B-Hebrew: The Biblical Hebrew Forum

I have another slightly different possible explanation.

"Their houses are a reward (a payment) from fear, but not the rod of G-d against them."

Maybe Job is saying that G-d is rewarding their evil from Job 20:19 where they take poor peoples' houses. Instead of punishing the wicked, He is letting them have houses.

Kenneth Greifer

Here's a note from the Constable's Notes on Lumina.bible.org:

“This speech is unusual for Job on several counts. It is the only one in which he confines his remarks to his friends and does not fall into either a soliloquy or a prayer. The time has come to demolish their position. Secondly, in making this counter-attack, Job reviews a lot of the preceding discussion, so that many cross-references can be found to what has already been said. These are a valuable guide to interpretation when they can be discovered. Thirdly, by quoting their words and refuting them, Job comes nearer to formal debate. While his words are still quite emotional, there is less invective in them.”[153]

Job's arguments are a direct rebuttal of Zophar's arguments.
1. Zophar argued that the wicked live short lives. Job counters "why do the wicked go on living? (in fact) they grow old."
2. Zophar argued that the wicked will not benefit from his ill-gotten gain. Job counters, "he increases in wealth and stature." Compare גברו חיל with Ruth 2:1 גבור חיל
3. Zophar argued that the sons of the wicked will not inherit their father's wealth, but will instead they will seek the favor of the poor. Job counters, "his children are established in his presence"
4. Zophar argued that his dwelling place will be destroyed by flood. Job counters, "he dwells in safety, without fear"
5. Zophar argued that God punishes the wicked on earth. Job counters, "God's rod is not on him"

Kenneth Greifer wrote:I have another slightly different possible explanation.

"Their houses are a reward (a payment) from fear, but not the rod of G-d against them."

Maybe Job is saying that G-d is rewarding their evil from Job 20:19 where they take poor peoples' houses. Instead of punishing the wicked, He is letting them have houses.

Kenneth Greifer

It's a nice try and it might work as an isolated sentence, but Job's point by point rebuttal of Zophar's arguments calls for "safety."

Good answer, Jonathan:

I don’t agree with it 100%, but I won’t argue it.

The basic message that Job’s three friends were advancing is that bad people suffer bad things, therefore if Job is going through such an unpleasant experience, he must have done something really bad. “Now, Job, ’fess up!.” They continued that attack even after this chapter.

Here Job addresses the question, do bad people really have bad experiences?

Karl W. Randolph.

Jonathan,

Maybe it says "Their houses are a payback (a payment) from fear but (and) not the rod of G-d against them."

Job 20:15, 18-19 says the wicked won't swallow their wealth, but will return it and their houses to the poor, and Job 20:10 says his sons will return things to the poor.

Maybe they will return things to the poor from fear of the poor, but not from the rod of G-d against them.

Would it have to say "Their houses are a payback from fear but (and) not from the rod of G-d against them."

Or: Their houses are a payback from fear, but not the rod of G-d against them.
Maybe they return the houses to the poor out of fear, but the rod of G-d against them is not a payback from fear. Maybe G-d will pay them back but without fear of them.

Kenneth Greifer

kwrandolph wrote:Good answer, Jonathan:

I don’t agree with it 100%, but I won’t argue it.

The basic message that Job’s three friends were advancing is that bad people suffer bad things, therefore if Job is going through such an unpleasant experience, he must have done something really bad. “Now, Job, ’fess up!.” They continued that attack even after this chapter.

Here Job addresses the question, do bad people really have bad experiences?

Karl W. Randolph.

Thanks Karl,

Yes, the day I posted that I read from chapter 20 to 34. Elihu's response to Job is really something. I just figured out what he was doing. He is misrepresenting what Job has said, then insinuates that Job was accusing God of evil. We do this so often; we misunderstand the other person's argument, and then proceed to attack the argument/person based on that false understanding of the other person's intent.

As for your theory that שבט might be a verb; on it's own I have no qualms with the theory, since BH roots can represent both a noun and a verb. So it is entirely possible that שבט could have been a verb in BH. My main point was that I thought there wasn't enough argument/evidence on the side of its occurrence in this particular verse being a verb, since the noun works quite well in a nominal phrase. I think all those arguments put together make a convincing case for a noun, compared to the arguments for a verb. In other words, your arguments for a verb are fine.

BTW, don't think that I disagree with everything you say. Quite often if you respond to someone's post, and I agree with your response, I just leave it alone.