,” and it is derived from the same root as a Hebrew word for “strong” or “mighty.” This is the apparent reason for the rendering of Theodotion, and the Greek wording may be translated, “For by them, he will judge peoples. He will give food to the strong one” (literally, “one being strong”).

The renderings of verse 33 in modern translations vary considerably. “Its noise tells of Him. The kindling of anger against iniquity.” (Tanakh [JPS, 1985 edition]) “Its crashing tells about him; he is jealous with anger against iniquity.” (NRSV) “Its crashing declares his presence; the cattle also declare that he rises.” (ESV) “His thunder speaks for him and incites the fury of the storm.” (NAB) “In his anger he calls up the tempest, and the thunder is the herald of its coming.” (REB) “His crashing gives warning of its coming, anger flashes out against iniquity.” (NJB) “His thunder announces the coming storm; even the cattle make known its approach.” (NIV) “And the thunder tells of his anger against sin.” (CEV)

A literal rendering of Theodotion’s Greek text of verse 33 is even more obscure than is the extant Hebrew text. “He will announce his friend concerning it, acquisition also concerning injustice.” A grammatical change would make the initial phrase understandable. “He [God] will proclaim to his friend concerning it” (possibly his coming for judgment). For the concluding phrase one could add the verb “exists.” “Acquisition” or “possession” exists “also concerning injustice.” This could be interpreted to mean that “injustice” leads to the acquisition or possession of God’s punitive judgment.

Job 37:1-24

The roaring or the rumbling of thunder that announced either God’s coming for judgment or the approaching of a storm apparently filled Elihu with fear. He is quoted as referring to his “heart” as trembling (or being “troubled” [Theodotion]) and to be so agitated as to appear to be leaping (flowing or dropping [Theodotion]) from “its place.” (37:1; see the Notes section.)

Referring to thunder as the voice of God, Elihu called upon Eliphaz, Bildad, Zophar, and Job to listen to the rumbling of this voice — the “growling” (or thunderous sound) that “comes from his mouth.” The Greek version of Theodotion conveys a somewhat different significance. “Hear a report [literally, hearing] in the wrath of the Lord’s fury. And a thought will come forth from his mouth.” This rendering appears to portray thunder as the “wrath of the Lord’s fury” and the means for making known what is to come. (37:2)

Elihu spoke of God as letting “it” or his thunderous voice go under “all the heavens” or the entire celestial dome. He then referred to God’s “lightning” (literally, “light”) as going to the “wings” or “extremities” of the earth. These “extremities” would be everywhere the land and the apparent celestial vault meet at the horizon. The Greek version of Theodotion refers to God’s rule as being “under all of heaven” or his dominion as extending over everything beneath the sky. Like the extant Hebrew text, the version of Theodotion indicates where the light goes, “and his light upon the wings [or extremities] of the earth.” (37:3)

“After it” (the “light” or “lightning”), a “sound roars.” Elihu perceived this as God thundering with his majestic voice. The plural pronominal suffix (“them”) may refer to thunderbolts, and Elihu appears to have referred to God as not restraining them when his voice is being heard. (37:4; see the Notes section regarding the version of Theodotion.)

Greatly impressed by the sound of thunder, Elihu spoke of God as thundering wondrously with his voice. Thereafter he referred to God as doing “great things” that were beyond the comprehension of humans. The version of Theodotion identifies God as the “Strong One” or “Mighty One” and refers to him as thundering “wondrous things with his voice” or making known things that give rise to astonishment. This phrase about the “Strong One” is followed by the words of the Septuagint. “For he has done great things which we did not know” or comprehend. (37:5)

Elihu represented God as telling snow to fall on the earth and also showers (literally, a “shower of rain”) and torrential downpours (literally, “shower of rains of his strength”) to do so. The Septuagint says regarding God, “He commands snow, ‘Come upon the earth.’” These words (according to the marks of Origen) are then followed by the Greek text from the version of Theodotion. Rahlfs’ printed Greek text may be translated, “and winter rain and winter rains of his strength.” (37:6)

Elihu referred to God as sealing up “in” or “on” the “hand of every man” or “earthling.” In view of the previous mention of snow and downpours, the sealing up relating to the hand may apply to stopping humans from carrying out their activities because of unfavorable weather conditions. By the way in which they are affected, “all mortals” come to know God’s work. Without the addition from the text of the Greek version of Theodotion, the Septuagint rendering indicates that God’s causing snow to fall upon the earth serves to show to every man “his own weakness.” This could be because snow can hinder or stop people from carrying on their customary labors. Modern translations interpretively render the extant Hebrew text in ways that are not explicitly expressed therein. “He [God] brings all human activity to standstill, for everyone to acknowledge his work.” (NJB) “He shuts everyone fast indoors, and all whom he has made are quiet.” (REB) “He shuts up all mankind indoors.” (NAB) “So that all men he has made may know his work, he stops every man from his labor.” (NIV) (37:7; see the Notes section.)

If verse 7 is correctly understood as applying to the effect of snow and downpours or cold winter weather on humans, this would also apply to animals. “Beasts” (a collective singular in Hebrew) go into their “lairs” or lurking places and stay in their dens. Possibly the reference is to wild animals that hibernate during the winter. The Septuagint rendering may be translated, “But the beasts went in under shelter and remained quiet in their den.” (37:8)

Elihu spoke of a windstorm coming from its “chamber” and “cold” from “scatterings,” probably referring to strong winds that cause damage and scatter wreckage. Fierce winter winds from the north bring bone-chilling cold. The “windstorm” from the chamber could refer to a strong wind from the south. According to the Septuagint, “whirlwinds come out of their chambers, and cold from mountain peaks.” (37:9)

Elihu attributed the giving of “ice” to the “breath of God.” The reference to the “breadth of waters” being “in constraint” probably means that streams, rivers, and lakes have become covered with ice. A number of modern translations make this significance explicit in their renderings. “And the breath of God freezes streams and rivers.” (CEV) “The breath of God produces ice, and the broad waters become frozen.” (NIV) “By the breath of God the ice is formed, and the wide waters are frozen hard.” (REB) (37:10; see the Notes section.)

Elihu’s words literally could be rendered, “Surely with moisture, he [God] burdens a cloud [‘av]; he scatters a cloud [‘anán] of his light.” The apparent thought is that God causes a cloud mass to be filled with moisture as if weighing it down. This would signify that rain was the forced release of the burdensome load. The expression “cloud of light” may designate a cloud formation from which lightning proceeds. Elihu’s words may be understood to indicate that God scatters or disperses such a cloud mass. Modern translations vary in the interpretive meanings they convey. “He loads the clouds with moisture; he scatters his lightning through them.” (NIV) “With hail, also, the clouds are laden, as they scatter their flashes of light.” (NAB) “He hurls lightning from the dense clouds, and the clouds spread his light.” (REB) “Rain clouds filled with lightning appear at God’s command.” (CEV) (37:11; see the Notes section regarding the Septuagint rendering.)

Elihu represented God as “turning by his direction” (tachbuláh [tachbulóhth]). The Hebrew word (tachbuláh [tachbulóhth]) is commonly thought to be a nautical term that basically relates to steering a ship. In the previous verse mention was made of a “cloud” (‘av) and a “cloud [‘anán] of his light.” Both Hebrew words in verse 11 are singular and can be rendered “cloud” or “cloud mass.” When referring to the purpose of God’s direction, verse 12 includes the expression that may be translated “he commands them,” with “them” being the rendering of a masculine third person plural suffix. The Hebrew words ‘av and ‘anán for “cloud” or “cloud mass” are also masculine gender. This provides a measure of support for the conclusion that the “turning” by God’s direction relates to clouds and, in view of the expression “cloud of light,” the use of the plural suffix (“them”) could also include lightning. Elihu referred to the “turning” by God’s “direction,” guidance, or steering to be the carrying out of “all that he commands them [probably the clouds, if not also the lightning] on the face of the habitable earth [or land].” (37:12; see the Notes section.)

What God uses for the purpose of causing to come or to happen is not expressed in the text. Based on the previous mention of rain, wind, clouds, and light or lightning, one may conclude that the agents God is portrayed as using include rain, hail, storms, and lightning. It can be “for a rod” of discipline, instruction, or correction as when severe storms damage crops and cause extensive flooding. In this case, the Greek text of Theodotion reads, “for discipline” or “for instruction.” Rain can be for “his land,” all the land that belongs to God by reason of his being its Creator. “His land” benefits from precipitation, for rain provides the needed water for crops to grow and to flourish. When rainfall brings an end to periods of drought or comes at the right time for crops, this development may be included in what is meant by the words “for kindness” or “for mercy.” Essential rain would have been perceived as an evidence of God’s compassion for humans and animals. The concluding phrase in the Greek version of Theodotion may be translated, “he will find him.” Possibly this could mean that God will find man or humans either to discipline or to extend mercy. (37:13; see the Notes section.)

Elihu called upon Job to “give ear to this,” probably meaning that he should listen to what he was about to say regarding the things God’s works reveal. He asked Job to “stand,” or to put himself in a position that would enable him to give undivided attention, and to consider the “wondrous works of God.” According to the Septuagint, Elihu directed Job to let himself be admonished through the “power of the Lord” or the activity that revealed his power. (37:14)

One of the “wondrous works of God” to which Elihu drew attention by means of a rhetorical question related to “light” or “lightning.” There is a measure of obscurity in the wording of the Hebrew question. “Do you know [how] God lays [commands] upon them and causes the light of his cloud to shine?” Possibly the question relates to how God directs or governs the clouds and causes lightning to flash from “his cloud” or the cloud mass that is under his control. In the Septuagint, the thought is clearly expressed, but the meaning differs from what the wording of the extant Hebrew text would allow. “We know that God established his works, making light out of darkness.” Modern translations vary in their renderings of the Hebrew text. “Do you know how God controls the clouds and makes his lightning flash?” (NIV) “Do you know how God lays his commands upon them, and makes the light shine forth from his clouds?” (NAB) “Do you know how God controls them or how his clouds make the lightning flash?” (NJB) “Do you know how God assigns them their tasks, how he sends light flashing from his clouds?” (REB) “Can you explain why lightning flashes at the orders of God who knows all things?” (CEV) (37:15)

To stress what Job did not know, Elihu directed another rhetorical question to him, “Do you know the floatings [plural of miphlás] of a cloud [or cloud mass], the wondrous works of the one complete [or perfect] in knowledge [plural in Hebrew, possibly to indicate all aspects of knowledge]?” There is a measure of uncertainty about the meaning of the Hebrew word miphlás, with “floating” being one suggested significance. Other possible meanings include “balancing,” “hovering,” “swaying,” and “poising.” The question appears to be whether Job could explain how a cloud containing water remains high above the land and does not come crashing down from above. This was yet another example of what Elihu regarded as one of God’s amazing works. According to the Septuagint rendering, God understands the “dissolution” (“separation” or “division”) of clouds, possibly meaning how they seem to separate from a mass. The concluding phrase departs significantly from the reading of the extant Hebrew text. It refers to the falls that wicked ones experience as something extraordinary. (37:16)

Another work of God about which Elihu spoke to Job was the effect of a development from the “south.” A wind from the south passing over the dry desert brought hot weather. Job would find his garments to be uncomfortably hot, and the “earth” or land would be still. Stifling heat would greatly limit or end much of human activity and the usual noise that accompanied it. As a result, there would be quiet in the land. The Septuagint indicates that Job’s robe would be hot; and “upon the earth” or land, there would be quiet. (37:17)

Elihu perceived the “heavens” or the sky to be a celestial dome or vault that resembled a tent above the land. Therefore, he asked Job whether he, with or like God, could spread out the “heavens.” To Elihu’s eyes, the celestial vault appeared like a solid expanse. This is the reason he is quoted as describing the “heavens” as being “firm” or “hard” like a metal mirror. Elihu’s words may also allude to the changed appearance of the sky during long periods of drought. The dust-filled air makes the sky look like the surface of a metal mirror. (37:18; compare Deuteronomy 28:23 and see the Notes section.)

Seemingly because Job had expressed his desire to make his defense before God, Elihu said to him, “Make known to us what we should say to him.” The implication of the next phrase is that he and the others present had no knowledge as to what they could possibly say to God in presenting a defense. “We cannot set forth [a case] on account of darkness” or because of our ignorance as to how we should argue our case. (37:19; see the Notes section.)

