Albert Barnes Commentary Job 31:31

"If the men of my tent have not said, Who can find one that hath not been filled with his meat?" — Job 31:31 (ASV)

If the men of my tabernacle - The men of my tent, or those who live with me. The reference is undoubtedly to those who were in his employment, and who, being constantly with him, had an opportunity to observe his way of life.

On this verse, there has been a great variety of interpretation, and interpreters are by no means agreed on its meaning. Herder connects it with the previous verse and translates it:

“No! my tongue uttered no evil word,
Nor any curse against him,
When the men of my tent said,
‘Oh, that we had his flesh; it would satisfy us!’”

That is, even if he were the bitterest enemy of my house, and all were in open violence. Noyes translates it:

“Have not the men of my tent exclaimed,
‘Who is there that has not been satisfied with his food?’”

Umbreit supposes that it is designed to celebrate Job's benevolence. He suggests the meaning is that all his companions—the inmates of his house—could bear witness that not one of the poor was allowed to depart without being satisfied with his hospitality. They were abundantly fed, and their needs were supplied.

The verse is undoubtedly to be regarded as connected, as Ikenius supposes, with the following verse and is designed to illustrate Job's hospitality. His object is to show that those who lived with him, and who had every opportunity of knowing all about him, could never say that the stranger was not hospitably entertained.

Therefore, the phrase, “If the men of my tabernacle said not,” means that a case never occurred in which they could not use the language that follows; they could never say that the stranger was not hospitably entertained.

Oh that we had - The phrase נתן מי mı̂y nâthan commonly means, “Oh that”—like the Latin Utinam—implying a wish or desire. See Job 19:23; Job 31:35.

But here the phrase seems to be used in the sense of “Who will give?” or “Who will show or furnish?” ; and the sense is, “Who will refer to one instance in which the stranger has not been hospitably entertained?”

Of his flesh! we cannot be satisfied - Or, rather, “Who will refer to an instance in which it can be said that we have not been satisfied from his flesh—that is, from his table, or by his hospitality?”

The word “flesh” here cannot mean, as our translation seems to imply, Job's own flesh, as if it were to be torn and lacerated with a spirit of revenge. Instead, it means that which his table furnished by generous hospitality.

The Septuagint translates this: “If my maidservants have often said, Oh, that we had some of his flesh to eat! while I was living luxuriously.” For a great variety of opinions on the passage, see Schultens in loc. The interpretation by Ikenius mentioned above is the simplest, most natural, and most obvious of any that have been proposed, and it is adopted by Schultens and Rosenmuller.