Verse-by-Verse Bible Commentary
Job 39:13

Clarke's Commentary

Verse Job 39:13. The goodly wings unto the peacocks? — I believe peacocks are not intended here; and the Hebrew word רננים renanim should be translated ostriches; and the term חסידה chasidah, which we translate ostrich, should be, as it is elsewhere translated, stork; and perhaps the word נצה notsah, rendered here feathers, should be translated hawk, or pelican.

The Vulgate has, Penna struthionis similis est pennis herodii et accipitris; "the feather of the ostrich is like to that of the stork and the hawk." The Chaldee has, "The wing of the wild cock, who crows and claps his wings, is like to the wing of the stork and the hawk." The Septuagint, not knowing what to make of these different terms, have left them all untranslated, so as to make a sentence without sense. Mr. Good has come nearest both to the original and to the meaning, by translating thus: -

"The wing of the ostrich tribe is for flapping;

But of the stork and falcon for flight."

Though the wings of the ostrich, says he, cannot raise it from the ground, yet by the motion here alluded to, by a perpetual vibration, or flapping - by perpetually catching or drinking in the wind, (as the term נעלסה neelasah implies, which we render goodly,) they give it a rapidity of running beyond that possessed by any other animal in the world. Adanson informs us, that when he was at the factory in Padore, he was in possession of two tame ostriches; and to try their strength, says he, "I made a full-grown negro mount the smallest, and two others the largest. This burden did not seem at all disproportioned to their strength. At first they went a pretty high trot; and, when they were heated a little, they expanded their wings, as if it were to catch the wind, and they moved with such fleetness as to seem to be off the ground. And I am satisfied that those ostriches would have distanced the fleetest race-horses that were ever bred in England."

As to נצה notsah, here translated falcon, Mr. Good observes, that the term [Arabian] naz is used generally by the Arabian writers to signify both falcon and hawk; and there can be little doubt that such is the real meaning of the Hebrew word; and that it imports various species of the falcon family, as jer-falcon, gos-hawk, and sparrow-hawk.

"The argument drawn from natural history advances from quadrupeds to birds; and of birds, those only are selected for description which are most common to the country in which the scene lies, and at the same time are most singular in their properties. Thus the ostrich is admirably contrasted with the stork and the eagle, as affording us an instance of a winged animal totally incapable of flight, but endued with an unrivalled rapidity of running, compared with birds whose flight is proverbially fleet, powerful, and persevering. Let man, in the pride of his wisdom, explain or arraign this difference of construction.

"Again, the ostrich is peculiarly opposed to the stork and to some species of the eagle in another sense, and a sense adverted to in the verses immediately ensuing; for the ostrich is well known to take little or no care of its eggs, or of its young, while the stork ever has been, and ever deserves to be, held in proverbial repute for its parental tenderness. The Hebrew word חסידה chasidah, imports kindness or affection; and our own term stork, if derived from the Greek στοργη, storge, as some pretend, has the same original meaning." - GOOD'S JOB.

Bridgeway Bible Commentary

Control of the animal world (38:39-39:30)

The pressure on Job increases as God continues with his unanswerable questions. From the natural world in general, God moves to the animal world. He draws Job’s attention to animals that sometimes appear to have no purpose so far as human life is concerned, but are still part of God’s ordering of the world.
God asks Job if he is able to order nature by providing wild animals with food (39-41), while protecting timid animals when they give birth and care for their young (39:1-4). God gives freedom to the wild ass, but at the same time controls the animal and its habitat according to his ordering of nature. Can Job do this (5-8)? Or can Job make a wild ox work like a domestic ox, when God has given the wild ox an instinct that makes it impossible to tame (9-12)?
Some things in God’s creation are puzzling to humans. For example, it appears as if the ostrich neglects her eggs and has no concern for her young, because when she is frightened she runs away and leaves them. People may not understand why the ostrich behaves as it does, but God has given each animal its own particular instinct as he sees fit (13-18). God made the horse with an instinct to be trained. This is impressed upon Job with a description of the spectacular yet fearsome sight of war horses in battle (19-25).
Hawks and eagles make their nests in higher places than other birds, but they are not disadvantaged in looking for food. This is because of their remarkable eyesight, which enables them to see the tiniest objects from a great distance. Can Job compete with a Creator whose wisdom foresaw even the smallest detail (26-30)?