Elihu raised the question as to whether God should be “told” (saphár) that he, Elihu, would speak, presenting his case before him. In Elihu’s view, this would have been the height of folly. It would be like asking for one’s own destruction. This appears to be the implication of Elihu’s words about whether a man would ever wish to be “swallowed up.” (37:20; see the Notes section.)

The “light” that is described as “brilliant” may be understood to refer to the sun. For people not to be able to see the sun or to look upon it would be either because the cloud covering hides it from view or because it is too bright for humans to behold. Regarding what happens after a wind passes, the text says that it “makes them [the heavens] clean.” The dark clouds are blown away, transforming the appearance of the “heavens” or the skies to that of a blue dome from which the sun is seen to shine brightly. Modern translations vary in representing the reference to be either to an existing clear sky or initially to a cloud-covered sky. “Now, then, one cannot see the sun, though it be bright in the heavens, until the wind comes and clears them [of clouds].” (Tanakh [JPS, 1985 edition) “Nay, rather, it is as the light which men see not while it is obscured among the clouds, till the wind comes by and sweeps the clouds away.” (NAB) “At one moment the light is not seen, being overcast with cloud; then the wind passes by and clears it away.” (REB) “There are times when the light vanishes, behind darkening clouds; then comes the wind, sweeping them away.” (NJB) “Now, no one can look on the light when it is bright in the skies, when the wind has passed and cleared them.” (NRSV) “Now no one can look at the sun, bright as it is in the skies after the wind has swept them clean.” (NIV) “No one can stare at the sun after a breeze has blown the clouds from the sky.” (CEV) (37:21; see the Notes section.)

In the Hebrew text, zaháv is referred to as arriving from the “north.” The word zaháv is the designation for “gold.” In this context, the meaning appears to be something that resembles “gold.” Elihu is then quoted as attributing fear-inspiring or awe-inspiring majesty to God. Translators vary in their renderings of this verse. “Out of the north he comes in golden splendor; God comes in awesome majesty.” (NIV) “And a golden glow comes from the north.” (REB) “By the north wind the golden rays emerge; the splendor about God is awesome.” (Tanakh [JPS, 1985 edition]) “From the North the splendor comes, surrounding God’s awesome majesty.” (NAB) “Yet the glorious splendor of God All-Powerful is brighter by far [than the sun].” (CEV) The Septuagint text may be rendered, “From the north [are] clouds shining like gold; upon these, great [are] the glory and honor of the Almighty.” (37:22)

The Almighty is far above humans. Elihu said of him that “we [humans] cannot find him.” He is beyond reach and discovery. The Almighty is “great in power.” His might is unequaled, but it is never misused or misapplied. All his dealings are just. “He will not mishandle judgment and abundant righteousness.” The Septuagint rendering represents Elihu as saying that “we [humans] do not find another like him in strength, him who judges the righteous things [or who judges rightly]; do you not think that he hears” or gives heed? (37:23)

“Therefore,” because of who the Almighty is and what he does and has done, men or “mortals” should “fear him” or be in reverential awe before him. His not seeing any who are “wise of heart” suggests that he would not give them any attention or special consideration. In this context, the “wise of heart” appear to be persons who regarded themselves as possessing reasoning faculties, understanding, and knowledge far above the masses of humanity. They would be arrogant persons with whom God had no relationship. According to the Septuagint, “men” or humans “will fear him, and also the wise in heart will fear him.” (37:24)

Notes

The wording of verses 1 through 4 and the initial phrase of verse 5 is not contained in the Septuagint. According to the marks of Origen, this section was added from the Greek version of Theodotion.

In verse 4, the Greek pronoun in the version of Theodotion that follows the word for “behind” or “after” is autou, which may be rendered either “him” or “it.” The initial phrase has commonly been translated to apply to God. “Behind him, a voice will cry out.” It seems more in keeping with the context, however, that the reference is to “light” or “lightning” (a neuter noun) in verse 3. This could then be understood to mean that the sound of thunder is heard after the lightning is seen. Regarding God, the additional words of Theodotion’s Greek text may be translated, “He will thunder with a voice of his pride, and he will not change them because one will hear his voice.” Just what God would not change is not apparent from the context.

According to the marks of Origen, the initial phrase of verse 7 was added from the Greek version of Theodotion (“he seals up in the hand of every man”).

The marks of Origen identify the initial phrase of the Greek text in verse 10 to have been added from the version of Theodotion. This phrase indicates that “from the breath of the Strong One” or God “frost” would be given. The concluding phrase is from the Septuagint. “And he governs the water as he wishes.”

The Greek wording of verses 11 and 12 is (according to the marks of Origen) added from the version of Theodotion. Verse 11 may be translated, “And a cloud plasters over [or covers] a chosen one [or a chosen or choice thing); his light will scatter [or disperse] a cloud.” Perhaps the thought is that God protectively covers as with a cloud the individual whom he approves (a “chosen one”), and light from him disperses a cloud covering that earlier changed the brightness of day into gloomy darkness. By adding words to the Greek text, a number of translators convey a different meaning. “And [if] a cloud covers a choice thing [something precious to God], his light will disperse the cloud.”

In verse 12, the part added from the Greek text of Theodotion differs somewhat from the reading of the extant Hebrew text and does not covey a comprehensible meaning. “He [God] will turn circles by theeboulatho to their works. Everything which he commands them …” Thereafter the text of Septuagint continues with the words, “these things ordered by him on the earth.” The expression theeboulatho is a transliteration of the Hebrew word that has been defined as “direction,” “guidance,” or “steering.”

The marks of Origen identify the Greek text of verse 13 to have been added from the version of Theodotion.

The wording of verse 18 of the Greek text is not from the Septuagint. Origen marked it as having been added from the version of Theodotion. “Will you make firm with him in ancient things, strong things like an appearance of [something] poured out?” Ancient things could relate to God’s creations of long ago and, in this context, could include the “heavens.” The celestial dome appears like something strong or solid that initially had been poured out as a liquid and then hardened. If this is the significance, the implied answer to the rhetorical question would be that Job could have no part in making ancient things firm.

Without the insertion of the Greek text from the version of Theodotion, the concluding phrase of verse 17 and the text of verse 19 may be translated, “But there is quiet upon the earth” or the land. “Why? Teach me what we shall say to him [God], and let us cease [from] speaking much.”

In verse 20, the initial phrase contains a form of the Hebrew verb saphár. This verb basically means “to count” or “to number.” In this context, however, it means “to tell” or “to relate.” The translator of the Septuagint appears to have read the verb as a noun and rendered the Hebrew text as though it read sépher (book or scroll) and saphér (scribe). “Is there a scroll [bíblos] or scribe [grammateús] present with me that, standing, I should silence a man?” These words could be understood as raising the question as to whether he had a source that would assist him to formulate an argument that would win against a man. The implication would be that, if he had no such source to silence a man, he could not possibly succeed in making a defense before God.

In verse 21 of the Septuagint, the Greek text is mixed. The initial phrase from the Septuagint is, “But the light is not visible to everyone.” The words from the version of Theodotion follow, “It is bright among the age-old things …” Then the wording of the Septuagint concludes the verse (“as that from him [is] on the clouds,” possibly meaning the brightness that is from God).

Job 38:1-41

The setting is an approaching storm. Out of the tempest, YHWH is represented as answering Job. According to the Septuagint, this took place after Elihu had stopped speaking. Then the Lord spoke to Job “through a whirlwind and clouds.” (38:1)

The question directed to Job was, “Who [is] this [who is] darkening” or obscuring “counsel with words without knowledge?” In this context, “counsel” may denote God’s purpose in the exercise of his sovereign will. Job had questioned the manner in which he perceived God had treated him but did so without the essential knowledge to judge how God governed. Therefore, he obscured the truth that God’s “counsel” or predetermined purpose is right and just in every situation. According to the Septuagint rendering, the question is, “Who [is] this [who] is hiding counsel from me and holding fast words in the heart, and thinks to hide them from me?” This rhetorical question suggests that Job thought to hide his purpose and inner expressions from God, but this wording does not fit the context. Job had been unrestrained in his expressions, never concealing his thoughts and feelings. (38:2)

YHWH is portrayed as asking Job to prepare himself to be attentive, girding up his loins like a man ready to listen and to respond. This is because he would question Job and wanted him to reply if he could do so. The literal act of girding up the loins for activity required pulling up one’s robe between the legs and then securing it under the sash. (38:3)

In poetic language, founding the earth or the land is likened to starting construction on a building. Job was to answer the question, “Where were you when I founded the earth?” This question is followed by the words, “Tell [me], if you know understanding.” The reference to knowing “understanding” could simply mean whether Job was in possession of the understanding respecting the development that was the focus of the question. Possibly, however, as in the book of Proverbs (8:27-31) where “wisdom” is personified and associated with creation, this is also the case here in the book of Job regarding “understanding.” If so, the point would be whether Job had acquaintance with the understanding that was at work when earth’s foundation was laid. (38:4)

With reference to the earth or the land, the questions directed to Job continued to be framed in terms of building construction. He was asked, if he knew, who determined its measurements and who stretched out the measuring line upon it. (38:5)

In its formation, the earth or land is likened to a building on a secure foundation. Job is asked on what “its bases [rings (LXX)] were sunk [fastened or firmly fixed (LXX)] or who laid its cornerstone.” The Septuagint rendering represents the cornerstone as being laid on the earth or the land, but this does not fit the context that portrays the earth or land in the process of having been constructed like a building. (38:6)

At the time the earth or land was founded, the “morning stars” sang together. In the parallel expression, these “morning stars” are referred to as “sons of God” (“angles” [Qumran Targum of Job]). All these “sons of God” shouted joyously. The Septuagint depicts a different development. When the stars came into being, “all” of God’s “angels praised” him “with a mighty voice.” (38:7)

In view of the earlier questions regarding the founding of the earth or land, one may rightly conclude that the words relating to the sea are to be regarded as applying to the distant past. The sea was then restrained from overwhelming the land as if “shut up” with “doors.” At its beginning, the sea is portrayed as though it burst forth from a womb. The Septuagint rendering quotes God as saying, “And I shut up the sea with gates when it rushed forth, going from its mother’s womb.” (38:8)

In its primeval state, the surface of the sea was concealed as if a cloud mass covered it as a garment. Dense darkness over the sea proved to be like the swaddling band of an infant. (38:9)

God is quoted as saying that he “broke” his “decree,” prescribed limit, or bounds for the sea, setting a “bar and doors.” There is a measure of uncertainty about the meaning of the initial Hebrew phrase. Translators have variously rendered it (“when I fixed limits for it” [NIV]; “when I cut out the place I had decreed for it” [NJB]; “when I made breakers My limit for it” [Tanakh (JPS, 1985 edition)]; “when I established its bounds” [REB]; “and prescribed bounds for it” [NRSV]). The Septuagint rendering is, “And I set limits for it.” (38:10)

God is quoted as telling the sea just how far it could come and no farther, with the “proud waves” being limited to that point. According to the Septuagint rendering, the waves would be “broken up” within the sea, suggesting that they would be stopped from overwhelming the land. (38:11)

The expression “from your days” could denote from the start of and continuing through the course of Job’s life. For him to command the morning would mean for him to be able to tell the morning to arrive or for the sun to rise. Causing the “dawn to know its place” would be by causing sunrise to occur at a fixed location on the horizon, which varies according to the season. The Septuagint rendering poses the question as to whether it was by Job, or at his request, that God ordered the “morning light and [that] the morning star saw its place” or its designated location. (38:12)

Dawn takes hold on the “wings” or ends of the “earth” as the darkness disappears from the entire area under the celestial dome. Evildoers engage in their criminal activities, particularly breaking into houses and robbing, under the cover of darkness. Daylight “shakes” them from the “earth” or the land, forcing them to leave the scene where they engaged in their lawless deeds. (38:13)

During the night, the earth or land and its features cannot be seen clearly. When the sun rises, the land and everything on it becomes visible in form and color. This is comparable to the effect a cylindrical seal produced when it was rolled over moist clay. The seal left behind a clear impression. Likewise, light makes visible features and objects that cannot be seen in the dark. Everything the dawn reveals is comparable to making things appear as though they were standing like a garment in full color (literally, “they stand forth as a garment”). The Hebrew phrase is somewhat obscure, and translators have added words to convey a more comprehensible meaning (“all things stand out like the folds of a cloak” [REB]; “[its hues] are fixed like those of a garment” [Tanakh (JPS, 1985 edition)]; “it is dyed like a garment” [NRSV]; “dyed as though it were a garment” [NAB]; “its features stand out like those of a garment” [NIV]; “early dawn outlines hills like stitches on clothing” [CEV]). The Septuagint rendering conveys a completely different meaning. “Or did you, having taken earth’s clay, shape [it into] a living creature and set him on the earth [or land] as one able to speak?” (38:14)

So as not to be seen, the wicked choose darkness as their light for carrying out their corrupt practices. Daylight withholds their light, and “their uplifted arm” or power is broken when the light of day stops lawless ones from continuing their activities or from using their power to do harm. In the Septuagint, the words are directed as a question to Job. “And did you remove the light of the impious and break the arm of the haughty ones?” (38:15; see the Notes section.)

