Albert Barnes Commentary Job 1

There was a man - This has all the appearance of being a true history. Many have regarded the whole book as a fiction, and have supposed that no such person as Job ever lived. But the book opens with the appearance of reality; and the express declaration that there was such a man, the mention of his name and of the place where he lived, show that the writer meant to affirm that there was in fact such a man. On this question see the Introduction, Section 1.

In the land of Uz - On the question where Job lived, see also the Introduction, Section 2.

Whose name was Job - The name Job (Hebrew איוב 'ı̂yôb — Greek Ἰώβ Iōb) means properly, according to Gesenius, “one persecuted,” from a root (איב 'âyab) meaning to be an enemy to anyone, to persecute, to hate. The primary idea, according to Gesenius, is to be sought in breathing, blowing, or puffing at, or upon anyone, as expressive of anger or hatred, German “Anschnauben.” Eichhorn (Einleit. section 638.1) supposes that the name denotes a man who turns himself penitently to God, from a sense of the verb still found in Arabic “to repent.” On this supposition, the name was given to him, because, at the close of the book, he is represented as exercising repentance for the improper expressions in which he had indulged during his sufferings.

The verb occurs only once in the Hebrew Scriptures (Exodus 23:22): But if you shall indeed obey his voice, and do all that I speak, then “I will be an enemy” אויב 'ôyêb “unto your enemies” אויב את 'êth 'ôyêb.

The participle איב 'oyēb is the common word to denote an enemy in the Old Testament (Exodus 15:6, Exodus 15:9; Leviticus 26:25; Numbers 35:23; Deuteronomy 32:27, Deuteronomy 32:42; Psalms 7:5; Psalms 8:2; Psalms 31:8; Lamentations 2:4–5; Job 13:24; Job 27:7; Job 33:10, et saepe al.).

If this is the proper meaning of the word “Job,” then the name would seem to have been given him by anticipation, or by common consent, as a much persecuted man. Significant names were very common among the Hebrews—given either by anticipation (see the notes at Isaiah 8:18), or subsequently, to denote some leading or important event in the life (Genesis 4:25; Genesis 5:29; 1 Samuel 1:20).

Such, too, was the case among the Romans, where the “agnomen” thus bestowed became the appellation by which the individual was best known. Cicero thus received his name from a wart which he had on his face, resembling a “vetch,” and which was called by the Latins, “cicer.” Thus also Marcus had the name “Ancus,” from the Greek word ανκὼν ankōn—because he had a crooked arm; and thus the names Africanus, Germanicus, etc., were given to generals who had distinguished themselves in particular countries (see Univer. Hist. Anc. Part ix. 619, ed. 8vo, Lond. 1779). In like manner, it is possible that the name “Job” was given to the Emir of Uz by common consent, as the man much persecuted or tried, and that this afterward became the appellation by which he was best known.

The name occurs once as applied to a son of Issachar (Genesis 46:13), and in only two other places in the Bible except in this book (Ezekiel 14:14; James 5:11).

And that man was perfect - (תמם tâmam). The Septuagint has greatly expanded this statement, by giving a paraphrase instead of a translation: “He was a man who was true (ἀληθινός alēthinos), blameless (ἄμεμπτος amemptos), just (δίκαιος dikaios), pious (θεοσεβής theosebēs), abstaining from every evil deed.” Jerome renders it, “simplex—simple,” or “sincere.” The Chaldee, שׁלם shālam—“complete, finished, perfect.” The idea seems to be that his piety, or moral character, was “proportionate” and was “complete in all its parts.” He was a man of integrity in all the relations of life—as an Emir, a father, a husband, a worshipper of God.

Such is properly the meaning of the word תם tâm as derived from תמם tâmam—“to complete, to make full, perfect” or “entire,” or “to finish.” It denotes that in which there is no part lacking to complete the whole—as in a watch in which no wheel is missing.

Thus, he was not merely upright as an Emir, but he was pious toward God; he was not merely kind to his family, but he was just to his neighbors and benevolent to the poor.

