p,

11 Ver. 17. Not from the darkness. The rendering given of this verse in E. V., and which corresponds to that of UMBREIT and other commentators of repute, makes no intelligible sense. It would represent Job as having this awful dread upon his soul because God had not "cut him off before the darkness" came, and then, with a feeble tantology besides, because He, God, "covered the darkness from his face." It all turns upon the rendering of ' (or rather the idea for which gives the reason), and on preserving the analogy between the 15 and the of ver. 15, and gives a protest rather than a reason. It was not the darkness that he dreaded so much, as a thing personal to himself, or the difficulty of understanding his own case, as that awful feeling which came over him when thinking of the confusion, blind disorder, ap-in respect to himself. But there was still support in the beparently, which seems to prevail in all the affairs of the world, especially human affairs. This protest seems to be in reply to what Eliphaz had said, xxii. 11, about the darkness which covered Job, and which, he intimates, had been brought upon him by his sins:

and

יזז

of ver. 17. The

Or darkness that thou canst not see,

Or water floods that overwhelm thy soul.

See the conclusive reasons for the rendering here adopted, as given by DELITZSCH, EWALD, DILLMAN, and ZOCKLER. The other rendering: "Because I was not cut off before the darkness, neither hath He covered the darkness from my face,"

would require a sudden change in the use of p,
ver. 17, as compared with
of ver. 15, or
from the causal sense, “on account of," to the avertire sense
of "before," besides the wrong rendering of 3). In the
second clause of ver. 17, the in may have its force
on immediately following, as CONANT well remarks, or
on the whole clause: not for myself, whose face darkness has
covered—or: not on account of the fact that darkness (
black midnight darkness) hath covered my face. This gives
a sense most grand as well as significant. Job had lost the
spiritual vision of God. He could not find Him,—could not
trace Him in his works or in his providences,-all was dark
lief that God knew him, looked upon him, ver. 6, knew his way
perfectly, ver. 10. Whilst this hope remained, he was not
altogether lost. But the other thought of fixed law which is
nothing else than arbitrary decree (vers. 13, 14), in other
words, a blind fatality, whether called God or nature, which
had no regard to human affairs at all, no moral concern for
man, this was anguish unalleviated. It was this that weak-
ened, 7, in modern phrase, broke his heart (ver. 16). It
was when he thought of this, that "trembling seized all his
flesh." xxi. 6. 3, ver. 17. Not cut off, but reduced to
silence, awed, confounded.

CHAPTER XXIV.

1

How is it,'-times from God are not concealed-
That they who know Him do not see His days?

1 Ver. 1. How is it? EWALD, UMBREIT, HEILIGSTEDT,
SCHLOTTMANN, DELITZSCH, ZÖCKLER-a formidable array of
anthorities-take this as a direct question: Why are not
times reserved (laid up, appointed) by the Almighty?" In
the same way, most of the older commentatore cited in
POOLE's Synopsis. The English Version, CARTWRIGHT, LUD.
DE DIEU, and others, give it a different turn: Quare quum
Deo non sint occulta tempora, nihilominus tamen, etc.: "Why,
seeing times," etc., or "why if," etc. The Vulgate makes it a
direct declaration: ab Omnipotente non sunt abscondita tempora.
The Syriac has it: Why are not the wicked hid from God? as
though there had been read D', instead of 'ny. The
áreßeis ävôpes of the LXX. looks the same way. The au-
thorities just cited generally take 153] in its secondary
sense of laid up, hence reserved, appointed; though some of
them give it the primary meaning; Why are times not hidden
from the Almighty? As though Job meant to intimate, que
rulously, that it were better to think He knew nothing
about human affairs than that He let things go on in such
darkness and disorder. CONANT adheres here, substantially,
to our E. V.: "Why, if times are not hidden, etc." The trans-
lator is inclined to go with him. Job is speaking according
to the hypothesis of his friends. The question, taken directly
according to the usual force of a (which means more
than why-rather for what reason, Gr. rí μalwv), would be a
strong affirmation of the certainty of the fact, that times are
not reserved by the Almighty-a position which Job would
hardly dare to take directly, and which, certainly, he would
not address to the others as an admitted truth, or one they
would not controvert. There is no difficulty about D'
and . All understand them, the first, as denoting events,
according to a frequent Biblical usage, and the second, days
of retribution or of divine manifestations. The hypothetical
idea is certainly very natural to the context, but what
gramma ical ground, it may be said, is there for it? An
answer to this is found in the peculiar nature of the particle
, before adverted to. Another reason arises from the
fact, that this particle certainly has an influence upon the