Verse 16 contains the only occurrence of the word névekh in the Scriptures, and it is included here in its plural form as part of the question directed to Job as to whether he had gone there. The Septuagint contains a singular form of pegé, meaning “spring” or “fountain.” In relation to the “sea,” the plural form of névekh appears to designate water sources at the bottom of the sea. This is suggested by the next rhetorical question about whether Job had walked the entire explorable area of the deep or, according to the Septuagint, the “tracks of the abyss.” (38:16)

Job was questioned regarding his acquaintance with the realm of the dead, which is represented as a place with gates. The question directed to him was whether the “gates of death” had been opened to him, granting him the opportunity to view everything, and whether he had seen the gates of “death’s shadow.” In the Septuagint, the question is whether the “gates of death” opened to Job “out of fear” and whether the gatekeepers of Hades cowered when they saw him. (38:17; see the Notes section.)

If Job had comprehended the breadths of the “earth” or land, having come to discern the extent of the area, he was asked to make a declaration to this effect, provided he knew “all this.” The Septuagint rendering refers to the “breadth under heaven” or the total area under the celestial dome. If Job had been informed about this, he should declare just how great or extensive it is. (38:18)

Light and darkness are poetically represented as entities, each with its own residence. Job was asked whether he knew the way to the abode of light, and the location of the “place” of darkness. In the Septuagint, the question pertains to the kind of land in which light resides and the kind or nature of the place of darkness. (38:19)

Concerning light and darkness, Job was questioned whether he could lead each one to its respective boundary or territory and knew the paths to its “house.” (38:20)

When light and darkness first became a feature in relation to the earth, Job would know their respective abodes if he had been born then and if the “number of [his] days” were “great” or his life reached back to that ancient time. This, however, was not the case. (38:21)

Snow and hail are represented as if they are piled up in storehouses. The question for Job was whether he had entered the “storehouses of snow” and seen the “storehouses of hail.” (38:22)

God is represented as having reserved snow and hail “for a time of distress” and “for a day of battle and war.” The Hebrew word for “distress” (tsar) can also mean “enemy” or “foe.” In the Septuagint, the reference is to the “hour” or time of “enemies.” Both the Hebrew text and the Septuagint rendering indicate that God, at a time of his choosing, can use snow and hail for his purpose against those who oppose him. (38:23)

The question that includes the Hebrew word ’ohr (“light” or “lightning”) may be variously understood. It could relate to the way or manner in which light is distributed over the entire area under the celestial dome. Another possibility is to view the words as raising a question about the path by which lightning or light travels. Still another way in which to understand the text is to consider the question as applying to the place or source from which light is distributed. While the Septuagint rendering could be used to support the meaning that relates to the place from which light comes, it does not contain a corresponding word for light. The Septuagint rendering may be translated, “And from where does hoarfrost come?” The next phrase of the Hebrew text refers to the scattering of the “east wind upon the earth” or the land. In the Septuagint, the reference is to the “south wind” (“or the south wind is scattered [over the land] under heaven” [the sky or the celestial dome]). (38:24; see the Notes section regarding the various renderings of modern translations.)

Job was asked to identify the one who cut a channel for torrential rain and a way for the thunderbolt (“turmoils” [LXX], probably denoting the rumblings of thunder during a storm). (38:25)

The question about who cut a channel is continued, with the focus being on what the channel made possible. This was “to bring rain on a land” where no man resided, “on a desert” where no earthling could be found “in it.” The Greek text for this verse (according to the marks of Origen) was added from the version of Theodotion and reads like the Hebrew text. (38:26)

Although no humans would be in the arid region that could benefit from rainfall, the precipitation served “to satisfy the waste and desolate land,” making it possible for vegetation to sprout. These words apparently were to impress upon Job that he could neither control nor bring about these developments and that God alone could. (38:27; see the Notes section.)

Man can produce neither rain nor dewdrops. The question directed to Job was, “Is there a father for rain or who has begotten drops of dew?” For Job, the answer would have been that God is the one responsible for the rain and dewdrops. (38:28)

As in the previous verse, a similar question is raised regarding ice and hoarfrost. “From whose womb did ice come forth, and who has given birth to the hoarfrost of the heavens?” Hoarfrost comes about through the freezing of moisture in the atmosphere. In the case of the ancients like Job, there would have been an awareness that hoarfrost came from above the ground, and this may be why the reference here is to the “hoarfrost of the heavens,” provided that “hoarfrost” is, in fact, the correct meaning for the Hebrew word. (38:29)

The freezing of waters is referred to as their becoming hard “like stone.” In the Septuagint, the question about the “hoarfrost” continues. The complete question may be rendered, “And who has given birth to the hoarfrost in heaven that descends like flowing water?” This is followed by the question, “Who froze the face [or surface] of the abyss” or of the “deep”? In the Hebrew text, the verse concludes with the words, “and the face [or surface] of the deep is frozen.” This transformation of a liquid into a solid must have been astonishing to the ancients like Job, and they would have attributed it to God. (38:30)

The Hebrew word kimáh is commonly considered to designate the stars of the Pleiades constellation, and kesíl to apply to the stars of the Orion constellation. This identification has the support of the Septuagint. As recognizable groups in the night sky, the stars appear as though they are bound together. This seems to be the basis for the question Job was asked, “Can you bind the bonds of Kimah or can you loosen the cords of Kesil?” The Septuagint rendering differs somewhat. “And did you comprehend the bond of Pleiades and open the barrier of Orion?” (38:31)

The Hebrew designation mazzaróhth has been linked to the signs of the zodiac. This identification, however, is by no means certain. The rendering of Theodotion (which, according to the marks of Origen, was added to the Greek text) provides no support for it. In the version of Theodotion, the Hebrew designation is transliterated as mazouroth, indicating that the translator was unacquainted with a Greek equivalent for the Hebrew mazzaróhth. The question for Job was, “Can you bring out the Mazzaroth in its time?” He knew that he could not cause the stars of a constellation to appear. The Hebrew word ‘áyish has been linked to the Great Bear (Ursa Major) constellation, with its “sons” possibly being the stars of the Little Bear (Ursa Minor) constellation. Regarding the constellation and the “sons,” Job was asked, “Can you guide them?” In the version of Theodotion, the question (“Will you guide them?”) relates to the “evening star” (Venus) with its “hair,” possibly meaning its “rays.” (38:32)

The question for Job was whether he knew the “ordinances of the heavens” and could establish the “rule on earth.” These ordinances may be understood as applying to everything the ancients could observe as occurring on a regular basis in the sky. This would have included the appearance of constellations, the movement of planets, the waxing and waning of the moon and its movement, the rising and setting of the sun, and weather-related phenomena. As far as developments on the earth were concerned, the question was whether Job could bring these about by establishing the laws that he observed governing in the sky. For example, he must have known that the position of the sun in the sky bore a relationship to the seasons, and he would have recognized that he could not control the seasons and associated developments. He had no power to establish any rule on earth that corresponded to what he observed as governing in the sky. According to the Septuagint rendering, the question for Job was, “And do you know the changes [movements or cycles] of heaven [the sky or celestial dome] or the things occurring together [or correspondingly] under heaven [on earth beneath the sky]?” (38:33)

In answer to the next rhetorical question, Job would have been forced to acknowledge that his raising his voice to the clouds to command them would not have resulted in his being covered with an “abundance of waters” from a downpour. In the Septuagint the question is, “And will you call a cloud by voice, and will it obey you with a trembling of violent water” (a torrential downpour)? (38:34)

Regarding “lightnings,” Job was asked whether he could send them and whether they would go, saying to him, “Here we [are]!” According to the Septuagint rendering, the response of the thunderbolts or lightnings is, “What is [it]?” The question impressed upon Job that this was just another one of many things over which he had no control. (38:35)

There is considerable uncertainty about the meaning of the Hebrew words tuchóhth and sékwiy. One view is to relate tuchóhth to the “inward” or “hidden” parts and sékwiy to the reasoning faculty. The question then could be rendered, “Who has put wisdom in the inward parts or given understanding to the mind?” This rendering suggests that God is the one to be acknowledged as having granted wisdom to humans. On the basis of the context and the conjecture that sékwiy may mean “celestial appearance,” tuchóhth has been thought to refer to “cloud layers.” The putting of “wisdom” into cloud layers could then be understood to refer to the God’s granting the cloud layers the wisdom to respond to his command to have it rain or snow. Likewise any celestial appearance as, for example, lightning would possess the understanding to respond to God’s directive. There is support in ancient Jewish sources indicating that sékwiy may designate a “cock,” and the Vulgate contains gallo, a form of the Latin word for “cock” (gallus). This has given rise to the conjecture that tuchóhth applies to a bird. The bird commonly suggested is the ibis. As the ancients looked to the ibis as a predictor for the flooding of the Nile and the cock as a predictor for the coming of rain, these birds have been thought of as having been given wisdom and understanding. Modern translations have incorporated various conjectures in their renderings. “Who endowed the heart with wisdom or gave understanding to the mind?” (NIV) “Who puts wisdom in the heart, and gives the cock its understanding?” (NAB) “Who endowed the ibis with wisdom and gave the cock his intelligence?” (NJB) “Did you teach birds to know that rain or floods are on their way?” (CEV) “Who put wisdom in depths of darkness and veiled understanding in secrecy?” (REB) It may be that the Septuagint translator linked tuchóhth to the Hebrew verb for “spin” (taváh), and the significance the Septuagint conveys does not correspond to the conjectural renderings of the Hebrew words. According to the Greek text, the question is raised as to who gave women the wisdom or skill to spin and the understanding for doing embroidery. (38:36)

“Who can number the clouds by wisdom?” The numbering probably denotes more than just counting the clouds. Just as men were numbered for military service, the numbering of the clouds could also relate to marshaling them for use. In this context, God’s wisdom could be understood as including complete knowledge of each cloud and how it would serve his purpose. The clouds are likened to skins, jars, or vessels filled with water and which are tilted to pour out the water in the form of rain. Job was asked, “Who can tilt the jars of the heavens?” In the Septuagint, the question is, “Who inclined heaven [the sky] to the earth?” The allusion may be to the manner in which the celestial vault appears as though it had been bent down to meet the land. Another possibility is that the reference is to the sky when it seems bent down with low-lying clouds. (38:37)

The state of the ground to which reference is made after the words about the tilting of the “skins” or “jars” could apply either before or after the rain. Both meanings are found in modern translations. “Can you count the clouds or pour out their water on the dry, lumpy soil?” (CEV) “Who is wise enough to marshal the rain-clouds and empty the cisterns of heaven, when the dusty soil sets in a dense mass, and the clods of earth stick fast together?” (REB) “Or who tilts the water jars of heaven so that the dust of earth is fused into a mass and its clods made solid?” (NAB) “Whose skill details every cloud and tilts the water-skins of heaven until the dust solidifies and the cracks in the ground close up?” (NJB) “Who can tilt the bottles of the sky, whereupon the earth melts into a mass, and its clods stick together?” (Tanakh [JPS, 1985 edition]) The Septuagint contains a somewhat different rendering. It refers to “dust” as being poured out “like earth” or soil, and God appears to be quoted as saying that he had fused heaven or the sky like a cube or block of stone, with one block being joined to another. (38:38)

By means of additional rhetorical questions Job was reminded of acts that were far beyond his capacity. He would be forced to acknowledge that he could not hunt prey for a lion or satisfy the appetite of young lions (“dragons” [LXX]). (38:39)

The lions are described as crouching in their dens or lying in wait “in [their] covert” or their lairs. In the Septuagint, the animals are represented as being fearful in their lairs and positioned “in woods” or thickets, “lying in wait.” (38:40)

Job knew that he could not provide food for the raven. The young of the raven are represented as crying out to God and wandering about for lack of food. This appears to be a reference to fledglings that are out of the nest and unaccustomed to being on their own. They fly from branch to branch, hungering for food that they formerly did not have to procure. The Septuagint rendering is more specific in referring to the young ones as searching for food. (38:41)

Notes

In verse 15, the reference to the “arm” has been interpreted as an Arabic astral idiom. This is the basis for a rendering that bears little resemblance to the wording of the extant Hebrew text and that of the Septuagint. With reference to the effect the dawn or the morning produces, the interpretive rendering is, “when the light of the Dog-star is dimmed and the stars of the Navigator’s Line go out one by one.” (REB)

The wording of verses 16 and 17 and that of others in the section attributed to YHWH reveals that it is not to be understood as direct divine revelation conveyed through spoken words. This section is an important part of a poetic composition that deals with the troubling question as to why upright people can be among those who are severely afflicted. No definitive answer is ever given to this question, and nothing in the poetic language suggests communication that could only have God as its ultimate source.