The word is used to denote integrity as applied to the heart (Genesis 20:5): לבבי בתם b^etām l^ebābı̂y, “In the honesty, simplicity, or sincerity of my heart (see the margin) have I done this.” So (1 Kings 22:34), “One drew a bow לתמוּ l^etumô in the simplicity (or perfection) of his heart;” that is, without any evil intention (compare 2 Samuel 15:11; Proverbs 10:9).

The proper notion, therefore, is that of simplicity, sincerity, absence from guile or evil intention, and completeness of parts in his religion. That he was a man absolutely sinless, or without any propensity to evil, is disproved alike by the spirit of complaining which he often shows, and by his own confession (Job 9:20):

If I justify myself, my own mouth shall condemn me;
If I say I am perfect, it shall prove me perverse.

So also (Job 42:5–6):

I have heard of you by the hearing of the ear,
But now my eye sees you;
Wherefore I abhor myself,
And repent in dust and ashes.

.

And upright - The word ישׁר yâshâr—from ישׁר yâshar—to be straight, is applied often to a road which is straight, or to a path which is level or even. As used here it means upright or righteous (Psalms 37:14; Deuteronomy 32:4; Psalms 33:4).

And one that feared God - Religion in the Scriptures is often represented as the fear of God (Proverbs 1:7, Proverbs 1:29; Proverbs 2:5; Proverbs 8:13; Proverbs 14:26–27; Isaiah 11:2; Acts 9:31, et saepe al.).

And eschewed evil - “And departed from (סוּר sûr) evil.” Septuagint, “Abstaining from every evil thing.” These then are the four characteristics of Job’s piety: he was sincere; upright; a worshipper of God; and one who abstained from all wrong. These are the essential elements of true religion everywhere; and the whole statement in the book of Job shows Job was, though not absolutely free from the sins which cleave to our nature, eminent in each of these things.

And there were born to him seven sons and three daughters - The same number was given to him again after these were lost, and his severe trials had been endured; see (Job 42:13). Of his second family the names of the daughters are mentioned (Job 42:14). Of his first, it is remarkable that neither the names of his wife, his sons nor his daughters are recorded. The Chaldee, however, on what authority is unknown, says that the name of his wife was דינה dı̂ynâh — (Job 2:9).

His substance - Margin, or “cattle.” The word used here מקנה mı̂qneh is derived from קנה qânâh—to gain or acquire, to buy or purchase, and properly means anything acquired or purchased: property, possessions, riches. The wealth of nomadic tribes, however, consisted mostly in flocks and herds, and therefore the word in Scripture signifies, almost exclusively, property in cattle. The word, says Gesenius, is used “strictly” to denote sheep, goats, and cattle, excluding beasts of burden (compare Greek κτῆνος ktēnos—herd, used here by the Septuagint), though sometimes the word includes donkeys and camels, as in this place.

Seven thousand sheep - In this verse we have a description of the wealth of an Arab ruler or chief, similar to that of those who are today called “Emirs.” Indeed, the whole description in the book is that which is applicable to the chief of a tribe. The possessions referred to in this verse would constitute considerable wealth anywhere, and particularly in the nomadic tribes of the East. Land is not mentioned as a part of this wealth; for among nomadic tribes living by pasturage, the right to the soil in fee simple is not claimed by individuals, the right of pasturage or a temporary possession being all that is needed. For the same reason, and from the fact that their circumstances require them to live in movable tents, houses are not mentioned as a part of the wealth of this Emir.

To understand this book, as well as most of the books of the Old Testament, it is necessary for us to lay aside our notions of living and transfer ourselves in imagination to the very dissimilar customs of the East. The Chaldee has made a very singular explanation of this verse, which must be regarded as the work of fancy, but which shows the character of that version: “And his possessions were seven thousand sheep - a thousand for each of his sons; and three thousand camels - a thousand for each of his daughters; and five hundred yoke of oxen - for himself; and five hundred she-asses - for his wife.”