Coffman's Commentaries on the Bible

HOW HAS A STUPID BIRD LIKE THE OSTRICH SURVIVED?

“The wings of the ostrich wave proudly; But are the pinions and plumage of love? For she leaveth her eggs on the earth, And warmeth them in the dust, And forgetteth that the foot may crush them, Or that the wild beast may trample them. She dealeth hardly with her young ones, as if they were not hers: Though her labor be in vain, she is without fear; Because God hath deprived her of wisdom, Neither hath he imparted to her understanding. What time she lifteth up herself on high, She scorneth the horse and his rider.”

God’s question for Job in this section is not grammatically stated but implied, as indicated by our title for these verses. Can anyone explain how such a senseless creature could survive throughout the millenniums of human history?

“But are the pinions and plumage, of love” The exact meaning here is obscure; but Rawlinson wrote that, “The question here is, ’Does the ostrich use those beautiful pinions and plumage for the same kindly purpose as other birds, namely, to warm her eggs and further the purpose of hatching them.”’The Pulpit Commentary, Vol. 7d, p. 632.

Barnes' Notes on the Whole Bible

Gavest thou the goodly wings unto the peacocks? - In the previous verses the appeal had been to the wild and untamable animals of the desert. In the prosecution of the argument, it was natural to allude to the feathered tribes which resided there also, and which were distinguished for their strength or fleetness of wing, as proof of the wisdom and the superintending providence of God. The idea is, that these animals, far away from the abodes of man, where it could not be pretended that man had anything to do with their training, had habits and instincts special to themselves, which showed great variety in the divine plans, and at the same time consummate wisdom. The appeal in the following verses Job 39:13-18 is to the remarkable habits of the ostrich, as illustrating the wisdom and the superintending providence of God. There has been very great variety in the translation of this verse, and it is important to ascertain its real meaning, in order to know whether there is any allusion here to the peacock, or whether it refers wholly to the ostrich. The Septuagint did not understand the passage, and a part of the words they endeavored to translate, but the others are retained without any attempt to explain them. Their version is, Πτέρυξ τερπομένων νεέλασσα, ἐὰν συλλάβῃ ἀσιδα καὶνέσσα Pterux terpomenōn neelassa, ean sullabē asida kai nessa - the wing of the exulting Neelassa if she conceives or comprehends the Asia and Nessa.” Jerome renders it,” The wing of the ostrich is like the wings of the falcon and the hawk.” Schultens renders it, “The wing of the ostrich is exulting; but is it the wing and the plumage of the stork?” He enumerates no less than twenty different interpretations of the passage. Herder renders it,

“A wing with joyous cry is uplifted yonder;

Is it the wing and feather of the ostrich?”

Umbreit renders it,

“The wing of the ostrich, which lifts itselfjoyfully,

Does it not resemble the tail and feather of the stork?”

Rosenmuller renders it,

“The wing of the ostrich exults!

Truly its wing and plumage is like that of the stork!”

Prof. Lee renders it, “Wilt thou confide in the exulting of the wings of the ostrich? Or in her choice feathers and head-plumage, when she leaveth her eggs to the earth,” etc. So Coverdale renders it, “The ostrich (whose feathers are fairer than the wings of the sparrow-hawk), when he hath laid his eggs upon the ground, he breedeth them in the dust, and forgetteth them.” In none of these versions, and in none that I have examined except that of Luther and the common English version, is there any allusion to the peacock; and amidst all the variety of the rendering, and all the difficulty of the passage, there is a common sentiment that the ostrich alone is referred to as the particular subject of the description. It is certain that the description proceeds with reference only to the habits of the ostrich, and it is very evident to my mind that in the whole passage there is no allusion whatever to the peacock.

