Job 6:14

Disappointing Friends

6:14 “To the one in despair, kindness ¹  should come from his friend ² 

even if ³  he forsakes the fear of the Almighty.

Job 10:12

10:12 You gave me ⁴  life and favor, ⁵ 

and your intervention ⁶  watched over my spirit.

Job 24:21

24:21 He preys on ⁷  the barren and childless woman, ⁸ 

and does not treat the widow well.

Job 41:3

41:3 Will it make numerous supplications to you, ⁹ 

will it speak to you with tender words? ¹⁰ 

Job 6:28

Other Explanation

6:28 “Now then, be good enough to look ¹¹  at me; ¹² 

and I will not ¹³  lie to your face!

Job 20:10

20:10 His sons must recompense ¹⁴  the poor;

his own hands ¹⁵  must return his wealth.

Job 21:16

21:16 But their prosperity is not their own doing. ¹⁶ 

The counsel of the wicked is far from me! ¹⁷ 

Job 22:18

22:18 But it was he ¹⁸  who filled their houses

with good things –

yet the counsel of the wicked ¹⁹ 

was far from me. ²⁰ 

Job 32:14

32:14 Job ²¹  has not directed ²²  his words to me,

and so I will not reply to him with your arguments. ²³ 

Job 37:13

37:13 Whether it is for punishment ²⁴  for his land,

or whether it is for mercy,

he causes it to find its mark. ²⁵ 

Job 39:13

39:13 ²⁶ “The wings of the ostrich ²⁷  flap with joy, ²⁸ 

but are they the pinions and plumage of a stork? ²⁹ 

Job 40:15

The Description of Behemoth ³⁰ 

40:15 “Look now at Behemoth, ³¹  which I made as ³²  I made you;

it eats grass like the ox.

Job 41:1

The Description of Leviathan

41:1 (40:25) ³³  “Can you pull in ³⁴  Leviathan with a hook,

and tie down ³⁵  its tongue with a rope?

Job 10:3

10:3 Is it good for you ³⁶  to oppress, ³⁷ 

to ³⁸  despise the work of your hands,

while ³⁹  you smile ⁴⁰ 

on the schemes of the wicked?

[6:14]  ¹ tn In this context חֶסֶד (khesed) could be taken as “loyalty” (“loyalty should be shown by his friend”).

[6:14]  ² tn The Hebrew of this verse is extremely difficult, and while there are many suggestions, none of them has gained a consensus. The first colon simply has “to the despairing // from his friend // kindness.” Several commentators prefer to change the first word לַמָּס (lammas, “to the one in despair”) to some sort of verb; several adopt the reading “the one who withholds/he withholds mercy from his friend forsakes….” The point of the first half of the verse seems to be that one should expect kindness (or loyalty) from a friend in times of suffering.

[6:14]  ³ tn The relationship of the second colon to the first is difficult. The line just reads literally “and the fear of the Almighty he forsakes.” The ו (vav) could be interpreted in several different ways: “else he will forsake…,” “although he forsakes…,” “even the one who forsakes…,” or “even if he forsakes…” – the reading adopted here. If the first colon receives the reading “His friend has scorned compassion,” then this clause would be simply coordinated with “and forsakes the fear of the Almighty.” The sense of the verse seems to say that kindness/loyalty should be shown to the despairing, even to the one who is forsaking the fear of the Lord, meaning, saying outrageous things, like Job has been doing.

[10:12]  ⁴ tn Heb “you made with me.”

[10:12]  ⁵ tn E. Dhorme (Job, 150) suggests that the relation between these two words is like a hendiadys. In other words, “life,” which he says is made prominent by the shift of the copula, specifies the nature of the grace. He renders it “the favor of life.” D. J. A. Clines at least acknowledges that the expression “you showed loyal love with me” is primary. There are many other attempts to improve the translation of this unusual combination.

[10:12]  ⁶ tn The noun פְּקָָֻדּה (pÿquddah), originally translated “visitation,” actually refers to any divine intervention for blessing on the life. Here it would include the care and overseeing of the life of Job. “Providence” may be too general for the translation, but it is not far from the meaning of this line. The LXX has “your oversight.”

