Ayub 5:12

5:12 He frustrates ¹  the plans ²  of the crafty ³ 

so that ⁴  their hands cannot accomplish

what they had planned! ⁵ 

Ayub 8:16

8:16 He is a well-watered plant ⁶  in ⁷  the sun,

its shoots spread ⁸  over its garden. ⁹ 

Ayub 9:23

9:23 If a scourge brings sudden death, ¹⁰ 

he mocks ¹¹  at the despair ¹²  of the innocent. ¹³ 

Ayub 15:25

15:25 for he stretches out his hand against God, ¹⁴ 

and vaunts himself ¹⁵  against the Almighty,

Ayub 20:9

20:9 People ¹⁶  who had seen him will not see him again,

and the place where he was

will recognize him no longer.

Ayub 20:12

20:12 “If ¹⁷  evil is sweet in his mouth

and he hides it under his tongue, ¹⁸ 

Ayub 21:20

21:20 Let his own eyes see his destruction; ¹⁹ 

let him drink of the anger of the Almighty.

Ayub 27:18

27:18 The house he builds is as fragile as a moth’s cocoon, ²⁰ 

like a hut ²¹  that a watchman has made.

Ayub 28:21

28:21 For ²²  it has been hidden

from the eyes of every living creature,

and from the birds of the sky it has been concealed.

Ayub 31:29

31:29 If ²³  I have rejoiced over the misfortune of my enemy ²⁴ 

or exulted ²⁵  because calamity ²⁶  found him –

Ayub 32:1

V. The Speeches of Elihu (32:1-37:24)

Elihu’s First Speech ²⁷ 

32:1 So these three men refused to answer ²⁸  Job further, because he was righteous in his ²⁹  own eyes.

Ayub 35:12

35:12 Then ³⁰  they cry out – but he does not answer –

because of the arrogance of the wicked.

Ayub 36:31

36:31 It is by these that he judges ³¹  the nations

and supplies food in abundance.

Ayub 39:9

39:9 Is the wild ox willing to be your servant?

Will it spend the night at your feeding trough?

[5:12]  ¹ tn The Hiphil form מֵפֵר (mefer) is the participle from פָּרַר (parar, “to annul; to frustrate; to break”). It continues the doxological descriptions of God; but because of the numerous verses in this section, it may be clearer to start a new sentence with this form (rather than translating it “who…”).

[5:12]  ² tn The word is related to the verb “to think; to plan; to devise,” and so can mean “thoughts; plans; imagination.” Here it refers to the plan of the crafty that must be frustrated (see also Isa 44:25 for the contrast).

[5:12]  ³ tn The word עֲרוּמִים (’arumim) means “crafty” or “shrewd.” It describes the shrewdness of some to achieve their ends (see Gen 3:1, where the serpent is more cunning than all the creatures, that is, he knows where the dangers are and will attempt to bring down the innocent). In the next verse it describes the clever plans of the wise – those who are wise in their own sight.

[5:12]  ⁴ tn The consecutive clause showing result or purpose is simply introduced with the vav and the imperfect/jussive (see GKC 504-5 §166.a).

[5:12]  ⁵ tn The word תּוּשִׁיָּה (tushiyyah) is a technical word from wisdom literature. It has either the idea of the faculty of foresight, or of prudence in general (see 12:6; 26:3). It can be parallel in the texts to “wisdom,” “counsel,” “help,” or “strength.” Here it refers to what has been planned ahead of time.

[8:16]  ⁶ tn The figure now changes to a plant that is flourishing and spreading and then suddenly cut off. The word רָטַב (ratav) means “to be moist; to be watered.” The word occurs in Arabic, Aramaic, and Akkadian, but only twice in the Bible: here as the adjective and in 24:8 as the verb.

[8:16]  ⁷ tn The Hebrew is לִפְנֵי (lifne, “before”). Does this mean “in the presence of the sun,” i.e., under a sweltering sun, or “before” the sun rises? It seems more natural to take לִפְנֵי (lifne) as “in the presence of” or “under.”

[8:16]  ⁸ tn Heb “its shoot goes out.”

[8:16]  ⁹ tc Some have emended this phrase to obtain “over the roofs.” The LXX has “out of his corruption.” H. M. Orlinsky has shown that this reading arose from an internal LXX change, saprias having replaced prasias, “garden” (JQR 26 [1935/36]: 134-35).

[9:23]  ¹⁰ tc The LXX contains a paraphrase: “for the worthless die, but the righteous are laughed to scorn.”

[9:23]  sn The point of these verses is to show – rather boldly – that God does not distinguish between the innocent and the guilty.

[9:23]  ¹¹ sn This bold anthropomorphism means that by his treatment of the despair of the innocent, God is in essence mocking them.

[9:23]  ¹² tn The term מַסַּת (massat), a hapax legomenon, was translated “trial” in the older versions; but it is not from נָסָה (nasah, “to tempt; to test; to try”), but from מָסַס (masas, “to flow”). It is used in the Niphal to speak of the heart “melting” in suffering. So the idea behind this image is that of despair. This is the view that most interpreters adopt; it requires no change of the text whatsoever.

[9:23]  ¹³ sn Job uses this word to refute Eliphaz; cf. 4:7.

[15:25]  ¹⁴ sn The symbol of the outstretched hand is the picture of attempting to strike someone, or shaking a fist at someone; it is a symbol of a challenge or threat (see Isa 5:25; 9:21; 10:4).

