I called my servant - He lost all respect for me, and paid me no attention.
I entreated him - I ceased to expect "obedience," and tried to see what "persuasion" would do. I ceased to be master in my own house.

I called my servant,.... His manservant, whom he had hired into his house, and who waited upon his person, and had been his trusty and faithful servant, and was dear unto him, and he had shown him much respect and kindness in the time of his prosperity; him he called to him, to do this and that and the other thing for him as usual; and of whose assistance and service he might stand in more need, being so greatly afflicted in body as well as in other things; and who ought to have been obedient to his call in all things, and have served him with all readiness and cheerfulness, with all heartiness, sincerity, integrity, and faithfulness; and given him the same honour and reverence as before; but instead of all this, it is observed,
and he gave me no answer; whether he would or would not do what he ordered him to do; he took no notice of him, he turned a deaf ear to him, and his back upon him; he came not near him, but kept his place where he was, or walked off without showing any regard to what he said to him; he neither answered him by words, nor by deeds; neither signified his readiness to do what he was ordered, nor did it. In some cases it is criminal in servants to answer again, when they thwart and contradict their masters, or reply in a saucy, surly, and impudent manner; but when they are spoke to about their master's business, it becomes them to answer in a decent, humble, and respectable way, declaring their readiness to do their master's will and pleasure:
I entreated him with my mouth; which is an aggravation of his insolence and disobedience; such was the low condition Job was reduced unto, and such the humility of his mind under his present circumstances, that he laid aside the authority of a master, and only entreated his servant, and begged it as if it was a favour, to do this or the other for him; nor did he signify this by a look and cast of his eye, or by a nod of his head, or by the direction of his hand; but with his mouth he spake unto him, and let him know what he would have done; and this not in an authoritative, haughty, and imperious manner; but with good words, and in submissive language, as it was something he was beholden to his servant for, rather than obedience to be performed.

servant--born in my house (as distinguished from those sojourning in it), and so altogether belonging to the family. Yet even he disobeys my call.
mouth--that is, "calling aloud"; formerly a nod was enough. Now I no longer look for obedience, I try entreaty.

16 I call to my servant and he answereth not,
I am obliged to entreat him with my mouth.
17 My breath is offensive to my wife,
And my stench to my own brethren.
18 Even boys act contemptuously towards me;
If I will rise up, they speak against me.
19 All my confidential friends abhor me,
And those whom I loved have turned against me.
20 My bone cleaveth to my skin and flesh,
And I am escaped only with the skin of my teeth.
His servant, who otherwise saw every command in his eyes, and was attent upon his wink, now not only does not come at his call, but does not return him any answer. The one of the home-born slaves (vid., on Genesis 14:14),
(Note: The (black) slaves born within the tribe itself are in the present day, from their dependence and bravery, accounted as the stay of the tribe, and are called fadwje, as those who are ready to sacrifice their life for its interest. The body-slave of Job is thought of as such as יליד בית.)
who stood in the same near connection to Job as Eliezer to Abraham, is intended here, in distinction from גרי ביתי, Job 19:15. If he, his master, now in such need of assistance, desires any service from him, he is obliged (fut. with the sense of being compelled, as e.g., Job 15:30, Job 17:2) to entreat him with his mouth. התחנּן, to beg חן of any one for one's self (vid., supra, p. 365), therefore to implore, supplicare; and בּמו־פּי here (as Psalm 89:2; Psalm 109:30) as a more significant expression of that which is loud and intentional (not as Job 16:5, in contrast to that which proceeds from the heart). In Job 19:17, רוּחי signifies neither my vexation (Hirz.) nor my spirit = I (Umbr., Hahn, with the Syr.), for רוח in the sense of angry humour (as Job 15:13) does not properly suit the predicate, and Arab. rûḥy in the signification ipse may certainly be used in Arabic, where rûḥ (perhaps under the influence of the philosophical usage of the language) signifies the animal spirit-life (Psychol. S. 154), not however in Hebrew, where נפשׁי is the stereotype form in that sense. If one considers that the elephantiasis, although its proper pathological symptom consists in an enormous hypertrophy of the cellular tissue of single distinct portions of the body, still easily, if the bronchia are drawn into sympathy, or if (what is still more natural) putrefaction of the blood with a scorbutic ulcerous formation in the mouth comes on, has difficulty of breathing (Job 7:15) and stinking breath as its result, as also a stinking exhalation and the discharge of a stinking fluid from the decaying limbs is connected with it (vid., the testimony of the Arabian physicians in Stickel, S. 169f.), it cannot be doubted that Jeremiah. has lighted upon the correct thing when he transl. halitum meum exhorruit uxor mea. רוחי is intended as in Job 17:1, and it is unnecessary to derive זרה from a special verb זיר, although in Arab. the notions which are united in the Hebr. זוּר .r, deflectere and abhorrere (to turn one's self away from what is disgusting or horrible), are divided between Arab. zâr med. Wau and Arab. ḏâr med. Je (vid., Frst's Handwrterbuch).