[24:21]  ⁷ tc The form in the text is the active participle, “feed; graze; shepherd.” The idea of “prey” is not natural to it. R. Gordis (Job, 270) argues that third he (ה) verbs are often by-forms of geminate verbs, and so the meaning here is more akin to רָעַע (ra’a’, “to crush”). The LXX seems to have read something like הֵרַע (hera’, “oppressed”).

[24:21]  ⁸ tn Heb “the childless [woman], she does not give birth.” The verbal clause is intended to serve as a modifier here for the woman. See on subordinate verbal clauses GKC 490 §156.d, f.

[41:3]  ¹⁰ tn The line asks if the animal, when caught and tied and under control, would keep on begging for mercy. Absolutely not. It is not in the nature of the beast. The construction uses יַרְבֶּה (yarbeh, “[will] he multiply” [= “make numerous”]), with the object, “supplications” i.e., prayers for mercy.

[41:3]  ¹¹ tn The rhetorical question again affirms the opposite. The poem is portraying the creature as powerful and insensitive.

[6:28]  ¹³ tn The second verb, the imperative “turn,” is subordinated to the first imperative even though there is no vav present (see GKC 385-87 §120.a, g).

[6:28]  ¹⁴ tn The line has “and now, be pleased, turn to me [i.e., face me].” The LXX reverses the idea, “And now, having looked upon your countenances, I will not lie.” The expression “turn to me” means essentially to turn the eyes toward someone to look at him.

[6:28]  ¹⁵ tn The construction uses אִם (’im) as in a negative oath to mark the strong negative. He is underscoring his sincerity here. See M. R. Lehmann, “Biblical Oaths,” ZAW 81 (1969): 74-92.

[20:10]  ¹⁶ tn The early versions confused the root of this verb, taking it from רָצַץ (ratsats, “mistreat”) and not from רָצָה (ratsah, “be please with”). So it was taken to mean, “Let inferiors destroy his children.” But the verb is רָצָה (ratsah). This has been taken to mean “his sons will seek the favor of the poor.” This would mean that they would be reduced to poverty and need help from even the poor. Some commentators see this as another root רָצָה (ratsah) meaning “to compensate; to restore” wealth their father had gained by impoverishing others. This fits the parallelism well, but not the whole context that well.

[20:10]  ¹⁷ tn Some commentators are surprised to see “his hands” here, thinking the passage talks about his death. Budde changed it to “his children,” by altering one letter. R. Gordis argued that “hand” can mean offspring, and so translated it that way without changing anything in the text (“A note on YAD,” JBL 62 [1943]: 343).

[21:16]  ¹⁹ tn Heb “is not in their hand.”

[21:16]  ²⁰ sn Even though their life seems so good in contrast to his own plight, Job cannot and will not embrace their principles – “far be from me their counsel.”

[22:18]  ²² tn The pronoun is added for this emphasis; it has “but he” before the verb.

[22:18]  ²³ tn See Job 10:3.

[22:18]  ²⁴ tc The LXX has “from him,” and this is followed by several commentators. But the MT is to be retained, for Eliphaz is recalling the words of Job. Verses 17 and 18 are deleted by a number of commentators as a gloss because they have many similarities to 21:14-16. But Eliphaz is recalling what Job said, in order to say that the prosperity to which Job alluded was only the prelude to a disaster he denied (H. H. Rowley, Job [NCBC], 156).

[32:14]  ²⁵ tn Heb “he”; the referent (Job) has been specified in the translation for clarity.

[32:14]  ²⁶ tn The verb עַרַךְ (’arakh) means “to arrange in order; to set forth; to direct; to marshal.” It is used in military contexts for setting the battle array; it is used in legal settings for preparing the briefs.

[32:14]  ²⁷ tn Heb “your words.”

[37:13]  ²⁸ tn Heb “rod,” i.e., a rod used for punishment.

[37:13]  ²⁹ tn This is interpretive; Heb “he makes find it.” The lightning could be what is intended here, for it finds its mark. But R. Gordis (Job, 429) suggests man is the subject – let him find what it is for, i.e., the fate appropriate for him.