In the case of verse 24, modern translations vary considerably in their renderings of the Hebrew text. “From where does lightning leap, or the east wind blow?” (CEV) “What is the way to the place where the light is distributed, or where the east wind is scattered upon the earth?” (NRSV) “What is the way to the place where the lightning is dispersed, or the place where the east winds are scattered over the earth?” (NIV) “Which way to the parting of the winds, whence the east wind spreads over the earth?” (NAB) “By what paths is the heat spread abroad or the east wind dispersed worldwide?” (REB) “From which direction does the lightning fork, where in the world does the east wind blow itself out?” (NJB) “By what path is the west wind dispersed, the east wind scattered over the earth?” (Tanakh [JPS, 1985 edition]) The rendering “west wind” is based on an Aramaic word (’urya).

The Greek wording of verse 27 (according to the marks of Origen) was added from the version of Theodotion and corresponds to the reading of the extant Hebrew text.

Job 39:1-30

Job was asked questions about the natural world, questions for which he had no answers. Did he know when the wild goats or ibexes (literally, “wild goats of a crag”) gave birth in rocky terrain? Had he observed the calving of deer? (39:1) Did he know the “number of months they fulfill,” or the gestation period, and the time they would give birth? (39:2) When giving birth, the animals are described as crouching. They bring forth their young and, with the completion of the birthing process, they are delivered of offspring (literally, “pangs” or “birth pangs”). (39:3) Their young become strong, growing up in the open. After going forth or departing from their birth mother, they are on their own and do not return. Although this is not specifically stated, the questions and comments appear to allude to God’s care for these animals during their vulnerable time of giving birth and for their young thereafter. (39:4; see the Notes section for verses 1 through 4.)

The Hebrew words pére’ and ‘aróhd appear to be parallel designations for the wild donkey or onager. Concerning the animal, the question for Job to the answer was, Who set the wild donkey free and loosened its bonds or did not permit it to have bonds imposed upon it? In the Septuagint, the second phrase does not contain a parallel designation for “wild donkey.” Otherwise, the question reads much like the one in the extant Hebrew text. (39:5)

God is quoted as saying that he made the “steppe” or “desert” the home of the wild donkey or onager and a “salt plain” (either a salt-encrusted flat area or unproductive land) its habitat. (39:6; see the Notes section.) In cities, towns, and villages, donkeys were seen pulling loads, bearing burdens, or being ridden. Wild donkeys, however, lived far away from human habitation. Therefore, this animal is referred to as laughing at or scorning the commotion or the hustle and bustle of a city. In the Septuagint, the reference is to its laughing at a city’s large crowd. The wild donkey does not hear the shouts of the one driving or exacting (a tax collector [LXX]), for it is free from human control. (39:7) It seeks out or explores hills or mountains for its pasture and searches after all greenery. Whereas domestic donkeys are dependent on humans for their care, this is not the case with onagers. The implication may be that God is the one who made ample provision for them. (39:8; see the Notes section.)

Another animal over which humans had no control was the wild bull or aurochs (“unicorn” [LXX], possibly the rhinoceros). Job was asked, “Will a wild bull be willing to serve you? Will it spend the night by your crib?” (39:9) Furthermore, would Job be able to bind the animal, keeping it in the furrow, and would it harrow valleys or plains after him? The Septuagint rendering is more specific than is the extant Hebrew text. It raises the question as to whether Job could bind the wild bull’s “yoke with straps” and have it draw furrows for him in a plain. (39:10) Would Job be able to trust the aurochs because of its great strength and leave his labor to it? (39:11) Could he rely on the animal to bring back his “seed” (possibly meaning harvested grain from the field) and take it (literally, “gather”) to the “threshing floor”? Job knew that there was no possibility that he could use the animal for agricultural purposes. (39:12; see the Notes section.)

Have the wings of ostriches (literally, one of ringing or piercing cries) “exulted” (or moved proudly or joyously)? The sound an ostrich makes may be described as hoarse and mournful, and the male can make a loud noise that has been compared to a lion’s roar. Accordingly, the ostrich could fittingly be described as a bird that makes piercing cries. Possibly the phrase that includes the words that may be translated “pinions,” “stork,” and “plumage” is another question. “Does an ostrich have the pinions and plumage of a stork?” The elliptical nature of the phrase has given rise to various renderings. “Are her pinions and plumage like a stork’s?” (Tanakh [JPS, 1985 edition]) “The wings of the ostrich flap joyfully, but they cannot compare with the pinions and feathers of the stork.” (NIV) “The ostrich’s wings flap wildly, though its pinions lack plumage.” (NRSV) “The wings of the ostrich beat idly; her plumage is lacking in pinions.” (NAB) “Can the wing of the ostrich be compared with the plumage of stork or falcon?” (NJB) Unlike a stork, the ostrich is a flightless bird. Its weight, breastbone, and wing structure render flight impossible. (39:13; see the Notes section.)

The female ostrich “leaves her eggs on the earth” or the ground, letting them be warmed on the sand. (39:14; see the Notes section for additional details about the ostrich.) It is then as if the bird has forgotten that a “foot may crush” the eggs and that a wild animal (literally, a “beast of the field”) may trample on them. (39:15)

The female ostrich “is hard” or deals harshly with her “sons” or young “as if not hers.” Observations of ostriches in Kenya confirm this. Hens without a permanent mate and a nest do not care for any chicks that may hatch from eggs they lay in the nests of other ostriches. Even permanently paired ostriches do not necessarily look after their own offspring. Another ostrich pair with their own chicks will round up chicks from other nests, thereafter functioning as escorts and guardians of more than 100 chicks. Most of these chicks will not reach maturity. In one documented case, only 16 chicks were alive from among 152 that had hatched in the previous year. So it can indeed be said that the labor expended in incubating and in guarding the nest and afterward the hatched chicks largely proves to be “in vain.” The reference to “no dread” may be understood to indicate that ostriches act as though they have no fear respecting the vulnerability of the chicks. (35:16)

Possibly in view of the lack of care regarding the eggs and the young on the part of a “secondary” hen, the text says that God has made her oblivious to wisdom and has not apportioned understanding to her. This could also be said about a cock and his permanently mated hen when their hatched chicks are later escorted and guarded by another pair of ostriches. (35:17)

The initial phrase of this verse may be literally translated, “In time in a height, [the ostrich] flaps away.” This obscure wording has been variously translated, but none of these renderings may be regarded as definitive. “Yet when she spreads her feathers to run …” (NIV) “… while like a cock she struts over the uplands …” (REB) “Yet in her swiftness of foot …” (NAB) “When it spreads its plumes aloft …” (NRSV) “But once she starts running …” (CEV) “Yet, if she bestirs herself to use her height …” (NJB) “Else she would soar on high …” (Tanakh [JPS, 1985 edition]) The Greek version of Theodotion provides no insight. This Greek text could be translated, “At the right time, he [God] will raise [the ostrich] in the height.” Another possible rendering would be, “At the right time, it [the ostrich] will raise in the height.” The concluding phrase of the Hebrew text and the version of Theodotion focuses on the speed of the ostrich. The bird is described as laughing at the horse and at its rider. This is because the ostrich is known for its remarkable running speed. An ostrich may attain a maximum speed in excess of 40 miles (roughly 70 kilometers) per hour and maintain a pace of approximately 30 miles (c. 50 kilometers) per hour for some 30 minutes or more. (39:18)

The description of the horse is mainly focused on its use in warfare. Job was asked whether he had given strength to the horse and clothed its neck with a “mane” (ra‘máh). The Septuagint translator seems to have linked the Hebrew word ra‘máh to ra‘ám, which term can apply to “thunder,” “turmoil,” or “uproar,” and appears to have considered it to refer to trembling in fear. This appears to be the reason the Septuagint contains the rendering, “And did you clothe its neck [the neck of the horse] with fear?” (39:19)

The questions directed to Job continued. “Do you make” the horse “leap like the locust?” Job knew that he could not endow the horse with its remarkable jumping ability. In the partially preserved text of the Qumran version of the Targum of Job as translated by Geza Vermes, the question is whether Job could frighten the horse. The Septuagint rendering words the question differently. “And have you [Job] clothed” the horse with “panolpy?” This question appears to relate to equipping the horse with the abilities and the capacity (as if putting a full suit of armor on the animal) to function in battle. According to the Hebrew text, the verse concludes with a reference to the “majesty” of the horse’s “snorting” and links this snorting to “terror” or “dread.” This seems to mean that the sound of the snorting war horse gave rise to dread among those who came under attack. The partially preserved Qumran Targum concludes with the words that may be translated “fear and dread.” According to the Septuagint rendering the question for Job continued, “Have you [clothed] the glory” or majesty of the horse’s “breast with courage?” (39:20)

War horses are said to “dig” or “paw” in the valley, impatiently stamping with their hoofs. The horse used in warfare is identified as exulting in its “strength” and going out to meet weaponry. According to the translation of the Qumran Targum by Geza Vermes, the horse “searches out the valley, he trembles and rejoices, and mightily advances towards the sword.” The Septuagint refers to the horse as digging or pawing in the plain, exulting or being proud, and going out “into the plain in strength.” (39:21)

There is no hesitancy on the part of the war horse. The animal “laughs at fear,” manifesting no sign of wanting to avoid the conflict. It is “not dismayed” or terrified but undaunted. According to the Septuagint rendering, the horse “laughs” when encountering a “missile” or an arrow. The horse “does not turn back from a sword.” In the Septuagint, the refusal to turn back is made emphatic with two Greek words for “not,” and the phrase may be rendered, “and by no means will it turn back from iron” or weaponry. (39:22)

During the course of the conflict, a quiver filled with arrows “rattles” against the horse, as also does the “flashing” or blade of a “spear” and a “javelin.” In the Septuagint, “bow and sword” are represented as “exulting” upon the war horse, indicating that the animal encounters weaponry. The reading of the Qumran Targum suggests that the rider on the horse has a lance, a javelin, and a sword available for use in the conflict. (39:23)

“With trembling and excitement,” the horse races over the land as if “swallowing” [gamá’] the ground over which it passes. The Septuagint translator appears to have understood the Hebrew word gamá’ as meaning “destroy” or “obliterate” and rendered the text accordingly. “And in anger, he will destroy the land.” In the Hebrew text, the horse is seemingly portrayed as being so eager to enter the fray that it cannot “believe” it is hearing the shophar or the ram’s-horn trumpet sounding the signal for battle. According to the Septuagint, the horse “will by no means believe” until the trumpet sounds the recognizable signal. (39:24; see the Notes section.)

The Hebrew expression that could be literally translated, “in the sufficiency of the shophar,” probably refers to the sounding of the signal of the ram’s-horn trumpet. In response to that trumpet sound, the horse is portrayed as saying, “Aha!” (“Good!” [LXX]) It is then the time to rush into the fray. Already from afar, the horse is spoken of as smelling the battle and perceiving the “thunder” or the shout of captains and the war cry. (39:25; see the Notes section.)

The Hebrew word nets is a generic term for a bird of prey and has commonly been rendered “falcon” or “hawk.” Job was asked whether it was by his wisdom that this raptor flies or soars (“sets” or “stands” [LXX], probably meaning stops in the air and then descends upon its prey) and “spreads its wings toward the south.” The Septuagint rendering could be understood to mean that the raptor spreads out its wings, remaining motionless in the air while focusing on what lies “toward the south.” (39:26; see the Notes section regarding the Qumran Targum of Job.)