In Job 19:17 the meaning of חנּותי is specially questionable. In Psalm 77:10, חנּות is, like שׁמּות, Ezekiel 36:3, an infinitive from חנן, formed after the manner of the Lamed He verbs. Ges. and Olsh. indeed prefer to regard these forms as plurals of substantives (חנּה, שׁמּה), but the respective passages, regarded syntactically and logically, require infinitives. As regards the accentuation, according to which וחנותי is accented by Rebia mugrasch on the ultima, this does not necessarily decide in favour of its being infin., since in the 1 praet. סבּתי, which, according to rule, has the tone on the penultima, the ultima is also sometimes (apart from the perf. consec.) found accented (on this, vid., on Psalm 17:3, and Ew. 197, a), as סבּוּ, קוּמה, קוּמי, also admit of both accentuations.
(Note: The ultima-accentuation of the form סבּותי is regular, is the Waw conv. praet. in fut. is added, as Exodus 33:19, Exodus 33:22; 2-Kings 19:34; Isaiah 65:7; Ezekiel 20:38; Malachi 2:2; Psalm 89:24. Besides, the penultima has the tone regularly, e.g., Joshua 5:9; 1-Samuel 12:3; 1-Samuel 22:22; Jeremiah 4:28; Psalm 35:14; Psalm 38:7; Job 40:4; Ecclesiastes 2:20. There are, however, exceptions, Deuteronomy 32:41 (שׁנותי), Isaiah 44:16 (חמותי), Psalm 17:3 (זמתי), Psalm 92:11 (בלתי), Psalm 116:6 (דלותי). Perhaps the ultima-accentuation in these exceptional instances is intended to protect the indistinct pronunciation of the consonants Beth, Waw, or even Resh, at the beginning of the following words, which might easily become blended with the final syllable תי; certainly the reason lies in the pronunciation or in the rhythm (vid., on Psalm 116:6, and comp. the retreating of the tone in the infin. חלותי (Psalm 77:11). Looking at this last exception, which has not yet been cleared up, חנותי in the present passage will always be able to be regarded on internal grounds either as infin. or as 1 praet. The ultima-accentuation makes the word at first sight appear to be infin., whereas in comparison with זרה, which is accented on the penult., and therefore as 3 praet., וחנותי seems also to be intended as praet. The accentuation, therefore, leaves the question in uncertainty.)
If וחנותי is infin., the clause is a nominal clause, or a verbal one, that is to be supplemented by the v. fin. זרה; if it is first pers. praet., we have a verbal clause. It must be determined from the matter and the connection which of these explanations, both of which are in form and syntax possible, is the correct one.
The translation, "I entreat (groan to) the sons of my body," is not a thought that accords with the context, as would be obtained by the infin. explanation: my entreating (is offensive); this signif. (prop. to Hithp. as above) assigned to Kal by von Hofmann (Schriftbew. ii. 2, 612) is at least not to be derived from the derivative חן; it might be more easily deduced from נחנתּ, Jeremiah 22:23, which appears to be a Niph. like נחם, נאנח, from חנן, but might also be derived from ננחתּ = נאנחתּ by means of a transposition (vid., Hitz.). In the present passage one might certainly compare Arab. ḥnn, the usual word for the utterance and emotion of longing and sympathy, or also Arab. chnn, fut. i (with the infin. noun chanı̂n), which occurs in the signifn. of weeping, and transl.: my imploring, groaning, weeping, is offensive, etc. Since, however, the X. form of the Arab. chnn (istachanna) signifies to give forth an offensive smell (esp. of the stinking refuse of a well that is dried up); and besides, since the significatn. foetere is supported for the root חן (comp. צחן) by the Syriac chanı̂no (e.g., meshcho chanı̂no, rancid oil), we may also translate: "My stinking is offensive," etc., or: "I stink to the children of my body" (Rosenm., Ew., Hahn, Schlottm.); and this translation is not only not hazardous in a book that so abounds in derivations from the dialects, but it furnishes a thought that is as closely as possible connected with Job 19:17.
