Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Job 19:16
I called my servant, and he gave [me] no answer; I entreated him with my mouth.
I called my servant – He lost all respect for me, and paid me no attention.
I entreated him – I ceased to expect obedience, and tried to see what persuasion would do. I ceased to be master in my own house.
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible
I called my servant, to do some servile office about me, for my case or relief, and he passed by as if he had been deaf, because he loathed and feared to come near to me; although to my commands I added humble and earnest desires.
With my mouth: either,
1. With gentle and moving speeches; or rather,
2. With my own mouth, and not by a proxy.
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole
16. servantborn in my house(as distinguished from those sojourning in it), and so altogetherbelonging to the family. Yet even he disobeys my call.
mouththat is, “callingaloud”; formerly a nod was enough. Now I no longer lookfor obedience, I try entreaty.
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible
I called my servant,…. His manservant, whom he had hired into his house, and who waited upon his person, and had been his trusty and faithful servant, and was dear unto him, and he had shown him much respect and kindness in the time of his prosperity; him he called to him, to do this and that and the other thing for him as usual; and of whose assistance and service he might stand in more need, being so greatly afflicted in body as well as in other things; and who ought to have been obedient to his call in all things, and have served him with all readiness and cheerfulness, with all heartiness, sincerity, integrity, and faithfulness; and given him the same honour and reverence as before; but instead of all this, it is observed,
and he gave [me] no answer; whether he would or would not do what he ordered him to do; he took no notice of him, he turned a deaf ear to him, and his back upon him; he came not near him, but kept his place where he was, or walked off without showing any regard to what he said to him; he neither answered him by words, nor by deeds; neither signified his readiness to do what he was ordered, nor did it. In some cases it is criminal in servants to answer again, when they thwart and contradict their masters, or reply in a saucy, surly, and impudent manner; but when they are spoke to about their master’s business, it becomes them to answer in a decent, humble, and respectable way, declaring their readiness to do their master’s will and pleasure:
I entreated him with my mouth; which is an aggravation of his insolence and disobedience; such was the low condition Job was reduced unto, and such the humility of his mind under his present circumstances, that he laid aside the authority of a master, and only entreated his servant, and begged it as if it was a favour, to do this or the other for him; nor did he signify this by a look and cast of his eye, or by a nod of his head, or by the direction of his hand; but with his mouth he spake unto him, and let him know what he would have done; and this not in an authoritative, haughty, and imperious manner; but with good words, and in submissive language, as it was something he was beholden to his servant for, rather than obedience to be performed.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
16 I call to my servant and he answereth not,
I am obliged to entreat him with my mouth.
17 My breath is offensive to my wife,
And my stench to my own brethren.
18 Even boys act contemptuously towards me;
If I will rise up, they speak against me.
19 All my confidential friends abhor me,
And those whom I loved have turned against me.
20 My bone cleaveth to my skin and flesh,
And I am escaped only with the skin of my teeth.
His servant, who otherwise saw every command in his eyes, and was attent upon his wink, now not only does not come at his call, but does not return him any answer. The one of the home-born slaves (vid., on Gen 14:14),
(Note: The (black) slaves born within the tribe itself are in the present day, from their dependence and bravery, accounted as the stay of the tribe, and are called fadwje, as those who are ready to sacrifice their life for its interest. The body-slave of Job is thought of as such as .)
