Job 22:13

And thou sayest, how doth God know?.... What is done on earth, the works of the children of men, their sinful actions, when he dwells at such a distance, and so remote from the earth, as the height of the stars, and highest heavens, be; not that Job said this expressly with his lips, but in his heart; Eliphaz imagined and supposed that such was the reasoning of his mind; it was an invidious consequence he had drawn from what Job had said concerning the afflictions of the godly, and the prosperity of the wicked; which he interpreted as a denial of the providence of God, as if he had no regard to human affairs, but things took place in a very disorderly and confused way, without any regard to right or wrong; and he concluded that Job was led into these sentiments by the consideration of the distance of God from the earth; that, dwelling in the highest heavens, he could not and did not see what was done here, and therefore men might commit all manner of sin with impunity; that their sins would never be taken notice of, or they be called to an account for them; which are the very language and sentiments of the most abandoned of men, see Psalm 10:11 ; can he judge through the dark clouds? if he cannot see and know what is done, he cannot judge of it, whether it is good or bad, and so can neither justify nor condemn an action.

By "the dark cloud" is not meant the matter, or corporeal mass, with which man is covered, as a Jewish commentator (x) interprets it; rather the cloudy air, or atmosphere around us; or that thick darkness in which Jehovah dwells, clouds and darkness being around him, Psalm 97:2; but all this hinders not his sight of things done here below; what is thick darkness to us is pure light to him, in which also he is said to dwell, and with which he covers himself as with a garment; and the darkness and the light are both alike to him, he can see and judge through the one as well as the other. (x) Peritzol.

Job 22:13 . And — Or therefore, thou sayest, How doth God know? &c. — From this true and certain principle, thou drawest a false and wicked conclusion, and fanciest, perhaps, that because he is so high he minds not what is done here below: or, that he cannot discern the difference of things so very remote, through those immense and innumerable clouds which lie between the heaven and the earth.

Verse 13. - And thou sayest, How doth God know? Job had not said this in so many words, but, by equalizing the godly and the wicked ( Job 9:22 ; Job 21:23-26 ), he might be supposed to mean that God took no note of men's conduct, and therefore had not a perfect knowledge of all things. The psalmist implies that many men so thought ( Psalm 10:11 ; Psalm 73:11 ; Psalm 94:7 ). Can he judge through the dark cloud? rather, through the thick darkness. God was supposed to dwell remote from man, in the highest heaven, and, according to many, "clouds and darkness were round about him" ( Psalm 97:2 ) - he "dwelt in the thick darkness" ( 1 Kings 8:12 ) - he "made darkness his secret place; his pavilion round about him was waters, and thick clouds of the skies" ( Psalm 18:11 ). The imagery was, no doubt, at first used in reference to man's inability to see and know God; but when men became familiar with it, they turned the metaphor round, and questioned God's ability to see and know anything about man. Job had not really ever shared in these doubts; but it suits Eliphaz's purpose to malign and misrepresent him. Job 22:13

And, or, therefore ; from this true and certain principle thou drawest this false and wicked conclusion. Or, yet , notwithstanding this undeniable argument. Thou sayest; thou reasonest thus within thyself, as it may seem by thy discourses. How doth God know? i.e. God cannot discern, and therefore doth not mind things so far below him and distant from him. Can he judge through the dark cloud, i.e. through those immense and innumerable clouds which lie between the heaven and the earth, although our eyes see but few of them?

And thou sayest, How doth God know? - That is, it "follows" from what you have said; or the opinion which you have advanced is "the same" as if you had affirmed this. How common it is to charge a man with holding what we "infer," from something which he has advanced, he must hold, and then to proceed to argue "as if" he actually held that. The philosophy of this is plain. He advances a certain opinion. "We" infer at once that he can hold that only on certain grounds, or that if he holds that he must hold something else also. We can see that if "we" held that opinion, we should also, for the sake of consistency, be compelled to hold something which seems to follow from it, and we cannot see how this can be avoided, and we at once charge him with holding it. But the truth may be, that "he" has not seen that such consequences follow, or that he has some other way of accounting for the fact than we have; or that he may hold to the fact and yet deny wholly the consequences which legitimately follow from it. Now we have a right to show him "by argument" that his opinions, if he would follow them out, would lead to dangerous consequences, but we have a right to charge him with holding only what he "professes" to hold. He is not answerable for our inferences; and we have no right to charge them on him as being his real opinions. Every man has a right to avow what he actually believes, and to be regarded as holding that, and that only. How doth God know?

