9<\/strong>. They pluck<\/em> ] Or, there are who pluck<\/strong>. The reference is to the ruling class who, for some debt perhaps of the dependent, seize the infant of the debtor, in order by selling it or bringing it up as a slave to repay themselves.<\/p>\n take a pledge of the poor<\/em> ] The words might mean “take in pledge that which is on the poor,” i. e. their scanty clothing. Others refer the words to the preceding inhuman act of plucking the child from the breast and render: “and take this pledge of the poor” (Ew.).<\/p>\n 9 12<\/strong>. These verses describe the miseries of another class, those who have allowed themselves to be subjected, and become serfs and bondmen attached to the estates of the rich. Probably they are but a portion of the same aboriginal tribes mentioned in Job 24:5-7<\/em><\/span>.<\/p>\n They pluck the fatherless from the breast – <\/B>That is, they steal away unprotected children, and sell them, or make slaves of them for their own use. If this is the correct interpretation, then there existed at that time, what has existed since, so much to the disgrace of mankind, the custom of kidnapping children, and bearing them away to be sold as slaves. Slavery existed in early ages; and it must have been in some such way that slaves were procured. The wonder of Job is, that such people were permitted to live – that God did not come forth and punish them. The fact still exists, and the ground of wonder is not diminished. Africa bleeds under wrongs of this kind; and the vengeance of heaven seems to sleep, though the child is torn away from its mother, and conveyed, amid many horrors, to a distant land, to wear out life in hopeless servitude.<\/P> And take a pledge of the poor – <\/B>Take that, therefore, which is necessary for the comfort of the poor, and retain it, so that they cannot enjoy its use; see the notes at Job 22:6<\/span>.<\/P> <\/p>\n Verse 9<\/span>. They pluck the fatherless from the breast<\/B><\/I>] They forcibly take young children in order that they may bring them up in a state of slavery<\/I>. This verse is the commencement of a new paragraph, and points out the arbitrary dealings of oppressors, under despotic governors.<\/P> <\/P> Take a pledge of the poor.<\/B><\/I>] Oppressive landlords who let out their grounds at an exorbitant rent, which the poor labourers, though using the utmost diligence, are unable at all times to pay; and then the unfeeling wretch sells then up<\/I>, as the phrase here is, or takes their cow<\/I>, their horse<\/I>, their cart<\/I>, or their bed,<\/I> in pledge, that the money shall be paid in such a time. This is one of the crying sins of some countries of Europe.<\/P> <\/p>\n They; <\/B>the wicked oppressors, as is manifest from the following words. <\/P> From the breast; <\/B>either out of cruelty, not sparing poor infants, but killing them; or out of covetousness, and with design either to sell the mother, or to employ her in their work, to which they so strictly confine her, that they will not allow any of her time or strength for the suckling of her infant. <\/P> Take a pledge of the poor; <\/B>of which See Poole “Job 22:6<\/span>“. <\/P> <\/p>\n 9. from the breast<\/B>of thewidowed mother. Kidnapping children for slaves. Here Job passes fromwrongs in the desert to those done among the habitations of men. <\/P> pledge<\/B>namely, thegarment of the poor debtor, as Job24:10<\/span> shows.<\/P><\/p>\n They pluck the fatherless from the breast<\/strong>,…. Either on purpose to starve it, which must be extremely barbarous; or to sell it to be brought up a slave; or by obliging the mother to wean it before the due time, that she might be the better able to do work for them they obliged her to. Mr. Broughton renders the words, “of mischievousness they rob the fatherless”; that is, through the greatness of the mischief they do, as Ben Gersom interprets it; or through the exceeding mischievous disposition they are of; of which this is a flagrant instance; or<\/p>\n “they rob the fatherless of what remains for him after spoiling n,”<\/p>\n or devastation, through the plunder of his father’s substance now dead, which was exceeding cruel:<\/p>\n and take a pledge of the poor<\/strong>; either the poor himself, or his poor fatherless children, see 2Ki 4:1<\/span>; or what is “upon the poor” o, as it may be rendered; that is, his raiment, which was commonly taken for a pledge; and, by a law afterwards established in Israel, was obliged to be restored before sunset, that he might have a covering to sleep in, Ex 22:26<\/span>;<\/p>\n [See comments on Job 22:6]<\/span>.