Job 2:3
The word translated “incited” is in a form that creates a play on words with śaṭan: tesiteni, though neither the s nor the t is the same Hebrew letter as in śaṭan, and the n in this verb is part of the pronominal suffix, not the root; thus there is no morphological relationship between the words. The verbal root, swt, makes an intriguing study. It occurs only 18x, always in the Hiphil form; we should begin our first level of analysis with the most similar uses, so we begin with those occurrences that combine the verb with the preposition be, as in Job. This phrase features both a direct and indirect object in a collocation that occurs only three other times (1 Sam. 26:19; 2 Sam. 24:1; Jer. 43:3). In each of these, person A (subject) incites person B (direct object) against person C (indirect object) into taking a course of action that is contrary to what is expected, beneficial, or desired by person C.
| Person A | Person B | Person C | Action |
1 Sam. 26:19 | Yahweh | Saul | David | Pursuing him |
2 Sam. 24:1 | Yahweh (or his anger) | David | Israel | Take census |
Jer. 43:3 | Baruch | Jeremiah | Israel | Deliver to Babylonians |
Job 2:3 | śaṭan | Yahweh | Job | Ruin him without cause |
Another set of occurrences feature a subject (person A) of the verb and a direct object (person B) but no indirect object (person C).
| Person A | Person B | Action |
Deut. 13:6 (Heb. 7) | Close relative | Israelite | Worship other gods |
1 Kings 21:25 | Jezebel | Ahab | Do evil (context: Naboth) |
1 Chron. 21:1 | śaṭan | David | Take census |
2 Chron. 18:2 | Ahab | Jehoshaphat | Attack Ramoth Gilead |
Hezekiah | Israel | Oppose Assyria | |
Job 36:18 | No one | Sufferer/Job | Pursue riches |
Jeremiah 38:22 | False prophets | Zedekiah | Oppose Babylon |
In these passages, person A is in a position of influence behind the scenes and would be considered complicit and responsible for the action of person B. Person B, however, is the one who actually is held accountable and is not considered a victim taken advantage of.
In the first table, the incited action is always negative for person C, though it is not intrinsically a sinful or evil action. Do ill feelings in person A motivate him to incite someone against person C? In 1 Samuel 26, we may hypothetically ask whether David is truly out of favor with Yahweh; if so, the inciting of Saul would be a reflection of that disfavor. In 2 Samuel 24, the author specifically states that Yahweh is angry with Israel. In Jeremiah 43, it appears that there has been some tension between Baruch and the Israelites, since they cast blame on him, but there is not enough information for us to draw a definitive conclusion.
When we bring this information to Job 2:3, we can conclude most importantly that, as person B, Yahweh is accountable for the action against Job, though the Challenger has influenced the decision. In this case, Job as person C has no knowledge of the Challenger’s role and never voices any suspicion that another party might be involved; therefore, any potential disfavor toward Job on the Challenger’s part (as person A, usually the driving force in these scenarios) cannot be assumed and is not part of the plot. It is true that person A cannot be exonerated from harboring ill feelings against person C, but there are not enough data to allow us to conclude that such ill feelings are intrinsically involved. In fact, the context here argues against this, as Yahweh specifically says he has been incited against Job “without any reason.”
Job 22:2–3
The commentaries and translations regularly take the Hebrew word geber (NIV, Hartley: “man”; Habel: “hero”; Clines: “human”) as the subject of the verb in the first clause of 22:2. The occurrence of the same construction in 34:9 shows, however, that geber must be the object rather than the subject, as I have rendered it.
I have proposed the interpretive “wise mediator” as the subject of the first sentence, which is a translation of the noun maśkil, which both in the Hebrew text and in most translations (NIV, Hartley: “wise man”; Habel, Clines: “sage”) occurs in the second line. Evidence that it should be considered the subject of this sentence is based on Job 34:9 (NIV: “It profits a man nothing when he tries to please God”), which uses the same verb as 22:2 (skn). What is in effect the subject in 34:9 also comes in the following line, in the phrase “when he tries to please God” (i.e., his attempts to please God profit a man nothing).
If the geber in 22:2 refers to a human being, as seems probable, then the maśkil must be someone else; this is the primary evidence for my translation of maśkil as “wise mediator.” It is possible that Eliphaz is referring to his own role, but it would be unusual for him to refer to himself in such an obtuse way. Since the next verse at least alludes to Job’s case, I propose that Eliphaz refers to the mediator that Job has been requesting. Job has not used the noun maśkil to designate this individual, but it is not surprising that Eliphaz chooses a different word from the one Job has been using. I have suggested that Job thinks of his advocate as a heavenly being (p. 214), an idea that Eliphaz has already pronounced useless (5:1). Here Eliphaz indulges Job by considering the role of an intermediary, but does so by referring noncommittally to any prudent, insightful individual who could be called on to serve as mediator. By definition, this mediator would speak on behalf of God as well as advocate for the human being. The mediator role is suitably expressed by this noun, which does not just refer to a sage, but to a particular type of wise man. Fox describes the root word (śekel) as:
Insight, the ability to grasp the meanings or implications of a situation or message … the ability to understand practical matters and interpersonal relations and make beneficial decisions.1
Waltke agrees with this assessment and adds that this prudent person “gives attention to a threatening situation, has insight into its solution, acts decisively, and thereby effects success and life and prevents failure and death.”2 Such is the role of a mediator.