Neither the scope of the passage, nor the words employed, it is believed, will admit of such a reference. There is great difficulty in the Hebrew text, which no one has been able fully to explain, but it is sufficiently clear to make it manifest that the ostrich, and not the peacock, is the subject of the appeal. The word which is rendered “peacock,” רננים reneniym, is derived from רנן rânan, “to give forth a tremulous and stridulous sound;” and then to give forth the voice in vibrations; to shake or trill the voice; and then, as in lamentation or joy the voice is often given forth in that manner, the word comes to mean to utter cries of joy; Isaiah 12:6; Isaiah 35:6; and also cries of lamentation or mourning, Lamentations 2:19. The prevailing sense of the word in the Scriptures is to rejoice; to shout for joy; to exult. The name is here given to the bird referred to, evidently from the sound which it made, and probably from its exulting or joyful cry.

The word does not elsewhere occur in the Scriptures as applicable to a bird, and there is no reason whatever, either from its etymology, or from the connection in which it is found here, to suppose that it refers to the peacock. Another reason is suggested by Scheutzer (Phys. Sac. in loc.), why the peacock cannot be intended here. It is, that the peacock is originally an East Indian fowl, and that it was imported at comparatively a late period in the Jewish history, and was doubtless unknown in the time of Job. In 1 Kings 10:22, and 2 Chronicles 9:21, it appears that peacocks were among the remarkable productions of distant countries that were imported for use or luxury by Solomon, a fact which would not have occurred had they been common in the patriarchal times. To these reasons to show that the peacock is not referred to here, Bochart, whose chapters on the subject deserve a careful attention (Hieroz. P. ii. L. ii. c. xvi. xvii.), has added the following:

(1) That if the peacock had been intended here, the allusion would not have been so brief. Of so remarkable a bird there would have been an extended description as there is of the ostrich, and of the unicorn and the horse. If the allusion is to the peacock, it is by a bare mention of the name, and by no argument, as in other cases, from the habits and instincts of the fowl.

(2) The word which is used here as a description of the bird referred to, רננים reneniym, derived from the musical properties of the bird, is by no means applicable to the peacock. It is of all fowls, perhaps, least distinguished for beauty of voice.

(3) The property ascribed to the fowl here of “exulting in the wing,” by no means agrees with the peacock. The glory and beauty of that bird is in the tail, and not in the wing. Yet the wing is here, from some cause, particularly specified. Bochart has demonstrated at great length, and with entire clearness, that the peacock was a foreign fowl, and that it must have been unknown in Judea and Arabia, as it was in Greece and Rome, at a period long after the time in which the book of Job is commonly supposed to have been written. The proper translation of the Hebrew here then would be, The wing of the exulting fowls “moves joyfully” - נעלסה ne‛âlasâh. The attention seems to be directed to the wing, as being lifted up, or as vibrating with rapidity, or as being triumphant in its movement in eluding the pursuer. It is not its beauty particularly that attracts the attention, but its exulting, joyful, triumphant, appearance.

Or wings and feathers unto the ostrich? - Margin, “or, the feathers of the stork and ostrich.” Most commentators have despaired of making any sense out of the Hebrew in this place, and there have been almost as many conjectures as there have been expositors. The Hebrew is, ונצה חסידה אם־אברה 'im'ebrâh chăsı̂ydâh v^enôtsâh. A literal translation of it would be, “Is it the wing of the stork, and the plumage,” or feathers? The object seems to be to institute a comparison of some kind between the ostrich and the stork. This comparison, it would seem, relates partly to the wings and plumage of the two birds, and partly to their habits and instincts; though the latter point of comparison appears to be couched in the mere name. So far as I can understand the passage, the comparison relates first to the wings and plumage. The point of vision is that of the sudden appearance of the ostrich with exulting wing, and the attention is directed to it as in the bounding speed of its movements when in rapid flight.