<\/p>\n n “per devastationem”, some in Munster; “post vastationem”, Tigurine version; so Nachmanides Bar Tzemach. o “super inopem”, Cocceius, Schultens so Ben Gersom.<\/p>\n 9 They tear the fatherless from the breast,<\/p>\n And defraud the poor.<\/p>\n 10 Naked, they slink away without clothes,<\/p>\n And hungering they bear the sheaves.<\/p>\n 11 Between their walls they squeeze out the oil;<\/p>\n They tread the wine-presses, and suffer thirst.<\/p>\n 12 In the city vassals groan, And the soul of the oppressed crieth out – <\/p>\n And Eloah heedeth not the anomaly.<\/p>\n The accentuation of Job 24:9<\/span><\/em> ( with Dech<\/em>, with Munach<\/em>) makes the relation of genitival. Heidenheim (in a MS annotation to Kimchi’s Lex<\/em>.) accordingly badly interprets: they plunder from the spoil of the orphan; Ramban better: from the ruin, i.e., the shattered patrimony; both appeal to the Targum, which translates , like the Syriac version, men bezto de – jatme <\/em> (comp. Jerome: vim fecerunt depraedantes pupillos <\/em>). The original reading, however, is perhaps (vid., Buxtorf, Lex<\/em>. col. 295) , , from the mother’s breast, as it is also, the lxx ( ), to be translated contrary to the accentuation. Inhuman creditors take the fatherless and still tender orphan away from its mother, in order to bring it up as a slave, and so to obtain payment. If this is the meaning of the passage, it is natural to understand , Job 24:9<\/span><\/em>, of distraining; but (1) the poet would then repeat himself tautologically, vid., Job 24:3<\/span>, where the same thing is far more evidently said; (2) , to distrain, would be construed with , contrary to the logic of the word. Certainly the phrase may be in some degree explained by the interpretation, “to impose a fine” (Ew., Hahn), or “to distrain” (Hirz., Welte), or “to oppress with fines” (Schlottm.); but violence is thus done to the usage of the language, which is better satisfied by the explanation of Ralbag (among modern expositors, Ges., Arnh., Vaih., Stick., Hlgst.): and what the unfortunate one possesses they seize; but this = directly as object is impossible. The passage, Deu 7:25<\/span>, cited by Schultens in its favour, is of a totally different kind.<\/p>\n But throughout the Semitic dialects the verb also signifies “to destroy, to treat injuriously” (e.g., Arab. el – chabil <\/em>, a by-name of Satan); it occurs in this signification in Job 34:31<\/span>, and according to the analogy of , 1Ki 17:20<\/span>, can be construed with as well as with . The poet, therefore, by this construction will have intended to distinguish the one from the other, Job 22:6<\/span>; Job 24:3<\/span>; and it is with Umbreit to be translated: they bring destruction upon the poor; or better: they take undue advantage of those who otherwise are placed in trying circumstances.<\/p>\n The subjects of Job 24:10<\/span> are these , who are made serfs, and become objects of merciless oppression, and the poet here in Job 24:10<\/span><\/em> indeed repeats what he has already said almost word for word in Job 24:7<\/span><\/em> (comp. Job 31:19<\/span>); but there the nakedness was the general calamity of a race oppressed by subjugation, here it is the consequence of the sin of merces retenta laborum ,<\/em> which cries aloud to heaven, practised on those of their own race: they slink away ( , as Job 30:28<\/span>) naked ( nude<\/em>), without ( = , as perhaps sine<\/em> = absque<\/em>) clothing, and while suffering hunger they carry the sheaves (since their masters deny them what, according to Deu 25:4<\/span>, shall not be withheld even from the beasts). Between their walls ( like , Jer 5:10<\/span>, Chaldee ), i.e., the walls of their masters who have made them slaves, therefore under strict oversight, they press out the oil ( , . . ), they tread the wine-vats ( , lacus <\/em>), and suffer thirst withal ( fut. consec.<\/em> according to Ew. 342, a<\/em>), without being allowed to quench their thirst from the must which runs out of the presses ( , torcularia ,<\/em> from which the verb is here transferred to the vats). Bttch. translates: between their rows of trees, without being able to reach out right or left; but that is least of all suitable with the olives. Carey correctly explains: “the factories or the garden enclosures of these cruel slaveholders.” This reference of the word to the wall of the enclosure is more suitable than to walls of the press-house in particular. From tyrannical oppression in the country, <\/p>\n (Note: Brentius here remarks: Quantum igitur judicium in eos futurum est, qui in homines ejusdem carnis, ejusdem patriae, ejusdem fidei, ejusdem Christi committunt quod nec in bruta animalia committendum est, quod malum in Germania frequentissimum est. Vae igitur Germaniae! <\/em>)<\/p>\n Job now passes over to the abominations of discord and was in the cities.