CHAPTER XXII.

ELIPHAZ.

1. ELIPHAZ the Temanite began, and spake : 2. Can a man be profitable unto God ?* Yea, the pious man, profiteth himself!1

k

Eliphaz once more exerts himself to confute Job's reproaches and complaints against God; and he prefaces what he has to say with the truth, that God rewards and punishes, not for his own advantage, but for that of man. For how should mortal virtue increase the divine felicity; or can the Almighty punish the wicked with the view of disarming an enemy? Eliphaz brings forward this truth, in order to deduce from it that Job must without murmuring bear his misfortunes, as merited punishment for the sins which he has committed, with especial reference to the words of the friends, ch. xxi. 4.

1

occurred already, ch. xv. 3, with by in the sense of "to profit." The connection here requires this meaning, as in ch. xxxv. 3. The difficulties which are set forth by Michaelis in

3. Is there gain to the Almighty when thou art righteous?

Or advantage when thou walkest on the way without blame ?m

Suppl. ad Lex. Heb. 1752, and Storr in Observat. 47, are removed by the opinion of Coccejus, that the original meaning of the word is condere (hence promus condus, Isaiah xxii. 15), to which the idea of prodesse is easily joined. Thus also Schultens in loco. But in this case we must, by transpo

with לָכֵן rank (כָּסֶל and סָכָל sition of the letters (as

as

120 D. Gesenius, in his Comment. on the above-cited passage of Isaiah ii. 696, is favourable to this acceptation. In by, by assuredly stands for, a mark of the dative case in the preceding hemistich. This particle has frequently the signification of pro commodi seu officii, as ch. xlii. 8; 1 Kings ii. 18; 2 Kings x. 3; vide Nolde, 703. Concerning

whom God knows, as in Psalm xiv. 2.

m

Y pleasure for advantage, which idea is more plainly expressed by y in the following hemistich. It is the satisfaction arising from being well pleased. The sense is: "Does the perfectly blessed nature of the Godhead require any increase from pleasurable feelings excited by the pious and good?" This would inspire us with the notion of

4. Doth he punish from fear of thee," And go with thee into judgment? 5. Was not thy wickedness great,

And were not thy misdeeds endless?°

epicurism! The Chald. renders en by Nppy, i. e. res, as n (Eccles. iii. 1) must be taken, and also renders ya by in opes.

n

Not, according to Schultens and Rosenmüller, "from reverence," whereby the connection of this verse with the preceding is obscured. The simplest meaning is that which has been given above, in the representation of the connection of ideas. God does not punish the sinner because he fears him, that is, would disarm him, for how should the Almighty be swayed by such reasons? Eichhorn, "From fear of losing thee as an adorer, if he did not defend himself." This idea of the motive inducing God to inflict punishment is far-fetched.

• Whence did Eliphaz know this? It is by the harsh conclusion which he draws concerning Job's former misdeeds, on account of the violence of his sufferings! We need not be in perplexity, with some, chiefly more ancient commentators, as to the tempus, in which we should translate the enumeration of the following crimes of Job, the individual verba; nor do we require the assistance of Coccejus, who thus translates the commencing words of ver.6,

6. From thy brethren thou didst take a pledge for nought,

And thou didst strip the naked of their raiment.P

"Nam fortassis pignus cepisti a fratribus tuis sine causa," and adds, "Conjecturaliter et disjunctive explico, nulla repugnante grammatica, ne crudeliores sententias, quam ipsi amici, in Jobam cudam."

P According to the Mosaic law, Exod. xxii. 26; Deut. xxiv. 10, 14, it was not permitted to him who had lent on security to his neighbour to enter his house to take his pledge. He was obliged to remain without until he to whom he had lent should bring it forth. When the debtor was in great penury, the creditor was obliged before sunset to restore the pledge, particularly if it consisted of the sole remaining garment which he had to cover him during the night. To this the words of the 2d hemistich particularly refer. The Dan

makes the taking of a pledge an actual sin, in so much, that a man of Job's wealth was not under the necessity of insisting with such strictness on his rights. He seems even to be accused of usury, which was strictly prohibited by the Mosaic law. Exod. xxii. 24; Levit. xxv. 35, 36, 37 (where the meaning is clear from the opposition of and ); Psalm xv. 5; and J. D. Michaelis, Mos. Law, iii. 154.

7. Thou hast not filled the thirsty with water, And thou hast denied bread to the hungry. 8. Whosoever hath a strong arm, to him the land belongeth,

And the honourable man dwelleth therein." 9. Thou didst send the widow empty away, And thou didst let the arms of the orphan be broken,"

Literally, "As to what relates to the man of arm (i. e. strength), the land belongs to him." While Job would not refresh the thirsty with a drop of water, or restore the hungry with a crust of bread, he gratified his pride and love of display, by receiving the mighty and the honourable with hospitality in his land, and admitting them into it as a permanent dwelling. Thus was it in the first edition. But it now appears to me, that the verse should be taken proverbially, and should represent the external preference of the rich and great over the poor and those of little account.

image ,זְרוֹעַ

of outward power, as Psalm x. 15; Ezek. xxii. 6. D'PN, as Isaiah iii. 5; ix. 15, referring to the

outwardly considered, viz. the great. With this Hebrew expression the frequently occurring Arabic

الله

S may be compared: "God will

cover his countenance with honour."

The Mosaic law, which breathes the purest