Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.comKeil and Delitzsch Commentary - Job 20:26 - 20:26
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
26 All darkness is reserved for his treasured things,
A fire that is not blown upon devoureth him;
It feedeth upon what is left in his tent.
27 The heavens reveal his iniquity,
And the earth riseth up against him.
28 The produce of his house must vanish,
Flowing away in the day of God's wrath.
. . . . . .
29 This is the lot of the wicked man from Elohim,
And the heritage decreed for him from God.
As in Psa 17:14 God's store of earthly goods for the children of men is called צָפוּן (צָפִין), so here the stores laid up by man himself are called צְפוּנָיו. Total darkness, which will finally destroy them, is decreed by God against these stores of the godless, which are brought together not as coming from the hand of God, but covetously, and regardless of Him. Instead of טָמוּן it might also have been צָפוּן (Job 15:20; Job 21:19; Job 24:1), and instead of לִצְפוּנָיו also לִטְמוּנָיו (Deu 33:19); but טָמוּן is, as Job 40:13 shows, better suited to darkness (on account of the ט, this dull-toned muta, with which the word begins). כָּל־חֹשֶׁךְ signifies sheer darkness, as in Psa 39:6, כל־הבל, sheer nothingness; Psa 45:14, כל־כבודה, sheer splendour; and perhaps Isa 4:5, כל־כבוד, sheer glory. And the thought, expressed with somewhat of a play upon words, is, that to the θησαυρίζειν of the godless corresponds a θησαυρίζειν of God, the Judge (Rom 2:5; Jam 5:3): the one gathers up treasures, and the other nothing but darkness, to whom at an appointed season they shall be surrendered. The תְּאָכְלֵהוּ which follows is regarded by Ges. as Piel instead of תְּאַכְּלֵהוּ, but such a resolving of the characteristic sharpened syllable of Piel is unsupportable; by Hirz., Olsh. §250, b, and Pual instead of תְּאֻכְּלֵהוּ, but אֻכַּל signifies to be eaten, not (so that it might be connected with an accusative of the obj.) to get to eat; by Ew., Hupf., as Kal for תֹּאכְלֵהוּ, which is possible both from the letters and the matter (vid., on Psa 94:20); but more correctly it is regarded as Poel, for such Poel forms from strong roots do occur, as שֹׁפֵט (vid., on Job 9:15), and that the Cholem of these forms can be shortened into Kametz-chatuph is seen from וְדֳרְשׁוּ, Psa 109:10 (vid., Psalter in loc.).
(Note: Such a contraction is also presented in the readings תְּרָצְחוּ, Psa 62:4; מְלָשְׁנִי, Psa 101:5; and וַיְּחָלְקֵם, 1Ch 23:6; 1Ch 24:3. All these forms are not resolved forms of Piel (Ges., Berth., Olsh. §248, a), but contracted forms of Poel with Kametz-chatuph instead of Cholem. תְּהֲתֵלּוּ, Job 13:9, is not a resolved form of Piel, but a non-syncopated Hiphil. It should be observed that the Chateph-Kametz in “wedorschu” above and at p. 328 is used as an unmistakeable sign of the ŏ. - Tr.])
The Poel is in the passage before us the intensive of Kal: a fire which is not blown upon shall eat him up. By this translation נֻפָּח is equivalent to נֻפְּחָה, since attention is given to the gender of אֵשׁ in the verb immediately connected with it, but it is left out of consideration in the verbs נפח and יֵרַע which stand further form it, which Olshausen thinks doubtful; there are, however, not a few examples which may be adduced in favour of it, as 1Ki 19:11; Isa 33:9; comp. Ges. §147, rem. 1. Certainly the relative clause לא נפח may also be explained by supplying בָּהּ: into which one has not blown, or that one has not blown on (Symm., Theod., ἄνευ φυσήματος): both renderings are possible, according to Eze 22:20, Eze 22:22; but since the masc. יֵרַע follows, having undoubtedly אשׁ as its subject, we can unhesitatingly take the Synallage gen. as beginning even with נפח. A fire which needs no human help for its kindling and its maintenance is intended (comp. on לֹא בְיָד, Job 34:20); therefore “fire of God,” Job 1:16. This fire feasts upon what has escaped (שָׂרִיד, as Job 20:21; Job 18:19), i.e., whatever has escaped other fates, in his tent. yeera` (Milel) is fut. apoc. Kal; the form of writing יֵרָע (fut. apoc. Niph.) proposed by Olsh. on account of the change of gender, i.e., it is devoured, is to be rejected for the reason assigned in connection with נפח. The correct interpretation has been brought forward by Schultens.
It is not without reference to Job 16:18-19, where Job has called upon earth and heaven as witnesses, that in Job 20:27 Zophar continues: “the heavens reveal his guilt, and the earth rises against him;” heaven and earth bear witness to his being an abhorrence, not worthy of being borne by the earth and shone upon by the light of heaven; they testify this, since their powers from below and above vie with one another to get rid of him. מִתְקֹומָמָה is connected closely with לֹו (which has Lamed raphatum) by means of Mercha-Zinnorith, and under the influence of the law, according to which before a monosyllabic accented word the tone is drawn back from the last syllable of the preceding word to the penultima (Ew. §73, 3), is accented as Milel on account of the pause.