who stood in the same near connection to Job as Eliezer to Abraham, is intended here, in distinction from , Job 19:15. If he, his master, now in such need of assistance, desires any service from him, he is obliged ( fut. with the sense of being compelled, as e.g., Job 15:30, Job 17:2) to entreat him with his mouth. , to beg of any one for one’s self (vid., supra, p. 365), therefore to implore, supplicare ; and here (as Psa 89:2; Psa 109:30) as a more significant expression of that which is loud and intentional (not as Job 16:5, in contrast to that which proceeds from the heart). In Job 19:17, signifies neither my vexation (Hirz.) nor my spirit = I (Umbr., Hahn, with the Syr.), for in the sense of angry humour (as Job 15:13) does not properly suit the predicate, and Arab. ruhy in the signification ipse may certainly be used in Arabic, where ruh (perhaps under the influence of the philosophical usage of the language) signifies the animal spirit-life ( Psychol. S. 154), not however in Hebrew, where is the stereotype form in that sense. If one considers that the elephantiasis, although its proper pathological symptom consists in an enormous hypertrophy of the cellular tissue of single distinct portions of the body, still easily, if the bronchia are drawn into sympathy, or if (what is still more natural) putrefaction of the blood with a scorbutic ulcerous formation in the mouth comes on, has difficulty of breathing (Job 7:15) and stinking breath as its result, as also a stinking exhalation and the discharge of a stinking fluid from the decaying limbs is connected with it (vid., the testimony of the Arabian physicians in Stickel, S. 169f.), it cannot be doubted that Jer. has lighted upon the correct thing when he transl. halitum meum exhorruit uxor mea . is intended as in Job 17:1, and it is unnecessary to derive from a special verb , although in Arab. the notions which are united in the Hebr. .r , deflectere and abhorrere (to turn one’s self away from what is disgusting or horrible), are divided between Arab. zar med . Wau and Arab. dar med . Je (vid., Frst’s Handwrterbuch).
In Job 19:17 the meaning of is specially questionable. In Psa 77:10, is, like , Eze 36:3, an infinitive from , formed after the manner of the Lamed He verbs. Ges. and Olsh. indeed prefer to regard these forms as plurals of substantives ( , ), but the respective passages, regarded syntactically and logically, require infinitives. As regards the accentuation, according to which is accented by Rebia mugrasch on the ultima, this does not necessarily decide in favour of its being infin., since in the 1 praet. , which, according to rule, has the tone on the penultima, the ultima is also sometimes (apart from the perf. consec.) found accented (on this, vid., on Psa 17:3, and Ew. 197, a), as , , , also admit of both accentuations.
(Note: The ultima -accentuation of the form is regular, is the Waw conv. praet. in fut. is added, as Exo 33:19, Exo 33:22; 2Ki 19:34; Isa 65:7; Eze 20:38; Mal 2:2; Psa 89:24. Besides, the penultima has the tone regularly, e.g., Jos 5:9; 1Sa 12:3; 1Sa 22:22; Jer 4:28; Psa 35:14; Psa 38:7; Job 40:4; Ecc 2:20. There are, however, exceptions, Deu 32:41 ( ), Isa 44:16 ( ), Psa 17:3 ( ), Psa 92:11 ( ), Psa 116:6 ( ). Perhaps the ultima -accentuation in these exceptional instances is intended to protect the indistinct pronunciation of the consonants Beth, Waw, or even Resh, at the beginning of the following words, which might easily become blended with the final syllable ; certainly the reason lies in the pronunciation or in the rhythm (vid., on Psa 116:6, and comp. the retreating of the tone in the infin. (Psa 77:11). Looking at this last exception, which has not yet been cleared up, in the present passage will always be able to be regarded on internal grounds either as infin. or as 1 praet. The ultima -accentuation makes the word at first sight appear to be infin., whereas in comparison with , which is accented on the penult., and therefore as 3 praet., seems also to be intended as praet. The accentuation, therefore, leaves the question in uncertainty.)
If is infin., the clause is a nominal clause, or a verbal one, that is to be supplemented by the v. fin. ; if it is first pers. praet., we have a verbal clause. It must be determined from the matter and the connection which of these explanations, both of which are in form and syntax possible, is the correct one.
