But now, because it is not so, he hath visited in his anger; yet he knoweth it not in great extremity:

For he doth not now bring on his fury, neither doth he revenge wickedness exceedingly.

But now, because he hath not visited in his anger, doth not Job know his great arrogancy?

And, now, because there is not, He hath appointed His anger, And He hath not known in great extremity.

But now, because it is not so, he has visited in his anger; yet he knows it not in great extremity:

And now, is it for nought that He punished in His anger? And hath He not full knowledge of arrogance?

For, at the present time, he does not bring forth his fury, nor does he punish sin exceedingly.

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.

But - because it is not so - Rather, "But now, because he visiteth not in his anger." This is more literal than the versions generally proposed; and the sense of the place appears to be this: Because vengeance is not speedily executed on an evil work, therefore are the hearts of the children of men set in them to do iniquity. This is, in effect, the charge which Elihu brings against Job.

But now, because it is not so,.... Because there was not such trust, hope, patience, and quiet expectation in Job that God would appear for him, and do him, justice openly and publicly; for though he had hope and confidence of an interest in his living Redeemer and Saviour, and of eternal life and happiness through him; yet not of his bringing his judgment to the light, and of his beholding his righteousness, as he ought to have had, see Psalm 37:5;
he hath visited in his anger; corrected and chastised in fatherly anger and displeasure, though not in wrath and vengeance, and in a way of punishment in strict justice; but consistent with his invariable love and free favour in Christ; being displeased at his want of faith and patience, failing in the exercise of which is oftentimes resented by the Lord, see Numbers 20:12;
yet he knoweth it not in great extremity: so stupid was Job, that though he was in the utmost extremity of affliction, in his body, family, and substance, yet was not sensible it was his duty to trust in God, and patiently wait for him; he knew that the hand of God was upon him, and that he had visited him in anger, and that his arrows stuck fast in him, and his hand pressed him sore; but was insensible of the cause of the continuance of it, his unbelief, impatience, and non-submission to the will of God. The word for "extremity" signifies "abundance" (d), and may be applied to an abundance and plenty of good things; and therefore some understand it of Job's prosperity, and take the sense to be, that God took no notice of this; it did not hinder him from visiting him, but he destroyed it all: though Mr. Broughton, on the other hand, interprets it of the great plenty of sorrows and distresses Job was attended with, the true cause of which he did not advert to: some (e) think the whole refers to the merciful dealings of God with Job, and read the first clause,
"know now his anger hath visited but a little or noticing;''
the affliction is but a light one comparatively speaking, scarce any thing at all in comparison of what sin deserves, being abundantly less than that:
"neither hath he made great inquisition, or inquired out the multitude''
of sins; not strictly and severely marking them, and dealing with and for them according to their deserts; see Ezra 9:13; with which compare 2-Corinthians 4:17; and therefore Job had no reason to complain of God, or of any hard usage from him.
(d) "in copia", Montanus; "ad auctum valde", Cocceius; "prosperitatem", De Dieu; so Patrick. (e) Tigurine version, Mercerus, Piscator; so Ben Gersom.

As it is, because Job waited not trustingly and patiently (Job 35:14; Numbers 20:12; Zephaniah 3:2; Micah 7:9), God hath visited . . . ; yet still he has not taken (severe) cognizance of the great multitude (English Version wrongly, "extremity") of sins; therefore Job should not complain of being punished with undue severity (Job 7:20; Job 11:6). MAURER translates: "Because His anger hath not visited (hath not immediately punished Job for his impious complaints), nor has He taken strict (great) cognizance of his folly (sinful speeches); therefore," &c. For "folly," UMBREIT translates with the Rabbins, "multitude." GESENIUS reads with the Septuagint and Vulgate needlessly, "transgression."

Because - Because Job doth not acknowledge God's justice and his own sins. He - God. Anger - Hath laid grievous afflictions upon him. He - Job is not sensible of it, so as to be humbled under God's hand.