a

a c 27. 2.

Job in ch. xii. 11.

4. Let us choose to us judgment. That is, let us examine and explore what is true and right. Amidst the conflicting opinions, and the sentiments which have been advanced, let us find out what will abide the test of close investigation.

5. For Job hath said, I am righteous. See ch. xiii. 18, "I know that I shall be justified." Comp. ch. xxiii. 10, 11, where he says, if he was tried he would come forth as gold. Elihu may have also referred to the general course of remark which he had pursued as vindicating himself. God hath taken away my judgment. This sentiment is found in ch. xxvii. 2. See Notes on that place.

And

6. Should I lie against my right? These are also quoted as the words of Job, and as a part of the erroneous opinions on which Elihu proposes to comment. These words do not occur, however, as used by Job respecting himself, and Elihu must be understood to refer to what he regarded as the general strain of the argument maintained by him. In regard to the meaning of the words, there have been various opinions. Jerome renders them, "For in judging me there is falsehood-mendacium est; my violent arrow [the painful arrow in me] is without any sin.' The LXX, "He [the Lord] hath been false in iny accusation "

ἐψένσατο δὲ τῷ κρίματί μου“ my arrow is heavy without transgression." Coverdale, "I must needs be a liar, though my

6 Should I lie against my right? my wound 'is incurable without transgression.

cause be right." Umbreit renders it, "I must lie if I should acknowledge myself to be guilty." Noyes, "Though I am innocent, I am made a liar." Prof. Lee, "Should I lie respecting my case? mine arrow is mortal without transgression." That is, Job said he could not lie about it; he could use no language that would deceive. He felt that a mortal arrow had reached him without transgression, or without any adequate cause Rosenmüller renders it, "However just may be my cause, I appear to be a liar." That is, he was regarded as guilty, and treated accordingly, however conscious he might be of innocence, and however strenuously he might maintain that he was not guilty. The meaning probably is, ' I am held to be a liar. I defend myself; go over my past life; state my course of conduct; meet the accusations of my friends, but in all this I am still held to be a liar. My friends so regard me-for they will not credit my statements, and they go on still to argue as if I was the most guilty of mortals. And God also in this holds me to be a liar, for he treats me constantly as if I were guilty. He hears not my vindication, and he inflicts pain and wo upon me as if all that I had said about my own integrity were false, and I were one of the most abandoned of mortals, so that on all hands I am regarded and treated as if I were basely false.' The literal translation of the Hebrew is, 'Concerning my judgment [or my cause] I am held to be a liar.' ¶ My wound is incurable. Marg. as in Heb. arrow. The idea is, that a deadly arrow had smitten him, which could not be exSo in Virgil,

tracted.

Hæret lateri letalis arundo. Æn. iv. 73. The image is taken from an animal that had been pierced with a deadly

7 What man is like Job, who drinketh up scorning like water; 8 Which goeth in company with the workers of iniquity, and walketh with wicked men ?

9 For he hath said, It profiteth a man nothing a that he should delight himself with God. arrow. T Without transgression. Without any sin that deserved such treatment. Job did not claim to be absolutely perfect; he maintained only that the sufferings which he endured were no proper proof of his character. Comp. cl. vi. 4.

7. What man is like Job, who drinketh up scorning like water? A similar image occurs in ch. xv. 16. The idea is, that he was full of reproachful speeches respecting God; of the language of irreverence and rebellion. He indulged in it as freely as a man drinks water; gathers up and imbibes all the language of reproach that he can find, and indulges in it as if it were perfectly harmless.

8. Which goeth in company with the workers of iniquity. That is, in his sentiments. The idea is, that he advocated the same opinions which they did, and entertained the same views of God and of his government. The same charge had been before brought against him by his friends. See Notes on ch. xxi.

9. For he hath said, It profiteth a man nothing that he should delight himself in God. That is, there is no advantage in piety, and in endeavoring to serve God. It will make no difference in the divine dealings with him. He will be treated just as well if he lives a life of sin, as if he undertakes to live after the severest rules of piety. Job had not used precisely this language, but in ch. ix. 22, he had expressed nearly the same sentiment. It is probable, however, that Elihu refers to what he regarded as the general scope and tendency of his remarks, as implying that there was no respect paid to character in the divine dealings with mankind. It

1 heart.

a c. 9. 22, 23. was easy to pervert the views which Job actually entertained, so as to make him appear to maintain this sentiment, and it was probably with a special view to this charge that Job uttered the sentiments recorded in ch. xxi. See Notes on that chapter.

10. Therefore, hearken unto me. Elihu proceeds now to reply to what he regarded as the erroneous sentiments of Job, and to show the impropriety of language which reflected so much on God and his government Instead, however, of meeting the facts in the case, and showing how the actual course of events could be reconciled with justice, he resolves it all into a matter of sovereignty, and maintains that it is wrong to doubt the rectitude of the dealings of one so mighty as God. In this he pursues the same course substantially which the friends of Job had done, and does little more to solve the real difficulties in the case than they had. The facts to which Job had referred are scarcely adverted to; the perplexing questions are still unsolved, and the amount of all that Elihu says is, that God is a sovereign, and that there must be an improper spirit when men presume to pronounce on his dealings. T Ye men of understanding. Marg. as in Heb. men of "heart.' The word heart is here used as it was uniformly among the Hebrews; the Jewish view of physiology being that the heart was the seat of all the mental operations. They never speak of the head as the seat of the intellect, as we do. The meaning here is, that Elihu regarded them as sages, qualified to comprehend and appreciate the truth on the subject under discussion. ¶ Far be it from God.