(Note: This mode of accentuation, which is found in Codd. and is attested by grammarians (vid., Norzi), is grammatically more intelligible than that of our editions, which have the Mercha with the final syllable. For while מִתְקֹומָמָה, as Milel, is the pausal-form of the fem. part. Hithpalel for מִתְקֹומְמָה (מִתְקֹומֶמֶת) with a pausal â instead of ê, it ought to be as Milra, a passive form; but the Hithpalal has no meaning here, and is in general not firmly supported within the range of biblical Hebrew.)
In Job 20:28, Ges., Olsh., and others translate: the produce of his house, that which is swept together, must vanish away in the day of His wrath; נִגָּרֹות corrasae (opes), Niph. from גָּרַר. But first, the suff. is wanting to נגרות; and secondly, בְּיֹום אַפֹּו has no natural connection in what precedes. The Niph. נגרות in the signification diffluentia, derived from נָגַר morf devire, to flow away (comp. Arab. jry, to flow), is incomparably better suited to the passage (comp. 2Sa 14:14, where Luther transl.: as water which glides away into the earth). The close of the description is similar to Isa 17:11 : “In the day that thou plantedst, thou causedst it to increase, and with the morning thy seed was in flowera harvest-head in the day of deep wounding and deadly sorrow.” So here everything that the evil-doer hoards up is spoken of as ”vanishing in the day of God's wrath.”
The speech now closes by summing up like Bildad's, Job 18:21 : “This is the portion or inheritance of, i.e., the lot that is assigned or falls to, the wicked man (אָדָם רָשָׁע, a rare application of אדם, comp. Pro 6:12, instead of which אישׁ is more usual) from Elohim, and this the heritage of his (i.e., concerning him) decree from God.” אֵמֶר (אֹמֶר) with an objective suff., which also occurs elsewhere of the almighty word of command of God (vid., on Hab 3:9), signifies here God's judicial arrangement or order, in this sense just as Arabic as Hebraic, for also in Arab. amr (plur. awâmir) signifies command and order.
The speech of Zophar, Job 20, is his ultimatum, for in the third course of the controversy he takes no part. We have already seen from his first speech, Job 11, that he is the most impassioned of the friends. His vehemence is now the less excusable, since Job in his previous speech has used the truly spiritual language of importunate entreaty and earnest warning in reply to the friends. The friends would now have done well if they had been silent, and still better if they had recognised in the sufferer the tried and buffeted servant of God, and had withdrawn their charges, which his innermost nature repudiates. But Zophar is not disposed to allow the reproach of the correction which they received to rest upon him; in him we have an illustration of the fact that a man is never more eloquent than when he has to defend his injured honour, but that he is also never more in danger of regarding the extravagant images of natural excitement as a higher inspiration, or, however, as striking justifications coming from the fulness of a superior perception. It has been rightly remarked, that in Zophar the poet described to us one of those hot-heads who pretend to fight for religion that is imperilled, while they are zealous for their own wounded vanity. Instead of being warned by Job's threat of judgment, he thrusts back his attempt at producing dismay be a similar attempt. He has nothing new to bring forward in reply to Job; the poet has skilfully understood how to turn the heart of his readers step by step from the friends, and in the same degree to gain its sympathy for Job. For they are completely spent in their one dogma; and while in Job an endless multitude of thoughts and feelings surge up one after another, their heart is as hermetically closed against every new perception and emotion. All that is new in the speech of Zophar, and in those of the friends generally, in this second course of the controversy, is, that they no longer try to lure Job on to penitence by promises, but endeavour to bring him to a right state of mind, or rather to weaken his supposedly-mad assault upon themselves, by presenting to him only the most terrible images. It is not possible to illustrate the principle that the covetous, uncompassionate rich man is torn away from his prosperity by the punishment God decrees for him, more fearfully and more graphically than Zophar does it; and this terrible description is not overdrawn, but true and appropriate-but in opposition to Job it is the extreme of uncharitableness which outdoes itself: applied to him, the fearful truth becomes a fearful lie. For in Zophar's mind Job is the godless man, whose rejoicing does not last long, who indeed raises himself towards heaven, but as his own dung must he perish, and to whom the sin of his unjust gain is become as the poison of the viper in his belly. The arrow of God's wrath sticks fast in him; and though he draw it out, it has already inflicted on him a deservedly mortal wound! The fire of God which has already begun to consume his possessions, does not rest until even the last remnant in his tent is consumed. The heavens, where in his self-delusion he seeks the defender of his innocence, reveal his guilt, and the earth, which he hopes to have as a witness in his favour, rises up as his accuser. Thus mercilessly does Zophar seek to stifle the new trust which Job conceives towards God, to extinguish the faith which bursts upwards from beneath the ashes of the conflict. Zophar's method of treatment is soul-destroying; he seeks to slay that life which germinates from the feeling of death, instead of strengthening it. He does not, however, succeed; for so long as Job does not become doubtful of his innocence, the uncharitableness of the friends must be to him the thread by which he finds his way through the labyrinth of his sufferings to the God who loves him, although He seems to be angry with him.