The translation, “I entreat (groan to) the sons of my body,” is not a thought that accords with the context, as would be obtained by the infin. explanation: my entreating (is offensive); this signif. (prop. to Hithp. as above) assigned to Kal by von Hofmann ( Schriftbew. ii. 2, 612) is at least not to be derived from the derivative ; it might be more easily deduced from , Jer 22:23, which appears to be a Niph. like , , from , but might also be derived from = by means of a transposition (vid., Hitz.). In the present passage one might certainly compare Arab. hnn , the usual word for the utterance and emotion of longing and sympathy, or also Arab. chnn , fut. i (with the infin. noun chann ), which occurs in the signifn. of weeping, and transl.: my imploring, groaning, weeping, is offensive, etc. Since, however, the X. form of the Arab. chnn ( istachanna ) signifies to give forth an offensive smell (esp. of the stinking refuse of a well that is dried up); and besides, since the significatn. foetere is supported for the root (comp. ) by the Syriac channo (e.g., meshcho channo , rancid oil), we may also translate: “My stinking is offensive,” etc., or: “I stink to the children of my body” (Rosenm., Ew., Hahn, Schlottm.); and this translation is not only not hazardous in a book that so abounds in derivations from the dialects, but it furnishes a thought that is as closely as possible connected with Job 19:17.
(Note: Supplementary: Instead of istachanna (of the stinking of a well, perhaps denom. from Arab. chnn , prop. to smell like a hen-house), the verb hhannana (with Arab. h ) = affana , “to be corrupt, to have a mouldy smell,” can, with Wetzstein, be better compared with ; thence comes zet mohhannin = moaffin , corrupt rancid oil, corresponding to the Syriac . Thus ambiguously to the sellers of walnuts in Damascus cry out their wares with the words: el – mohhannin maugud , “the merciful One liveth,” i.e., I do not guarantee the quality of my wares. In like manner, not only can Arab. dar inf. dheir ( dher ), to be offensive, be compared with , but, with Wetzstein, also the very common steppe word for ”to be bad, worthless,” Arab. zra , whence adj. zar (with nunation zarjun ).)
The further question now arises, who are meant by . Perhaps his children? But in the prologue these have utterly perished. Are we to suppose, with Eichhorn and Olshausen, that the poet, in the heat of discourse, forgets what he has laid down in the prologue? When we consider that this poet, within the compass of his work, – a work into which he has thrown his whole soul, – has allowed no anachronism, and no reference to anything Israelitish that is contradictory to its extra-Israelitish character, to escape him, such forgetfulness is very improbable; and when we, moreover, bear in mind that he often makes the friends refer to the destruction of Job’s children (as Job 8:4; Job 15:30; Job 18:16), it is altogether inconceivable. Hence Schrring has proposed the following explanation: “My soul a substitution of which Hahn is also guilty is strange to my wife; my entreaty does not even penetrate to the sons of my body, it cannot reach their ear, for they are long since in Shel.” But he himself thinks this interpretation very hazardous and insecure; and, in fact, it is improbable that in the division, Job 19:13, where Job complains of the neglect and indifference which he now experiences from those around him, should be the only dead ones among the living, in which case it would moreover be better, after the Arabic version, to translate: “My longing is for, or: I yearn after, the children of my body.” Grandchildren (Hirz., Ew., Hlgst. Hahn) might be more readily thought of; but it is not even probable, that after having introduced the ruin of all of Job’s children, the poet would represent their children as still living, some mention of whom might then at least be expected in the epilogue. Others, again (Rosenm. Justi, Gleiss), after the precedent of the lxx ( ), understand the sons of concubines (slaves). Where, however, should a trace be found of the poet having conceived of his hero as a polygamist, – a hero who is even a model of chastity and continence (Job 31:1)?
