Albert Barnes Commentary Job 6

O that my grief were thoroughly weighed - The word translated “grief” here (כעשׂ ka‛aś) can mean either vexation, trouble, or grief (Ecclesiastes 1:18; Ecclesiastes 2:23), or it can mean anger (Deuteronomy 32:19; Ezekiel 20:28). It is translated by the Septuagint here as ὀργή orgē - anger; by Jerome, as peccata - sins.

The meaning of the whole passage may be either that Job wished his anger or his complaints to be laid in the balance with his calamity, to see if one was more weighty than the other—meaning that he had not complained unreasonably or unjustly (Rosenmuller); or that he wished his afflictions might be put into one scale and the sands of the sea into another, and the one weighed against the other (Noyes); or simply, that he desired that his sorrows should be accurately estimated.

This last interpretation is, I think, the true meaning of the passage.

Job supposed his friends had not understood and appreciated his sufferings. He believed they were inclined to blame him without understanding the extent of his sorrows, and he desires that they would estimate them correctly before they condemned him. In particular, he seems to have thought that Eliphaz had not done justice to the depth of his sorrows in the remarks he had just made.

The figure of weighing actions or sorrows is not uncommon or unnatural. It means to make an exact estimate of their amount. Thus, we speak of heavy calamities, of afflictions that crush us by their weight, and so on.

Laid in the balances - The margin says, “lifted up.” This means raised up and put in the scales, or put in the scales and then raised up—as is common in weighing.

Together - יחד yachad. This means “at the same time”—that all his sorrows, griefs, and woes were to be piled on the scales and then weighed. He believed that only a partial estimate had been made of the extent of his calamities.

Heavier than the sand of the sea - That is, they would be found to be insupportable. Who could bear up the sands of the sea? So Job says of his sorrows. A comparison somewhat similar is found in Proverbs 27:3.

Heavy is a stone, and weighty the sand of the Sea,
But a fool’s wrath is heavier than them both.

My words are swallowed up - Margin, “I want words to express my grief.” This expresses the true sense—but not with the same poetic beauty. We express the same idea when we say that we are choked with grief; we are so overwhelmed with sorrow that we cannot speak. Any very deep emotion prevents the power of utterance. So in Psalm 77:4:

Thou holdest mine eyes waking:
I am so troubled that I cannot speak.

So the well-known expressions in Virgil,

Obstupui, steteruntque comae, et vox faucibus haesit.

There has been, however, considerable variety in the interpretation of the word rendered here “swallowed up”—לוּע lûa‛. Gesenius supposes that it means to speak rashly, to talk at random, and that the idea is that Job now admits his remarks had been unguarded—“therefore were my words rash.” The same sense Castell gives to the Arabic word.

Schultens renders it, “therefore are my words tempestuous or fretful.” Rosenmuller suggests, “my words exceed due moderation.” Castellio offers, “my words fail.” Luther translates it as, “therefore it is vain that I speak.” The Septuagint reads, “but my words seem to be evil.” Jerome states, “my words are full of grief.”

In this variety of interpretations, it is difficult to determine the precise meaning. However, the traditional interpretation is probably to be retained, by which the word is derived from לוּע lûa‛—meaning to absorb or to swallow up; compare Proverbs 20:25; Obadiah 1:16; Job 39:30; Proverbs 23:2. The word does not occur elsewhere.

For the arrows of the Almighty are within me – That is, it is not a light affliction that I endure. I am wounded in a manner which could not be caused by man – called to endure a severity of suffering which shows that it proceeds from the Almighty. Thus called to suffer what man could not cause, he maintains that it is right for him to complain, and that the words which he employed were not an improper expression of the extent of the grief.

The poison whereof drinketh up my spirit – Takes away my vigor, my comfort, my life. He here compares his afflictions with being wounded with poisoned arrows. Such arrows were often used among the ancients. The object was to secure certain death, even where the wound caused by the arrow itself would not produce it. Poison was made so concentrated, that the smallest quantity conveyed by the point of an arrow would render death inevitable. This practice contributed much to the barbarity of savage war. Thus, Virgil speaks of poisoned arrows:

Ungere tela manu, ferrumque armare veneno.

