Whereas our substance is not cut down - Margin, or, “Estate” Gesenius supposes that this means our adversary or enemy. The word used here (קים qı̂ym) he regards as derived from קוּם qûm - to rise, to rise up; and, hence, it may have the sense of rising up against, or an enemy. So Noyes understands it, and renders it:
“Truly, our adversary is destroyed;
And fire hath consumed his abundance.”
Rosemmuller accords with this, and it seems to me to be the correct view. According to this, it is the language of the righteous Job 22:19 when exciting over the punishment of the wicked, saying, “Our foe is cut down.” Jerome renders it, Nonne succisa est erectio eorum, etc. The Septuagint, “Has not their substance ὑπόστασις hupostasis disappeared?” The sense is not materially different. If the word “substance,” or “property,” is to be retained it should be read as a question, and regarded as the language of the righteous who exult. “Has not their substance been taken away. and has not the fire consumed their property?” Dr. Good strangely renders it, “For our tribe is not cut off.”
But the remnant of them - Margin, “their excellency.” Hebrew יתרם yı̂thrām. Jerome, “reliquias eorum” - “the remnants of them.” Septuagint, κατάλειμμα kataleimma - “the residue,” or “what is left.” The Hebrew word יתר yether means, “the remainder, the residue, the rest;” then, what is redundant, more than is needed, or that abounds; and then, “wealth,” the superabundant property which a man does not “need” for his own use or family. The word here probably means that which the rich sinner possessed.
The fire consumeth - Or, hath consumed. It has been supposed by many that the allusion here is to the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, and it cannot be denied that such an allusion is possible. If it were “certain” that Job lived before that event, there could be little objection to such a supposition. The “only” objection would be, that a reference to such an event was not more prominent. It would be a case just in point in the argument of the three friends of Job, and one to which it might be supposed they would have appealed as decisive of the controversy. They lived in the vicinity. They could not have been strangers to so remarkable an occurrence, and it would have furnished just the argument which they wished, to prove that God punishes the wicked in this life. If they lived after that event, therefore, it is difficult to account for the fact, that they did not make a more distinct and prominent allusion to it in their argument. It is true, that the same remark may be made respecting the allusion to the flood, which was a case equally in point, and in reference to which the allusion, if it exist at all, is almost equally obscure. So far as the language here is concerned, the reference may be either to the destruction of Sodom, or to destruction by lightning, such as happened to the possessions of Job, Job 1:16; and it is difficult, if not impossible, to determine which is correct. The general idea is, that the judgments of heaven, represented by fire, had fallen on the wicked, and that the righteous, therefore, had occasion to rejoice.