second clause, even if we take 1, in 1, as a mere copu-
lative. "Why are times not reserved, and why do those
who know Him not see?" This would make it a negation
of both propositions, whereas from the context, or rather
from the whole chapter, the thing denied or doubted would
rather seem to be the connection between them, or some
truth admitted in relation to God which is regarded as in-
consistent with another having relation to man. There is,
however, no absolute need of supplying any such particles
as if or seeing that. The broken style of Job's utterance be-
comes clear when literally and closely followed. It is sim-
ply taking the words as they stand, only throwing the force
of 1 on the second clause, and thus giving the inter-
vening part a parenthetical character. In this way, be-
thoughts rather than words. It may then be thus fairly
comes inferential, that is, it connects by way of inference, or
paraphrased: "How is it?-times are not hidden from God,
you say-and yet (1 connecting illatively, or one fact with
another) those who know Him, or claim to know Him, as
you claim to know Him, and to speak for Him, do not see
His days of retribution?" 1, how is this?
Tí μabwv, as GESENIUS gives its etymology. "Times (events)
not hidden from the Almighty:" that this idea is intended
by Job in this first verse, appears from the fact of its per-
vading his argument and all the pictures he draws of bad
men and their incomprehensible impunity. This is the
burthen of his complaint: God sees it all, knows it all, yet
seems to pay no attention to it (see ver. 12)-does not heed
the enormity, lets it go on-"lets the wicked feel confidence"
in their impunity (ver. 23), though all the time "His eyes
are upon them," and upon their doings. It should, how-
ever, never be forgotten that all these strong pictures of Job
others. He himself has some dream of a great dies retribu-
are by way of protest against the representations of the
tionis, according to the best interpretation of xxi. 30, but
here he confines himself to their views of the present state
of things, maintaining that to all appearance, whether the
wicked prosper, or whether they meet with misfortunes
(there being no real inconsistency, or such as troubles many

13

14

15

16

And shriek aloud the spirits of the slain;
But God heeds not the dire" enormity.

15

They, too, those enemies of light,
Who take no knowledge of its ways,

Who stay not in its trodden' paths;

The murderer-at the dawn" he rises up,
To slay the poor-the destitute;

By night he plays the thief.

The adulterer's eye waits for the twilight shade.
No one, says he, shall see the way I take;

A masking veil1s he puts upon his face.
Through houses in the dark the burglar digs.
In covert1 do they keep by day,-

All strangers to the light.

given above. The form Pas distinguished from the more usual PN, and as having more of an onomatopic resemblance to the thing signified, is used especially of the groans of the slain, as in Ezek. xxx. 24. "I will break the arms of Pharaoh and he shall groan the groanings of the slain." This greatly favors, too, the reading of D. Here, as in other parts of the Heurew Scriptures, the authors of the accents, if they belong not rather, in some way, to the Divine originals, have shown their spiritual acuteness. By the connection they have made, 1p stands by itself, as it were; the subject is left to the imagination of the hearer, as something well known, and whose suppression, therefore, is more pathetic than its mention: "they groan." In this position, too, it becomes more strictly the imperfect of description, instead of mere narration: "they are groaning-groans are continually ascending" All this makes it the more emotional. The force of it may have been given by a look or a gesture, but the strongest expression of it in a translation demands some interjectional word or phrase: hark! how they grown! as though the narrator brought the scene right before him.

5) may

13 Ver. 12. The spirits of the slain. be rendered spirit (or, collectively, spirits) as denoting the go

ing out of the breath or life, or the soul, as DELITZSCH renders
it. So UMBREIT: ruft laut die Seele der zum Tod Verwunde-
ten; ZÖCKLER the same way. It need not be relied upou as
proof of any peculiar notions about the separate existence
of the soul, and yet is in perfect harmony with other ancient
descriptions to the same effect. How often does Homer re-
present the spirits (uxal) of those slain in battle as going
out wailing, shrieking, Tpilovat, and often predicting the
doom of their slayers, according to that very old belief in
the vaticinating power of the departing spirit. So Hector's
ghost takes its mourning departure to the Unseen World,
Iliad xxii. 362.

ψυχὴ δ' ἐκ ῥεθέων πταμένη Αϊδόσδε βεβήκει.
ὃν πότμον ΓΟΟΩΣΑ-
Bewailing his sad doom.

