"the fire of God fell from heaven," is manifestly designed to show that Satan moved heaven and earth to combine in inflicting disaster on Job, so as to leave him without hope in either quarter.-E.] It is less natural to assume a rain of fire and brimstone, like that of Sodom (Del.); neither does the language used suit the burning sulphurous south wind called the Samûm (Schlott.), as a comparison with Ps. xi. 6 shows. [The latter theory moreover would result in making too little distinction between this calamity and the fourth.-E.]

Ver. 17. The third loss: that of the camels, with their keepers. The Chaldeans formed three bands; lit.: "Made three heads" (Luther: drei spitzen), i. e., three army-bands or divisions. For DN in this sense, see Judges vii. 16; ix. 34; 1 Sam. xi. 11. As substantially parallel, comp. also Gen. xiv. 15, where the same primitive tactics and strategy are described as practiced by Chedorlaomer and his vassal-kings. "Without any authority, Ewald sees in this mention of the Chaldeans an indication of the composition of the book in the seventh century B. C., when the Chaldeans under Nabopolassar began to inherit the Assyrian power. Following Ewald, Renan observes that the Chaldeans first appear as such marauders about the time of Uzziah. But in Genesis we find mention of early Semitic Chaldeans among the mountain ranges lying to the north of Assyria and Mesopotamia (in Arphaxad, Gen. x. 22, or Ur of the Chaldees, Gen. xi. 28, 31; comp. the Charduchian range of Xenophon; and later, of Naborite Chaldeans in Mesopotamia, whose existence is traced back to patriarchal times (Gen. xxii. 22), and who were powerful enough at any time to make a raid into Idumea." DEL. (Comp. also Dillmann, who, although an advocate of the later period to which the composition of the book is assigned, is careful not to try to make capital for his theory out of this passage).—And set upon the camels.-, literally to strip, to pillage. [According to Gesenius the primary meaning is to spread out; hence of an invading army, in Nah. iii. 16, of locusts. This sense best agrees with the prepositions with which it is construed: here hy, and so Judges ix. 33; elsewhere, 1 Sam. xxvii. 8; 2, 2 Chron. xxv. 13.-E.] The technical expression for such marauding invasions, or raids. Comp. Judg. ix. 33, 44; 1 Sam. xxiii. 27; xxx. 14: Hos. vii. 1.

Vers. 18, 19. The fourth loss: that of the sons and daughters.

Ver. 18. While this one was yet speaking, etc. Instead of Ty (vers. 16, 17), we have here 7, which appears in connection with the participle, in the sense of "while," also in Nehem. vii. 3.-The supposition of Schlott. [also of Hengst.], that "this slight change of expression is made to distinguish the two following verses from the preceding, because they relate the greatest loss," is disproved by the circumstance that the change is too insignificant, being scarcely noticeable. The conjecture of Dillmann and some of the earlier commentators

is more plausible, that instead of, we should read, defectively written, which in fact is the reading of some MSS.

Ver. 19. Behold there came a great wind from beyond the wilderness; i. e. hither across over the desert. [From the further side, gathering strength and violence as it approached from far. Is. xxi. 1; Jer. iv. 11; As the land of Uz in our Hos. xiii. 15." DAV.] narrative stands west of the great North-Arabian desert [see on ver. 1], the wind spoken of here is to be taken as a storm from the east, or possibly from the north-east rather. It is, moreover, evidently a whirlwind that is intended, for the house is smitten on its four corners, and Matt. vii. 27. ["The violence of the winds of is thus made to fall, like the house described in the Arabian desert is well known. When Pietro della Valle travelled through this desert in the year 1625, the wind tore to pieces the tents of his caravan." HIRZEL.]-And smote the four corners, etc. [, in the masc., although the subject, , is first construed as fem. (3). The use of the masc. belongs probably to the poetic vividness of the description. The change would be the more readily made in this case, as

