Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.comKeil and Delitzsch Commentary - Job 15:25 - 15:25
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
25 Because he stretched out his hand against God,
And was insolent towards the Almighty;
26 He assailed Him with a stiff neck,
With the thick bosses of his shield;
27 Because he covered his face with his fatness,
And addeth fat to his loins,
28 And inhabited desolated cities,
Houses which should not be inhabited,
Which were appointed to be ruins.
29 He shall not be rich, and his substance shall not continue
And their substance boweth not to the ground.
30 He escapeth not darkness;
The flame withereth his shoots;
And he perisheth in the breath of His mouth.
This strophe has periodic members: Job 15:25-28 an antecedent clause with a double beginning (כִּי־נָטָה because he has stretched out, כִּי־כִסָּה because he has covered; whereas יָרוּץ may be taken as more independent, but under the government of the כי that stands at the commencement of the sentence); Job 15:29, Job 15:30, is the conclusion. Two chief sins are mentioned as the cause of the final destiny that comes upon the evil-doer: (1) his arrogant opposition to God, and (2) his contentment on the ruins of another's prosperity. The first of these sins is described Job 15:25-27. The fut. consec. is once used instead of the perf., and the simple fut. is twice used with the signification of an imperf. (as Job 4:3 and freq.). The Hithpa. הִתְגַּבֵּר signifies here to maintain a heroic bearing, to play the hero; הִתְעַשֵּׁר to make one's self rich, to play the part of a rich man, Pro 13:7. And בְּצַוָּאר expresses the special prominence of the neck in his assailing God אֶל רוּץ, as Dan 8:6, comp. עַל, Job 16:14); it is equivalent to erecto collo (Vulg.), and in meaning equivalent to ὕβρει (lxx). Also in Psa 75:6, בצואר (with Munach, which there represents a distinctive)
(Note: Vid., Dachselt's Biblia Accentuata, p. 816.))
is absolute, in the sense of stiff-necked or hard-headed; for the parallels, as Psa 31:19; Psa 94:4, and especially the primary passage, 1Sa 2:3, show that עתק is to be taken as an accusative of the object. The proud defiance with which he challengingly assails God, and renders himself insensible to the dispensations of God, which might bring him to a right way of thinking, is symbolized by the additional clause: with the thickness (עֲבִי cognate form to עֳבִי) of the bosses of his shields. גַּב is the back (Arab. dhr) or boss (umbo) of the shield; the plurality of shields has reference to the diversified means by which he hardens himself. Job 15:27, similarly to Psa 73:4-7, pictures this impregnable carnal security against all unrest and pain, to which, on account of his own sinfulness and the distress of others, the nobler-minded man is so sensitive: he has covered his face with his fat, so that by the accumulation of fat, for which he anxiously labours, it becomes a gross material lump of flesh, devoid of mind and soul, and made fat, i.e., added fat, caused it to accumulate, upon his loins (כֶּסֶל for כְּסָלָיו); עָשָׂה (which has nothing to do with Arab. gšâ, to cover) is used as in Job 14:9, and in the phrase corpus facere (in Justin), in the sense of producing outwardly something from within. פִּימָה reminds one of πιμ-ελή (as Aquila and Symmachus translate here), o-pim-us, and of the Sanscrit piai, to be fat (whence adj. pı̂van, pı̂vara, πιαρός, part. pı̂na, subst. according to Roth pı̂vas); the Arabic renders it probable that it is a contraction of פְּאִימָה (Olsh. §171, b). The Jewish expositors explain it according to the misunderstood פִּים, 1Sa 13:21, of the furrows or wrinkles which are formed in flabby flesh, as if the ah were paragogic.
Job 15:28 describes the second capital sin of the evil-doer. The desolated cities that he dwells in are not cities that he himself has laid waste; Job 15:28 distinctly refers to a divinely appointed punishment, for הִתְעַתְּדוּ does not signify: which they (evil-doers) have made ruins (Hahn), which is neither probable from the change of number, nor accords with the meaning of the verb, which signifies “to appoint to something in the future.” Hirzel, by referring to the law, Deu 13:13-18 (comp. 1Ki 16:34), which forbids the rebuilding of such cities as are laid under the curse, explains it to a certain extent more correctly. But such a play upon the requirements of the Mosaic law is in itself not probable in the book of Job, and here, as Löwenthal rightly remarks, is the less indicated, since it is not the dwelling in such cities that is forbidden, but only the rebuilding of them, so far as they had been destroyed; here, however, the reference is only to dwelling, not to rebuilding. The expression must therefore be understood more generally thus, that the powerful man settles down carelessly and indolently, without any fear of the judgments of God or respect for the manifestations of His judicial authority, in places in which the marks of a just divine retribution are still visible, and which are appointed to be perpetual monuments of the execution of divine judgments.
