But now, because it is not so - This verse, as it stands in our authorized translation, conveys no intelligible idea. It is evident that the translators meant to give a literal version of the Hebrew, but without understanding its sense. An examination of the principal words and phrases may enable us to ascertain the idea which was in the mind of Elihu when it was uttered. The phrase in the Hebrew here (ועתה כי־אין kı̂y-'ayin ve‛attâh) may mean, “but now it is as nothing,” and is to be connected with the following clause, denoting, “now it is comparatively nothing that he has visited you in his anger;” that is, the punishment which he has inflicted on you is almost as nothing compared with what it might have been, or what you have deserved. Job had complained much, and Elihu says to him, that so far from having cause of complaint, his sufferings were as nothing - scarcely worth noticing, compared with what they might have been.
He hath visited in his anger - Margin, that is, “God.” The word rendered “hath visited” (פקד pâqad) means to visit for any purpose - for mercy or justice; to review, take an account of, or investigate conduct. Here it is used with reference to punishment - meaning that the punishment which he had inflicted was trifling compared with the desert of the offences.
Yet he knoweth it not - Margin, that is, “Job.” The marginal reading here is undoubtedly erroneous. The reference is not to Job, but to God, and the idea is, that he did not “know,” that is, did not “take full account” of the sins of Job. He passed them over, and did not bring them all into the account in his dealings with him. Had he done this, and marked every offence with the utmost strictness and severity, his punishment would have been much more severe.
In great extremity - The Hebrew here is מאד בפשׁ bapash me'ôd. The word פשׁ pash occurs nowhere else in the Hebrew. The Septuagint renders it παράπτωμα paraptōma, “offence.” and the Vulgate “scelus,” that is, “transgression.” The authors of those versions evidently read it as if it were פשׁע pesha‛, iniquity; and it may be that the final ע (‛) has been dropped, like שו for שׁוא shâv', in Job 15:31. Gesenius, Theodotion and Symmachus in like manner render it “transgression.” Others have regarded it as if from פוש “to be proud,” and as meaning “in pride” or “arrogance;” and others, as the rabbis generally, as if from פוש, to “disperse,” meaning “on account of the multitude,” scil. of transgressions. So Rosenmuller, Umbreit, Luther, and the Chaldee. It seems probable to me that the interpretation of the Septuagint and the Vulgate is the correct one, and that the sense is, that he “does not take cognizance severely (מאד me'ôd) of transgressions;” that is, that he had not done it in the case of Job. This interpretation agrees with the scope of the passage, and with the view which Elihu meant to express - that God, so far from having given any just cause of complaint, had not even dealt with him as his sins deserved. Without any impeachment of his wisdom or goodness, his inflictions “might” have been far more severe.