In response to the rhetorical question about the eagle, Job would be forced to acknowledge that it was not at his “command” that the bird mounted up and made its nest in a location high above the ground. Whereas the Septuagint mentions the “eagle” initially, it refers to the vulture as sitting, “lodged on its nest.” (39:27)

The Hebrew text refers to the eagle as settling down on a “rock” and lodging or spending the night on a “tooth [or a prominence, projection, or high point] of a crag” and concludes with the words “and stronghold.” This mention of “stronghold” suggests that the lofty position of the nest on top of a crag in mountainous terrain is like a stronghold for the raptor and its offspring. (39:28; see the Notes section.)

From the high location of the nesting site, the eagle (or vulture [39:27, LXX]) searches, or is on the lookout, for food. Endowed with keen vision, the eyes of the raptor can watch prey from a great distance. Soaring at an altitude of about a thousand feet (over 300 meters) above the ground, an eagle can see partially hidden animals on which it feeds. With an unobstructed view of the terrain below, a perched eagle may spot moving prey that is more a mile (over 1.5 kilometers) away. (39:29; see the Notes section.)

There is uncertainty about the meaning of the Hebrew verb (‘ala‘) that expresses what an eagle’s young ones do with the blood. The verb ‘ala‘ has been understood to mean “sip” or “suck,” but this does not fit the manner in which eaglets partake of blood. The thought appears to be that the young birds ingest blood from the flesh of the prey that is brought to them. In the Septuagint, there is no word that means “sip” or “suck.” It refers to the young of the vulture as being “soaked in blood.” Feathers may come in contact with blood when the birds tear into the flesh of the prey. (39:30)

The verse concludes with an apparent proverbial saying. Wherever the slain or the carcasses are, there the eagle or vulture (LXX) will be found. Having seen the potential meal from a considerable distance while in flight or when perched far above the ground, the raptor will quickly descend to feed on the flesh. (39:30)

Notes

According to the marks of Origen, the initial phrase of verse 1 in the Greek text was added from the version of Theodotion. It may be rendered, “If you knew the time of giving birth [for] wild goats of a rock.” The Septuagint then continues with the words that may be translated, “And did you observe the birth pangs of deer?”

The concluding phrase of verse 2 in the Septuagint represents God as asking Job whether he relieved the birth pangs of deer.

In verse 3, the question in the Septuagint is, “And did you rear their young ones without fear?” The rest of the verse (based on the marks of Origen) was added from the version of Theodotion. “Will you send away their pangs” or birth pangs?

In verse 4, the added Greek text from the version of Theodotion (based on the marks of Origen) contains a phrase that differs from the extant Hebrew text. “They will be increased with offspring.” The point about their not returning is made emphatic with two Greek words for “not” and may be rendered “by no means.”

Origen marked the second phrase of the Greek text in verse 6 as having been added from the version of Theodotion (“and salt land for its dwelling places”).

According to the marks of Origen, the Greek wording of verse 8 was added from the version of Theodotion. This wording corresponds to that of the extant Hebrew text.

The wording of the Hebrew text in verse 12 is somewhat obscure, and the Septuagint rendering is basically the same. Modern translations differ in their renderings. “Can you trust him [the wild bull] to harvest your grain or take it to your barn from the threshing floor?” (CEV) “Can you rely on him to thresh out your grain and gather in the yield of your threshing floor?” (NAB) “Can you trust him to bring in your grain and gather it to your threshing floor?” (NIV) “Would you trust him to bring in the seed and gather it in from your threshing floor?” (Tanakh [JPS, 1985 edition]) “Can you depend on him to come home and pile your grain on your threshing-floor?” (NJB) “Can you rely on it to come, bringing your grain to the threshing-floor?” (REB)

The marks of Origen indicate that the Greek wording for verses 13 through 18 was added from the version of Theodotion. In verse 13, the Hebrew words that may be rendered “exult” (move proudly or joyously), “stork,” and “plumage” are not translated but transliterated (neelasa, asida, and nessa). This verse would have been incomprehensible to the Greek reader who had no knowledge of Hebrew. For verses 14 through 18, the wording of the text of Theodotion is much like that of the Hebrew text.

Field studies of ostriches in Kenya provide details that fit the description in the book of Job (36:14, 15). A male ostrich establishes a territory and, at the beginning of the breeding season, scratches a depression in the ground that will serve as a nest where the principal female ostrich will lay her eggs. There are more mature female ostriches than males, with only about one out of three being able to find a permanent mate. The male with a nest and a territory has one permanent mate but will mate with other females. These secondary hens will lay eggs in the same nest and in those of other ostriches, and the eggs of the principal female will end up being surrounded by numerous eggs from other hens. The principal female recognizes her own eggs, places them in the central position, and rearranges those that she can incubate. Any eggs that are in excess of about twenty, the female ostrich moves some three feet (less than a meter) away from the nest. During the night, the territorial male incubates the eggs in the nest, whereas the principal female does so during the day. Whenever the nest is left unguarded (as, for example, when either the male or the female ostrich arrive late for their incubation turn), opportunistic predators steal or break a few eggs. These eggs usually are those of the “secondary” hens at the perimeter of the nest. Therefore, in the case of most female ostriches, they “forget” about their eggs and what might happen to them. Many of these eggs will lie in the sand without being incubated.

In verse 24, the expression “by no means” preserves the emphatic sense of the two Greek words for “not” found in the Septuagint. There is no corresponding wording for this verse in the Qumran Targum of Job.

Although the Septuagint (in verse 25) refers to the horse as smelling the battle, it does not specify a human source for the shouting but reads, “it smells the battle with jump and cry.”

The wording of verse 26 in the Qumran Targum of Job (as translated by Geza Vermes) is, “Does the hawk get excited because of your wisdom and spread his wings towards the south?”

According to the marks of Origen, the Greek wording for verse 28 is from the version of Theodotion. It is, “upon a prominence [or a projection] of a rock and in concealment.” In conjunction with the previous words, the thought is that the vulture has its nest in a hidden and secure location on an elevated site in mountainous terrain.

Based on the marks of Origen, the Greek wording of the concluding phrase of verse 29 was added from the version of Theodotion. The phrase reads much like the Hebrew text (“its eyes watch closely from far away”).

Job 40:1-24

The words attributed to YHWH continue. They are introduced with the phrase, “And YHWH [the Lord God (Theodotion)] answered Job and said.” (40:1; see the Notes section.)

The extant Hebrew text phrases the rhetorical question in a way that could be understood as asking whether a faultfinder should contend with the Almighty. Then follows the statement, “Let the one reproving [or arguing with] God answer [for] it.” In this way, Job seemingly is asked to set forth the basis for his contention that God had been unjust in his dealings with him. (40:2)

The Greek version of Theodotion frames the wording of this verse somewhat differently. “Will one pervert judgment with the Self-sufficient One” (representing God as being in the wrong)? As to “one reproving God, will he [or one] answer [for] it” (providing a basis for the contention)? (40:2)

Numerous modern translations of the Hebrew text commonly render the words as a direct or implied reproof of Job. “Will the one who contends with the Almighty correct him? Let him who accuses God answer him!” (NIV) “Will we have arguing with the Almighty by the critic? Let him who would correct God give answer!” (NAB) “Shall one who should be disciplined complain against Shaddai? He who arraigns God must respond.” (Tanakh [JPS, 1985 edition]) “Is Yahweh’s opponent going to give way? Has God’s critic thought up an answer?” (NJB) “But you [Job] have argued that I am wrong. Now you must answer me.” (CEV) (40:2)

Job’s response is introduced with the words, “And Job answered YHWH and said.” The Septuagint reads, “But responding, Job said to the Lord.” (40:3)

The words of YHWH that had been directed to Job in the previous chapter impressed upon him the great limits of his knowledge. Therefore, he acknowledged, “Look! I am of little account.” In view of his very limited understanding, Job began to recognize how incomparably greater and wiser God was and came to consider himself as insignificant before him. As expressed by his rhetorical question (“What shall I answer you?”), Job was left with nothing to say. To indicate that he had been silenced, he said, “I put my hand on my mouth.” From Job’s mouth, no additional utterance would be heard. (40:4; see the Notes section regarding the Septuagint rendering.)

Emphasizing that he would have nothing additional to say to God, Job continued, “Once I have spoken, and I will not answer. And twice, and I will not add” anything or continue speaking. A number of modern translations are specific in representing Job as saying that he had spoken twice. “Twice have I spoken; I shall do so no more.” (REB) “I have spoken twice, I have nothing more to say.” (NJB) “I did speak once or twice, but never again.” (CEV) The Septuagint rendering, however, could be understood to indicate that Job would not proceed to speak for a second time. (40:5)

The continuation of the words attributed to YHWH is expressed as in verse 1 but with the additional phrase “out of the tempest.” “And YHWH answered Job out of [the] tempest and said.” With the exception of the missing definite article (“the”), this verse reads the same as verse 1 of chapter 38. The Septuagint translator used similar wording to render the Hebrew text of verse 6. “But still responding, the Lord said to Job out of the cloud.” (40:6)

What YHWH is represented as having said to Job is worded like the text of Job 38:3. “Please gird up your loins like a man. I will question you, and you declare to me.” In this manner, Job was asked to prepare himself to be attentive, assuming the position of a man (géver, a mighty man like a warrior) ready to listen and (if he could do so) to respond to the questions addressed to him. The literal act of girding up the loins for activity required pulling up one’s robe between the legs and then securing it under the sash. (40:7; see the Notes section.)

YHWH is represented as asking Job, “Will you even invalidate my judgment? Will you condemn me so that you may be justified?” The “judgment” may be understood to designate the losses and suffering that God permitted Job to experience. Job’s invalidating that judgment could signify rejecting it as wrong. According to the Septuagint rendering, Job was told, “Do not reject my judgment.” When insisting that God had dealt with him like an enemy and afflicted him unjustly, Job had condemned God and represented himself as being right. The questions that were directed to him served to make him consider whether he had been correct in his evaluation of the situation. According to the Septuagint rendering, the question appears to be whether Job thought that God should have dealt differently with him so that he, Job, would appear as righteous or right. The Qumran Targum of Job (as translated by Geza Vermes) reads, “Would you indeed tear up the judgement and declare me guilty so that you may be innocent?” (40:8)

The questions next directed to Job seemingly focused on whether he had the power to correct situations and to handle affairs better than God did. “And do you have an arm [representative of power] like God [the Lord (LXX)]? And can you thunder with a voice like his” (authoritatively and powerfully like the sound of thunder)? (40:9)

Job was challenged to handle matters better than God and to attire himself to reflect the exalted position that he would then occupy. He was told to array himself with “majesty [loftiness (LXX)] and loftiness” or grandeur (“power” [LXX]) and to clothe himself with “glory and splendor” (“honor” [LXX]) According to the Qumran Targum, Job was admonished to cast away “pride and arrogance” and then to put on “splendor, glory, and honor.” (40:10)

The challenge for Job was whether he, as a man, could unleash (literally, cause to flow) the “outbursts” of his “anger” and abase every proud one he might see. In the Septuagint, the initial phrase is, “And send out messengers [or angels] in anger” or do so in expression of anger against every haughty one. (40:11)

The concluding thought of verse 11 is repeated, with Job again being told, “See every proud one; abase him.” Then the imperative continues, “And trample the wicked where they stand.” Job knew that he could not humble all the proud and put an end to the wicked but that God alone could do so. The Septuagint rendering is, “And extinguish the haughty one, and cause the impious one to rot immediately.” (40:12)

Again Job was challenged to do what he knew only God could accomplish. He was told to hide the wicked “together in the dust,” burying them after having brought them to their end. According to the Septuagint, the hiding of them together is to be done “outside in the earth.” To “bind their faces in the hidden place” would signify to confine them to the realm of the dead. In this case, the word for “faces” apparently means the individuals themselves. The Septuagint rendering expresses a different thought, “Fill their faces with dishonor.” (40:13)

If Job could actually do what he had been challenged to accomplish, YHWH is represented as telling him, “And also I will acknowledge to you that your right hand [or your own power] can deliver you.” These words impressed upon Job that he could neither save himself nor end all the misery and oppression for which haughty individuals and wicked ones were responsible. Accordingly, he would have to leave everything in God’s hands and be content to wait until such time as God chose to take action. (40:14)