(Note: Supplementary: Instead of istachanna (of the stinking of a well, perhaps denom. from Arab. chnn, prop. to smell like a hen-house), the verb hhannana (with Arab. ḥ) = ‛affana, "to be corrupt, to have a mouldy smell," can, with Wetzstein, be better compared with חנּותי; thence comes zêt mohhannin = mo‛affin, corrupt rancid oil, corresponding to the Syriac חנינא. Thus ambiguously to the sellers of walnuts in Damascus cry out their wares with the words: el-mohhannin maugûd, "the merciful One liveth," i.e., I do not guarantee the quality of my wares. In like manner, not only can Arab. dâr inf. dheir (dhêr), to be offensive, be compared with זרה, but, with Wetzstein, also the very common steppe word for "to be bad, worthless," Arab. zrâ, whence adj. zarı̂ (with nunation zarı̂jun).)
The further question now arises, who are meant by בטני לבני. Perhaps his children? But in the prologue these have utterly perished. Are we to suppose, with Eichhorn and Olshausen, that the poet, in the heat of discourse, forgets what he has laid down in the prologue? When we consider that this poet, within the compass of his work, - a work into which he has thrown his whole soul, - has allowed no anachronism, and no reference to anything Israelitish that is contradictory to its extra-Israelitish character, to escape him, such forgetfulness is very improbable; and when we, moreover, bear in mind that he often makes the friends refer to the destruction of Job's children (as Job 8:4; Job 15:30; Job 18:16), it is altogether inconceivable. Hence Schrring has proposed the following explanation: "My soul a substitution of which Hahn is also guilty is strange to my wife; my entreaty does not even penetrate to the sons of my body, it cannot reach their ear, for they are long since in Shel." But he himself thinks this interpretation very hazardous and insecure; and, in fact, it is improbable that in the division, Job 19:13, where Job complains of the neglect and indifference which he now experiences from those around him, בטני בני should be the only dead ones among the living, in which case it would moreover be better, after the Arabic version, to translate: "My longing is for, or: I yearn after, the children of my body." Grandchildren (Hirz., Ew., Hlgst. Hahn) might be more readily thought of; but it is not even probable, that after having introduced the ruin of all of Job's children, the poet would represent their children as still living, some mention of whom might then at least be expected in the epilogue. Others, again (Rosenm. Justi, Gleiss), after the precedent of the lxx (υἱοὶ παλλακίδων μου), understand the sons of concubines (slaves). Where, however, should a trace be found of the poet having conceived of his hero as a polygamist, - a hero who is even a model of chastity and continence (Job 31:1)?
But must בטני בני really signify his sons or grandsons? Children certainly are frequently called, in relation to the father, בטנו פרי (e.g., Deuteronomy 7:13), and the father himself can call them בטני פרי (Micah 6:7); but בטן in this reference is not the body of the father, but the mother's womb, whence, begotten by him, the children issue forth. Hence "son of my body" occurs only once (Proverbs 31:2) in the mother's mouth. In the mouth of Job even (where the first origin of man is spoken of), בטני signifies not Job's body, but the womb that conceived him (vid., Job 3:10); and thus, therefore, it is not merely possible, but it is natural, with Stuhlm., Ges., Umbr., and Schlottm., to understand בטני בני of the sons of his mother's womb, i.e., of her who bare him; consequently, as אמּי בני, Psalm 69:9, of natural brethren (brothers and sisters, sorores uterinae), in which sense, regarding וחנותי according to the most natural influence of the tone as infin., we transl.: "and my stinking is offensive (supply זרה) to the children of my mother's womb." It is also possible that the expression, as the words seem to be taken by Symmachus (υἱοὺς παιδῶν μου, my slaves' children), and as they are taken by Kosegarten, in comparison with the Arab. btn in the signification race, subdivision (in the downward gradation, the third) of a greater tribe, may denote those who with him belong in a wider sense to one mother's bosom, i.e., to the same clan, although the mention of בטני בני in close connection with אשׁתי is not favourable to this extension of the idea. The circle of observation is certainly widened in Job 19:18, where עוילים are not Job's grandchildren (Hahn), but the children of neighbouring families and tribes; עויל (vid., Job 16:11) is a boy, and especially (perh. on account of the similarity in sound between מעוּל and עוּל) a rude, frolicsome, mischievous boy. Even such make him feel their contempt; and if with difficulty, and under the influence of pain which distorts his countenance, he attempts to raise himself (אקוּמה, lxx ὅταν ἀναστῶ, hypothetical cohortative, as Job 11:17; Job 16:6), they make him the butt of their jesting talk (דּבּר בּ, as Psalm 50:20).