(Note: For the elucidation of this interpretation of the passage, Consul Wetzstein has contributed the following: “As one who yields to inordinate passion is without sympathy cast from human society because he is called muqâtal rabbuh, 'one who is beaten in the conflict against his God' (since he has sinned against the holy command of chastity), and as no one ventures to pronounce the name of Satan because God has cursed him (Gen 3:14), without adding 'alêh el-la'ne, 'God's curse upon him!' so a man may not presume to inhabit places which God has appointed to desolation. Such villages and cities, which, according to tradition, have perished and been frequently overthrown (maqlûbe, muqêlîbe, munqualibe) by the visitation of divine judgment, are not uncommon on the borders of the desert. They are places, it is said, where the primary commandments of the religion of Abraham (Dîn Ibrâhim) have been impiously transgressed. Thus the city of Babylon will never be colonized by a Semitic tribe, because they hold the belief that it has been destroyed on account of Nimrod's apostasy from God, and his hostility to His favoured one, Abraham. The tradition which has even been transferred by the tribes of Arabia Petraea into Islamism of the desolation of the city of Higr (or Medâin Sâlih) on account of disobedience to God, prevents any one from dwelling in that remarkable city, which consists of thousands of dwellings cut in the rock, some of which are richly ornamented; without looking round, and muttering prayers, the desert ranger hurries through, even as does the great procession of pilgrims to Mekka, from fear of incurring the punishment of God by the slightest delay in the accursed city. The destruction of Sodom, brought about by the violation of the right of hospitality (Gen 19:5, comp. Job 31:32), is to be mentioned here, for this legend certainly belongs originally to the 'Din Ibrâhîm' rather than to the Mosaic. At the source of the Rakkâd (the largest river of the Golan region) there are a number of erect and remarkably perforated jasper formations, which are called 'the bridal procession' (el-fârida). This bridal procession was turned to stone, because a woman of the party cleaned her child that had made itself dirty with a bread-cake (qurss). Near it is its village (Ufûne), which in spite of repeated attempts is no more to be inhabited. It remains forsaken, as an eternal witness that ingratitude (kufrân en-ni'ma), especially towards God, does not remain unpunished.)
Only by this rendering is the form of expression of the elliptical clause לֹא־יֵשְׁבוּ לָמֹו explained. Hirz. refers למו to בָּתִּים: in which they do not dwell; but לְ יָשַׁב does not signify: to dwell in a place, but: to settle down in a place; Schlottm. refers למו to the inhabitants: therein they dwell not themselves, i.e., where no one dwelt; but the אשׁר which would be required in this case as acc. localis could not be omitted. One might more readily, with Hahn, explain: those to whom they belong do not inhabit them; but it is linguistically impossible for למו to stand alone as the expression of this subject (the possessors). The most natural, and also an admissible explanation, is, that yshbw refers to the houses, and that למו, which can be used not only of persons, but also of things, is dat. ethicus. The meaning, however, is not: which are uninhabited, which would not be expressed as future, but rather by אין בהם יושׁב or similarly, but: which shall not inhabit, i.e., shall not be inhabited to them (יָשַׁב to dwell = to have inhabitants, as Isa 13:10; Jer 50:13, Jer 50:39, and freq.), or, as we should express it, which ought to remain uninhabited.
