Ayub 4:7

4:7 Call to mind now: ¹ 

Who, ²  being innocent, ever perished? ³ 

And where were upright people ⁴  ever destroyed? ⁵ 

Ayub 9:15

9:15 Although ⁶  I am innocent, ⁷ 

I could not answer him; ⁸ 

I could only plead ⁹  with my judge ¹⁰  for mercy.

Ayub 9:32

9:32 For he ¹¹  is not a human being like I am,

that ¹²  I might answer him,

that we might come ¹³  together in judgment.

Ayub 10:13

10:13 “But these things ¹⁴  you have concealed in your heart;

I know that this ¹⁵  is with you: ¹⁶ 

Ayub 14:3

14:3 Do you fix your eye ¹⁷  on such a one? ¹⁸ 

And do you bring me ¹⁹  before you for judgment?

Ayub 20:23

20:23 “While he is ²⁰  filling his belly,

God ²¹  sends his burning anger ²²  against him,

and rains down his blows upon him. ²³ 

Ayub 21:30

21:30 that the evil man is spared

from the day of his misfortune,

that he is delivered ²⁴ 

from the day of God’s wrath?

Ayub 22:19

22:19 The righteous see their destruction ²⁵  and rejoice;

the innocent mock them scornfully, ²⁶  saying,

Ayub 23:7

23:7 There ²⁷  an upright person

could present his case ²⁸  before him,

and I would be delivered forever from my judge.

Ayub 24:1

The Apparent Indifference of God

24:1 “Why are times not appointed by ²⁹  the Almighty? ³⁰ 

Why do those who know him not see his days?

Ayub 33:17

33:17 to turn a person from his sin, ³¹ 

and to cover a person’s pride. ³² 

Ayub 34:6

34:6 Concerning my right, should I lie? ³³ 

My wound ³⁴  is incurable,

although I am without transgression.’ ³⁵ 

[4:7]  ¹ sn Eliphaz will put his thesis forward first negatively and then positively (vv. 8ff). He will argue that the suffering of the righteous is disciplinary and not for their destruction. He next will argue that it is the wicked who deserve judgment.

[4:7]  ² tn The use of the independent personal pronoun is emphatic, almost as an enclitic to emphasize interrogatives: “who indeed….” (GKC 442 §136.c).

[4:7]  ³ tn The perfect verb in this line has the nuance of the past tense to express the unique past – the uniqueness of the action is expressed with “ever” (“who has ever perished”).

[4:7]  ⁴ tn The adjective is used here substantivally. Without the article the word stresses the meaning of “uprightness.” Job will use “innocent” and “upright” together in 17:8.

[4:7]  ⁵ tn The Niphal means “to be hidden” (see the Piel in 6:10; 15:18; and 27:11); the connotation here is “destroyed” or “annihilated.”

[9:15]  ⁶ tn The line begins with אֲשֶׁר (’asher, “which”), which is omitted in the LXX and the Syriac. The particle אִם (’im) can introduce a concessive clause (GKC 498 §160.a) or a conditional clause (GKC 495 §159.n). The idea here seems to be “even if I were…I could not….”

[9:15]  ⁷ tn The verb is צָדַקְתִּי (tsadaqti, “I am right [or “righteous”]”). The term here must be forensic, meaning “in the right” or “innocent” (see 11:2; 13:18; 33:12; 40:8). Job is claiming to be in the right, but still has difficulty speaking to God.

[9:15]  ⁸ tn The form is the Qal imperfect of the verb “answer.” As the text stands, Job is saying that he cannot answer or could not answer (contend with) God if given a chance. Some commentators think a Niphal fits better here: “I am not answered,” meaning God does not reply to him. This has the LXX, the Syriac, and Theodotion in support of it. The advantage would be to avoid the repetition of the same word from v. 14. But others rightly reject this, because all Job is saying here is that he would be too overwhelmed by God to answer him in court. The LXX change to a passive is understandable in that it would be seeking a different idea in this verse and without vocalization might have assumed a passive voice here.

[9:15]  ⁹ tn The verb אֶתְחַנָּן (’etkhannan) is the Hitpael of חָנַן (khanan), meaning “seek favor,” make supplication,” or “plead for mercy.” The nuance would again be a modal nuance; if potential, then the translation would be “I could [only] plead for mercy.”

[9:15]  ¹⁰ tn The word מְשֹׁפְטִי (mÿshofti) appears to be simply “my judge.” But most modern interpretations take the po‘el participle to mean “my adversary in a court of law.” Others argue that the form is at least functioning as a noun and means “judge” (see 8:5). This would fit better with the idea of appealing for mercy from God. The dilemma of Job, of course, is that the Lord would be both his adversary in the case and his judge.

[9:32]  ¹¹ 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]  ¹² 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]  ¹³ tn The sense of the verb “come” with “together in judgment” means “to confront one another in court.” See Ps 143:2.

