This geographical location has not been positively identified. According to Lam. 4:21 “the land of Uz” in Jeremiah’s day was either equated with Edom, or else the “daughter of Edom” was dwelling away from home in a land that perhaps had been conquered by Edom. The latter is probably correct, for “the land of Uz” and Edom are separately listed in a long catalogue of nations that were to suffer divine vengeance (Jer. 25:20, 21). However, the scant Scriptural data regarding the residence of Job’s companions, Eliphaz, Bildad, and Zophar (Job 2:11), seem to indicate that they came from somewhere in the vicinity of Edom. For example, Eliphaz was a Temanite. Edom and Teman are listed in a way that closely connects the two (see Jer. 49:7, 20; Eze. 25:13; Amos 1:11, 2; Obadiah 8, 9). Bildad’s tribe, comprising the Shuhites, probably sprang from Keturah, Abraham’s concubine (Gen. 25:2). Buz, the home of Job’s fourth companion, Elihu (Job 32:2), is also connected with Tema, Eliphaz’ home town (see Jer. 25:23).

 Despite these evidences that point toward the Edomite area as the location of Uz, other factors have led some to different conclusions. The LXX for Uz has Ausites, said to be an area in the northern part of the Arabian Desert between Palestine and the Euphrates River. Gesenius defends this locality as the Uz of Job 1:1. Its proximity to Chaldea, whence the marauding bands came that carried away Job’s camels (v. 17), tends to give credence to this theory. On the other hand, the testimony of the LXX cannot always be relied on, as, for example, the statement in the appendix to the LXX of Job which claims that Job was one of the kings of Edom.

 Other traditions, preserved by the Arabs, place Uz in the vicinity of Damascus. In fact, a location 40 mi. southwest of Damascus still bears the name Deir Eiyub, perpetuating the name of Job. This location and the north Arabian location have been defended inasmuch as Job is spoken of as the greatest of the “men of the east” (v. 3). It is assumed that this term applies to territory east of Palestine. The vicinity of Edom thus would not qualify geographically. On the other hand, if we take the position that Moses is the author of the book (see Introduction, p. 493), his geographical orientation may have been that of Egypt or Midian rather than Palestine.

 There is little further in the book itself to aid in identifying Uz. Job’s sons and daughters lived in an area where a “great wind from the wilderness” struck them (v. 19). They lived in a cultivated area where “oxen were plowing, and the asses feeding beside them” (v. 14). The home of Job was in or near a city (ch. 29:7). The picture, fragmentary as it is, seems to be that of a marginal area of farms and cities on the edge of a desert. Such a situation would not be uncommon in many parts of the East.

 Heb. ’Iyyob, which some regard as from the root ’ayab, meaning “to be hostile,” “to treat as an enemy.” Hence “Job” may mean “the assailed one.” Gesenius suggests that the primary idea of ’ayab may be that of breathing, blowing, or puffing upon anyone, as expressive of anger or hatred. However, it cannot be established that the name “Job” comes from this root. Nevertheless, it is not uncommon in the Scriptures for a man’s name to describe his major characteristic. These names were bestowed, doubtless, in later life, as was the name “Israel” (Gen. 32:28). The name “Job” is unknown elsewhere in Hebrew literature, but occurs in the Amarna Letters of the 14th century B.C., under the form Ayyâb. The name is also attested in cuneiform documents from Mari, where it is written Ayyâbum. The “Job” of Gen. 46:13 is not from the Heb. ’Iyyob but from Yob.

In Rock Creek Cemetery in Washington, D.C., is the famous statue of grief by Augustus Saint-Gaudens. It is intended to be an embodiment of all human grief. Regarding it a French critic said, “I know of no work so profound in sentiment, so exalted in its art, and executed by methods so simple and broad.” The Bible has its “embodiment of grief” in the person of Job. Paraphrasing the art critic, there is nothing more profound in sentiment or more exalted in its art than this book.

 Heb. tam. This word does not necessarily imply absolute sinlessness. It signifies, rather, completeness, integrity, sincerity, but in a relative sense. The man who is “perfect” in the sight of God is the man who has reached the degree of development that Heaven expects of him at any given time. The Hebrew term tam is equivalent to the Greek teleios, which is often translated “perfect” in the NT but which is better translated “full grown” or “mature” (see 1 Cor. 14:20, where teleioi is translated “men” in contrast with “children”). It is difficult to find one word that is adequate as a translation of tam. Some translators, following the LXX, have used the word “blameless.” This does not seem sufficient to imply the positive connotation of wholeness and entirety present in tam.

Heb. yashar, “straight,” “level,” “just,” “right.”

A common Biblical expression denoting loyalty and devotion to God. Here a contrast is intended between Job, who was true to God, and those who were worshipers of other deities.

Literally, “turned aside.” The idea is that of avoiding evil, turning away from it as from the presence of danger. The four ideas included in this verse are not mere repetitions to impress upon the reader that Job was a good man. Rather, they complement one another in forming a total picture of an outstanding character.