Ayub 9:32-35

9:32 For he ¹  is not a human being like I am,

that ²  I might answer him,

that we might come ³  together in judgment.

9:33 Nor is there an arbiter ⁴  between us,

who ⁵  might lay ⁶  his hand on us both, ⁷ 

9:34 who ⁸  would take his ⁹  rod ¹⁰  away from me

so that his terror ¹¹  would not make me afraid.

9:35 Then ¹²  would I speak and not fear him,

but it is not so with me. ¹³ 

Ayub 13:3

13:3 But I wish to speak ¹⁴  to the Almighty, ¹⁵ 

and I desire to argue ¹⁶  my case ¹⁷  with God.

Ayub 20:22

20:22 In the fullness of his sufficiency, ¹⁸ 

distress ¹⁹  overtakes him.

the full force of misery will come upon him. ²⁰ 

Ayub 23:3-4

23:3 O that I knew ²¹  where I might find him, ²² 

that I could come ²³  to his place of residence! ²⁴ 

23:4 I would lay out my case ²⁵  before him

and fill my mouth with arguments.

Ayub 31:35

Job’s Appeal

31:35 “If only I had ²⁶  someone to hear me!

Here is my signature – ²⁷ 

let the Almighty answer me!

If only I had an indictment ²⁸ 

that my accuser had written. ²⁹ 

[9:32]  ¹ tn The personal pronoun that would be expected as the subject of a noun clause is sometimes omitted (see GKC 360 §116.s). Here it has been supplied.

[9:32]  ² tn The consecutive clause is here attached without the use of the ו (vav), but only by simple juxtaposition (see GKC 504-5 §166.a).

[9:32]  ³ tn The sense of the verb “come” with “together in judgment” means “to confront one another in court.” See Ps 143:2.

[9:33]  ⁴ tn The participle מוֹכִיחַ (mokhiakh) is the “arbiter” or “mediator.” The word comes from the verb יָכַח (yakhakh, “decide, judge”), which is concerned with legal and nonlegal disputes. The verbal forms can be used to describe the beginning of a dispute, the disputation in progress, or the settling of it (here, and in Isa 1:18).

[9:33]  sn The old translation of “daysman” came from a Latin expression describing the fixing of a day for arbitration.

[9:33]  ⁵ tn The relative pronoun is understood in this clause.

[9:33]  ⁶ tn The jussive in conditional sentences retains its voluntative sense: let something be so, and this must happen as a consequence (see GKC 323 §109.i).

[9:33]  ⁷ sn The idiom of “lay his hand on the two of us” may come from a custom of a judge putting his hands on the two in order to show that he is taking them both under his jurisdiction. The expression can also be used for protection (see Ps 139:5). Job, however, has a problem in that the other party is God, who himself will be arbiter in judgment.

[9:34]  ⁸ tn The verse probably continues the description from the last verse, and so a relative pronoun may be supplied here as well.

[9:34]  ⁹ tn According to some, the reference of this suffix would be to God. The arbiter would remove the rod of God from Job. But others take it as a separate sentence with God removing his rod.

[9:34]  ¹⁰ sn The “rod” is a symbol of the power of God to decree whatever judgments and afflictions fall upon people.

[9:34]  ¹¹ tn “His terror” is metonymical; it refers to the awesome majesty of God that overwhelms Job and causes him to be afraid.

[9:35]  ¹² tn There is no conjunction with this cohortative; but the implication from the context is that if God’s rod were withdrawn, if the terror were removed, then Job would speak up without fear.

[9:35]  ¹³ tn The last half of the verse is rather cryptic: “but not so I with me.” NIV renders it “but as it now stands with me, I cannot.” This is very smooth and interpretive. Others transpose the two halves of the verse to read, “Since it is not so, I with myself // will commune and not fear him.” Job would be saying that since he cannot contend with God on equal terms, and since there is no arbiter, he will come on his own terms. English versions have handled this differently: “for I know I am not what I am thought to be” (NEB); “since this is not the case with me” (NAB); “I do not see myself like that at all” (JB).

[13:3]  ¹⁴ tn The verb is simply the Piel imperfect אֲדַבֵּר (’adabber, “I speak”). It should be classified as a desiderative imperfect, saying, “I desire to speak.” This is reinforced with the verb “to wish, desire” in the second half of the verse.