14 Ver. 12. Dire enormity. The first feeling in the study of this passage is, that the reading hen, prayer,

T.:

which the Syriac followed is the right one. It has led UMBALIT and CONANT, with other excellent commentators, so to render it: “God heeds not the prayer." There comes to mind, however, that rule of criticism, sound in the main, that the more rare form is to be preferred, on the rational ground that a change to it from the apparently easier is less likely than the contrary course. The view is strengthened, too, when we look carefully at the idea conveyed by the other form, though at first it seems strange. It is an unusual word, and its etymological sense, without salt, ineptum, (see this form Job i. 22; Jer. xxiii. 13; and another from the same root Job vi. 6; Lam. ii. 14) strikes us as poor, and unsuitable to so vivid and impressive a context. From this primary sense, however, of insulsitas, unsaltedness, insipidity, comes that of absurdity, monstrosity, whence it is applied

to anything odious and abominable, that which can be reduced to no rule of consistency-abnormal, abhorrent—an ano

maly, as DELITZSCH renders it. Hence the term chosen by

the translator from a similar etymology, though having
more force than the word of DELITZSCH-an enormity (e norma)
out of all rule, utterly irrational. The more it is examined,
the more it will be seen to give, not only the truer sense
lexically, but the more impressive,--the epithet only calling
attention to it, without adding to its meaning. It is a mon-
strous enormity, so considered, a hideous blot on the face of
creation; and yet, according to Job's picture, God pays no
attention to it. Horrible enough when we think of some
sacked town, or castle, in remote Idumea; but how is the
feeling of such an enormity increased when we bring to re-
membrance other scenes of slaughter far surpassing it in
modern warfare,-of Borodino, for example, or Sedan; or
when we call up other bloody pictures from Ancient His-
tory, such as THUCYDIDES' account of the terrible defeat of
the Athenians in the land and sea fight at Syracuse (close of
Book vii. 70, 71). Some of the language is very much like
that of this verse of Job, the mingled wailing and shouting
of the combatants, "the cry of the slayers and the slain,'
ὀλλύντων τε καὶ ὀλλυμένων, in describing which the cry his
torian is carried up to the Homeric grandeur of language
and conception. Another reason for preferring his
that
would have been the most natural verb to fol-

low

T:

(prayer), though D``, with the usual ellipsis,

would suit either reading. The VULGATE renders, Et Deus
inultum abire non patitur; LXX. Avròs dè diari ToÚTÍV ÉTL-
σKоTYY Où пenоinтai, which may suit either reading.
15 Ver. 13. They too.

emphatic. A new class
mentioned, but spoken of as well known-those notorious cha-
racters.
16 Ver. 13. Trodden paths, well known, i, in
distinction from the more general word 777-like Gr. árpa-
Tós. Compare also the same word, Job. xxxviii. 20: "paths
to its house," that is, the light.

17 Ver. 14. At the dawn. Literally at the light, the first beginning of day-break. There is no contradiction

here, as MERX maintains, of the previous description. They are called enemies of light as much in a moral as in a physical aspect. But even in the latter it is all consistent. The murderer starts at the break of day to surprise and slay the poor as he goes forth to his labor. Or the emphasis, as is most likely, is on Dp', denoting not his rising from his bed, but his sudden rising up from his ambush where he has been lying all night, waiting for his victim, whom he surprises at break of day.

18 Ver. 15. A masking veil. D has more properly the abstract sense of concealment, here put for the instrument of concealment, whether a veil or a mask.

19 Ver. 16. In covert do they keep. Literally, they seal themselves up. 1, by themselves, or giving, as sometimes does, a reflex or hithpahel sense to the verb, though in such cases some call it pleonastic-as

17

Yes, morning is as death shade to them all;

18

For (in it) they discern, each one, the terrors of the dark.
Light as the bubble on the water's face,

He flees,-accursed his portion on the earth;—
Nor turns he ever to the vineyard" way.

22

The womb25 (the mother's heart) forgets him there;
Whilst on him sweetly feeds the worm.

He comes in memory no more;

And broken like a tree Injustice27 lies.

28

Again; the man who wrongs the barren, childless one,
And to the widow no compassion29 shows.

30

The strong, too, by his might, he bears away;
He riseth up; no one is sure of life.

1. Gen. xii. 1, 77, Amos vii. 12. This view is
now generally adopted, but the old rendering of E. V., TRE-
MELLIUS and others: "chich they have marked (VULGATE, agreed
on) for themselves by day," has some claims to consideration.
The absence of 1 gives it very much the appearance of a re-
lative clause, and the verb to seal may easily denote anything
put upon the house for recognition. RASCHI tells us that
some of their Rabbins explain it of the thieves putting bal-
sam
upon the treasure houses discovered during
the day, that they might know them by the smell in the
night.

Ver. 17. Morning. DELITZSCH would make morning the predicate: "The depth of the night is as the dawn of the morning;" but his reasons, drawn from the position of the accents, are not satisfactory. The other idea is the more consistent one: the morning is to them the time of fear. They recognize in it the terrors of the night, or what to other men are such. A change of number again, J; but to be taken distributively: each one of them, whether murderer, adulterer, or thief.