At this point, YHWH is represented as calling attention to another amazing work of his creation. The introductory interjection that may be rendered “look” served to focus attention on an animal that is called “Behemoth,” which God had made as he also had made Job. Behemoth is described as eating greenery just like a bovine. The Septuagint translator understood the Hebrew word “Behemoth” to be a plural designation and rendered it as “beasts.” While some have considered “Behemoth” to be mythical creature (which would have the support of the Septuagint rendering of verse 20), the reference to its having been made just as Job had been and its eating vegetation points to its being an actual animal. The commonly accepted view is that Behemoth is the hippopotamus. A number of modern translations are explicit in making this identification. “I created both you [Job] and the hippopotamus. It eats only grass like an ox.” (CEV) “See now the hippopotamus, which I made as well as you. He eats grass like an ox.” (NLB) A hippopotamus may feed for about five or six hours at night, consuming some 80 pounds (c. 35 kilograms) of greenery in the form of grass, water plants, reeds, and bushes. (40:15)

The strength of Behemoth is in its “loins” and its “power in the muscles [or sinews (sharír] of its belly.” There is a measure of uncertainty about the meaning of the Hebrew word sharír, especially if there is a link to the noun shor, which is the designation for the navel. The Septuagint does contain the expression “navel of the belly.” Believing the Hebrew words to apply to the “loins” and “navel” of Behemoth, some have interpreted the description to relate to sexual power or virility. If “muscles” or “sinews” are to be linked to the power of the hippopotamus, the meaning could be that the animal’s strength is in its hips or in the muscles of its back and in the sinews or muscles of its belly. (40:16)

Regarding what Behemoth can do with its tail, the verb in the Hebrew text is a form of chaphéts, which word usually means “to desire” or “to delight.” In this context, the verb has been understood to mean “bend down,” “extend,” or “stretch out.” Translators have variously rendered the phrase concerning the tail. “He carries his tail like a cedar.” (NAB) “He makes his tail stand up like a cedar.” (Tanakh [JPS, 1985 edition]) “His tail is as stiff as a cedar.” (NJB) “His tail sways like a cedar.” (NIV) “Its tail is like a cedar tree.” (CEV) According to the Septuagint, it “set” or raised up its “tail like a cypress.” The hippopotamus can raise its tail rigidly upright or swing it about like a tree that sways back and forth in the wind. (40:17)

The sinews of the animal’s “thighs are knit together.” In the case of the hippopotamus, it can be said that the fibers and tendons of the muscles in the thighs are woven together like strong cables. (40:17; see the Notes section.)

The “bones” (“sides” or “ribs” [LXX]) of Behemoth are described as being like “tubes [sides or ribs (LXX)] of copper” or bronze and its “limbs” (“spine” [LXX]) “like rods of iron” (“cast iron” [LXX]). A full-grown hippopotamus may weigh about 3,000 pounds (c. 1,400 kilograms), with the largest males weighing more than twice as much. In view of the great weight the animal’s legs must support, its dense bones are fittingly designated as strong copper tubes. In fact, the entire skeleton may be described as having the strength of iron rods. (40:18)

Behemoth is called the “beginning” or “chief of the ways of God.” This may indicate that Behemoth, because of its great size and power, proved to be the most prominent animal among the herbivorous quadrupeds. The expression “ways of God” probably applies to God’s activity or his creative work. In the Septuagint, the reference is to the animal as the product of God’s act of forming or creating. The next phrase of the Hebrew text reads, “Let the one making it bring near the sword.” This suggests that, even though Behemoth is powerful, the one who created it, God, is far more powerful (comparable to the one who would succeed in wielding a sword against it). The Septuagint expresses a different thought. It says that the Lord made it to be “mocked by angels.” Perhaps the Septuagint translator thought in terms of an ungainly creature when thus rendering the Hebrew words in the text available to him. (40:19)

Possibly because Behemoth daily consumes a huge quantity of greenery, the Hebrew text says that the “mountains” or hills yield food for it. There where Behemoth finds food, “all the beasts of the field play.” The very different reading of the Septuagint suggests that the reference is to a mythical creature. This creature is said to come up “on a steep mountain” and to cause the “quadrupeds in Tartarus” (a region the ancients associated with the underworld) to rejoice. (40:20)

The Hebrew noun tse’elím is commonly considered to designate the “lotus” (Ziziphus lotus), a thorny shrub of the buckthorn family. Behemoth is referred to as lying under lotus trees and in a concealed place of “reed [a collective singular in Hebrew] and marsh,” or lying hidden among the reeds of a marsh and under the taller lotus shrubs growing there. According to the Septuagint, the animal rests under a variety of trees, alongside the “papyrus and reed and sedge.” (40:21)

For Behemoth, lotus shrubs provided shade, and “poplars of the wadi” surrounded it. Poplars (Populus euphratica, a tree of the willow family) may be found growing along wadis in arid and semiarid regions. The Septuagint indicates that big trees were shaded by the animal, along “with twigs and branches of a chaste tree” or willow. (40:22)

A rapidly flowing river at flood stage poses no problem for Behemoth or the hippopotamus. Regardless of how turbulent the stream might be, the animal is not frightened, for it can swim against the force of the current. With the Jordan rushing against its mouth, Behemoth remains confident. The Septuagint says that, if a flood comes, the animal will “by no means take notice.” (40:23; see the Notes section.)

The question may be whether one could, by means of a snare, seize Behemoth “by” or “in” its “eyes” (or while the animal is alert and on guard) and then pierce its nose. Translators vary in the way they render the text. “Can he be taken by his eyes? Can his nose be pierced by hooks?” (Tanakh [JPS, 1985 edition]) “Can anyone capture him by the eyes, or trap him and pierce his nose?” (NIV) “Who can capture him by his eyes, or pierce his nose with a trap?” (NAB) “Who is going to catch him by the eyes or put poles through his nose?” (NJB) “Can one take it with hooks or pierce its nose with a snare?” (NRSV) “Can anyone blind his eyes and take him or pierce his nose with the teeth of a trap?” (REB) “There is no way to capture a hippopotamus — not even by hooking its nose or blinding its eyes.” (CEV) For a man to attempt capturing a hippopotamus that is watching him would not be possible but would have disastrous consequences for the foolhardy one. (40:24; see the Notes section.)

Notes

The marks of Origen indicate that the Greek wording of verses 1 and 2 was added from the version of Theodotion. In the existing text of the Septuagint, chapter 40 begins with the words in verse 3 of the extant Hebrew text.

The wording of verse 4 in the Septuagint includes expressions that are not found in the extant Hebrew text. Job raised the rhetorical question, “Why do I yet dispute?” In the continuation of this question, he acknowledged himself as one whom God had admonished or instructed but whom he had reproved (the apparent reference being to his contention that God had been unjust in his dealings with him). The verse continues, “hearing these things [though] I am nothing.” Although Job began to see himself as not amounting to anything, he had received the divine response to his contention. What he heard made him recognize his error. His understanding was far too limited to render a judgment about what God may do or permit. Verse 4 then concludes with Job’s words, “But I, what reply shall I give to these things [the things God said to him]? I will put my hand on my mouth.”

The same wording in Job 38:3 and 40:7 indicates that this poetic composition is not meant to represent the very words of YHWH. With the exception of the first two words that may be rendered, “no, but,” the words in the Septuagint correspond to those of the Hebrew text and are identical to those in Job 38:3.

In verse 17, the Septuagint does not include a corresponding word for the Hebrew noun that is rendered “thighs.”

In verse 23, the rendering “by no means” preserves the emphatic sense of the two Greek words in the text of the Septuagint. The phrase about the Jordan, as indicated by the marks of Origen, was added from the Greek version of Theodotion. This phrase differs somewhat from the extant Hebrew text. “It trusts that the Jordan will strike at [literally, into] its mouth.”

According to the marks of Origen, the Greek wording of verse 24 was added from the version of Theodotion. Contextually, the Greek text could be translated, “Will one catch it by its eye? [While it is] twisting and turning [enskolieuómenos], will one pierce its nose?” It is uncertain just what the participle enskolieuómenos means. One conjectural definition is “twisting and turning.”

Job 41:1-34 (40:25-41:26)

Leviathan (“dragon” [LXX]) is usually thought to be the crocodile, the large African crocodile (Crocodylus niloticus). The question directed to Job emphasized his inability to control this creature, with the implication being that God could easily do so. “Can you [Job] draw out” or catch “Leviathan with a fishhook and press down [or restrain] its tongue with a rope?” The Septuagint does not include a reference to the tongue but refers to placing a halter around the creature’s nose. (41:1 [40:25])

The series of questions continued. “Can you [Job] put a reed in [Leviathan’s] nose [or through its nostrils] and pierce its jaw with a thorn [or hook]?” (41:2 [40:26]; see the Notes section.) “Will it make many supplications to you [speak to you with supplications (LXX)] or speak to you in a gentle manner [with an entreaty, softly, gently, or in a mild manner (LXX)]?” (41:3 [40:27]) “Will it make a covenant with you so that you may take it as your servant forever” or permanently? (41:4 [40:28]) “Will you play with it as with a bird and bind it [like a sparrow (LXX)] for your maidens [a child (LXX)]” (apparently so that the animal could be led about by means of a leash)? (41:5 [40:29]) In response to all these rhetorical questions, Job would have been forced to acknowledge that he could not do any of the things that had been mentioned. The implication is that he simply could not do things that God can and, therefore, could also not comprehend what God might do or permit in carrying out his ultimate purpose. This precluded his passing judgment on God’s activity as he did when maintaining that God had dealt unjustly with him.

Apparently because Leviathan would elude capture, the questions are raised, “Will partners [in trade] barter [karáh] for it? Will they divide it up among traders [literally, Canaanites; Phoenicians [LXX], peoples who were known as traders]?” The implication is that Leviathan would not become an object of barter or trade nor would it be divided into parts, with the portions thereafter being sold. (41:6 [40:30]; see the Notes section regarding karáh and the rendering of the Septuagint.)

If Leviathan is correctly identified as the crocodile, the next rhetorical question relates to its scales that are like strong armor. Job was asked whether he could fill the skin of Leviathan with barbs or spears (any kind of pointed instrument) or “its head with fishing spears?” Job knew that he could not do so. In modern times, glancing hits of crocodiles by bullets have ricocheted. (41:7 [40:31]; see the Notes section regarding the Septuagint rendering.)

To lay one’s hands or palms on Leviathan would be foolhardy. The phrase “remember the battle” may mean to think about the disastrous result from any attempt to confront the creature. In the Septuagint, the reference is to “remembering the battle occurring in its body.” A struggle with Leviathan could not be undertaken again. (41:8 [40:32])

The interjection “look” serves to focus attention on the words that are next spoken to Job. One’s hope being disappointing, deceptive, or a falsehood may refer to the impossibility of realizing the hope of gaining the mastery over Leviathan. So formidable is the creature that one would be cast down, laid low, or overwhelmed with fright by the mere sight of it. (41:9 [41:1]; see the Notes section regarding the Septuagint rendering.)

No one is so fierce as to stir up or awaken Leviathan. Therefore, YHWH, its maker, is represented as asking, “Who then can stand [in opposition] before me?” In the Septuagint, the focus is on God, and the implication is that it would be folly to resist him. “Do you not fear [the creature] because it has been prepared by me? For who is the one opposing me?” (41:10 [41:2])

As YHWH has the most powerful of creatures under control, there is no one who can successfully “confront” (qadám) him so that he would need to make payment for any service or favor. Everything “under the heavens,” or under the celestial vault, is his. Therefore, nothing exists that could be given to him. Even though the wording of the Hebrew text represents YHWH as speaking, numerous translators have rendered the verse to apply to Leviathan. “Who has ever attacked him [Leviathan] and come out of it safely? No one under the wide heaven.” (REB) “Who has ever attacked him with impunity? No one beneath all of heaven!” (NJB) “Who can confront it and be safe? — under the whole heaven, who?” (NRSV) Other translators have not made this change but have variously rendered the Hebrew text. “Whoever confronts Me I will requite, for everything under the heavens is Mine.” (Tanakh [JPS, 1985 edition]) “Who has a claim against me that I must pay? Everything under heaven belongs to me.” (NIV) “I am in command of the world and in debt to no one.” (CEV) (41:11 [41:3]; see the Notes section.)

According to the Hebrew text, the description of Leviathan continues, with YHWH being represented as the speaker. He is quoted as saying that he would not be silent “about its parts” (body members or limbs), the report or matter of its strength, and the “grace of its symmetry.” The expression “grace of its symmetry” could indicate that Leviathan’s whole frame is ideally suited for the functions it performs. (41:12 [41:4]; see the Notes section.)