I have rendered the verb skn as “do any good.”3 The NIV, Hartley, and Clines go the same direction while Habel chooses “endanger” on the basis of some slight cognate evidence. From the words used in parallel with skn in other passages, translators have deduced that skn has to do with profit or benefit; whatever its specific nuance, this is certainly the general drift. The basic thrust of Eliphaz’s statement would then be: “Do you really think that a mediator will do you any good?”
Unlike the other translators, I have not set God as the direct or indirect object (“benefit [to] God”) but removed him grammatically one step further from the action (“on behalf of God”). I base this decision on the other two occurrences of this construction (13:7 and 21:22; nowhere else in the Old Testament). A comparison of these verses will help us to see the parallel constructions:
Job 13:7 | haleʾel | tedabberu | ʿawlah |
| Is it on behalf of God | you speak | wickedness |
Job 21:22 | haleʾel | yelammed | daʿat |
| Is it on behalf of God | he teaches | knowledge |
Job 22:2 | haleʾel | yiskan | gaber |
| Is it on behalf of God | he benefits | human being |
Grammar | interrogative (ha) + preposition l- + God (ʾel) | verb (imperfect) | noun abstraction as direct object |
It seems clear to me from 13:7 that this opening combination must be translated, “Is it on behalf of God … ?”4
We have already established that geber must be the object of the verb (see comments above), and I have already indicated that as an abstraction, it should be rendered “human being.” This translation is confirmed by the other two occurrences of the same construction (shown in the chart), which also have abstractions as the object.5
The Hebrew text of 22:3 begins with the noun translated pleasure or desire (ḥpṣ, NIV: “pleasure”; Habel: “favor”; Hartley, Clines: “asset”) preceded by the interrogative particle. First Samuel 15:22 (and many other passages) indicate that this noun refers to receiving something with pleasure or favor. Eliphaz’s rhetorical question suggests that he does not think God will respond favorably at all, an assessment born out later in the book.6
Contrary to the others, who render the verb in the first line simply as “be righteous/innocent,” I have rendered it as “justify yourself” on the evidence of Job 40:8. The Qal form of the verb ṣdq is furthermore used for vindication numerous times in Job (see, e.g., 11:2; 13:8).
Finally, the last verb in 22:3 (Hiph. of tmm) is challenging. The translations above treat it variably as an adjective (expressed as fact, “to be blameless,” Clines, NIV; or as a claim of blamelessness, Hartley) or as a verb (“to perfect your ways,” Habel). It is a verbal form, and the Hiphil only occurs eight times.7 My translation, “Give full account of your ways,” is based on the observation that in many of the other contexts, it roughly concerns paying off or rendering account of something (note esp. 2 Kings 22:4).8
Job 24:22–23
The verb mašak that occurs in 24:22 also occurs in 21:33 as all men “follow after” the wicked. In Judges 4:6 this verb indicates the manner in which God will draw out Sisera and the Canaanites into battle.9 Here, the wicked man’s influence on the mighty forms a merism with his treatment of the vulnerable in 24:21.
The noun ʾabbir (in 24:22 in the plural) is used of princes/warriors—people in high positions of power, whether oppressive or not (Job 34:20; Ps. 76:5; Isa. 10:13).10 Here it is the direct object of verb mašak.
qum. This is the familiar word for arising. Based on other uses in Job, I would translate it as arising to a position of power: He “takes his stand” (in 15:29, “endure”; 19:25 “will stand”; 30:28, “stand up in the assembly”).
ʾamin baḥayyin. I would change to ʾamin beḥayyaw, as most do.11 The combination also occurs in Deuternonomy 28:66 (“never sure of your life”), where it indicates, as here, a precarious position. In Job 24 the wicked rises in position and power but is never secure (always in danger from his fragile sway over powerful people).
Job 24:23 begins in Hebrew with the verb yitten, which can be indefinite (“there is”; see Job 3:20). The wicked person in his precarious position of power continues as the singular subject. He does everything that he can to ensure his own safety (bṭḥ), for he realizes how tenuous it is (presumably because he is involved in all sorts of manipulative schemes).
weyiššaʿen is perhaps the most problematic word in 24:22–23 because all other twenty-one uses of the Niphal form occur in collocation with a preposition, while here it stands alone; this leaves unanswered the question of what the wicked person is relying on. The root šʿn is used often enough in combination with bṭḥ (e.g., Prov. 3:5; Isa. 50:10) to clearly indicate “rely/depend” as the meaning; the context in Job 24 suggests that the wicked person is relying on himself and the measures that he has taken for his safety.
Nevertheless, the wicked person’s eyes are “on their [the mighty ones’] ways.” This phrase parallels the last phrase of the previous verse that spoke of his insecurity. Here he can never takes his eyes off those whom he has dragged along and continues to manipulate. This speaks of the paranoia of those who gain power at the expense of others.