[15:25]  ¹⁵ tn The Hitpael of גָּבַר (gavar) means “to act with might” or “to behave like a hero.” The idea is that the wicked boldly vaunts himself before the Lord.

[20:9]  ¹⁶ tn Heb “the eye that had seen him.” Here a part of the person (the eye, the instrument of vision) is put by metonymy for the entire person.

[20:12]  ¹⁷ tn The conjunction אִם (’im) introduces clauses that are conditional or concessive. With the imperfect verb in the protasis it indicates what is possible in the present or future. See GKC 496 §159.q).

[20:12]  ¹⁸ sn The wicked person holds on to evil as long as he can, savoring the taste or the pleasure of it.

[21:20]  ¹⁹ tc This word occurs only here. The word כִּיד (kid) was connected to Arabic kaid, “fraud, trickery,” or “warfare.” The word is emended by the commentators to other ideas, such as פִּיד (pid, “[his] calamity”). Dahood and others alter it to “cup”; Wright to “weapons.” A. F. L. Beeston argues for a meaning “condemnation” for the MT form, and so makes no change in the text (Mus 67 [1954]: 315-16). If the connection to Arabic “warfare” is sustained, or if such explanations of the existing MT can be sustained, then the text need not be emended. In any case, the sense of the line is clear.

[27:18]  ²⁰ tn Heb כָעָשׁ (kha’ash, “like a moth”), but this leaves room for clarification. Some commentators wanted to change it to “bird’s nest” or just “nest” (cf. NRSV) to make the parallelism; see Job 4:14. But the word is not found. The LXX has a double expression, “as moths, as a spider.” So several take it as the spider’s web, which is certainly unsubstantial (cf. NAB, NASB, NLT; see Job 8:14).

[27:18]  ²¹ tn The Hebrew word is the word for “booth,” as in the Feast of Booths. The word describes something that is flimsy; it is not substantial at all.

[28:21]  ²² tn The vav on the verb is unexpressed in the LXX. It should not be overlooked, for it introduces a subordinate clause of condition (R. Gordis, Job, 310).

[31:29]  ²³ tn The problem with taking this as “if,” introducing a conditional clause, is finding the apodosis, if there is one. It may be that the apodosis is understood, or summed up at the end. This is the view taken here. But R. Gordis (Job, 352) wishes to take this word as the indication of the interrogative, forming the rhetorical question to affirm he has never done this. However, in that case the parenthetical verses inserted become redundant.

[31:29]  ²⁴ sn The law required people to help their enemies if they could (Exod 23:4; also Prov 20:22). But often in the difficulties that ensued, they did exult over their enemies’ misfortune (Pss 54:7; 59:10 [11], etc.). But Job lived on a level of purity that few ever reach. Duhm said, “If chapter 31 is the crown of all ethical developments of the O.T., verse 29 is the jewel in that crown.”

[31:29]  ²⁵ tn The Hitpael of עוּר (’ur) has the idea of “exult.”

[31:29]  ²⁶ tn The word is רָע (ra’, “evil”) in the sense of anything that harms, interrupts, or destroys life.

[32:1]  ²⁷ sn There are now four speeches from another friend of Job, Elihu. But Job does not reply to any of these, nor does the Lord. The speeches show a knowledge of the debate that has gone on, but they take a different approach entirely. Elihu’s approach is that suffering is a discipline from God, to teach his people. In other words, Job was suffering to vindicate God’s confidence in him. His speeches are an interesting part of the book, but they too are irrelevant to Job’s actual case. In the first speech, there is a short introduction (32:1-5), and then the speech proper with these sections: Elihu will speak because his youth is wiser (32:6-14), and his friends arguments failed (32:15-22); he calls for Job’s attention (33:1-7), claims Job’s case is wrong (33:8-13), and Job’s argument that God does not answer is false (33:14-28), and then makes an appeal to Job (33:29-33). It becomes evident that Elihu correctly identified Job’s determination to maintain his integrity at God’s expense as the primary problem in at least the latter stages of the dialogues (32:1-3; 34:37; 35:16; cf. 38:2; 40:8; 42:3). Elihu was respectful of his elders (32:4), but remained uninfected by their error (32:14). He sought to maintain impartiality (32:21-22) and to offer true wisdom (33:33), believed like Job that a mediator existed (33:23-24), and desired Job’s vindication (33:32). In addition, Elihu focused on vindicating God’s actions (34:12; 35:10-11; 36:2-3, 22-26) and announced the coming theophany (37:1-5, 22). It appears that he was not included in the divine condemnation of Job’s friends (42:7-9) and was excluded from Job’s prayer of intercession (42:8-10) – both perhaps implying divine approval of his behavior and words.

[32:1]  ²⁸ tn The form is the infinitive construct (“answer”) functioning as the object of the preposition; the phrase forms the complement of the verb “they ceased to answer” (= “they refused to answer further”).

[32:1]  ²⁹ tc The LXX, Syriac, and Symmachus have “in their eyes.” This is adopted by some commentators, but it does not fit the argument.

[35:12]  ³⁰ tn The adverb שָׁם (sham, “there”) connects this verse to v. 11. “There” can be locative or temporal – and here it is temporal (= “then”).

[36:31]  ³¹ tn The verb is יָדִין (yadin, “he judges”). Houbigant proposedיָזוּן (yazun, “he nourishes”). This has found wide acceptance among commentators (cf. NAB). G. R. Driver retained the MT but gave a meaning “enriches” to the verb (“Problems in the Hebrew text of Job,” VTSup 3 [1955]: 88ff.).