- That is, How can one so exalted see what is done on the distant earth, and reward and punish people according to their deserts? This opinion was actually held by many of the ancients. It was supposed that the supreme God did not condescend to attend to the affairs of mortals, but had committed the government of the earth to inferior beings. This was the foundation of the Gnostic philosophy, which prevailed so much in the East in the early ages of the Christian church. Milton puts a similar sentiment into the mouth of Eve in her reflections after she had eaten the forbidden fruit: And I, perhaps, am secret: heaven is high, High and remote from thence to see distinct Each thing on earth; and other care perhaps May have diverted from continual watch Our great Forbidder, safe with all his spies about him. Paradise Lost, B. ix. Can he judge through the dark cloud? - Can he look down through the clouds which interpose between man and him? Eliphaz could not see how Job could maintain his opinions without holding that this was impossible for God. He could see no other reason why God did not punish the wicked than because "he did not see them," and he, therefore, charges this opinion on Job.

12 Is not Eloah high as the heavens? See but the head of the stars, how exalted! 13 So then thou thinkest: "What doth God know? Can He judge through the thick cloud? 14 Clouds veil Him that He seeth not, And in the vault of heaven He walketh at His pleasure." Because Job has denied the distribution of worldly fortune, of outward prosperity and adversity, according to the law of the justice that recompenses like for like, Eliphaz charges him with that unbelief often mentioned in the Psalms (Psalm 73:11; Psalm 94:7; comp. Isaiah 29:15; Ezekiel 8:12), which denies to the God in heaven, as Epicurus did to the gods who lead a blessed life in the spaces between the worlds, a knowledge of earthly things, and therefore the preliminary condition for a right comprehension of them. The mode of expression here is altogether peculiar. גּבהּ שׁמים is not acc. loci, as the like accusatives in combination with the verb שׁכן, Isaiah 57:15, may be taken: the substantival clause would lead one to expect בּגבהּ, or better בּגבהי (Job 11:8); it is rather (similar to Job 11:8) nomin. praedicati: Eloah is the height of the heavens equals heaven-high, as high as the heavens, therefore certainly highly, and indeed very highly, exalted above this earth.

In this sense it is continued with Waw explic.: and behold ( equals behold then) the head of the stars, that, or how (כּי as in Genesis 49:15; 1 Samuel 14:29, quod equals quam) exalted they are. וּראה has Asla (Kadma) in correct texts, and רמו is written רמּוּ (râmmu) with a so-called Dag. affectuosum (Olsh. 83, b). It may be received as certain that ראשׁ, the head (vertex), beside ראה (not ספר), does not signify the sum (Aben-Ezra). But it is questionable whether the genitive that follows ראשׁ is gen. partitivus: the highest among the stars (Ew., Hirz., Schlottm.), or gen. epexegeticus: the head, i.e., (in relation to the rest of the universe) the height, which is formed by the stars, or even which they occupy (Ges. coelum stellatum); the partitive rendering is to be preferred, for the Semitic perception recognises, as the plural שׁמים implies, nearer and more distant celestial spheres. The expression "head of the stars" is therefore somewhat like fastigium coeli (the extreme height, i.e., the middle of the vault of heaven), or culmen aereum (of the aether separating the strata of air above); the summit of the stars rising up into the extremest spheres is intended (we should say: the fixed stars, or to use a still more modern expression, the milky way), as also the רמו naturally refers to ראשׁ כוכבים as one notion (summitas astrorum equals summa astra).