In this view the usual name is not given to the bird - יענה בנות b^enôth ya‛ănâh, Isaiah 13:21; Isaiah 34:13; Isaiah 43:20; Jeremiah 50:39, but merely the name of fowls making a stridulous or whizzing sound - רננים reneniym. The question is then asked whether it has the wing and plumage of the stork - evidently implying that the wing of the stork might be supposed to be adapted to such a flight, but that it was remarkable that without such wings the ostrich was able to outstrip even the fleetest animal. The question is designed to turn the attention to the fact that the ostrich accomplishes its flight in this remarkable manner without being endowed with wings like the stork, which is capable of sustaining by its wings a long and rapid flight. The other point of the comparison seems couched in the name given to the stork, and the design is to contrast the habits of the ostrich with those of this bird - particularly in reference to their care for their young. The name given to the stork is חסידה chăsı̂ydâh, meaning literally “the pious,” a name usually given to it - ”avis pia,” from its tenderness toward its young - a virtue for which it was celebrated by the ancients, Pliny “Hist. Nat. x;” Aelian “Hist. An. 3, 23.” On the contrary, the Arabs call the ostrich the impious or ungodly bird, on account of its neglect and cruelty toward its young. The fact that the ostrich thus neglects its young, is dwelt upon in the passage before us Job 39:14-17, and in this respect she is placed in strong contrast with the stork. The verse then, I suppose, may be rendered thus:

“A wing of exulting fowls moves joyfully!

Is it the wing and the plumage of the pious bird?”

This means that with both (in regard to the wing and the habits of the two) there was a strong contrast, and yet designing to show that what seems to be a defect in the size and rigor of the wing, and what seems to be stupid forgetfulness of the bird in regard to its young, is proof of the wisdom of the Creator, who has so made it as to be able to outstrip the fleetest horse, and to be adapted to its shy and timid mode of life in the desert. The ostrich, whose principal characteristics are beautifully and strikingly detailed in this passage in Job, is a native of the torrid regions of Arabia and Africa. It is the largest of the feathered tribes and is the connecting link between quadrupeds and fowls. It has the general properties and outlines of a bird, and yet retains many of the marks of the quadruped. In appearance, the ostrich resembles the camel, and is almost as tall; and in the East is called “the camel-bird” (Calmet).

It is covered with a plumage that resembles hair more nearly than feathers; and its internal parts bear as near a resemblance to those of the quadruped as of the bird creation - Goldsmith. See also Poiret’s “Travels in the Barbary States,” as quoted by Rosenmuller, “Alte u. neue Morgenland,” No. 770. A full description is there given of the appearance and habits of the ostrich. Its head and bill resemble those of a duck; the neck may be compared with that of the swan, though it is much longer; the legs and thighs resemble those of a hen, but are fleshy and large. The end of the foot is cloven, and has two very large toes, which like the leg are covered with scales. The height of the ostrich is usually seven feet from the head to the ground; but from the back it is only four, so that the head and the neck are about three feet long. From the head to the end of the tail, when the neck is stretched in a right line, the length is seven feet.

One of the wings with the feathers spread out is three feet in length. At the end of the wing there is a species of spur almost like the quill of a porcupine. It is an inch long, and is hollow, and of a bony substance. The plumage is generally white and black, though some of them are said to be gray. There are no feathers on the sides of the thighs, nor under the wings. It has not, like most birds, feathers of various kinds, but they are all bearded with detached hairs or filaments, without consistence and reciprocal adherence. The feathers of the ostrich are almost as soft as down, and are therefore wholly unfit for flying, or to defend the body from external injury. The feathers of other birds have the web broader on one side than the other, but those of the ostrich have the shaft exactly in the middle. In other birds, the filaments that compose the feathers of the wings are firmly attached to each other, or are “hooked together,” so that they are adapted to catch and resist the air; on those of the ostrich no such attachments are found.