<\/p>\n Job 24:12<\/span> <\/p>\n <\/strong> <\/em> It is natural, with Umbr., Ew., Hirz., and others, to read like the Peschito; but as mte <\/em> in Syriac, so also in Hebrew as a noun everywhere signifies the dead (Arab. mauta <\/em>), not the dying, mortals (Arab. matna<\/em>); wherefore Ephrem interprets the praes.<\/em> “they groan” by the perf.<\/em> “they have groaned.” The pointing , therefore, is quite correct; but the accentuation which, by giving Mehupach Zinnorith<\/em> to , and Asla legarmeh<\/em> to , places the two words in a genitival relation, is hardly correct: in the city of men, i.e., the inhabited, thickly-populated city, they groan; not: men (as Rosenm. explains, according to Gen 9:6<\/span>; Pro 11:6<\/span>) groan; for just because appeared to be too inexpressive as a subject, this accentuation seems to have been preferred. It is also possible that the signification fierce anger (Hos 11:9<\/span>), or anguish (Jer 15:8<\/span>), was combined with , comp. Arab. gayrt <\/em>, jealousy, fury (= ), of which, however, no trace is anywhere visible.<\/p>\n (Note: Wetzstein translates Hos 11:9<\/span>: I will not come as a raging foe, with of the attribute = Arab. b – sifat ‘l – ayyur <\/em> (comp. Jer 15:8<\/span>, , parall. ) after the form , to which, if not this , certainly the , , occurring in Dan 4:10<\/span>, and freq., corresponds. What we remarked above, p. 483, on the form , is cleared up by the following observation of Wetzstein: “The form belongs to the numerous class of segolate forms of the form , which, as belonging to the earliest period of the formation of the Semitic languages, take neither plural nor feminine terminations; they have often a collective meaning, and are not originally abstracta <\/em>, but concreta<\/em> in the sense of the Arabic part. act. mufal <\/em>. This inflexible primitive formation is frequently found in the present day in the idiom of the steppe, which shows that the Hebrew is essentially of primeval antiquity ( uralt <\/em>). Thus the Beduin says: hu qitl <\/em> ( ), he is my opponent in a hand-to-hand combat; nith <\/em> ( ), my opponent in the tournament with lances; chlf <\/em> ( ) and didd <\/em> ( ), my adversary; thus a step-mother is called dr <\/em> ( ), as the oppressor of the step-children, and a concubine dirr <\/em> ( ), as the oppressor of her rival. The Kamus also furnishes several words which belong here, as tilb <\/em> ( ), a persecutor.” Accordingly, is derived from , as also , a city, from (whence, according to a prevalent law of the change of letters, we have first of all, plur<\/em>. , Jdg 10:4<\/span>), and signifies the rebelling one, i.e., the enemy (who is now in the idiom of the steppe called qomani <\/em>, from qom <\/em>, a state of war, a feud), as , a keeper and , a messenger; ( ) is also originally concrete, a wall (enclosure).)<\/p>\n With Jer., Symm., and Theod., we take as the sighing ones themselves; the feebleness of the subject disappears if we explain the passage according to such passages as Deu 2:34<\/span>; Deu 3:6<\/span>, comp. Jdg 20:48<\/span>: it is the male inhabitants that are intended, whom any conqueror would put to the sword; we have therefore translated men (men of war), although “people” (Job 11:3<\/span>) also would not have been unsuitable according to the ancient use of the word. is intended of the groans of the dying, as Jer 51:52<\/span>; Eze 30:24<\/span>, as Job 24:12<\/span><\/em> also shows: the soul of those that are mortally wounded cries out. signifies not merely the slain and already dead, but, according to its etymon, those who are pierced through those who have received their death-blow; their soul cries out, since it does not leave the body without a struggle. Such things happen without God preventing them. , He observeth not the abomination, either = , Job 22:22<\/span> (He layeth it not to heart), or, since the phrase occurs nowhere elliptically, = , Job 1:8<\/span>; Job 34:23<\/span>) He does not direct His heart, His attention to it), here as elliptical, as in Job 4:20<\/span>; Isa 41:20<\/span>. True, the latter phrase is never joined with the acc.