is sometimes, though rarely, masc.; comp. ch. xli. 8 (A. V. 16).-E.]-And it fell upon the young people; i. e. the ten children of Job, along with whom no special mention is made here of the servants in attendance, who probably perished with them, for the reason that their loss, in comparison with the far more grievous loss of his children, would not be taken into account by Job.-', here, and ch. xxix. 5 (so also Ruth ii. 21), plur. of the epicene noun, which in the Pentateuch also is used both for a young man and a young woman, [Conant thinks, "it is the less necessary to the messenger would naturally be directed to assume such a usage here, as the attention of the fate of the sons in which all were involved." The view of Jarchi, as explained by Bernard: "There was no occasion to mention the daughters,' meaning thereby that the daughters were of little consequence," would meet with little the effect of this calamity on Job, remarks, it favor at the present day. Ewald, speaking of would add to the stunning force of the blow, that all this happened during the first day of a children could have incurred much guilt, acjoyous festival, and consequently before the cording to the father's apprehension as expressed sufficient occasion for their destruction in the in vers. 4, 5, so that the poet can furnish no as an additional and sufficient reason for assigngreatness of their sin. This may be regarded ing these calamities to the day when the entertainment took place in the house of the first-born, without having recourse to the theory that it was a birth-day feast. Wordsworth's remark on the sweeping, all-embracing aspect of the destruction wrought is striking: "Satan had said, that God had hedged in Job on all sides;' but now Job is attacked on all sides; from the south by Sabeans; from the east by Chaldeans; from heaven by fire and whirlwind, or tornado, which assailed all the corners of the house of

term here employed (n) means equally froth, insipidity, folly, or obtuseness of intellect, its opposite, which is Dyb, means, in like manner, taste, poignancy, discernment, superiority of intellect; terms which the Arabs yet retain, and in both senses." GOOD. For further illustration, G. refers to the proverbial "Attic salt" of the Greeks, for the flavor of wit and wisdom. To this should be added, that in Scripture these terms have an ethical, as well as an intellectual significance, so that as "wisdom" is one of the most important equivalents of piety, "folly' stands in the same relation to impiety. And so here. Job, in his trial, uttered nothing which betrayed a heart unsalted by wisdom and grace, no spiritual absurdity which betokened a spirit at variance with the Supreme Wisdom.-E.] Altogether too inexact and free are the renderings, on the one hand, of Umbreit: "and permitted himself nothing foolish against God;" on the other hand of Ewald and Hahn: "and gave God no offence." Contrary to usage is Olshausen's rendering of han as equivalent to "abuse, reviling' (he gave God no abuse," i. e., reviled him not: so the Pesh.) [Renan: "he uttered no blasphemy against God"]. The connection, however, forbids the explanation of Hirz., Stick., Schlott., Del. [Merx, Dav., Röd., Elz.]: "he did not charge God with folly, attributed to him no foolishness." [So substantially E. V.: "he did not charge God foolishly."] For at first Job shows himself far removed from that extreme violence of feeling which later in the history leads him once and again to the very verge of blasphemy, to represent God, for instance, as his cruel tormentor and persecutor. It would be very strange and quite premature for the poet to introduce here an allusion to those later aberrations.

The

5. (b) The severer trial: the loss of health. (a). The preparatory scene in heaven, ch. ii. 1-6. Ver. 1. Now it came to pass on a mentioned ch. i. 13, but after a certain interval, day.-Not, of course, on the same day as that which is not more particularly defined. art. here, D, as in ch. i. 6 q.v. It will be observed that here there is a variation from the statement in ch. i. 6 in the use of ann with Satan, as well as with "the sons of God;"

indicating, as Del. and Dillm. have shown, that he, as well as they, appeared at this time in the heavenly assembly with a definite object. What that object was is made to appear immediately in the succeeding dialogue between Jehovah and Satan.-E.]

