Only by this rendering is the form of expression of the elliptical clause לא־ישׁבוּ למו explained. Hirz. refers למו to בּתּים: in which they do not dwell; but ל ישׁב does not signify: to dwell in a place, but: to settle down in a place; Schlottm. refers למו to the inhabitants: therein they dwell not themselves, i.e., where no one dwelt; but the אשׁר which would be required in this case as acc. localis could not be omitted. One might more readily, with Hahn, explain: those to whom they belong do not inhabit them; but it is linguistically impossible for למו to stand alone as the expression of this subject (the possessors). The most natural, and also an admissible explanation, is, that yshbw refers to the houses, and that למו, which can be used not only of persons, but also of things, is dat. ethicus. The meaning, however, is not: which are uninhabited, which would not be expressed as future, but rather by אין בהם יושׁב or similarly, but: which shall not inhabit, i.e., shall not be inhabited to them (ישׁב to dwell = to have inhabitants, as Isa 13:10; Jer 50:13, Jer 50:39, and freq.), or, as we should express it, which ought to remain uninhabited.
Job 15:29 begins the conclusion: (because he has acted thus) he shall not be rich (with a personal subject as Hos 12:9, and יעשּׁר to be written with a sharpened שׁ, like יעצר above, Job 12:15), and his substance shall not endure (קוּם, to take place, Isa 7:7; to endure, 1Sa 13:14; and hold fast, Job 41:18), and מנלם shall not incline itself to the earth. The interpretation of the older expositors, non extendet se in terra, is impossible - that must be בּארץ eb tsum taht - elbi ינּטה; whereas
