Job 21:20

21:20 Let his own eyes see his destruction; ¹ 

let him drink of the anger of the Almighty.

Job 34:7

34:7 What man is like Job,

who ²  drinks derision ³  like water!

Job 15:16

15:16 how much less man, who is abominable and corrupt, ⁴ 

who drinks in evil like water! ⁵ 

Job 1:13

Job’s Integrity in Adversity ⁶ 

1:13 Now the day ⁷  came when Job’s ⁸  sons and daughters were eating and drinking wine in their oldest brother’s house,

Job 6:4

6:4 For the arrows ⁹  of the Almighty ¹⁰  are within me;

my spirit ¹¹  drinks their poison; ¹² 

God’s sudden terrors ¹³  are arrayed ¹⁴  against me.

Job 1:4

1:4 Now his sons used to go ¹⁵  and hold ¹⁶  a feast in the house of each one in turn, ¹⁷  and they would send and invite ¹⁸  their three ¹⁹  sisters to eat and to drink with them.

Job 1:18

1:18 While this one was still speaking another messenger arrived and said, “Your sons and your daughters were eating and drinking wine in their oldest brother’s house,

[21:20]  ¹ tc This word occurs only here. The word כִּיד (kid) was connected to Arabic kaid, “fraud, trickery,” or “warfare.” The word is emended by the commentators to other ideas, such as פִּיד (pid, “[his] calamity”). Dahood and others alter it to “cup”; Wright to “weapons.” A. F. L. Beeston argues for a meaning “condemnation” for the MT form, and so makes no change in the text (Mus 67 [1954]: 315-16). If the connection to Arabic “warfare” is sustained, or if such explanations of the existing MT can be sustained, then the text need not be emended. In any case, the sense of the line is clear.

[34:7]  ² tn Heb “he drinks,” but coming after the question this clause may be subordinated.

[34:7]  ³ tn The scorn or derision mentioned here is not against Job, but against God. Job scorns God so much, he must love it. So to reflect this idea, Gordis has translated it “blasphemy” (cf. NAB).

[15:16]  ³ tn The two descriptions here used are “abominable,” meaning “disgusting” (a Niphal participle with the value of a Latin participle [see GKC 356-57 §116.e]), and “corrupt” (a Niphal participle which occurs only in Pss 14:3 and 53:4), always in a moral sense. On the significance of the first description, see P. Humbert, “Le substantif toáe„ba„ et le verbe táb dans l’Ancien Testament,” ZAW 72 [1960]: 217ff.). On the second word, G. R. Driver suggests from Arabic, “debauched with luxury, corrupt” (“Some Hebrew Words,” JTS 29 [1927/28]: 390-96).

[15:16]  ⁴ sn Man commits evil with the same ease and facility as he drinks in water – freely and in large quantities.

[1:13]  ⁴ sn The series of catastrophes and the piety of Job is displayed now in comprehensive terms. Everything that can go wrong goes wrong, and yet Job, the pious servant of Yahweh, continues to worship him in the midst of the rubble. This section, and the next, will lay the foundation for the great dialogues in the book.

[1:13]  ⁵ tn The Targum to Job clarifies that it was the first day of the week. The fact that it was in the house of the firstborn is the reason.

[1:13]  ⁶ tn Heb “his”; the referent (Job) has been specified in the translation for clarity.

[6:4]  ⁵ sn Job uses an implied comparison here to describe his misfortune – it is as if God had shot poisoned arrows into him (see E. Dhorme, Job, 76-77 for a treatment of poisoned arrows in the ancient world).

[6:4]  ⁶ sn Job here clearly states that his problems have come from the Almighty, which is what Eliphaz said. But whereas Eliphaz said Job provoked the trouble by his sin, Job is perplexed because he does not think he did.

[6:4]  ⁷ tn Most commentators take “my spirit” as the subject of the participle “drinks” (except the NEB, which follows the older versions to say that the poison “drinks up [or “soaks in”] the spirit.”) The image of the poisoned arrow represents the calamity or misfortune from God, which is taken in by Job’s spirit and enervates him.

[6:4]  ⁸ tn The LXX translators knew that a liquid should be used with the verb “drink”; but they took the line to be “whose violence drinks up my blood.” For the rest of the verse they came up with, “whenever I am going to speak they pierce me.”

[6:4]  ⁹ tn The word translated “sudden terrors” is found only here and in Ps 88:16 [17]. G. R. Driver notes that the idea of suddenness is present in the root, and so renders this word as “sudden assaults” (“Problems in the Hebrew text of Job,” VTSup 3 [1955]: 73).

[6:4]  ¹⁰ tn The verb עָרַךְ (’arakh) means “to set in battle array.” The suffix on the verb is dative (see GKC 369 §117.x). Many suggestions have been made for changing this word. These seem unnecessary since the MT pointing yields a good meaning: but for the references to these suggestions, see D. J. A. Clines, Job (WBC), 158. H. H. Rowley (Job [NCBC], 59), nonetheless, follows the suggestion of Driver that connects it to a root meaning “wear me down.” This change of meaning requires no change in the Hebrew text. The image is of a beleaguering army; the host is made up of all the terrors from God. The reference is to the terrifying and perplexing thoughts that assail Job (A. B. Davidson, Job, 44).

[1:4]  ⁶ tn The perfect verb with the ו (vav), וְהָלְכוּ (vÿhalÿkhu, “they went”) indicates their characteristic action, actions that were frequently repeated (GKC 335-36 §112.dd).

[1:4]  ⁷ tn Heb “make a feast.”

[1:4]  ⁸ tn The sense is cryptic; it literally says “house – a man – his day.” The word “house” is an adverbial accusative of place: “in the house.” “Man” is the genitive; it also has a distributive sense: “in the house of each man.” And “his day” is an adverbial accusative: “on his day.” The point is that they feasted every day of the week in rotation.

[1:4]  ⁹ tn The use of קָרָא (qara’, “to call, invite”) followed by the ל (lamed) usually has the force of “to summon.” Here the meaning would not be so commanding, but would refer to an invitation (see also 1 Kgs 1:19, 25, 26).

[1:4]  ¹⁰ tn Normally cardinal numerals tend to disagree in gender with the numbered noun. In v. 2 “three daughters” consists of the masculine numeral followed by the feminine noun. However, here “three sisters” consists of the feminine numeral followed by the feminine noun. The distinction appears to be that the normal disagreement between numeral and noun when the intent is merely to fix the number (3 daughters as opposed to 2 or 4 daughters). However, when a particular, previously known group is indicated, the numeral tends to agree with the noun in gender. A similar case occurs in Gen 3:13 (“three wives” of Noah’s sons).