Ver. 2. From whence comest thou?Here, instead of the earlier, ch. i. 7; the only variation, and a slight one, of the language in that verse, which is otherwise repeated here word for word. The same is true of the following verse, at least of the first and

longer part of it, which is an exact repetition of ch. i. 8 with one slight variation, the substitution of for hy before y

Ver. 3. And still he holdeth fast to his

piety, i. e., notwithstanding the heavy calamities which have visited him, he still maintains a blameless life., the quality of the D, ch. i. 1. Comp. ch. xxvii. 5; xxxi. 6; Prov. xi. 3 [the only passage where the word occurs outside of our book.-E.]—Although thou didst without cause.-Lit: "And so thou didst move me against him to destroy him here not in the inferential sense, "so that thou," move me against him," etc.; the imperf. consec. adversative rather: "and yet thou didst move etc. (Hirz., Stick., Hahn, Dillm. [Hengst.]), but me," etc. (Rosm., Ew, Umbr., Vaih., Heilig. [Noy., Rod., Wem., Bev., Con., Elz.]). With this construction the Dan, "without cause, undeservedly," is by no means at variance; for this expression only enhances the reproachfulness of Jehovah's address. With ', to excite, stir up against any one, comp. 1 Sam. xxvi. 19; 2 Sam. xxiv. 1 (but differently in Josh. xv. 18; 1 Chron. xxi. 1). [It "does not signify, as Umbreit thinks, to lead astray, in which case it were almost a blasphemous anthropomorphism; it signifies instigare, and indeed generally to evil, as e. g., 1 Chron. xxi. 1; but not always, strongly anthropopathical sense of the impulse e. g., Josh. xv. 18; here it is certainly in a given by Satan to Jehovah to prove Job in so hurtful a manner." DEL.]-y, to destroy, to ruin [literally, to swallow up]; see ch. viii. 18; x. 8; xxxvii. 20); applied here to the crushing destruction of Job's outward prosperity. Not without reason does Jehovah make choice of these strong expressions, y here, ' just before; for "Satan's aim went beyond the limited power which was given him over Job." Comp. our remarks above on ch. i. 12. [The lofty Divine irony of Jehovah's language should not be overlooked, contrasting as it does so strongly with Satan's baffled malignity and Schultens justly arrogant, scoffing unbelief. remarks: Ut in verbis Satanæ jactantia, ita in sion, the independent meaning of which is obDei responso irrisio se exerit.-E.] Ver. 4. Skin for skin.-A proverbial expresscure, and can be ascertained only from the connection. Now the following sentence, "all that a man hath will he give for his life," is evidently parallel in sense, as appears from the repetition of 3, "about," here "for, instead of" (as in Is. xxxii. 14; comp. the same use of in Ex. xxi. 23-25, and so frequently). It is therefore simply the application of the proverb to Job's case. The meaning of the phrase therefore, it would seem, must be this: A man will give like for like; of two things having about equal value he will willingly let the one go, that he may save the other; and this in fact, Satan suggests, Job had done; he had willingly given up all that was his, in order to save his own life and his bodily health. Job's property therefore is here represented as a skin, with which his person was covered, an integument

DEL.