The consequence is, that they cannot oppose to the air a suitable resistance, as is the case with other birds, and are therefore incapable of flying, and in fact never mount on the wing. The wing is used (see the notes at Job 39:18) only to balance the bird, and to aid it in running. The great size of the bird - weighing 75 or 80 pounds - would require an immense power of wing to elevate it in the air, and it has, therefore, been furnished with the means of surpassing all other animals in the rapidity with which it runs, so that it may escape its pursuers. The ostrich is made to live in the wilderness, and it was called by the ancients “a lover of the deserts.” It is shy and timorous in no common degree, and avoids the cultivated fields and the abodes of man, and retreats into the utmost recesses of the desert. In those dreary wastes its subsistence is the few tufts of coarse grass which are scattered here and there, but it will eat almost anything that comes in its way.

It is the most voracious of animals, and will devour leather, glass, hair, iron, stones, or anything that is given. Valisnieri found the first stomach filled with a quantity of incongruous substances; grass, nuts, cords, stones, glass, brass, copper, iron, tin, lead, and wood, and among the rest, a piece of stone that weighed more than a pound. It would seem that the ostrich is obliged to fill up the great capacity of its stomach in order to be at ease; but that, nutritious substances not occurring, it pours in whatever is at hand to supply the void. The flesh of the ostrich was forbidden by the laws of Moses to be eaten Leviticus 11:13, but it is eaten by some of the savage nations of Africa, who hunt them for their flesh, which they regard as a dainty. The principal value of the ostrich, however, and the principal reason why it is hunted. is in the long feathers that compose the wing and the tail, and which are used so extensively for ornaments, The ancients used these plumes in their helmets; the ladies, in the East, as well as in the West, use them to decorate their persons, and they have been extensively employed also as badges of mourning on hearses. The Arabians assert that the ostrich never drinks, and the chosen place of its habitation - the waste, sandy desert - seems to confirm the assertion. As the ostrich, in the passage before us, is contrasted with the stork, the accompanying illustrations will serve to explain the passage.

Smith's Bible Commentary

Chapter 39

Do you know the time when the wild goats of the rock bring forth? can you mark when the hinds calve? Can you number the months that they fulfil? [Do you know how long their pregnancies are?] or do you know the time when they bring forth? They bow themselves, they bring their young ones, and they cast out their sorrows. Can you actually harness a unicorn to plow in your field and to do your work, to bring in your harvest? Did you paint the beautiful wings on the peacocks? or the feathers of the ostrich? And this dumb ostrich that leaves her eggs in the earth, warms them in the dust, and forgets that a foot might crush them, or that the wild beast might break them in. She's hardened against her young ones, as though they were not hers: her labor is in vain without fear; Because God has deprived her of wisdom, neither hath he imparted to her understanding ( Job 39:1-3 , Job 39:10 , Job 39:12-17 ).

Now some birds have tremendous instinctive abilities: who put it in the mind of the golden plover to fly from Alaska to the Aleutians Islands in the springtime in order that they might hatch their eggs and raise their babies in Alaska in the springtime? Who put it in the mind of the plover to fly 2,000 miles over uncharted oceans and land up there in the Aleutian Islands? And then after they have their little ones, and as winter is approaching, the little golden plover turns around and flies back to Hawaii. Who guides it? Who's given it its instinctive guidance system that it can fly over the 2,000 miles of ocean nonstop and land by careful navigation there in Hawaii, even though it may be blown by crosswinds of up to 100 miles an hour and be blown off of course, yet find it's way to Hawaii? Well, you say it remembered the way that it came. Well, then who guides the kids who are left behind, who don't take off for Hawaii until two weeks after their parents have left? And they've never been to Hawaii.

God is just saying to Job, "Hey, Job, who has done all of these things? You know, you think you're so smart, go ahead and see how far you can get in doing these things." Now the ostrich, it lays its eggs, it doesn't worry about, you know, someone coming along and stepping on the sand and cracking the egg because God has hid wisdom from it. He's just let it be dumb, not care about the egg, whether it will hatch or not. He's hardened her against her young ones. And yet with some animals, there is very strong mother instincts. Then God talks about the horse with its tremendous strength and the excitement of the horse in battle and so forth. Who created this excitement within the horse?