And three thousand camels - Camels are well-known beasts of burden, still extensively used in Arabia. The Arabs employed these animals in ancient times in war, in their caravans, and for food. They are frequently called “ships of the desert,” particularly valuable in arid plains because they can go many days without water. They carry from three to five hundred pounds, in proportion to the distance they have to travel. Providence has adapted the camel with wonderful wisdom to sandy deserts, and in all ages, the camel must be an invaluable possession there.

All the food he requires is the driest thistle and the barest thorn, and this he eats while advancing on his journey without stopping or causing a moment’s delay. As it is his lot to cross immense deserts where no water is found and where no dews fall, he is endowed with the ability to store water that will last him for days—Bruce says for thirty days.

To achieve this, nature has provided him with large reservoirs or stomachs, where the water is kept pure, and from which he draws at will as from a fountain. No other animal is endowed with this power, and if it were not for this, it would be wholly impracticable to cross those immense plains of sand. The Arabians, the Persians, and others eat the flesh of camels, and it is served up at the best tables in the country. One of the ancient Arab poets, whose hospitality grew into a proverb, is reported to have killed yearly, in a certain month, ten camels every day for the entertainment of his friends.

In regard to the hardiness of camels and their ability to live on the coarsest fare, Burckhardt has stated a fact that may provide an illustration. In a journey he made from the country south of the Dead Sea to Egypt, he says, “During the whole of this journey, the camels had no other fodder than the withered shrubs of the desert, my dromedary excepted, to which I gave a few handfuls of barley each evening.” (Travels in Syria, p. 451; compare Bruce’s Travels, volume iv, p. 596; Niebuhr, Reisebeschreibung nach Arabien, Volume 1, p. 215; Sandys, p. 138; Harmer’s Observations, 4:415, London edition, 1808, octavo; and Rob. Cal.)

And five hundred yoke of oxen - The fact that Job had so many oxen implies that he devoted himself to the cultivation of the soil as well as to keeping flocks and herds; compare Job 1:14. So large a number of oxen would constitute wealth anywhere.

And five hundred she-asses - Bryant remarks (Observations, p. 61) that a great part of the wealth of the inhabitants of the East often consisted of she-asses, the males being few and not valued as highly. She-asses are mentioned early on as having been in common use for riding (Numbers 22:25; Judges 5:10; 2 Kings 4:24 (Hebrew)). One reason the donkey was chosen in preference to the horse was that it subsisted on so much less than that animal, as no animal except the camel could be kept as easily as the donkey. She-asses were also regarded as the most valuable because, in traversing the deserts of the country, they would furnish travelers with milk. It is remarkable that “cows” are not explicitly mentioned in this enumeration of the articles of Job’s wealth, though “butter” is referred to by him subsequently as having been abundant in his family (Job 29:6).

It is possible, however, that “cows” were included as a part of the “five hundred yoke of בקר bâqâr,” here rendered “oxen,” but which would be quite as appropriately rendered “cattle.” The word is in the common gender and is derived from בקר bâqar—in Arabic to cleave, to divide, to lay open, and therefore to plow, to cleave the soil. It properly denotes the animals used in plowing; and it is well known that cows are employed as well as oxen for this purpose in the East (Hosea 4:10). Compare Deuteronomy 32:14, where the word בקר bâqâr is used to denote a cow—for example, in the expression “milk of kine” (see also Genesis 33:13, Hebrew).

And a very great household - Margin, “husbandry.” The Hebrew word here (עבדה ‛ăbûddâh) is ambiguous. It may denote service rendered, that is, work, or the servants who performed it (compare Genesis 26:14, margin). The Septuagint renders it ὑπηρεσία hupēresia; Aquila, δουλεία douleia; and Symmachus, οἰκετία oiketia—all denoting “service,” or “servitude,” or that which related to the domestic service of a family. The word undoubtedly refers to those who had charge of his camels, his cattle, and his husbandry . It is not implied by the word used here, nor by that in Job 1:15, that they were “slaves.” They may have been, but there is nothing to indicate this in the narrative. The Septuagint adds to this, as if explanatory of it, “and his works were great in the land.”