[13:3]  ¹⁵ tn The Hebrew title for God here is אֶל־שַׁדַּי (’el shadday, “El Shaddai”).

[13:3]  ¹⁶ tn The infinitive absolute functions here as the direct object of the verb “desire” (see GKC 340 §113.b).

[13:3]  ¹⁷ tn The infinitive הוֹכֵחַ (hokheakh) is from the verb יָכַח (yakhakh), which means “to argue, plead, debate.” It has the legal sense here of arguing a case (cf. 5:17).

[20:22]  ¹⁸ tn The word שָׂפַק (safaq) occurs only here; it means “sufficiency; wealth; abundance (see D. W. Thomas, “The Text of Jesaia 2:6 and the Word sapaq,” ZAW 75 [1963]: 88-90).

[20:22]  ¹⁹ tn Heb “there is straightness for him.” The root צָרַר (tsarar) means “to be narrowed in straits, to be in a bind.” The word here would have the idea of pressure, stress, trouble. One could say he is in a bind.

[20:22]  ²⁰ tn Heb “every hand of trouble comes to him.” The pointing of עָמֵל (’amel) indicates it would refer to one who brings trouble; LXX and Latin read an abstract noun עָמָל (’amal, “trouble”) here.

[23:3]  ²¹ tn The optative here is again expressed with the verbal clause, “who will give [that] I knew….”

[23:3]  ²² tn The form in Hebrew is וְאֶמְצָאֵהוּ (vÿ’emtsa’ehu), simply “and I will find him.” But in the optative clause this verb is subordinated to the preceding verb: “O that I knew where [and] I might find him.” It is not unusual to have the perfect verb followed by the imperfect in such coordinate clauses (see GKC 386 §120.e). This could also be translated making the second verb a complementary infinitive: “knew how to find him.”

[23:3]  sn H. H. Rowley (Job [NCBC], 159) quotes Strahan without reference: “It is the chief distinction between Job and his friends that he desires to meet God and they do not.”

[23:3]  ²³ tn This verb also depends on מִי־יִתֵּן (mi-yitten, “who will give”) of the first part, forming an additional clause in the wish formula.

[23:3]  ²⁴ tn Or “his place of judgment.” The word is from כּוּן (kun, “to prepare; to arrange”) in the Polel and the Hiphil conjugations. The noun refers to a prepared place, a throne, a seat, or a sanctuary. A. B. Davidson (Job, 169) and others take the word to mean “judgment seat” or “tribunal” in this context.

[23:4]  ²⁵ tn The word מִשְׁפָּט (mishpat) is normally “judgment; decision.” But in these contexts it refers to the legal case that Job will bring before God. With the verb עָרַךְ (’arakh, “to set in order; to lay out”) the whole image of drawing up a lawsuit is complete.

[31:35]  ²⁶ tn The optative is again introduced with “who will give to me hearing me? – O that someone would listen to me!”

[31:35]  ²⁷ tn Heb “here is my ‘tav’” (הֵן תָּוִי, hen tavi). The letter ת (tav) is the last letter of the alphabet in Hebrew. In paleo-Hebrew the letter was in the form of a cross or an “X,” and so used for one making a mark or a signature. In this case Job has signed his statement and delivered it to the court – but he has yet to be charged. Kissane thought that this being the last letter of the alphabet, Job was saying, “This is my last word.” Others take the word to mean “desire” – “this is my desire, that God would answer me” (see E. F. Sutcliffe, “Notes on Job, textual and exegetical,” Bib 30 [1949]: 71-72; G. R. Driver, AJSL 3 [1935/36]: 166; P. P. Saydon, “Philological and Textual Notes to the Maltese Translation of the Old Testament,” CBQ 23 [1961]: 252). R. Gordis (Job, 355) also argues strongly for this view.

[31:35]  ²⁸ tn Heb “a scroll,” in the context referring to a scroll containing the accusations of Job’s legal adversary (see the next line).

[31:35]  ²⁹ tn The last line is very difficult; it simply says, “a scroll [that] my [legal] adversary had written.” The simplest way to handle this is to see it as a continuation of the optative (RSV).