Aeneid ix.773

And again, Aeneid x.140:

Vulnera dirigere, et calamos armare veneno.

So Ovid, De Ponto, Book 1, Elegy 2, of the Scythians:

Qui mortis saevo geminent ut vulnere causas,
Omnia vipereo spicula felle linunt.

Compare Justin, Book 2, Chapter 10, Section 2; Grotius, De Jure Belli et Pacis; and Virgil, Aeneid xii.857. In the Odyssey i.260 and following, we read of Ulysses that he went to Ephyra, a city of Thessaly, to obtain from Ilus, the son of Mermer, deadly poison, that he might smear it over the iron point of his arrows. The pestilence which produced so great a destruction in the Grecian camp is also said by Homer (Iliad i.48) to have been caused by arrows shot from the bow of Apollo. The phrase “drinketh up the spirit” is very expressive. We speak now of the sword thirsting for blood, but this language is more expressive and striking.

The figure is not uncommon in the poetry of the East and of the ancients. In the poem of Zohair, the third of the Moallakat, or those transcribed in golden letters, and suspended in the temple of Mecca, the same image occurs. It is thus rendered by Sir William Jones:

Their javelins had no share in drinking the blood of Naufel.

A similar expression occurs in Sophocles, Trachiniae, verse 1061, as quoted by Schultens, when describing the pestilence in which Hercules suffered:

ἐκ δὲ χλωρὸν αἵμα μου Πέπωκεν ἤδη –

ek de chlōron haima mou Pepōken ēdē –

This has been imitated by Cicero, Tusculan Disputations 2.8:

Haec me irretivit veste furiali inscium,
Quae lateri inhaerens morsu lacerat viscera,
Urgensque graviter, pulmonum haurit spiritus,
Jam decolorem sanguinem omnem exsorbuit.

So Lucan, Pharsalia 9.741 and following, gives a similar description:

Ecce subit virus taciturn, carpitque medullas
Ignis edax calidaque iacendit viscera tabe.
Ebibit humorem circa vitalia fusum
Pestis, et in sicco linguan torrere palato Coepit.

Far more beautiful, however, than the expressions of any of the ancient Classics – more tender, more delicate, more full of pathos – is the description which the Christian poet Cowper gives of the arrow that pierces the side of the sinner. It is the account of his own conversion:

I was a stricken deer that left the herd
Long since. With many an artery deep infix’d
My panting side was charged when I withdrew
To seek a tranquil death in distant shades.
There I was found by one, who had himself
Been hurt by the archers. In his side he bore,
And in his hands and feet, the cruel scars.

The Task, Book 3

Of such wounding he did not complain. The arrow was extracted by the tender hand of him who alone had power to do it. Had Job known of him; had he been fully acquainted with the plan of mercy through him, and the comfort which a wounded sinner may find there, we should not have heard the bitter complaints which he uttered in his trials. Let us not judge him with the severity which we may use of one who is afflicted and complains under the full light of the gospel.

The terrors of God do set themselves in array against me – Those things which God uses to excite terror. The word which is rendered “set in array” (ערך ‛ ârak) properly denotes the drawing up of a line for battle; and the sense is here, that all these terrors seem to be drawn up in battle array, as if on purpose to destroy him. No expression could more strikingly describe the condition of an awakened sinner, though it is not certain that Job used it precisely in this sense. The idea as he used it is, that all that God commonly employed to produce alarm seemed to be drawn up as in a line of battle against him.

Doth the wild ass bray when he hath grass? - On the habits of the wild ass, see the notes at (Job 11:12). The meaning of Job here is that he did not complain without reason; and this he illustrates by the fact that the wild animal that had a plentiful supply of food would be gentle and calm, and that when its bray was heard it was proof that it was suffering. So Job says that there was a reason for his complaining. He was suffering; and perhaps he means that his complaint was just as natural, and just as innocent, as the braying of the ass for its food. He should have remembered, however, that he was endowed with reason, and that he was bound to evince a different spirit from the brute creation.

