January 6
Daily Bible Illustrations (Evening)The Land of Uz
It is very important to the right understanding of the Book of Job, that we should if possible ascertain where the scene of it is laid. At first view this may not seem difficult, for we are plainly told that he “dwelt in the land of Uz.” Yes; but where was this land of Uz?
The names of countries in the early books of Scripture are mostly the names of heads of the families or tribes by whom those lands were inhabited. This is so true, that the names in the long list of persons in the tenth chapter of Genesis can be identified as the names of countries. To find the locality of a country, otherwise obscure, we should therefore look for the corresponding name of the founder of a family, and then find out where that family was settled. The land of Uz is thus, in fact, the land of the tribe or family whose founder was Uz, and which bore his name. Now, in the present case, there is no difficulty in discovering a family head of the name of Uz. The difficulty lies in our finding so many of the name that the critical judgment is perplexed as to the right choice between them. The first Uz is mentioned
This last consideration also applies, though in a somewhat less degree, to the Uz who was Abraham’s nephew; but this consideration is of less importance here, because it may be seen that any land to which Nahor’s son may have given name must have coincided with or lain in that land to which the more ancient grandson of Shem may have given his name. And here it may be remarked that, other things being equal, the most ancient possessor of a name is by far the most likely to have had a district or country called after him.
We are thus led back to the grandson of Shem. His father was Aram. This Aram gave his name to Syria, which clearly indicates that this region was settled by him or the family of which he was the head. Syria is throughout the Scriptures called Aram; and so, indeed, is Upper Mesopotamia, which is simply distinguished as Aram-Naharaim, or Aram between the Rivers (Euphrates and Tigris). The mere fact that Nahor’s son was called by the same name, may furnish another probability for the fact, that the regions were really one, and that the name of Uz predominated already in it. Indeed, the name of another of Nahor’s sons, Buz, is a farther indication of the prevalence of this name. It means “in Uz;” and such a name was not likely to be given with reference to the previous son called Uz, but from the fact of his being, like him, born in that land of Uz to which the son of Aram had given his name. It is indeed a remarkable fact, that the two names Uz and Buz, occur in the same connection in the Book of Job as they do in the account of Nahor’s children. Job is in the land of Uz; and present at the discussion carried on between him and his friends, is a young man called Elihu, who is described as a Buzite, that is, a son or descendant of Buz; and he is not one of the friends who came from a distance to condole with Job, but obviously appears as a neighbor who, probably with many others, had been eager listeners to this grand controversy, in which he eventually interposed.
From this it is obvious to infer, that the land of Uz was that land in Pandan-Aram where the elder branches of Abraham’s family remained after his departure for Canaan, and many circumstances concerning which are known to us from the visits of old Eliezer to seek a wife for Isaac, and from Jacob’s sojourn there with Laban; and this amounts almost to a demonstration, when we find good reason to suppose that this very region was that which was settled by the grandson of Shem, and to which he gave his name. This personage is believed to have eventually founded Damascus, to which perhaps the name of the land of Uz may have reached; but the next previous stage to which, in the Semitic migration from the north-east (from Armenia) previously to crossing the Euphrates, would well have been in Pandan-Aram.
We find this opinion supported by Col. Chesney in his work on the Expedition to the Euphrates, by illustrations drawn from the physical condition of this region. His view is, that the land of Uz was in all probability in the neighborhood of Orfah, where a brook and a well on the road to Diarbekir, with other localities, are “consecrated to the memory of the great patriarch.”
It is admitted that Teman, to which one of Job’s friends belonged, was in Edom; and the objection derivable from this to the assumed allocation of the land of Uz is fairly met by the remark, that as a constant political intercourse appears to have been maintained between the central government of Assyria on the one hand, and the dependent provinces about the borders of Assyria on the other, it can scarcely be doubted that tribal, and still more strongly kindred ties, would be equally maintained between the descendants of Shem, living in Mesopotamia, and those who occupied the borders of Syria and Arabia. And it may be observed, that agreeably to the prevailing customs of the East, such a journey as that from Idumea to the supposed rendezvous of Orfab, would only be an ordinary circumstance, willingly undertaken in order to mourn with and comfort the distinguished tribal chief who had fallen into this great affliction. Some distance is implied by the necessity of making an express appointment.
With reference to the localities mentioned in the book, it is evident that Job lived in a town in which active employments were carried on, and situated in a productive country, having wine-presses and oil-presses,
It appears to us that the view respecting the land of Uz, which we have thus endeavored to enforce and illustrate, is well worthy of attention. Reasons against it may no doubt be found; we are aware of them, but they seem to us fewer than apply to any other locality; and although there may be good arguments for other districts, they are also fewer and less various than may be produced in favor of Osroëne. The recent popularity of the Idumea hypothesis may, we apprehend, be in part ascribed to the interest awakened in favor of the region of Seir, by the discoveries of Burckhardt and Laborde, and the researches of later travellers—for it is the habit of our minds to concentrate upon a locality which has recently become known to us, all the interests which wander unappropriated, and which may by any possibility have once belonged to it.