Does the hawk fly by wisdom, and stretch forth her wings toward the south? Does the eagle mount up at your command, and makes her nest on high? ( Job 39:26-27 )

Who gave the eagle that instinct to build the nest way up on the cliff? Did you order that?

She dwells and abides on the rocks, upon the crags of the rocks, and in the strong place. And from there she seeks her prey, and her eyes behold very far off. Her young ones also suck up blood: and where the slain are, there is she ( Job 39:28-30 ). "

Gill's Exposition of the Whole Bible

[Gavest thou] the goodly wings unto the peacocks?.... Rather "ostriches", as the Vulgate Latin and Tigurine versions render it; some render it, "the wing of those that exult is joyful", so Montanus; that is, of the ostriches; who, in confidence of their wings, exult and glory over the horse and his rider, Job 39:18; for peacocks are not remarkable for their wings, but for their tails; whereas the wings of the ostrich are as sails unto them, as several writers observe k; and with which they rather run, or row, than fly: hence it is called by Plautus l "passer marinus", the sea sparrow: and the feathers of it are more goodly than those of the wings of the peacock; and besides, it is a question whether the peacock was where Job lived, and in his times; since it is originally from the Indies, and from thence it was brought to Judea in the times of Solomon; and was not known in Greece and Rome m until later ages. Alexander the Great, when he first saw them in India, was surprised at them; and yet Solon n speaks of them in his time as seen by him, which was at least two hundred years before Alexander; though at Rome not common in the times of Horace o, who calls a peacock "rara avis"; and speaks of them as sold for a great price; but ostriches were well known in Arabia, where Job lived, as is testified by Xenophon p, Strabo q, and Diodorus Siculus r. Moreover, what is said in the following verses is only true of the ostrich, and that only is spoken of here and there, as it follows;

or wings and feathers unto the ostrich; or whose wings and feathers are like the storks; and so Bochart renders the words, truly they have "the wing and feather of the stork"; the colours of which are black and white, from whence it has its name πελαγρος s in Greek; and so Leo Africanus t says of the ostriches, that they have in their wings large feathers of a black and white colour; and this was a creature well known in Arabia u, in which Job lived.

k Xenophon. de Expedit. Cyri, l. 1. Aelian. de. Animal. l. 2. c. 77. l Persa, Act. 2. Sc. 2. v. 17. m Aelian. de Animal. l. 5. c. 21. n Laert. Vit. Solon. l. 1. c. 2. o Sermon. l. 2. Sat. 2. v. 25, 26. Vid. Plin. Nat. Hist. l. 10. c. 20. Macrob. Saturnal. l. 3. c. 13. p Ut supra. (Xenophon. de Expedit. Cyri, l. 1.) q Geograph. l. 16. p. 531. r Bibliothec. l. 2. p. 133. s Suidas in voce πελαγρος. t Descriptio Africae, l. 9. p. 766. u Diodor. Sicul. ut supra. (Bibliothec. l. 2. p. 133.)

Henry's Complete Commentary on the Bible

      13 Gavest thou the goodly wings unto the peacocks? or wings and feathers unto the ostrich?   14 Which leaveth her eggs in the earth, and warmeth them in dust,   15 And forgetteth that the foot may crush them, or that the wild beast may break them.   16 She is hardened against her young ones, as though they were not hers: her labour is in vain without fear;   17 Because God hath deprived her of wisdom, neither hath he imparted to her understanding.   18 What time she lifteth up herself on high, she scorneth the horse and his rider.