So that this man was the greatest - He possessed the most wealth and was held in the highest honor.

Of all the men of the East - Margin as in Hebrew “sons.” The “sons of the East” denote those who lived in the East. The word “East,” קדם qedem, is commonly employed in the Scriptures to denote the country that lies east of Palestine. For the places intended here, see the Introduction, Section 2, (3).

It is, of course, impossible to estimate with accuracy the exact value of Job’s property. Compared with many people in modern times, indeed, his possessions would not be regarded as very great wealth. The editor of the Pictorial Bible supposes that, on a fair estimate, his property might be considered as worth from thirty to forty thousand pounds sterling—equivalent to some $200,000 (circa 1880s). In this estimate, the camel is reckoned as worth about $45.00, the oxen as worth about $5, and the sheep at a little more than $1, which, it is said, are about the average prices then in Western Asia. Prices, however, fluctuate greatly from one age to another; but in the author’s day, such possessions would be regarded as great wealth in Arabia. The value of Job’s property may be estimated from the fact that he had almost half as many camels as constituted the wealth of a Persian king in more modern times.

Chardin says, “As the king of Persia in the year 1676 was in Mazandaran, the Tartars fell upon the king’s camels and took away three thousand of them, which was a great loss to him, for he had only seven thousand” (Rosenmuller, Morgenland, “in loc.”). We are to regard Job’s condition as that of a rich Arab Emir, and his mode of life as between the nomadic pastoral life and the settled manner of living in communities like ours.

He was a princely shepherd, and yet he was devoted to the cultivation of the soil. It does not appear, however, that he claimed the right of the soil in “fee simple,” nor is his condition inconsistent with the supposition that his residence in any place was regarded as temporary and that all his property might be easily removed. “He belonged to that condition of life which fluctuated between that of the wandering shepherd and that of a people settled in towns. That he resided, or had a residence, in a town is obvious; but his flocks and herds evidently pastured in the deserts, between which and the town his own time was probably divided. He differed from the Hebrew patriarchs chiefly in this, that he did not so much wander about ‘without any certain dwelling place.’”

This mixed condition of life, which is still frequently exhibited in Western Asia, will, we believe, sufficiently account for the diversified character of the allusions and pictures the book contains: to the pastoral life and the scenes and products of the wilderness; to the scenes and circumstances of agriculture; and to the arts and sciences of settled life and of advancing civilization” (Pictorial Bible). It may serve somewhat to illustrate the different ideas regarding what constituted wealth in different countries to compare this statement respecting Job with a remark of Virgil respecting an inhabitant of ancient Italy, whom he calls the most wealthy among the Ausonian farmers:

Seniorque Galaesus.
Dum paci medium se offert; justissimus unus
Qui fuit, Ausoniisque olim ditissimus arvis:
Quinque greges illi balantum, quina redibant
Armenta, et terram centum vertebat aratris.
Aeneid 7:535-539.

Among the rest, the rich Galaesus lies;
A good old man, while peace he preached in vain,
Amid the madness of the unruly train:
Five herds, five bleating flocks his pasture filled,
His lands a hundred yoke of oxen tilled.
Dryden

And his sons went and feasted in their houses - Dr. Good renders this, “and his sons went to hold a banquet house.” Tindal renders it, “made bankertea.” The Hebrew means, they went and made a “house-feast;” and the idea is, that they gave an entertainment in their dwellings, in the ordinary way in which such entertainments were made.

The word used here (משׁתה mı̂shteh) is derived from שׁתה shâthâh — “to drink;” and then to drink together, to banquet. Schultens supposes that this was merely designed to keep up the proper familiarity between the different branches of the family, and not for purposes of revelry and dissipation; and this seems to accord with the view of Job. He, though a pious man, was not opposed to it, but he feared merely that they might have sinned in their hearts (Job 1:5). He knew the danger, and therefore, he was more assiduous in imploring for them the divine guardianship.

