Add parallel Print Page Options

18 How often[a] are they like straw before the wind,
and like chaff swept away[b] by a whirlwind?
19 You may say,[c] ‘God stores up a man’s[d] punishment for his children!’[e]
Instead let him repay[f] the man himself[g]
so that[h] he may be humbled![i]
20 Let his own eyes see his destruction;[j]
let him drink of the anger of the Almighty.

Read full chapter

Footnotes

  1. Job 21:18 tn To retain the sense that the wicked do not suffer as others, this verse must either be taken as a question or a continuation of the question in v. 17.
  2. Job 21:18 tn The verb used actually means “rob.” It is appropriate to the image of a whirlwind suddenly taking away the wisp of straw.
  3. Job 21:19 tn These words are supplied. The verse records an idea that Job suspected they might have, namely, that if the wicked die well God will make their children pay for their sins (see Job 5:4; 20:10; as well as Exod 20:5).
  4. Job 21:19 tn The text simply has אוֹנוֹ (ʾono, “his iniquity”), but by usage, “the punishment for the iniquity.”
  5. Job 21:19 tn Heb “his sons.”
  6. Job 21:19 tn The verb שָׁלַם (shalam) in the Piel has the meaning of restoring things to normal, making whole, and so reward, repay (if for sins), or recompense in general.
  7. Job 21:19 tn The text simply has “let him repay [to] him.”
  8. Job 21:19 tn The imperfect verb after the jussive carries the meaning of a purpose clause, and so taken as a final imperfect: “in order that he may be humbled.”
  9. Job 21:19 tn The common verb יָדַע (yadaʿ) means “to know.” Among homophonous roots DCH includes יָדַע II meaning “be quiet, at rest; be submissive, humbled” (cf. Prov 5:6; Isa 45:4; Jer 14:18; Hos 9:7).
  10. Job 21:20 tc This word occurs only here. The word כִּיד (kid) was connected to Arabic kaid, “fraud, trickery,” or “warfare.” The word is emended by the commentators to other ideas, such as פִּיד (pid, “[his] calamity”). Dahood and others alter it to “cup”; Wright to “weapons.” A. F. L. Beeston argues for a meaning “condemnation” for the MT form, and so makes no change in the text (Mus 67 [1954]: 315-16). If the connection to Arabic “warfare” is sustained, or if such explanations of the existing MT can be sustained, then the text need not be emended. In any case, the sense of the line is clear.