11 For the work" of a man of a man shall he render unto him, and cause every man to find according to his ways.

do wickedly, neither will the Almighty pervert judgment.

13 Who hath given him a charge over the earth? or who

1

a Re. 22. 12.

-"profane, unholy." It is an expression of abhorrence, as if the thing proposed were profane or unholy. I Sam. xx. 2. Gen. xviii. 25. Josh. xxiv. 16. The meaning here is, that the very idea that God would do wrong, or could patronize iniquity, was a profane conception, and was not to be tolerated for a moment. This is true enough, and in this general sentiment, no doubt, Job would himself have concurred.

11. For the work of a man shall he render unto him. He shall treat each man as he deserves-and this is the

essence of justice. Of the truth of this, also, there could have been no question. Elihu does not, indeed, apply it to the case of Job, but there can be little doubt that he intended that it should have such a reference.

He regarded Job as having accused God of injustice, for having inflicted woes on him which he by no means deserved. He takes care, therefore, to state this general principle, that with God there must be impartial justice-leaving the application of this principle to the facts in the world, to be arranged as well as possible.

No one can doubt that Elihu in this took the true ground, and that the great principle is to be held that God can do no wrong, and that all the facts in the universe MUST be consistent with this great principle, whether

we can now see it to be so or not.

12. Yea, surely God will not do wickedly. So important does Elihu hold this principle to be, that he repeats it, and dwells upon it. He says, "it surely () MUST be so. The principle must be held at all hazards, and no opinion which contravenes this should be indulged for one moment. His ground of com

13. Who hath given him a charge over the earth? That is, he is the Great original Proprietor and Ruler of all. He has derived his authority to govern from no one; he is under subjection to no one, and he has, therefore, an absolute right to do his own pleasure. Reigning then with absolute and original authority, no one has a right to call in question the equity of what he does. The argument of Elihu here, that God would do right, is derived solely from his independence. If he were a suborditerest in the correct administration of nate governor, he would feel less inaffairs, and might be tempted to commit injuries to gratify the feelings of his superior. As he is, however, supreme and independent, he cannot be tempted to do wrong by any reference to a superior will; as the universe is that which he has made, and which belongs to him, every consideration would lead him to do right to all. He can have no partiality for one more than another; and there can be no one to whom he would desire to do injustice-for who wishes to injure that which belongs to himself? Prof. Lee, however, renders this, "Who hath set a land in order against him?” against him?" He supposes that the remark is designed to show the folly of rebelling against God. But the

former interpretation seems better to accord with the scope of the argument. ¶ Or who hath disposed the whole world? Who has arranged the affairs of the universe? The word rendered "world," usually means the habitable earth, but it is employed here in the sense of the universe, and the idea is, that God has arranged and ordered all things, and that he is the supreme and absolute Sovereign.

14. If he set his heart upon man. Marg. as in Heb. 'upon him'. him '-meaning man. That is, if he fixes his attention particularly on him, or should form a purpose in regard to him. The argument seems to be this. If God wished such a thing, and should set his heart upon it, he could easily cut off the whole race. He has power to do it, and no one can deny him the right. Man has no claim to life, but he who gave it has a right to withdraw it, and the race is absolutely dependent on this infinite Sovereign. Being such a Sovereign, therefore, and having such a right, man cannot complain of his Maker as unjust, if he is called to pass through trials.' Rosenmüller, however, supposes this is to be taken in the sense of severe scrutiny, and that it means, 'If God should examine with strictness the life of man, and mark all his faults, no flesh would be allowed to live. All would be found to be guilty, and would be cut off.' Grotius supposes it to mean, 'If God should regard only himself; if he wished only to be good to himself--that is, to consult his own welfare, he would take away life from all, and live and reign alone.' This is also the interpretation of Umbreit, Schnurrer, and Eichhorn. Noyes regards it as an argument drawn from

2 bind.

a 2 Sa. 23. 3. the benevolence of God, meaning, if God were severe, unjust, and revengeful, the earth would be a scene of universal desolation. It seems to me, however, that it is rather an argument from the absolute sovereignty or power of the Almighty, implying that man had no right to complain of the divine dealings in the loss of health, property, or friends; for if he chose he might sweep away the whole race, and leave the earth desolate. T If he gather unto himself his spirit and his breath. The spirit of man is represented as having been originally given by God, and as returning to him when man dies. Eccl. xii. 7, "Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was; and the spirit shall return unto God who gave it.”

15. All flesh shall perish together. If God chose, he would have a right to cut down the whole race. How then shall men complain of the loss of health, comforts, and friends, and presume to arraign God as if he were unjust?

16. If now thou hast understanding, hear this. This appears to be addressed to Job. The discourse before this had been directed to his three friends, but Elihu appears here to have turned to Job, and to have made a solemn appeal to him, whether this were not so. In the subsequent verses he remonstrates with him about his views, and shows him that what he had said implied severe reflections on the character and government of God.

17. Shall even he that hateth right govern? Marg. as in Heb. bind. That is, shall he bind by laws. The argument in this verse seems to be an appeal to what must be the conviction of mankind, that God, the Great