Every one his day - In his proper turn, or when his day came round. Perhaps it refers only to their birthdays; see (Job 3:1), where the word “day” is used to denote a birthday. In early times the birthday was observed with great solemnity and rejoicing. Perhaps in this statement the author of the Book of Job means to intimate that his family lived in entire harmony, and to give a picture of his domestic happiness strongly contrasted with the calamities which came upon his household. It was a great aggravation of his sufferings that a family thus peaceful and harmonious was wholly broken up. - The Chaldee adds, “until seven days were completed,” supposing that each one of these feasts lasted seven days, a supposition by no means improbable, if the families were in any considerable degree remote from each other.

And sent and called for their three sisters - This also may be regarded as a circumstance showing that these occasions were not designed for revelry. Young men, when they congregate for dissipation, do not usually invite their “sisters” to be with them; nor do they usually desire the presence of virtuous females at all. The probability, therefore, is, that this was designed as affectionate and friendly family conversation. In itself there was nothing wrong in it, nor was there necessarily any danger; yet Job felt it “possible” that they might have erred and forgotten God, and therefore, he was engaged in more intense and ardent devotion on their account (Job 1:5).

And it was so, when the days of their feasting were gone about - Dr. Good renders this, “as the days of such banquets returned.” But this is not the idea intended. The meaning is that when the banquets had completed their circuit, going around as in a circle through all the families, “then” Job sent and sanctified them. It was not from an anticipation that they would do wrong, but it was from the apprehension that they might have sinned.

The word translated “were gone about” (נקף nâqaph) properly means to join together, and then to move round in a circle, to revolve, as festivals do; see the notes at (Isaiah 29:1): “Let the festivals go round.” Here it means that the days of their banqueting had gone round the circle, or had gone round the several families. The Septuagint translates it: “When the days of the entertainment (or drinking, πότου potou) were finished.”

A custom of feasting similar to this prevails in China. “They have their fraternities which they call the brotherhood of the months; this consists of months according to the number of the days therein, and in a circle they go abroad to eat at one another’s houses by turns. If one man has not means to receive the fraternity in his own house, he may provide for them in another; and there are many public houses well furnished for this purpose.” See Semedo’s History of China, volume 1, chapter 13, as quoted by Burder in Rosenmuller’s Morgenland, on this passage.

That Job sent - He sent for them and called them around him. He was apprehensive that they might have erred, and he took every measure to keep them pure and to maintain the influence of religion in his family.

And sanctified them - This expression, says Schultens, is capable of two interpretations. It may either mean that he “prepared” them by various purifications, washings, and other ceremonies to offer sacrifice; or that he offered sacrifices for the purpose of procuring expiation for sins which they might actually have committed. The former sense, he remarks, is favored by the use of the word in (Exodus 19:10) and (1 Samuel 16:5), where the word means to prepare themselves by washings to meet God and to worship Him. The latter sense is demanded by the connection.

Job felt as every father should feel in such circumstances: that there was reason to fear that God had not been remembered as He should have been. He was therefore more fervent in his devotions and called them around him, so that their own minds might be affected in view of his pious solicitude. What father is there who loves God, and who feels anxious that his children should also, who does not feel special solicitude if his sons and his daughters are in a situation where successive days are devoted to feasting and mirth?

The word here translated “sanctified” (קדשׁ qâdash) properly means to be pure, clean, holy; in Piel, the form used here, it means to make holy, to sanctify, to consecrate, as a priest. Here it means that he took measures to make them holy on the apprehension that they had sinned; that is, he took the usual means to procure forgiveness for them. The Septuagint translates it ἐκάθαριζεν (ekatharizen)—he purified them.

And rose up early in the morning - For the purpose of offering his devotions and procuring expiation for them. It was customary in the patriarchal times to offer sacrifice early in the morning. See (Genesis 22:3); (Exodus 32:6).