      The ostrich is a wonderful animal, a very large bird, but it never flies. Some have called it a winged camel. God here gives an account of it, and observes,

      I. Something that it has in common with the peacock, that is, beautiful feathers Job 39:13; Job 39:13Job 39:13): Gavest thou proud wings unto the peacocks? so some read it. Fine feathers make proud birds. The peacock is an emblem of pride; when he struts, and shows his fine feathers, Solomon in all his glory is not arrayed like him. The ostrich too has goodly feathers, and yet is a foolish bird; for wisdom does not always go along with beauty and gaiety. Other birds do not envy the peacock or the ostrich their gaudy colours, nor complain for want of them; why then should we repine if we see others wear better clothes than we can afford to wear? God gives his gifts variously, and those gifts are not always the most valuable that make the finest show. Who would not rather have the voice of the nightingale than the tail of the peacock, the eye of the eagle and her soaring wing, and the natural affection of the stork, than the beautiful wings and feathers of the ostrich, which can never rise above the earth, and is without natural affection?

      II. Something that is peculiar to itself,

      1. Carelessness of her young. It is well that this is peculiar to herself, for it is a very bad character. Observe, (1.) How she exposes her eggs; she does not retire to some private place, and make a nest there, as the sparrows and swallows do (Psalms 84:3), and there lay eggs and hatch her young. Most birds, as well as other animals, are strangely guided by natural instinct in providing for the preservation of their young. But the ostrich is a monster in nature, for she drops her eggs any where upon the ground and takes no care to hatch them. If the sand and the sun will hatch them, well and good; they may for her, for she will not warm them, Job 39:14; Job 39:14. Nay, she takes no care to preserve them: The foot of the traveller may crush them, and the wild beast break them,Job 39:15; Job 39:15. But how then are any young ones brought forth, and whence is it that the species has not perished? We must suppose either that God, by a special providence, with the heat of the sun and the sand (so some think), hatches the neglected eggs of the ostrich, as he feeds the neglected young ones of the raven, or that, though the ostrich often leaves her eggs thus, yet not always. (2.) The reason why she does thus expose her eggs. It is, [1.] For want of natural affection (Job 39:16; Job 39:16): She is hardened against her young ones. To be hardened against any is unamiable, even in a brute-creature, much more in a rational creature that boasts of humanity, especially to be hardened against young ones, that cannot help themselves and therefore merit compassion, that give no provocation and therefore merit no hard usage: but it is worst of all for her to be hardened against her own young ones, as though they were not hers, whereas really they are parts of herself. Her labour in laying her eggs is in vain and all lost, because she has not that fear and tender concern for them that she should have. Those are most likely to lose their labour that are least in fear of losing it. [2.] For want of wisdom (Job 39:17; Job 39:17): God has deprived her of wisdom. This intimates that the art which other animals have to nourish and preserve their young is God's gift, and that, where it exists not, God denies it, that by the folly of the ostrich, as well as by the wisdom of the ant, we may learn to be wise; for, First, As careless as the ostrich is of her eggs so careless many people are of their own souls; they make no provision for them, no proper nest in which they may be safe, leave them exposed to Satan and his temptations, which is a certain evidence that they are deprived of wisdom. Secondly, So careless are many parents of their children; some of their bodies, not providing for their own house, their own bowels, and therefore worse than infidels, and as bad as the ostrich; but many more are thus careless of their children's souls, take no care of their education, send them abroad into the world untaught, unarmed, forgetting what corruption there is in the world through lust, which will certainly crush them. Thus their labour in rearing them comes to be in vain; it were better for their country that they had never been born. Thirdly, So careless are too many ministers of their people, with whom they should reside; but they leave them in the earth, and forget how busy Satan is to sow tares while men sleep. They overlook those whom they should oversee, and are really hardened against them.

      2. Care of herself. She leaves her eggs in danger, but, if she herself be in danger, no creature shall strive more to get out of the way of it than the ostrich, Job 39:18; Job 39:18. Then she lifts up her wings on high (the strength of which then stands her in better stead than their beauty), and, with the help of them, runs so fast that a horseman at full speed cannot overtake her: She scorneth the horse and his rider. Those that are least under the law of natural affection often contend most for the law of self-preservation. Let not the rider be proud of the swiftness of his horse when such an animal as the ostrich shall out-run him.