[10:13]  ¹⁴ sn “These things” refers to the affliction that God had brought on Job. They were concealed by God from the beginning.

[10:13]  ¹⁵ sn The meaning of the line is that this was God’s purpose all along. “These things” and “this” refer to the details that will now be given in the next few verses.

[10:13]  ¹⁶ sn The contradiction between how God had provided for and cared for Job’s life and how he was now dealing with him could only be resolved by Job with the supposition that God had planned this severe treatment from the first as part of his plan.

[14:3]  ¹⁷ tn Heb “open the eye on,” an idiom meaning to prepare to judge someone.

[14:3]  ¹⁸ tn The verse opens with אַף־עַל־זֶה (’af-’al-zeh), meaning “even on such a one!” It is an exclamation of surprise.

[14:3]  ¹⁹ tn The text clearly has “me” as the accusative; but many wish to emend it to say “him” (אֹתוֹ, ’oto). But D. J. A. Clines rightly rejects this in view of the way Job is written, often moving back and forth from his own tragedy and others’ tragedies (Job [WBC], 283).

[20:23]  ²⁰ tn D. J. A. Clines observes that to do justice to the three jussives in the verse, one would have to translate “May it be, to fill his belly to the full, that God should send…and rain” (Job [WBC], 477). The jussive form of the verb at the beginning of the verse could also simply introduce a protasis of a conditional clause (see GKC 323 §109.h, i). This would mean, “if he [God] is about to fill his [the wicked’s] belly to the full, he will send….” The NIV reads “when he has filled his belly.” These fit better, because the context is talking about the wicked in his evil pursuit being cut down.

[20:23]  ²¹ tn “God” is understood as the subject of the judgment.

[20:23]  ²² tn Heb “the anger of his wrath.”

[20:23]  ²³ tn Heb “rain down upon him, on his flesh.” Dhorme changes עָלֵימוֹ (’alemo, “upon him”) to “his arrows”; he translates the line as “he rains his arrows upon his flesh.” The word בִּלְחוּמוֹ (bilkhumo,“his flesh”) has been given a wide variety of translations: “as his food,” “on his flesh,” “upon him, his anger,” or “missiles or weapons of war.”

[21:30]  ²⁴ tn The verb means “to be led forth.” To be “led forth in the day of trouble” means to be delivered.

[22:19]  ²⁵ tn The line is talking about the rejoicing of the righteous when judgment falls on the wicked. An object (“destruction”) has to be supplied here to clarify this (see Pss 52:6 [8]; 69:32 [33]; 107:42).

[22:19]  ²⁶ sn In Ps 2:4 it was God who mocked the wicked by judging them.

[23:7]  ²⁷ tn The adverb “there” has the sense of “then” – there in the future.

[23:7]  ²⁸ tn The form of the verb is the Niphal נוֹכָח (nokkakh, “argue, present a case”). E. Dhorme (Job, 346) is troubled by this verbal form and so changes it and other things in the line to say, “he would observe the upright man who argues with him.” The Niphal is used for “engaging discussion,” “arguing a case,” and “settling a dispute.”

[24:1]  ²⁹ tn The preposition מִן (min) is used to express the cause (see GKC 389 §121.f).

[24:1]  ³⁰ tc The LXX reads “Why are times hidden from the Almighty?” as if to say that God is not interested in the events on the earth. The MT reading is saying that God fails to set the times for judgment and vindication and makes good sense as it stands.

[33:17]  ³¹ tc The MT simply has מַעֲשֶׂה (ma’aseh, “deed”). The LXX has “from his iniquity” which would have been מֵעַוְלָה (me’avlah). The two letters may have dropped out by haplography. The MT is workable, but would have to mean “[evil] deeds.”

[33:17]  ³² tc Here too the sense of the MT is difficult to recover. Some translations took it to mean that God hides pride from man. Many commentators changed יְכַסֶּה (yÿkhasseh, “covers”) to יְכַסֵּחַ (yÿkhasseakh, “he cuts away”), or יְכַלֶּה (yÿkhalleh, “he puts an end to”). The various emendations are not all that convincing.

[34:6]  ³³ tn The verb is the Piel imperfect of כָּזַב (kazav), meaning “to lie.” It could be a question: “Should I lie [against my right?] – when I am innocent. If it is repointed to the Pual, then it can be “I am made to lie,” or “I am deceived.” Taking it as a question makes good sense here, and so emendations are unnecessary.

[34:6]  ³⁴ tn The Hebrew text has only “my arrow.” Some commentators emend that word slightly to get “my wound.” But the idea could be derived from “arrows” as well, the wounds caused by the arrows. The arrows are symbolic of God’s affliction.

[34:6]  ³⁵ tn Heb “without transgression”; but this is parallel to the first part where the claim is innocence.