And offered burnt-offerings - The Hebrew is “and caused to ascend;” that is, by burning them so that the smoke ascended toward heaven. The word translated “burnt-offerings” (עולה ‛ôlâh) is from עלה ‛âlâh, “to ascend” (the word used here and translated “offered”), and means that which was made to ascend, namely, by burning. It is applied in the Scriptures to a sacrifice that was wholly consumed on the altar, and answers to the Greek word ὁλόκαυστον (holokauston)—“Holocaust.” See the notes at (Isaiah 1:11).

Such offerings in the patriarchal times were made by the father of a family, officiating as priest on behalf of his household. Thus, Noah officiated (Genesis 8:20); and thus also Abraham acted as the priest to offer sacrifice (Genesis 12:7–8; Genesis 13:18; Genesis 22:13). In the earliest times, and among pagan nations, it was supposed that pardon for sin might be procured by offering sacrifice. In Homer, there is a passage which remarkably corresponds with the view of Job before us; Iliad 9:493:

The gods (the great and only wise)
Are moved by offerings, vows, and sacrifice;
Offending man their high compassion wins,
And daily prayers atone for daily sins.
Pope

According to the number of them all - Sons and daughters. Perhaps an additional sacrifice for each one of them. The Septuagint translates this, “according to their numbers, καί μόσχον ἕνα περὶ ἁμαπτίας περὶ τῶν ψυχῶν αὐτῶν (kai moschon hena peri hamartias peri tōn psychōn autōn) - a young bullock for sin or a sin-offering for their souls.”

It may be that my sons have sinned - He had no positive or certain proof of it. He felt only the natural apprehension which every pious father must: that his sons might have been overtaken by temptation, and perhaps, under the influence of wine, might have been led to speak reproachfully of God, and of the necessary restraints of true religion and virtue.

And cursed God in their hearts - The word here translated as curse is that which is usually translated as “bless,” ברך (bārak). It is quite remarkable that the same word is used in senses so directly opposite as to “bless” and “to curse.” Dr. Good contends that the word should always be translated “bless,” and so translates it in this place, “perhaps my sons may have sinned, nor blessed God in their hearts,” understanding the Hebrew prefix ו (v) as a disjunctive or negative participle. So too in (Job 2:9), translated in our common version, “curse God and die,” he translates it, “blessing God and dying.” But the interpretation that the connection demands is evidently that of cursing, renouncing, or forgetting; and so also it is in (Job 2:9).

This sense is still more obvious in (1 Kings 21:10): “You did blaspheme God and the king.” (using ברך bārak). So also (1 Kings 21:13) of the same chapter—though here Dr. Good contends that the word should be translated “bless,” and that the accusation was that Naboth “blessed” or worshipped the gods, even Moloch—where he supposes the word מלך (melek) should be pointed מלך (môlek) and read “Molech.” But the difficulty is not removed by this, and after all, it is probable that the word here, as in (Job 2:9), means to “curse.” So it is understood by nearly all interpreters.

The Vulgate indeed translates it, singularly enough, “Lest perhaps my sons have sinned, and have blessed God (et benedixerint Deo) in their hearts.” The Septuagint: “Lest perhaps my sons in their mind have thought evil toward God”—κακὰ ἐνεόησαν πρὸς Θεόν (kaka enenoēsan pros Theon). The Chaldee: “Lest my sons have sinned and provoked Yahweh (יהוה וארגיזדקדם) in their hearts.” Assuming that this is the sense of the word here, there are three ways of accounting for the fact that the same word should have such opposite meanings.

1. One is that proposed by Taylor (Concordance), that pious persons in ancient times regarded blasphemy as so abominable that they detested expressing it by its proper name, and that therefore by an “euphemism” they used the term “bless” instead of “curse.” But it should be said that nothing is more common in the Scriptures than words denoting cursing and blasphemy. The word אלה ('âlâh)—in the sense of cursing or execrating—occurs frequently. So the word גדף (gâdaph)—means to blaspheme, and is often used (2 Kings 19:6; 2 Kings 19:22; Isaiah 37:6; Isaiah 37:23; Psalms 44:16). Other words also were used in the same sense, and there was no necessity of using a mere “euphemism” here.