<\/em> of the object; but if we translate after , Job 4:18<\/span>: non imputat ,<\/em> He does not reckon such , i.e., does not punish it, ( ) ought to be supplied, which is still somewhat liable to misconstruction, since the preceding subject is not the oppressors, but those who suffer oppression. is properly insipidity (comp. Arab. tafila <\/em>, to stink), absurdity, self-contradiction, here the immorality which sets at nought the moral order of the world, and remains nevertheless unpunished. The Syriac version reads , and translates, like Louis Bridel (1818): et Dieu ne fait aucune attention leur prir e.<\/em> <\/p>\n Third strophe The wretched poor are treated worse than the brute, and in the cities even, the blood of the innocent cries to God in vain<\/em>, Job 24:9-12<\/span>.<\/p>\n 9<\/strong>. <\/strong> They <\/strong> The high-handed oppressors of whom he had spoken in Job 24:4<\/span>. “Inhuman creditors take the fatherless and still tender orphan away from its mother, in order to bring it up as a slave, and so to obtain payment.” Delitzsch. <\/p>\n <\/em><\/p>\n Take a pledge <\/strong> What the poor has on they take as a pledge. <\/em> GESENIUS. Mosaical legislation protected the outer garment of the poor, as it served for a covering by night. Exo 22:26<\/span>.<\/p>\n Job 24:9 They pluck the fatherless from the breast, and take a pledge of the poor.<\/p>\n Ver. 9. They pluck the fatherless from the breast<\/strong> ] What can be more to be pitied than a fatherless suckling? Who less to be molested or violenced than the mother doing that office to her babe? In the Parisian Massacre one of the murderers took a little one in his arms, who smiled upon him and played with his beard; yet this barbarous wretch was so far from compassion, that he wounded it with his dagger, and so cast it all gore blood into the river (Acts and Mon.). The story of the infant of the isle of Guernsey, thrown back into the fire, out of which it had sprawled, is well known. So is the savage inhumanity of that merciless Minerius, the pope’s champion, who at Merindola, in France, cut off the paps of many which gave suck to their children; which, looking for suck at their mother’s breasts, being dead before, died also for hunger. Well, therefore, might our Saviour say, “Beware of men,” Mat 10:17<\/span> . It had been better the Indies had been given to the devils of hell, said those poor natives, than to those bloody Spaniards, who dashed the mothers in pieces upon their children, as once at Betharbel, Hos 10:14<\/span> . <\/p>\n <\/p>\n And take a pledge from the poor<\/strong> ] Misery, which should beget pity in them, begetteth but audacity, and inviteth them to ruin the poor, and fill their houses with their spoils. Some render it thus, They take the poor for a pledge; sc.<\/em> putting them to their ransom, and meanwhile enslaving them.<\/p>\n 2Ki 4:1, Neh 5:5 <\/p>\n Reciprocal: Exo 22:26 – to pledge Deu 24:12 – General Job 6:27 – the fatherless Job 22:6 – For thou Job 31:21 – lifted Pro 23:10 – fatherless Jer 22:3 – do no violence Eze 18:7 – hath restored Eze 33:15 – restore<\/p>\n Job 24:9-10. They The wicked oppressors; pluck the fatherless from the breast Either out of cruelty, not sparing poor infants, or out of covetousness, not allowing the mother time for the suckling of her infant. They take away the sheaf from the hungry That single sheaf, which the poor man had got with the sweat of his brow, to satisfy his hunger. <\/p>\n 24:9 They pluck the fatherless {i} from the breast, and take a pledge of {k} the poor.<\/p>\n (i) That is, they so pillage and plunder the poor widow that she cannot sustain herself that she may be able to nurse her baby.<\/p>\n They pluck the fatherless from the breast, and take a pledge of the poor. 9. They pluck ] Or, there are who pluck. The reference is to the ruling class who, for some debt perhaps of the dependent, seize the infant of the debtor, in order by selling it or bringing it up as a … Continue reading “Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Job 24:9”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-13457","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-commentary"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/13457","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=13457"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/13457\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=13457"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=13457"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=13457"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible <\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Keil & Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Geneva Bible Notes<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"