[39:13]  ³¹ tc This whole section on the ostrich is not included in the LXX. Many feel it is an interpolation and should therefore be deleted. The pattern of the chapter changes from the questions being asked to observations being made.

[39:13]  ³² tn The word occurs only here and means “shrill cries.” If the MT is correct, this is a poetic name for the ostrich (see Lam 4:3).

[39:13]  ³³ tn Many proposals have been made here. The MT has a verb, “exult.” Strahan had “flap joyously,” a rendering followed by the NIV. The RSV uses “wave proudly.”

[39:13]  ³⁴ tn The point of this statement would be that the ostrich cannot compare to the stork. But there are many other proposals for this line – just about every commentator has a different explanation for it. Of the three words here, the first means “pinion,” the third “plumage,” and the second probably “stork,” although the LXX has “heron.” The point of this whole section is that the ostrich is totally lacking in parental care, whereas the stork is characterized by it. The Hebrew word for “stork” is the same word for “love”: חֲסִידָה (khasidah), an interpretation followed by the NASB. The most likely reading is “or are they the pinions and plumage of the stork?” The ostrich may flap about, but cannot fly and does not care for its young.

[40:15]  ³⁴ sn The next ten verses are devoted to a portrayal of Behemoth (the name means “beast” in Hebrew). It does not fit any of the present material very well, and so many think the section is a later addition. Its style is more like that of a textbook. Moreover, if the animal is a real animal (the usual suggestion is the hippopotamus), then the location of such an animal is Egypt and not Palestine. Some have identified these creatures Behemoth and Leviathan as mythological creatures (Gunkel, Pope). Others point out that these creatures could have been dinosaurs (P. J. Maarten, NIDOTTE, 2:780; H. M. Morris, The Remarkable Record of Job, 115-22). Most would say they are real animals, but probably mythologized by the pagans. So the pagan reader would receive an additional impact from this point about God’s sovereignty over all nature.

[40:15]  ³⁵ sn By form the word is the feminine plural of the Hebrew word for “beast.” Here it is an abstract word – a title.

[40:15]  ³⁶ tn Heb “with you.” The meaning could be temporal (“when I made you”) – perhaps a reference to the sixth day of creation (Gen 1:24).

[41:1]  ³⁷ sn Beginning with 41:1, the verse numbers through 41:9 in the English Bible differ from the verse numbers in the Hebrew text (BHS), with 41:1 ET = 40:25 HT, 41:2 ET = 40:26 HT, etc., through 41:34 ET = 41:26 HT. The Hebrew verse numbers in the remainder of the chapter differ from the verse numbers in the English Bible. Beginning with 42:1 the verse numbers in the ET and HT are again the same.

[41:1]  ³⁸ tn The verb מָשַׁךְ (mashakh) means “to extract from the water; to fish.” The question here includes the use of a hook to fish the creature out of the water so that its jaws can be tied safely.

[41:1]  ³⁹ tn The verb שָׁקַע (shaqa’) means “to cause to sink,” if it is connected with the word in Amos 8:8 and 9:5. But it may have the sense of “to tie; to bind.” If the rope were put around the tongue and jaw, binding tightly would be the sense.

[10:3]  ⁴⁰ tn Or “Does it give you pleasure?” The expression could also mean, “Is it profitable for you?” or “Is it fitting for you?”

[10:3]  ⁴¹ tn The construction uses כִּי (ki) with the imperfect verb – “that you oppress.” Technically, this clause serves as the subject, and “good” is the predicate adjective. In such cases one often uses an English infinitive to capture the point: “Is it good for you to oppress?” The LXX changes the meaning considerably: “Is it good for you if I am unrighteous, for you have disowned the work of your hands.”

[10:3]  ⁴² tn Heb “that you despise.”

[10:3]  ⁴³ tn Now, in the second half of the verse, there is a change in the structure. The conjunction on the preposition followed by the perfect verb represents a circumstantial clause.

[10:3]  ⁴⁴ tn The Hiphil of the verb יָפַע (yafa’) means “shine.” In this context the expression “you shine upon” would mean “have a glowing expression,” be radiant, or smile.