But must really signify his sons or grandsons? Children certainly are frequently called, in relation to the father, (e.g., Deu 7:13), and the father himself can call them (Mic 6:7); but in this reference is not the body of the father, but the mother’s womb, whence, begotten by him, the children issue forth. Hence “son of my body” occurs only once (Pro 31:2) in the mother’s mouth. In the mouth of Job even (where the first origin of man is spoken of), signifies not Job’s body, but the womb that conceived him (vid., Job 3:10); and thus, therefore, it is not merely possible, but it is natural, with Stuhlm., Ges., Umbr., and Schlottm., to understand of the sons of his mother’s womb, i.e., of her who bare him; consequently, as , Psa 69:9, of natural brethren (brothers and sisters, sorores uterinae ), in which sense, regarding according to the most natural influence of the tone as infin., we transl.: “and my stinking is offensive (supply ) to the children of my mother’s womb.” It is also possible that the expression, as the words seem to be taken by Symmachus ( , my slaves’ children), and as they are taken by Kosegarten, in comparison with the Arab. btn in the signification race, subdivision (in the downward gradation, the third) of a greater tribe, may denote those who with him belong in a wider sense to one mother’s bosom, i.e., to the same clan, although the mention of in close connection with is not favourable to this extension of the idea. The circle of observation is certainly widened in Job 19:18, where are not Job’s grandchildren (Hahn), but the children of neighbouring families and tribes; (vid., Job 16:11) is a boy, and especially (perh. on account of the similarity in sound between and ) a rude, frolicsome, mischievous boy. Even such make him feel their contempt; and if with difficulty, and under the influence of pain which distorts his countenance, he attempts to raise himself ( , lxx , hypothetical cohortative, as Job 11:17; Job 16:6), they make him the butt of their jesting talk ( , as Psa 50:20).
Job 19:19 is the name he gives those to whom he confides his most secret affairs; (vid., on Psa 25:14) signifies either with a verbal notion, secret speaking (Arab. sawada , III. form from sada , to press one’s self close upon, esp. as sarra , to speak in secret with any one), or what is made firm, i.e., what is impenetrable, therefore a secret (from sada , to be or make close, firm, compact; cognate root, , wasada , cognate in signification, sirr , a secret, from sarra , , which likewise signifies to make firm). Those to whom he has made known his most secret plans (comp. Psa 55:13-15) now abhor him; and those whom he has thus ( , as Job 15:17) become attached to, and to whom he has shown his affection, – he says this with an allusion to the three, – have turned against him. They gave tokens of their love and honour to him, when he was in the height of his happiness and prosperity, but they have not even shown any sympathy with him in his present form of distress.
(Note: The disease which maims or devours the limbs, da’u el – gudham [ vid. supra, p. 281], which generically includes Arabian leprosy, cancer, and syphilis, and is called the “first-born of death” in Job 18:13, is still in Arabia the most dreaded disease, in the face of which all human sympathy ceases. In the steppe, even the greatest personage who is seized with this disease is removed at least a mile or two from the encampment, where a charbush , i.e., a small black hair-tent, is put up for him, and an old woman, who has no relations living, is given him as an attendant until he dies. No one visits him, not even his nearest relations. He is cast off as muqatal ollah . – Wetzst. The prejudice combated by the book of Job, that the leper is, as such, one who is smitten by the wrath of God, has therefore as firm hold of the Arabian mind in the present day as it had centuries ago.)