Regarding Leviathan, the question is raised, “Who can strip off its outer garment,” or its protective armor? (“Who will uncover the face of its dress [possibly the skin that covers the monster like an article of clothing]?” [LXX]) The next rhetorical question about another act that would be unthinkable contains the Hebrew word résen, which is the noun for “bridle.” In this context, résen is linked with a Hebrew word meaning “double,” and has been considered to designate the jowls or a “double jaw” filled with sharp teeth. The interpretive renderings of modern translations vary considerably. “Who can penetrate the folds of his jowls?” (Tanakh [JPS, 1985 edition]) [“Who can] penetrate his double corselet?” (NAB) “Who would approach him with a bridle?” (NIV) “[Who could] bring it under control with a harness?” (CEV) “[Who has ever] “penetrated his doublet of hide?” (REB) “[Who can] pierce the double armour of his breastplate?” (NJB) The Septuagint rendering is, “And who could enter [or penetrate] the fold [possibly the overlapping scales] of its breastplate?” (41:13 [41:5])

The “doors” of Leviathan’s “face” may designate the creature’s upper and lower jaw, and the head could here be called its “face.” Who would dare to open the mouth, the most prominent feature of the head? “Round about” in the mouth of Leviathan are fearsome teeth or, according to the Septuagint, “fear” is “round about its teeth.” In the Nile crocodile, the teeth are long, sharp, and conical. (41:14 [41:6])

“Pride” or “majesty” is linked to the expression that may be rendered “rows [literally, channels] of scales [literally, shields].” As the scales provide protection, they may have been identified as a basis for pride. These scales are additionally described as “having been shut up” or closed as with a “tight seal.” (41:15 [41:7]; see the Notes section for the Septuagint rendering.)

The scales “draw near one to another” or fit closely together, and “air [literally, spirit or wind] cannot come between them.” (41:16 [41:8]; see the Notes section.)

Like a “man to his brother,” the scales “cleave” as if having taken hold of one another and “cannot be separated.” (41:17 [41:9]; see the Notes section.) The Nile crocodile has “prominent dorsal scales or scutes” that are “arranged in even rows.” (Grzimek’s Animal Life Encyclopedia, Second Edition, Volume 7, page 186)

The “sneezings” of Leviathan “flash forth light,” and its “eyes” are like “eyelids” or “eyes of dawn” (the rays of the morning sun). Possibly the “sneezings” refer to spray proceeding from the nostrils whenever the submerged creature rises to the surface of the water — spray that shines in the sunlight. The reflection of the early morning sun in the eyes of Leviathan may be why its eyes are poetically described like the “eyelids” or “eyes of dawn.” According to the Septuagint rendering, the eyes of the monster have the appearance of the “morning star” (Venus). (41:18 [41:10])

The poetic description of Leviathan is expressed in language that seemingly influenced the Septuagint translator to use the designation “dragon” for the monster. “Torches” (possibly the spray that sunlight illuminates) or “burning lamps” (LXX) come out of the mouth of Leviathan, and “sparks of fire” (perhaps bright drops of water) issue forth. Instead of “sparks of fire,” the Septuagint contains the expression that may be rendered “grates of fire,” which could apply to burning coals on the grates. (41:19 [41:11]) “Smoke goes forth” from the “nostrils” of Leviathan as it would from a furnace “being blown upon” (or greatly heated) and from the “rushes” that provide fuel for the fire. The Septuagint refers to the “smoke of a furnace burning with a fire of coals.” (41:20 [41:12) Leviathan’s “soul,” or the monster itself, ignites “coals.” The Septuagint rendering may be understood to indicate that the “soul” of the monster or the monster itself is like “coals.” It is also possible that, in this context, the Hebrew and Greek words for “soul” designate the creature’s breath. The concluding phrase in both the Hebrew text and the Septuagint is, “and a flame goes forth from its mouth.” (41:21 [41:13])

“Strength resides” in the “neck” of Leviathan, “and despair leaps” or dances “before its face.” This could mean that any creature before Leviathan (the monster endowed with great power in its neck) would leap or move in terror. According to the Septuagint, “destruction runs before it,” suggesting that the monster uses its strength to bring ruin to everything in its path. The rendering “runs” appears to have arisen because the Septuagint translator read the letter resh (R) in the Hebrew word for “leap” or “dance” as the letter daleth (D). (41:22 [41:14])

The “folds” of Leviathan’s “flesh” cleave together, “being cast upon it” — not to be dislodged. The reference to the “folds” has been variously interpreted, and this is reflected in the renderings of modern translations. “The strips of his flesh are jointed together, firmly set in and immovable.” (NJB) “The weakest parts of its body are harder than iron.” (CEV) “Close-knit is his underbelly, no pressure will make it yield.” (REB) In the Septuagint, there is no corresponding word for “folds.” It says, “And the flesh [plural in Greek] of its body cleaves together.” According to the marks of Origen, the next phrase is added from the Greek version of Theodotion. It could be understood to say that, if someone were to pour something upon the monster, “it will not be moved,” shaken, or caused to tremble. (41:23 [41:15])

Leviathan’s “heart” is as if “cast” or hard (“firmly fixed” [LXX]) like a “rock” and as if “cast” or hard like a “lower millstone.” This may be understood to suggest that nothing will frighten the creature. In the Septuagint, there is no corresponding expression for “lower millstone.” It refers to the monster as standing “like an anvil,” not malleable or not yielding. (41:24 [41:16])

When Leviathan “raises itself up” (“turns” [LXX]), “gods” or “mighty ones” (“four-footed wild beasts jumping upon the earth” or the land [LXX]) are afraid. “At the crashings” (possibly the thrashing of Leviathan’s tail, they are confused or reduced to a panic-stricken state. (41:25 [41:17])

Well-protected with armor, Leviathan is fearless when faced with any kind of weapon. Although it might reach the monster, a sword is no match against it nor is a spear, dart, or javelin (a “raised spear and breastplate” [Theodotion]). (41:26 [41:18]; see the Notes section.) Leviathan “regards iron as straw” or chaff, and “copper” or “bronze as rotten wood.” (41:27 [41:19]) No “arrow” (literally, “son of a bow”) can make it flee, and sling stones are as ineffective as if Leviathan had turned them into stubble. According to the Septuagint, a “copper” or “bronze bow” (a bow mounted with copper or bronze) “will by no means wound” the monster. “It regards a sling [for throwing stones] as grass.” (41:28 [41:20]; see the Notes section.)

There is uncertainty about the weapon that the Hebrew word tohthách designates, with one suggested meaning being “club.” In the Greek version of Theodotion, the corresponding rendering is the plural form of sphýra, (“hammers” or “mallets”). Whatever the weapon might be, Leviathan regards it as stubble. Being unaffected by weapons that might be wielded against it, Leviathan “laughs at the shaking sabers” or “javelins.” (41:29 [41:21]; see the Notes section.)

The “underparts” of Leviathan are like “sharp” or “pointed potsherds.” “It spreads out a threshing implement upon the mire.” This suggests that, as its “underparts” pass over it, the mud takes on the appearance of having been harrowed. The Septuagint rendering differs significantly from the reading of the extant Hebrew text. It seems to depict the monster’s lair as consisting of sharp, pointed objects. The Septuagint then indicates that “all the gold of the sea under it” is like an unspeakably large amount of “clay.” (41:30 [41:22])

Leviathan “makes the deep boil like a pot. It makes the sea like a pot of ointment.” This could refer to the bubbles that come to the surface when Leviathan is diving into the water of the “deep.” The “sea” or lake is churned up like ointment would be when being heated in a pot. According to the Septuagint, the monster “considers the sea like a pot of ointment” (as something to be stirred up). (41:31 [41:23])

As it passes through water, Leviathan leaves a “shining path behind it” or a wake that glitters in the sunlight. One might think that the “deep” or the body of water through which Leviathan swims takes on the appearance of “gray hair.” (41:32 [41:24]; see the Notes section regarding the Septuagint rendering.)

Leviathan has no equal on the soil or on the “earth” (LXX). There is no animal like it. Leviathan is a creature that was made to have no fear. The Septuagint refers to it as a creature that was made to be mocked by God’s “angels.” This could signify that only angels possessed sufficient power to handle the monster. (41:33 [41:25]; see the Notes section.)

Leviathan is portrayed as seeing “everything high.” This could mean that, without any sense of fear, it looked down upon all creatures that the ancients regarded as strong and fearsome. Leviathan is identified as “king over all of the sons of dignity” or “pride.” The expression “sons of dignity” may refer to majestic wild beasts — the largest and strongest wild animals. According to the Septuagint rendering, the monster is “king over all [creatures] in the waters.” (41:34 [41:26])

Notes

According to the marks of Origen, the Greek wording of the initial phrase in verse 2 (40:26) was added from the version of Theodotion. It differs somewhat from the Hebrew text (“If you will secure a ring in its nose [or nostril]”). Then follows the text of the Septuagint, which may be rendered, “And will you pierce its lip for a clasp?”

Definitions for the Hebrew word karáh (41:6 [40:30]) include “barter,” “trade in” or “for,” “purchase,” “feast,” or “give a feast.” Context determines just which meaning might be chosen. In the Septuagint, the questions are, “And do the nations feast on it? And do the peoples of the Phoenicians divide [it]?”

In verse 7 (40:31), the initial phrase of the Septuagint is quite unlike that of the extant Hebrew text. Regarding the skin of the creature’s tail, the Septuagint indicates that an entire assembled flotilla (everything afloat) could not carry it. According to the marks of Origen, the Greek wording of the next phrase was added from the version of Theodotion. It continues with the words, “and its head in fishing boats.” In connection with the preceding phrase, this wording suggests that the head is so large or so heavy as not to be transportable.

The wording of verse 9 (41:1) in the Septuagint departs significantly from the extant Hebrew text. Regarding the monster, Job is asked, “Have you not seen it, and have you not marveled over the things said” (about the creature)?

In verse 11 (41:3), the extant Hebrew text could be translated, “Who has anticipated [qadám] me that I should repay him?” This literal reading of the Hebrew text is closer to the wording of Romans 11:35 than is the extant text of the Septuagint. The Hebrew word qadám has been defined as meaning “go in front,” “be in front” or “first,” “anticipate,” “meet,” and “confront.” On the basis of Romans 11:35, the word qadám has been regarded as meaning to be first with the giving of a gift. The Septuagint, however, uses a Greek word for “resist,” and this supports translating qadám as “confront” or “attack” in the Job passage. According to the Septuagint, the question is, “Who will resist me and endure since all that is under heaven is mine?”

According to the marks of Origen, the Greek wording of verse 12 (41:4) was added from the version of Theodotion. The rendering differs somewhat from the reading of the extant Hebrew text. “I will not be silent because of it; and because of the matter [or word] of strength, it will be compassionate to its equal.” The meaning could be that God would not be silent regarding the creature but would call attention to its characteristics. Although having great strength, the monster would not use its power against an equal.

The Septuagint rendering of verse 7 [15] differs significantly from the reading of the Hebrew text. It refers to the “inward parts” of the creature as being like copper or bronze “shields” and its binding element (sýndesmos) like “emery stone.” The Greek word sýndesmos basically applies to something that binds together and can designate a ligament, joint, fetter, or bond.

According to the marks of Origen, the Greek wording of the initial phrase of verse 8 [16] is added from the version of Theodotion. With seeming reference to the “inward parts” that are like copper or bronze “shields,” the Greek rendering is, “they cleave one to one.” The Septuagint then continues with the words, “and by no means will air [literally, wind or spirit] pass through it” (the binding element [sýndesmos]). In the Greek text, there are two words for “not” that convey the emphatic sense, and this is preserved with the expression here rendered “by no means.”

The marks of Origen indicate that the Greek wording of verse 9 [17] was added from the version of Theodotion. Much of the wording is like that of the extant Hebrew text. “A man will cleave to his brother. They stick together and will by no means be drawn apart.” The expression “by no means” preserves the emphatic sense of the two Greek words for “not.”

In verse 18 (41:26), the initial phrase of the Septuagint reads, “If lances encounter it [the monster], they will not accomplish anything.” According to the marks of Origen, the wording of the rest of the verse was added from the Greek version of Theodotion.

In verse 20 (41:28), the expression “by no means” preserves the emphatic sense of two Greek words for not.

For verse 21 (41:29), the marks of Origen indicate that the Greek wording of the first phrase was added from the version of Theodotion (“Hammers were reckoned as straw”). The concluding phrase of the Septuagint may be rendered, “and it laughs at the shaking” or waving of a “firebrand” (pyrphóron [something or someone bearing or bringing fire]).