Job 15:29 begins the conclusion: (because he has acted thus) he shall not be rich (with a personal subject as Hos 12:9, and יֶעְשַּׁר to be written with a sharpened שׁ, like יַעְצֹר above, Job 12:15), and his substance shall not endure (קוּם, to take place, Isa 7:7; to endure, 1Sa 13:14; and hold fast, Job 41:18), and מִנְלָם shall not incline itself to the earth. The interpretation of the older expositors, non extendet se in terra, is impossible - that must be בָּאָרֶץ eb tsum taht - elbi יִנָּטֶה; whereas Kal is commonly used in the intransitive sense to bow down, bend one's self or incline (Ges. §53, 2). But what is the meaning of the subject מנלם? We may put out of consideration those interpretations that condemn themselves: לָם מִן, ex iis (Targ.), or לָם מַן, quod iis, what belongs to them (Saad.), or מִלָּם, their word (Syr. and Gecatilia), and such substitutions as σκιάν (צלם or צללם) of the lxx, and radicem of Jerome (which seems only to be a guess). Certainly that which throws most light on the signification of the word is כַּנְּלֹתְךָ (for כְּהַנְלֹתְךָ with Dag. dirimens, as Job 17:2), which occurs in Isa 33:1. The oldest Jewish lexicographers take this הִנְלָה (parall. הֵתֵם .ll) as a synonym of כִּלָּה in the signification, to bring to an end; on the other hand, Ges., Knobel, and others, consider כְּכַלֹּתְךָ to be the original reading, because the meaning perficere is not furnished for נלה from the Arab. nâl, and because נל, standing thus together, is in Arabic an incompatible root combination (Olsh. §9, 4). This union of consonants certainly does not occur in any Semitic root, but the Arab. nâla (the long a of which can in the inflection become a short changeable bowel) furnishes sufficient protection for this one exception; and the meaning consequi, which belongs to the Arab. nâla, fut. janı̂lu, is perfectly suited to Isa 33:1 : if thou hast fully attained (Hiph. as intensive of the transitive Kal, like הִזְעִיק, הִקְנָה) to plundering. If, however, the verb נָלָה is established, there is no need for any conjecture in the passage before us, especially since the improvement nearest at hand, מִכְלָם (Hupf. מַגָּלָה), produces a sentence (non figet in terra caulam) which could not be flatter and tamer; whereas the thought that is gained by Olshausen's more sensible conjecture, מַגָּלָם (their sickle does not sink to the earth, is not pressed down by the richness of the produce of the field), goes to the other extreme.
(Note: Carey proposes to take מנלם = נמלם, their cutting, layer for planting; but the verb-group מלל, מול, נמל (vid., supra, p. 224) is not favourable to the supposition of a substantive נֵמֶל in this signification, according to the usual application of the language.)
Juda b. Karisch (Kureisch) has explained the word correctly by Arab. mnâlhm: that which they have offered (from nâla, janûlu) or attained (nâla, janı̂lu), i.e., their possession
(Note: Freytag has erroneously placed the infinitives nail and manâl under Arab. nâl med. Wau, instead of under Arab. nâl me. Je, where he only repeats nail, and erroneously gives manâl the signification donum, citing in support of it a passage from Fâkihat al-chulafâ, where 'azîz al-manâl (a figure borrowed from places difficult of access, and rendered strong and impregnable by nature or art) signifies “one who was hard to get at” (i.e., whose position of power is made secure). The true connection is this: Arab. nâl med. Wau signifies originally to extend, reach, to hand anything to any one with outstretched arm or hand, the correlatum Arab. nâl med. Je: to attain, i.e., first to touch or reach anything with outstretched arm or hand, and then really to grasp and take it, gen. adipisci, consequi, assequi, impetrare, with the ordinary infinitives nail and manâl. Therefore manâl (from Arab. nâl med. Je) signifies primarily as abstract, attainment; it may then, however, like nail and the infinitives generally, pass over to the concrete signification: what one attains to, or what one has attained, gotten, although I can give no special example in support of it. - Fl.)
(not: their perfection, as it is chiefly explained by the Jewish expositors, according to נלה = כלה). When the poet says, “their prosperity inclines not to the ground,” he denies to it the likeness to a field of corn, which from the weight of the ears bows itself towards the ground, or to a tree, whose richly laden branches bend to the ground. We may be satisfied with this explanation (Hirz., Ew., Stickel, and most others): מִנְלָם from מִנְלֶה (with which Kimchi compares מִכְרָם, Num 20:19, which however is derived not from מִכְרֶה, but from מֶכֶר), similar in meaning to the post-biblical מָמֹון, μαμωνᾶς; the suff., according to the same change of number as in Job 15:35; Job 20:23, and freq., refers to רשׁעים.
In Job 15:30, also, a figure taken from a plant is interwoven with what is said of the person of the ungodly: the flame withers up his tender branch without its bearing fruit, and he himself does not escape darkness, but rather perishes by the breath of His mouth, i.e., God's mouth (Job 4:9, not of his own, after Isa 33:11). The repetition of יָסוּר (“he escapes not,” as Pro 13:14; “he must yield to,” as 1Ki 15:14, and freq.) is an impressive play upon words.