Ayub 9:17

9:17 he who ¹  crushes ²  me with a tempest,

and multiplies my wounds for no reason. ³ 

Ayub 9:20

9:20 Although I am innocent, ⁴ 

my mouth ⁵  would condemn me; ⁶ 

although I am blameless,

it would declare me perverse. ⁷ 

Ayub 9:22-23

Accusation of God’s Justice

9:22 “It is all one! ⁸  That is why I say, ⁹ 

‘He destroys the blameless and the guilty.’

9:23 If a scourge brings sudden death, ¹⁰ 

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

Ayub 9:30-31

9:30 If I wash myself with snow water, ¹⁴ 

and make my hands clean with lye, ¹⁵ 

9:31 then you plunge me into a slimy pit ¹⁶ 

and my own clothes abhor me.

Ayub 42:3-6

42:3 you asked, ¹⁷ 

‘Who is this who darkens counsel

without knowledge?’

But ¹⁸  I have declared without understanding ¹⁹ 

things too wonderful for me to know. ²⁰ 

42:4 You said, ²¹ 

‘Pay attention, and I will speak;

I will question you, and you will answer me.’

42:5 I had heard of you by the hearing of the ear,

but now my eye has seen you. ²² 

42:6 Therefore I despise myself, ²³ 

and I repent in dust and ashes!

[9:17]  ¹ tn The relative pronoun indicates that this next section is modifying God, the Judge. Job does not believe that God would respond or listen to him, because this is the one who is crushing him.

[9:17]  ² tn The verb יְשׁוּפֵנִי (yÿshufeni) is the same verb that is used in Gen 3:15 for the wounding of the serpent. The Targum to Job, the LXX, and the Vulgate all translate it “to crush; to pound,” or “to bruise.” The difficulty for many exegetes is that this is to be done “with a tempest.” The Syriac and Targum Job see a different vocalization and read “with a hair.” The text as it stands is understandable and so no change is needed. The fact that the word “tempest” is written with a different sibilant in other places in Job is not greatly significant in this consideration.

[9:17]  ³ tn חִנָּם (khinnam) is adverbial, meaning “gratuitously, without a cause, for no reason, undeservedly.” See its use in 2:4.

[9:20]  ⁴ tn The idea is the same as that expressed in v. 15, although here the imperfect verb is used and not the perfect. Once again with the concessive clause (“although I am right”) Job knows that in a legal dispute he would be confused and would end up arguing against himself.

[9:20]  ⁵ tn Some commentators wish to change this to “his mouth,” meaning God’s response to Job’s complaints. But the MT is far more expressive, and “my mouth” fits the context in which Job is saying that even though he is innocent, if he spoke in a court setting in the presence of God he would be overwhelmed, confused, and no doubt condemn himself.

[9:20]  ⁶ tn The verb has the declarative sense in the Hiphil, “to declare guilty [or wicked]” or “to condemn.”

[9:20]  ⁷ tn The verb עָקַשׁ (’aqash) means “to be twisted; to be tortuous.” The Piel has a meaning “to bend; to twist” (Mic 3:9) and “to pervert” (Jer 59:8). The form here is classified as a Hiphil, with the softening of the vowel i (see GKC 147 §53.n). It would then also be a declarative use of the Hiphil.

[9:22]  ⁸ tc The LXX omits the phrase “It is all one.” Modern scholars either omit it or transpose it for clarity.

[9:22]  sn The expression “it is one” means that God’s dealings with people is undiscriminating. The number “one” could also be taken to mean “the same” – “it is all the same.” The implication is that it does not matter if Job is good or evil, if he lives or dies. This is the conclusion of the preceding section.

[9:22]  ⁹ tn The relationships of these clauses is in some question. Some think that the poet has inverted the first two, and so they should read, “That is why I have said: ‘It is all one.’” Others would take the third clause to be what was said.

[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.

[9:30]  ¹⁴ tn The Syriac and Targum Job read with the Qere “with water of [בְמֵי, bÿme] snow.” The Kethib simply has “in [בְמוֹ, bÿmo] snow.” In Ps 51:9 and Isa 1:18 snow forms a simile for purification. Some protest that snow water is not necessarily clean; but if fresh melting snow is meant, then the runoff would be very clear. The image would work well here. Nevertheless, others have followed the later Hebrew meaning for שֶׁלֶג (sheleg) – “soap” (so NIV, NRSV, NLT). Even though that makes a nice parallelism, it is uncertain whether that meaning was in use at the time this text was written.

[9:30]  ¹⁵ tn The word בֹּר (bor, “lye, potash”) does not refer to purity (Syriac, KJV, ASV), but refers to the ingredient used to make the hands pure or clean. It has the same meaning as בֹּרִית (borit), the alkali or soda made from the ashes of certain plants.

[9:31]  ¹⁶ tn The pointing in the MT gives the meaning “pit” or “ditch.” A number of expositors change the pointing to שֻׁחוֹת (shukhot) to obtain the equivalent of שֻׂחוֹת (sukhot) / סֻחוֹת (sukhot): “filth” (Isa 5:25). This would make the contrast vivid – Job has just washed with pure water and soap, and now God plunges him into filth. M. H. Pope argues convincingly that the word “pit” in the MT includes the idea of “filth,” making the emendation unnecessary (“The Word sahat in Job 9:31,” JBL 83 [1964]: 269-78).

[42:3]  ¹⁷ tn The expression “you asked” is added here to clarify the presence of the line to follow. Many commentators delete it as a gloss from Job 38:2. If it is retained, then Job has to be recalling God’s question before he answers it.

[42:3]  ¹⁸ tn The word לָכֵן (lakhen) is simply “but,” as in Job 31:37.

[42:3]  ¹⁹ tn Heb “and I do not understand.” The expression serves here in an adverbial capacity. It also could be subordinated as a complement: “I have declared [things that] I do not understand.”

[42:3]  ²⁰ tn The last clause is “and I do not know.” This is also subordinated to become a dependent clause.

[42:4]  ²¹ tn This phrase, “you said,” is supplied in the translation to introduce the recollection of God’s words.

[42:5]  ²² sn This statement does not imply there was a vision. He is simply saying that this experience of God was real and personal. In the past his knowledge of God was what he had heard – hearsay. This was real.

[42:6]  ²³ tn Or “despise what I said.” There is no object on the verb; Job could be despising himself or the things he said (see L. J. Kuyper, “Repentance of Job,” VT 9 [1959]: 91-94).