2. A second way of explaining this double use of the word is that this was the common term of salutation between friends at meeting and parting. It is then supposed to have been used in the sense of the English phrase “to bid farewell to.” And then, like that phrase, to mean “to renounce, to abandon, to dismiss from the mind, to disregard.” The words χαίρειν (chairein)—in Greek, and “valere” in Latin, are used in this way. This explanation is suggested by Schultens, and is adopted by Rosenmuller and Noyes, who refer to the following places as parallel instances of the use of the word.

   Virgil, Eclogues 8:58: “Vivite Sylvae”—a form, says the Annotator on Virgil (Delphin), of bidding farewell to, like the Greek χαίρετε (chairete)—“a form used against those whom we reject with hatred, and wish to depart.” Thus, Catullus 11.17: Cum suis vivat, valeatque moechis. So Aeschylus, Agamemnon 574:
   Καὶ πολλὰ χαίρειν ξυμφοραῖς καταξιῶ
   (Kai polla chairein cumforais kataciō).

   Thus, Plutarch, Dion, p. 975. So Cicero in a letter to Atticus, in which he complains of the disgraceful flight of Pompey, applies to him a quotation from Aristophanes: πολλὰ χαίρειν εἰπὼν τῷ καλῷ (polla chairein eipōn tō kalō)—“bidding farewell to honor he fled to Brundusium;” compare Terence, Andria, 4.2.14; Cicero, De Natura Deorum, 1.44. According to this interpretation, it means that Job was concerned they had renounced God in their hearts; that is, they had been unmindful of Him, and had withheld from Him the homage that was due.

   This is plausible, but the difficulty is in establishing the use of this sense of the word in Hebrew. That the word was used as a mode of “parting salutation” among the Hebrews is undoubted. It was a solemn form of invoking the divine blessing when friends separated; compare (Genesis 28:3); (Genesis 47:10). But I find no use of the word where it is applied to separation in the sense of “renouncing,” or bidding farewell to “in a bad sense;” and unless some instances of this kind can be adduced, the interpretation is unsound. And though similar phrases are used in Greek, Latin, and other languages, it does not demonstrate that this use of the word existed in Hebrew.

3. A third, and more simple explanation is that which supposes that the original sense of the word was “to kneel.” This, according to Gesenius, is the meaning of the word in Arabic. So Castell gives the meaning of the word—“to bend the knees for the sake of honor;” that is, as an act of respect. So in Syriac, “Genua flexit, procubuit.” So “Genu,” the “knee.” Then it means to bend the knee for the purpose of invoking God, or worshipping. In the Piel, the form used here, it means:

   1. To bless God, to celebrate, to adore;

   2. To bless men—that is, to “invoke” blessings on them; to greet or salute them—in the sense of invoking blessings on them when we meet them (1 Samuel 15:13; Genesis 47:7; 2 Samuel 6:20); or when we part from them (Genesis 47:10; 1 Kings 8:66; Genesis 24:60);

   3. To “invoke evil,” in the sense of “cursing others.” The idea is that punishment or destruction is from God, and hence, it is “imprecated” on others. In one word, the term is used, as derived from the general sense of kneeling, in the sense of “invoking” either blessings or curses; and then in the general sense of blessing or cursing.

   This interpretation is defended by Selden, De Jure Naturali et Gentium, Book II, Chapter 11, p. 255, and by Gesenius, Lexicon. The idea here is that Job was concerned that his sons, in the midst of mirth, and perhaps revelry, had been guilty of irreverence, and perhaps of reproaching God inwardly for the restraints of virtue and piety. What is more common in such scenes? What was more to be apprehended?

Thus did Job continually - It was his regular habit whenever such an occasion occurred. He was constant in his pious care; and his solicitude that his sons might have sinned never ceased—a beautiful illustration of the appropriate feelings of a pious father in regard to his sons. The Hebrew is, “all day;” that is, at all times.