So What’s The Problem?

I am not at ease, nor am I quiet, and I am not at rest, but turmoil comes.  Job 3:26  NASB

Turmoil – If you’re not at ease, not quiet, not resting, then why would you be surprised when things are upsetting?  This verse seems entirely counterintuitive.  We could understand if Job claimed ease, quiet, and rest only to experience trouble, but when he says that none of these satiating influences are present, why does he complain about turmoil?  That should be expected, shouldn’t it?  We will have to look deeper to unravel this oxymoron.

The problem with the entire verse is the translation of the conjunctive attached to the verb bôʾ, rendered “but comes.”  The prefixed conjunctive, a simple vav, has an extremely wide range of meanings in Hebrew.  BDB comments: “ . . . used very freely and widely in Heb., but also with much delicacy, to express relations and shades of meaning which Western languages would usu. indicate by distinct particles.” ^[1]

Usually, the conjunctive is translated “and.”  It can also mean “together, with, so, then, so that, even, even so, as well as, also, indeed, from, that is, when” and “but.”[2]

This leads us to ask, “Why use ‘but’ in this verse when so many other, perhaps more preferable, translations are possible?”  For example, Alter translates, “and trouble came.”  That might clear up some of the discomfort, but not all.  Once more we hear the discord between “I am not at ease” and “trouble comes.”  If I am not at ease, the presence of trouble is completely understandable.  But the verse seems to suggest that Job is surprised at this result.

Perhaps our problem is with the verb tenses used to describe Job’s present state.  While the verbs are about completed actions, they might not be best expressed with our English “to be.”  The phrase may be more like “I do not have ease, I do not have quiet, I do not have rest” using the English “to have” as a state of mind rather than “to be” as a condition of circumstance.  Now the verse actually makes sense: “I do not have ease, nor do I have quiet, and I don’t have rest—and trouble comes,” exactly what we would expect.  Now we can ask the question: “What is this kind of trouble?”

The Hebrew verbal root is rāgaz.  “Most usages of rāgaz express agitation growing out of some deeply rooted emotion. From the range of usages it is clear that the term refers to the agitation itself, and the underlying emotion is to be recognized only from context. In these usages, it may parallel other expressions for physical movement such as ḥārad ‘to quake’ (Isa 32:11), or ḥîl ‘writhing in birth pangs’ (Ex 15:14).”^[3]

In this verse, we find the noun.  “(rōgez). Trouble, turmoil, wrath, rage. Can refer either to external disturbances or troubles or to inner emotional agitation as in anger. Job uses this term for external disturbances (3:17, 26; 14:1). The RSV and ASV correctly prefer a similar meaning in Isa 14:3 (cf. KJV “fear”), as is shown by other elements in that context.”^[4]  But we might argue that Job 3:26 isn’t just about “external disturbances,” particularly so if we recognize the copula as “to have” rather than “to be.”  We already know that Job’s inner consciousness is being probed.  His emotional trauma pushes him toward thoughts of death.  This isn’t external circumstance, although it is prompted by his external suffering.  But what is happening to Job is deeper.  It can’t be repaired by a change of fortune.  Job is struggling with the question of existence, of meaning, of purpose.  Restoring his health, wealth, or family won’t answer this question at all.  It dangles before him, prompted by suffering but now a demon released within.  rōgez is the specter of empty extinction emerging unbeckoned from the shadows.  It will take more than earthly treasures to remove.

Topical Index: is, have, rōgez, turmoil, Job 3:26

^[1] Whitaker, R., Brown, F., Driver, S. R. (Samuel R., & Briggs, C. A. (Charles A. (1906). In The Abridged Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew-English Lexicon of the Old Testament: from A Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament by Francis Brown, S.R. Driver and Charles Briggs, based on the lexicon of Wilhelm Gesenius. Houghton, Mifflin and Company.

[2] See DBL, #2256.

^[3] Bowling, A. (1999). 2112 רָגַז. In R. L. Harris, G. L. Archer Jr., & B. K. Waltke (Eds.), Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament (electronic ed., p. 831). Moody Press.

^[4] Ibid.