Ayub 9:13-19

9:13 God does not restrain his anger; ¹ 

under him the helpers of Rahab ²  lie crushed. ³ 

The Impossibility of Facing God in Court

9:14 “How much less, ⁴  then, can I answer him ⁵ 

and choose my words ⁶  to argue ⁷  with ⁸  him! ⁹ 

9:15 Although ¹⁰  I am innocent, ¹¹ 

I could not answer him; ¹² 

I could only plead ¹³  with my judge ¹⁴  for mercy.

9:16 If I summoned him, and he answered me, ¹⁵ 

I would not believe ¹⁶ 

that he would be listening to my voice –

9:17 he who ¹⁷  crushes ¹⁸  me with a tempest,

and multiplies my wounds for no reason. ¹⁹ 

9:18 He does not allow ²⁰  me to recover ²¹  my breath,

for he fills ²²  me with bitterness.

9:19 If it is a matter of strength, ²³ 

most certainly ²⁴  he is the strong one!

And if it is a matter of justice,

he will say, ‘Who will summon me?’ ²⁵ 

[9:13]  ¹ sn The meaning of the line is that God’s anger will continue until it has accomplished its purpose (23:13-14).

[9:13]  ² sn “Rahab” is not to be confused with the harlot of the same name from Jericho. “Rahab” is identified with Tiamat of the Babylonian creation epic, or Leviathan of the Canaanite myths. It is also used in parallelism to the sea (26:12), or the Red Sea (Ps 74:13), and so comes to symbolize Egypt (Isa 30:7). In the Babylonian Creation Epic there is reference to the helpers of Tiamat. In the Bible the reference is only to the raging sea, which the Lord controlled at creation.

[9:13]  ³ tn The verb שָׁחַח (shakhakh) means “to be prostrate” or “to crouch.” Here the enemies are prostrate under the feet of God – they are crushed.

[9:14]  ⁴ tn The construction אַף כִּי־אָנֹכִי (’af ki ’anokhi) is an expression that means either “how much more” or “how much less.” Here it has to mean “how much less,” for if powerful forces like Rahab are crushed beneath God’s feet, how could Job contend with him?

[9:14]  ⁵ tn The imperfect verb here is to be taken with the nuance of a potential imperfect. The idea of “answer him” has a legal context, i.e., answering God in a court of law. If God is relentless in his anger toward greater powers, then Job realizes it is futile for him.

[9:14]  ⁶ sn In a legal controversy with God it would be essential to choose the correct words very carefully (humanly speaking); but the calmness and presence of mind to do that would be shattered by the overwhelming terror of God’s presence.

[9:14]  ⁷ tn The verb is supplied in this line.

[9:14]  ⁸ tn The preposition אִם (’im, “with”) carries the idea of “in contest with” in a number of passages (compare vv. 2, 3; 16:21).

[9:14]  ⁹ tn The LXX goes a different way after changing the first person to the third: “Oh then that he would hearken to me, or judge my cause.”

[9:15]  ¹⁰ 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]  ¹¹ 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]  ¹² 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]  ¹³ 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]  ¹⁴ 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.

[9:16]  ¹⁵ sn The idea of “answer” in this line is that of responding to the summons, i.e., appearing in court. This preterite and the perfect before it have the nuance of hypothetical perfects since they are in conditional clauses (GKC 330 §111.x). D. J. A. Clines (Job [WBC], 219) translates literally, “If I should call and he should answer.”

[9:16]  ¹⁶ tn The Hiphil imperfect in the apodosis of this conditional sentence expresses what would (not) happen if God answered the summons.

[9:17]  ¹⁷ 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]  ¹⁸ 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]  ¹⁹ tn חִנָּם (khinnam) is adverbial, meaning “gratuitously, without a cause, for no reason, undeservedly.” See its use in 2:4.

[9:18]  ²⁰ tn The verb נָתַן (natan) essentially means “to give”; but followed by the infinitive (without the ל [lamed] here) it means “to permit; to allow.”

[9:18]  ²¹ tn The Hiphil of the verb means “to bring back”; with the object “my breath,” it means “get my breath” or simply “breathe.” The infinitive is here functioning as the object of the verb (see GKC 350 §114.m).

[9:18]  ²² sn The meaning of the word is “to satiate; to fill,” as in “drink to the full, be satisfied.” Job is satiated – in the negative sense – with bitterness. There is no room for more.

[9:19]  ²³ tn The MT has only “if of strength.”

[9:19]  ²⁴ tn “Most certainly” translates the particle הִנֵּה (hinneh).

[9:19]  ²⁵ tn The question could be taken as “who will summon me?” (see Jer 49:19 and 50:44). This does not make immediate sense. Some have simply changed the suffix to “who will summon him.” If the MT is retained, then supplying something like “he will say” could make the last clause fit the whole passage. Another option is to take it as “Who will reveal it to me?” – i.e., Job could be questioning his friends’ qualifications for being God’s emissaries to bring God’s charges against him (cf. KJV, NKJV; and see 10:2 where Job uses the same verb in the Hiphil to request that God reveal what his sin has been that has led to his suffering).

[9:19]  sn Job is saying that whether it is a trial of strength or an appeal to justice, he is unable to go against God.