Or loweth the ox over his fodder? - That is, the ox is satisfied and uncomplaining when his needs are supplied. The fact that he lows is proof that he is in distress, or there is a reason for it. So Job says that his complaints were proof that he was in distress, and that there was a reason for his language of complaint.

Can that which is unsavory - Which is insipid, or without taste.

Be eaten without salt - It is necessary to add salt to make it either palatable or wholesome. The literal truth of this no one can doubt. Insipid food cannot be relished, nor would it long sustain life. “The Orientals eat their bread often with mere salt, without any other addition except some dry and pounded summer-savory, which last is the common method at Aleppo.” Russell’s Natural History of Aleppo, p. 27.

It should be remembered also that the bread of the Orientals is commonly mere unleavened cakes; see Rosenmuller, Alte u. neue Morgenland, on (Genesis 18:6). The idea of Job in this adage or proverb is that there was a fitness and propriety in things. Certain things went together and were necessary companions. One cannot be expected without the other; one is incomplete without the other. Insipid food requires salt to make it palatable and nutritious, and so it is proper that suffering and lamentation should be united.

There was a reason for his complaints, as there was for adding salt to unsavory food. Much perplexity, however, has been felt regarding this whole passage (Job 6:6–7). Some have supposed that Job means to rebuke Eliphaz severely for his harangue on the necessity of patience, which he characterizes as insipid, impertinent, and disgusting to him—as being in fact as unpleasant to his soul as the white of an egg was to the taste.

Dr. Good explains it as meaning, “Does that which has nothing of seasoning, nothing of a pungent or irritating power within it, produce pungency or irritation? I too should be quiet and not complain, if I had nothing provocative or acrimonious; but alas! the food I am doomed to partake of is the very calamity which is most acute to my soul, that which I most loathe, and which is most grievous or trying to my palate.” But the real sense of this first part of the verse is, I think, that which is expressed above: that insipid food requires proper condiment, and that in his sufferings there was a real ground for lamentation and complaint, as there was for using salt in that which is unsavory. I see no reason to think that he meant in this to reproach Eliphaz for an insipid and unmeaning address.

Or is there any taste in the white of an egg? - Critics and commentators have been greatly divided about the meaning of this. The Septuagint renders it, εἰ δέ καί ἐστί γεῦμα ἐν ῥήμασι κενοῖς ei de kai esti geuma en rēmasi kenois; is there any taste in vain words? Jerome (Vulgate), “Can anyone taste that which being tasted produces death?” The Targums render it substantially as it is in our version.

The Hebrew word rendered “white” (ריר rı̂yr) properly means spittle (1 Samuel 21:13). If applied to an egg, it means the white of it, as resembling spittle. The word rendered “egg” (חלמוּת challâmûth) occurs nowhere else in the Scriptures.

If it is regarded as derived from חלם châlam—to sleep, or dream—it may denote somnolency or dreams, and then fatuity, folly, or a foolish speech, as resembling dreams; and many have supposed that Job meant to characterize the speech of Eliphaz as of this description.

The word may mean, as it does in Syriac, a species of herb, the “purslain” (Gesenius), proverbial for its insipidity among the Arabs, Greeks, and Romans, but which was used as a salad; and the whole phrase here may denote purslain-broth, and hence, an insipid discourse. This is the interpretation of Gesenius. But the more common and more probable explanation is that of our common version, denoting the white of an egg.

But what is the point of the remark as Job uses it? That it is a proverbial expression is apparent, but in what way Job meant to apply it is not so clear. The Jews say that he meant to apply it to the speech of Eliphaz as being insipid and dull, without anything to penetrate the heart or to enliven the fancy—a speech as disagreeable to the mind as the white of an egg was insipid to the taste.

Rosenmuller supposes that he refers to his afflictions as being as unpleasant to bear as the white of an egg was to the taste. It seems to me that the sense of all the proverbs used here is about the same, and that they mean, “There is a reason for everything that occurs. The ass brays and the ox lows only when destitute of food. That which is insipid is unpleasant, and the white of an egg is loathsome. So with my afflictions. They produce loathing and disgust. My very food (Job 6:7) is disagreeable, and everything seems tasteless as the most insipid food would. Hence the language which I have used—language spoken not without reason, and expressive of this state of the soul.”