His bones cleave ( , Aq. , lxx erroneously , i.e., ) to his skin, i.e., the bones may be felt and seen through the skin, and the little flesh that remains is wasted away almost to a skeleton (vid., Job 7:15). This is not contradictory to the primary characteristic symptom of the lepra nodosa ; for the wasting away of the rest of the body may attain an extraordinarily high degree in connection with the hypertrophy of single parts. He can indeed say of himself, that he is only escaped ( se soit chapp) with the skin of his teeth. By the “skin of his teeth” the gums are generally understood. But (1) the gum is not skin, and can therefore not be called “skin of the teeth” in any language; (2) Job complains in Job 19:17 of his offensive breath, which in itself does not admit of the idea of healthy gums, and especially if it be the result of a scorbutic ulceration of the mouth, presupposes an ulcerous destruction of the gums. The current translation, “with my gums,” is therefore to be rejected on account both of the language and the matter. For this reason Stickel (whom Hahn follows) takes as inf. from , and translates: “I am escaped from it with my teeth naked” lit. with the being naked of my teeth, i.e., with teeth that are no longer covered, standing forward uncovered. This explanation is pathologically satisfactory; but it has against it (1) the translation of , which is wide of the most natural interpretation of the word; (2) that in close connection with one expects the mention of a part of the body that has remained whole. Is there not, then, really a skin of the teeth in the proper sense? The gum is not skin, but the teeth are surrounded with a skin in the jaw, the so-called periosteum. If we suppose, what is natural enough, that his offensive breath, Job 19:17, arises from ulcers in the mouth (in connection with scorbutus, as is known, the breath has a terribly offensive smell), we obtain the following picture of Job’s disease: his flesh is in part hypertrophically swollen, in part fearfully wasted away; the gums especially are destroyed and wasted away from the teeth, only the periosteum round about the teeth is still left to him, and single remnants of the covering of his loose and projecting teeth.
Thus we interpret in the first signification of the words, and have also no need for supposing that Job 19:20 is a proverbial phrase for “I have with great care and difficulty escaped the extreme.” The declaration perfectly corresponds to the description of the disease; and it is altogether needless with Hupfeld, after Job 13:14, to read , vitam solam et nudam vix reportavi , which is moreover inappropriate, since Job regards himself as one who is dying. Symm. alters the position of the similarly, since he translates after the Syriac Hexapla: ( ) , from = , Arab. mllt , nudare pilis , which J. D. Michaelis also compares; the sense, however, which is thereby gained, is beneath all criticism. On the aoristic , vid., on Job 1:15. Stickel has on this passage an excursus on this ah, to which he also attributes, in this addition to the historic tense, the idea of striving after a goal: “I slip away, I escape;” it certainly gives vividness to the notion of the action, if it may not always have the force of direction towards anything. Therefore: with a destroyed flesh, and indeed so completely destroyed that there is even nothing left to him of sound skin except the skin of his teeth, wasted away to a skeleton, and become both to sight and smell a loathsome object; – such is the sufferer the friends have before them, – one who is tortured, besides, by a dark conflict which they only make more severe, – one who now implores them for pity, and because he has no pity to expect from man, presses forward to a hope which reaches beyond the grave.
Fuente: Keil & Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament
16. My servant Probably a head servant, as in Gen 24:2.
With my mouth The mouth that had been accustomed to command now entreats.
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
Job 19:16. He gave me no answer And he answered me not, though I intreated, &c. Houbigant.
Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke
Job 19:16 I called my servant, and he gave [me] no answer; I intreated him with my mouth.
Ver. 16. I called my servant, and he gave me no answer ] Though I lay under greatest sores and sorrows, and called them to help me, yet such was their impudence and inhumanity, that they would not vouchsafe an answer. Considera hic quanta crux sit, saith Brentius, a sua propria familia despici et rideri; Consider with me, here, what an affliction it is for a man to be despised and derided by his own family. A servant’s eye should look to the hands of his master, and the eye of a maiden to the hand of her mistress, to observe the motion thereof, and to pick out the meaning, Psa 123:2 . Accounting their governors worthy of all honour, 1Ti 6:1 , as the centurion’s obsequious servants did, Mat 8:9 . Sed sic fere sunt servorum ingenia, But so wild are the servants of nature, saith Merlin here. But such is the condition of many servants today, that they will do no more than needs must. Job’s would neither say nor do.
I intreated him with my mouth
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
my servant: Job 1:15, Job 1:16, Job 1:17, Job 1:19
Reciprocal: Deu 19:18 – diligent 2Sa 19:29 – Why speakest Job 19:15 – dwell Pro 29:19 – though