enveloping him for protection and comfort (comp. ch. xviii. 13; xix. 26, where y designates the entire body, the whole person corporeally considered). His physical life is represented as another such a skin. Of these two skins or integuments, the one of which lies nearer to him than the other, and is therefore dearer to him and more indispensable, he has surrendered the one, to wit, the outer, remoter, least necessary, in order to save and to retain the other. [As is said in the proverb: Like for like; so it is with man: all for life." HIRZ. A proverbial saying, to the effect: A man freely parts with an external good, if he may thereby keep possession of another. So Job can well bear the loss of children and property since the dearest earthly good, life and health, are left him." VAIH. So Ges., Dillm., Hengst., Con., Dav., etc.] This interpretation is beyond question the one best suited to the context, and is to be preferred to the others which have been proposed, viz. a. That of the Targ., of several Rabbis, Schlott., and Del.-"A man will give a part of the skin, or a member, in order to preserve another part of the skin, or member; much more will a man give up all that he has to keep his life." This explanation is at fault in taking iy, which always means the whole skin or hide, for a member or a part of the skin.-b. That of Ephraem, Rosenm., Hupf., in which y is used in respect of the lost children and animals to designate their life, their existence. [According to this view the full expression would be: skin (of another) for skin (of oneself), as "life for life" in Ex. xxi. 23; skin being used metaphorically for the body, or the life. The thought accordingly is: The bodies or the lives of others one will part with for his own.-The objection to this view is that the two equivalents, or the two things compared here, are not so much what is another's, and what is one's own, but rather one's own property and one's own life, or person.-Good's explanation: "Skin for skin' is, in plain English, property for person,' or the 'skin forming property for the skin forming person,' " is correct as to the application, but as an explanation of the proverb it is faulty in that it injects too much of the special application into the body of the proverb.-E.] c. The interpretation of Olshausen, who refers to ver 5, and explains "skin for skin" to mean "as thou treatest him, so he will treat thee; so long as thou leavest his (skin, i. e.,) person untouched, so long will he not assail (thy skin, i. e.,) thee in person." This, however, is at variance alike with the connection and with decorum. ["Though it is the devil who speaks, this were nevertheless too unbecomingly expressed." DEL. In addition to the above explanations, the following deserve mention: d. That of Parkhurst, Schult., Wem., who render the clause: Skin after skin, or skin upon skin; i. e., to save his life a man would willingly be flayed over and over. This is unnatural in itself, a doubtful rendering of the preposition, and at variance with the analogous use of the same preposition in the following clause. Any explanation which requires a different use of the preposition in both clauses is certainly to be rejected. e. The view

of Umbreit, who while agreeing with the explanation given above of the clause: skin for skin, explains differently its relation to the following clause. The proverb he regards as a mercantile one, meaning, one thing for another, everything is exchangeable in the market, any external good may be bartered for another; but life is an internal good of such value that nothing will buy it, and a man will sacrifice everything for it. His translation accordingly is: "Skin for skin; but all that a man hath he gives for his life." This, however, is much less simple and natural than to regard the as connective, and the second clause as the application of the first. Especially decisive against it is the adversative at the beginning of ver. 5, which on Umbreit's theory would be deprived of all force. f. Merx in his version substitutes for the oriental proverb the German: Das Hemd sitzt näher als der Rock (The shirt is nearer than the coat), and explains: "One skin envelopes another skin; the first (goods and children) has been taken away from Job, he must yet be stripped of the second (health)." He maintains that never signifies "for, instead;" but he is condemned out of his own mouth, for in the very next clause he translates

'for his life!" While it may be granted that

66

is not exactly synonymous with , either may be appropriately rendered by "for," the former corresponding rather to the Greek Epi, or imèp, the latter to avτI. Although it does not stand for the of price, it nevertheless can, like in Ex. xxi. 23-25, be used with the verb 1 in the sense of "instead," especially when the accessory notion for the protection of' is retained in connection with it." DILLM.

The use of skin as the representative of value in the proverb is explained by the extent to which it was used as an article of utility and traffic. It was useful in itself and as a medium of exchange. Hence "skin for skin" would naturally mean "value for value."-E.]

Ver. 5. But put forth now Thy hand, and touch his bone and his flesh.—DYIN, verum enim vero, but verily, as in ch. i. 11. [The connection of the two verses is as follows: Value for value; a man's life is worth everything, and all that he has he will give up to save his life. But-touch that, put his life in peril, so that nothing that he has, or can do will save it, and assuredly he will curse thee. A simple statement of the connection is all that is necessary to refute some of the erroneous interpretations of the passage.-E.] 1, to touch (in ch. i. 11 construed with 2) is here followed by 7. It is going too far, however, to assume, with Delitzsch, that this "expresses increased malignity: stretch forth Thy hand but once to his very bones," etc. [Hengst. agrees with Hupfeld that here "the bone" is specially mentioned as in Pss. vi. 3 (2); xxxviii. 4 (3); li. 10 (8) as the basis of the body and of its condition, as the inmost seat and source of vital power and sensibility." Note the peculiar metaphorical use of Dry in Hebrew for self, self-same.—Add also