The Septuagint rendering of verse 24 [32] depicts Leviathan as a mythical creature. It refers to the monster as regarding as its captive “Tartarus of the abyss” (a realm of the underworld). The next phrase, according to the marks of Origen, was added from the Greek version of Theodotion. “It reckoned the abyss for a walkway.”

In the Septuagint, the phrase that mentions angels (verse 25 [33]) repeats what was earlier said regarding Behemoth (40:19).

Job 42:1-17

The words that precede Job’s reply to YHWH are the same as those for earlier responses. (3:2; 16:1; 19:1; 21:1; 23:1; 26:1; 40:3) “And Job answered YHWH and said.” In the Septuagint, the introductory words are, “But responding, Job said to the Lord.” The Qumran Targum of Job (as translated by Geza Vermes) reads, “Job answered and said before God.” (42:1)

Job acknowledged that he had come to know that YHWH can do “all things,” with the implication being that this included everything that humans could not do. Nothing that YHWH purposed was unattainable for him nor could it be thwarted. According to the Septuagint, nothing is impossible for him. The Qumran Targum of Job (as translated by Geza Vermes) says that God does “not lack in strength and wisdom.” (42:2)

Job basically quoted the question that YHWH had asked him earlier. (38:2) “Who [is] this [who is] darkening” or obscuring “counsel without knowledge?” As previously, this question may pertain to God’s purpose in the exercise of his sovereign will. Lacking in the essential knowledge to make a just evaluation, Job had spoken words that “darkened” or obscured the counsel or purpose of God, concealing that it was right and just. In ignorance and error, Job had claimed that God’s dealings with him were unjust. At this point, Job recognized that he had talked but did so without understanding things that were “too wonderful” for him or far beyond what he then understood. They were things that he “did not know.” (42:3; see the Notes section regarding the Septuagint rendering.)

It seems that Job again quoted words that YHWH had previously spoken to him. (38:3; 40:7) He had been invited to hear what YHWH would say and been told by him, “And I will speak. I will question you, and you declare to me.” If Job could do so, he was then to answer the questions that had been directed to him. According to the Septuagint rendering, Job addressed God with the words of this verse. “And listen to me, Lord, that I also may speak. And I will question you; but you, teach me.” (42:4)

With reference to his past view of God, Job thought of it as merely a “hearing of the ear” or a report about God that he had heard. Based on his experience and the expressions of YHWH that emphasized how great the limits of his own understanding were, Job came to have a clearer vision of YHWH. This prompted him to say, “And now my eye sees you.” In the past, all that Job represented himself as having was a report, but what had been revealed to him was comparable to having a firsthand experience with God as if seeing him face-to-face. (42:5)

Upon having come to see just how great the limits of his knowledge were and his error in having attributed injustice to God, Job said, “Therefore, I despise myself [ma’ás] and repent in dust and ashes.” The Hebrew word ma’ás may either mean “despise” or “reject,” with “despise (“despise myself”) having the support of the Septuagint rendering. If the significance of ma’ás here is “reject,” this could mean that Job repudiated his previous contention about what he had represented as God’s unjust treatment of him. The meaning “despise” would indicate that Job hated himself for the wrong view that he had expressed. He repented or regretted that he had spoken about God as he had. In this context, the link of repentance to “dust and ashes” appears to denote how greatly Job regretted what he had attributed to God. One of the outward manifestations of repentance among the ancients was to sit in dust and ashes. (Compare Jonah 3:6.) According to the Septuagint rendering, Job regarded himself “as dust [literally, earth] and ashes.” (42:6; see the Notes section.)

After YHWH had spoken to Job, he directed his words to Eliphaz the Temanite who may have been the oldest or most prominent one of Job’s three companions. “My wrath is kindled against you and against your two companions, for you have not spoken of me what is right as has my servant Job.” All three men had maintained that God was punishing Job for his serious transgressions. As this was not the case, they had misrepresented God. Job, on the other hand, had insisted that he had lived an upright life and was not guilty of concealing the practice of evil deeds. From this standpoint, he had not misrepresented God as the one punishing him for corrupt actions and, therefore, had expressed what was right respecting God. According to the Septuagint, Eliphaz was told that he had “sinned” and so had his two friends. The Greek text then identifies the nature of the sin, “for you have not spoken anything true before me as has my servant Job.” (42:7; also see the comments on 2:11 and 4:1.)

Eliphaz, Bildad, and Zophar were instructed to take seven bulls and seven rams and then to go to Job, for the purpose of offering the animals as a sacrifice for them. According to the Septuagint, Job is the one who would offer the sacrifice. The word of YHWH continued, “And Job my servant will pray for you, for his face I will lift up” (or accept him with approval) so as “not to deal with you” according to your “senselessness [nevaláh], for you have not spoken of me what is right as [has] my servant Job.” The context is not clear in how the Hebrew word nevaláh, meaning “senselessness,” is to be linked to the rest of the sentence. This has given rise to a variety of interpretive renderings. “… his prayer I will accept, not to punish you severely.” (NAB) “… to him I will show favor and not treat you vilely.” (Tanakh [JPS, 1985 edition]) “After this, Job will pray, and I will agree not to punish you for your foolishness.” (CEV) “I shall surely show him favor by not being harsh with you.” (REB) “I shall show him favour and shall not inflict my displeasure on you.” (NJB) The Septuagint says that, if it had not been for Job, God would have destroyed Eliphaz, Bildad, and Zophar, for they had spoken what was not true against his servant Job. (42:8; see the Notes section.)

Eliphaz the Temanite, Bildad the Shuhite, and Zophar the Naamahtite went to Job and did what YHWH had told them to do. “YHWH lifted up the face of Job” or accepted his prayer with approval. The Septuagint rendering indicates that, on Job’s account, God “forgave” (literally, loosed) their sin. (42:9)

After Job had prayed for his companions, YHWH restored his fortunes, giving him twice as much as he had before he suffered calamities. The Septuagint says that the “Lord” granted Job increase. “And when Job also prayed for his friends,” God forgave them their sin. The “Lord” gave Job twice what he had before, doubling everything. (42:10)

“All of Job’s brothers and all of his sisters came to him,” as did all his former acquaintances, and “ate bread with him in his house.” The Septuagint adds that they came in response to their having heard about what had happened to Job. Their partaking of a meal with him at his home indicated that Job enjoyed fully restored fellowship with them. Those who came showed him sympathy and comforted him “for all the evil that YHWH had brought upon him.” The Septuagint indicates that they comforted Job when they were eating and drinking with him. Each of them gave him a qesitáh (a female “lamb” [LXX]) and a ring of gold (“uncoined gold worth four drachmas” [a possible meaning of the LXX rendering]). There is uncertainty about what qesitáh means. The Hebrew word could have designated a weight or a unit of value. (42:11)

YHWH blessed Job after his distress had ended (the “latter end” [LXX]) more than had been the case at the “beginning” or before he experienced calamity and suffering. Job came to have 14,000 sheep, 6,000 camels, 1,000 yoke of bovines, and 1,000 [“grazing” [LXX]) female donkeys. (42:12; see the Notes section.)

Seven sons and three daughters were born to Job. (42:13) Whereas the emphasis previously had been on the sons, this time the focus was on the daughters. Only their names were included in the account. Job named his first daughter Jemimah (“Day” [LXX]); the second, Keziah (“Cassia” [LXX]), and the third, Keren-happuch (“Horn of Amaltheia” [LXX]) The Septuagint rendering suggests that the first daughter was like the dawning of a new day for Job, but the name Jemimah may mean “little dove” and would be a designation of endearment. Keziah is thought to mean “cassia,” as is the Septuagint rendering. This name identified the second daughter as being like a delightful fragrant substance. The possible meaning of Keren-happuch is “horn of black paint.” This could apply to a “horn” or container for eye makeup. The Greek name “Horn of Amaltheia” designates the “Horn of Plenty” (Cornucopia). In one version of Greek mythology, Amaltheia was the goat that nourished the newly born god Zeus. One day, while the young Zeus was playing with Amaltheia, he inadvertently broke off her horn. Out of gratitude, he blessed the horn and made it into the “Horn of Plenty.” (42:14)

“In all the land,” no women were as beautiful as the daughters of Job, and he gave them an inheritance among their brothers. That Jemimah, Keziah, and Keren-happuch received an inheritance was an exception at the time, for sons commonly were the sole heirs. (42:15)

The emphasis on the daughters and their beauty appears to contrast the life of Job before the calamities that befell him and his life after the suffering ended. Job’s earlier actions and expressions may indicate that he feared reverses might befall him and his family. (1:5; 3:25) Although portrayed as prosperous, he is not depicted as experiencing the kind of security that comes from recognizing God as a loving Father and being in possession of true inner joy. The names Job gave to his daughters and the appreciation he had for them suggest that he came to have great joy. He had benefited from the calamity that had befallen him, for he had come to know the limits of his own knowledge and been made fully aware of the greatness of YHWH, the God without these limits and, therefore, the One in whose hands he was secure.

After his fortunes were restored, Job lived 140 years. The Septuagint says that he lived 170 years “after the blow” or misfortune and that all the years of his life amounted to 248 (240 [according to Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus]). During his long life, Job saw “his sons and his sons’ sons — four generations.” (42:16; see the Notes section.) He died, “old and full of days,” or as a man who lived a long and contented life. (42:17; see the Notes section.)

The Septuagint includes an epilogue that is not found in the extant Hebrew text. “And it is written that [Job] will rise again” (or will be resurrected) “with the ones the Lord raises up.” (42:17a) According to the epilogue, “this” (which could be understood to apply to the book of Job) “is translated from the Syriac book.” Job lived “in the land of Ausitis [Uz] on the borders of Idumea and Arabia, and previously he had the name Jobab [Iobab].” (42:17b) By his Arabian wife, he had a son named Ennon. Job’s father was “Zare [Zerah], a son of the sons of Esau,” and his mother was Bosorra. In the line of descent from Abraam (Abraham), Job was the “fifth.” (42:17c)

It may be because the Septuagint translator thought Job to have been Jobab that he included words from Genesis 36:31-35. The name Bosorra (Bozrah [Hebrew text]) for Job’s mother is the name of the city in Genesis 36:33. “And these [are] the kings who reigned in Edom, which country he [Iobab (Jobab) or Iob (Job)] also ruled: First Balak [Bela (Hebrew text of Genesis 36:32)] the [son] of Beor, and the name of his city [was] Dennaba [Dinhabah (Hebrew text of Genesis 36:32)], and after Balak [Bela (Hebrew text of Genesis 36:33)], Iobab [Jobab], the one called Iob [Job]; and after him, Hasom [Husham (Hebrew text of Genesis 36:34)], being the ruler from the Thaimanite [Temanite] country; and after him, Hadad son of Barad [Hadad son of Bedad (Hebrew text of Genesis 36:35)] who cut down Madiam [Midian] in the plain of Moab, and the name of his city [was] Geththaim [Avith (Hebrew text of Genesis 36:35)].” (42:17d)

“But the friends who came to him [were]: Eliphas [Eliphaz], of the sons of Esau, king of the Thaimanites [Temanites]; Baldad [Bildad], the dominator of the Sauchites; Sophar [Zophar], king of the Minaeans,” an Arab people that may have descended from one of Abraham’s sons by Keturah. (42:17e)

Notes

In verse 3, the Septuagint rendering differs somewhat from the extant Hebrew text. “For who is the one hiding counsel from you and holding back words, and thinks to hide [them] from you?” This rendering suggests that the one hiding counsel is sparing in what he does reveal and thus imagines he can hide from God the words he does not utter. The verse continues, “But who will declare to me things I did not know, great and marvelous things I did not comprehend?”

The initial phrase of the Septuagint rendering of verse 6 is, “Therefore, I despised myself and was dissolved.” The Greek word that may be rendered dissolved may refer to being brought to the humbled state of a man who came to recognize that he did not know what he previously thought he did. The Qumran Targum of Job (as translated by Geza Vermes) says, “Therefore I am melting and dissolve and become dust and ashes.”

The marks of Origen indicate that (in verse 8) the Greek phrase that may be translated “for only his face will I accept” was added from the version of Theodotion.

A fragment of the Greek text that includes words found in Job 42:11, 12, contains the divine name in ancient Hebrew script. (“But YHWH blessed …” [42:12]) This fragment (POxy 3522) is believed to date from the first century CE.

According to the marks of Origen, the Greek wording of the concluding phrase of verse 16 about seeing his “sons and the sons of his sons” was added from the version of Theodotion.

The marks of Origen indicate that the Greek wording that corresponds to the Hebrew text of verse 17 was added from the version of Theodotion.