21 Ver. 18. Light as the bubble. See the same comparison Hosea x. 7, "as the foam upon the waters," swiftly gliding away. It is the thief making his escape when the morning terrors come, as shown by its connection with the previous verse. The simplest and most literal view is the best and clearest. It removes immediately the difficulties which some find, as though Job here was contradicting himself in pointing out something unfavorable to the wicked man. For this reason it has been turned into a prayer, a wish: "light may he be, etc.," but without a single mark in the language to countenance any such idea. It is a part of his picture, even if taken as describing generally the transitoriness of the evil life, and it is at once explained by keeping ever in view the two leading ideas contained in the first verse, namely, events (times) known to God, but no visible signs of retribution coming from His hand. The wicked man's misfortunes are freely mentioned, the popular curse pursuing him, his death, and being carried off to Sheol, his fleeing and keeping out of the way of the vineyards; but these come from social and natural causes, not from any seen hand of God. It is just as the drought a retribution in off the snow waters. No more appearance of the one case than in the other. Both classes of events alike confirm his argument.

22 Ver. 18. The way of the vineyards is the open, known, cultivated country, in contrast with the fores's, or the desert. See the similar expression: the way to the city. Eccles. x. 15.

23 Ver. 19. Melting snows. This is the best expression the translator could find for, waters of snow; the watery snow; unless it refers to the streams that have be come swollen from the snows; but the sense of quick carrying off which is in would not so well suit the drying up of full streams. Compare, however, Job vi. 17. For the application of this, see remarks in note above.

24 Ver. 19. Those who. The second clause is an ex. ample of the extreme Hebrew conciseness; and yet the English nearly admits of it without sacrificing clearness: So Sheol, who have sinned-a construction barely tolerable, if we regard who as containing the object in the subject (like the relative what), just as in the Hebrew of the above the relative or object is contained in the personal pronoun existing in the form of the verb.

25 Ver. 20. The womb. Compare Isaiah xlix. 15. 20 Ver. 20. Feeds the worm. A most striking, yet mournful picture: Dead and gone; forgotten by the maternal heart; but the worm loves him-feeds sweetly on him. Comp. xxi. 33. There is no need of the sense sucks here, although it may be primary in (compare ), unless it carry the idea of sucking with relish; since the thought of pleasure or sweetness must not be lost from the compari

son.

T:

It

27 Ver. 20. Injustice. The simple rendering of will do here, without taking it for the unjust man. would only make a repetition; whilst the idea of his injustice, too. lying prostrate like a broken uprooted tree which can no longer yield him any fruit, makes quite an addition to the picture. If anything is to be supplied, it might perhaps be rendered his unjust gain, the cause put for the effect. The tree broken off, and no longer yielding, would represent this very well. If it is a personification, it might be taken as in the Bunyan style, the name given from the leading characteristic: Injustice, there he lies, uprooted like a tree. 28 Ver. 21. The barren childless. This was esteemed a more desolate state than that of the widow, even the bereaved or childless widow.

Ver. 21. No compassion. Negative phrases, like " (for "), are sometimes the most positive and severe in their significance: "Does no good to the widow." As UMBREIT and DELITZSCH render it, is very tame. Not to do good here is to be inhuman and unmerciful. It is not a mere selfish neglect. So (belial) is not unprofitableness (its etymological significance), but utter vileness, and 77 (sons of Belial), the worst of men. So in Greek and Latin. Compare the axpeios doûλos, the unprofitable servant of the gospel. In like manner, in-imicus is not merely not a friend (non amicus), but a positive enemy; im-milis, not simply not mild, but most fierce and cruel.

30 Ver, 22. Bears away. here may have the Arabic sense, very near akin to the Hebrew of seizing, holddrawing, dragging away, would suit very well. Whether this ing fast; Comp. Ps. xxviii. 3, although the common sense of is a new character that here enters into the picture, or an old one brought up again, cannot be certainly decided. It looks some as though the one described, ver. 18, as pursued by the popular curse, whether robber or tyrant, had recovered power to the dismay of his enemies and of all others. "He rises up again," and they have to escape for their lives.

Then answered Bildad the Shuhite, and said:

To Him' belongs dominion-yea,' and fear.
"Tis He who makes the harmony3 on high.

2 Ver. 2. Yea, and fear. The conjunction seems to have the force of the double et in Latin-both fear and dominion-or, dominion and fear, too, as though he meant to ter-gether the universe which all devout minds had long before rify the daring Job who talks (xxiii. 3) of coming even to Newton, although it was unknown in its mathematical