Text -- Job 11:1-7 (NET)

Zophar’s First Speech to Job

11:1 Then Zophar the Naamathite spoke up and said: 11:2 “Should not this abundance of words be answered, or should this talkative man be vindicated? 11:3 Will your idle talk reduce people to silence, and will no one rebuke you when you mock? 11:4 For you have said, ‘My teaching is flawless, and I am pure in your sight.’ 11:5 But if only God would speak, if only he would open his lips against you, 11:6 and reveal to you the secrets of wisdom– for true wisdom has two sides– so that you would know that God has forgiven some of your sins. 11:7 “Can you discover the essence of God? Can you find out the perfection of the Almighty?

Commentary -- Verse Notes / Footnotes

NET Notes: Job 11:1

¹ sn Zophar begins with a strong rebuke of Job with a wish that God would speak (2-6); he then reflects for a few verses on the unsearchable wisdom of God (7-12); and finally, he advises Job that the way to restoration is repentance (13-20).

NET Notes: Job 11:2

¹ tc The LXX, Targum Job, Symmachus, and Vulgate all assume that the vocalization of רֹב (rov, “abundance”) should be רַב (rav, “great”): “great of words.” This would then mean “one who is abundant of words,” meaning, “a man of many words,” and make a closer parallel to the second half. But the MT makes good sense as it stands.

tn There is no article or demonstrative with the word; it has been added here simply to make a smoother connection between the chapters.

² tn The Niphal verb יֵעָנֶה (ye’aneh, “he answered”) would normally require a personal subject, but “abundance” functions as the subject in this sentence. The nuance of the imperfect is obligatory.

³ tn The word is supplied here also for clarification.

⁴ tn The bound construction “man of lips” means “a boaster” or “proud talker” (attributive genitive; and see GKC 417 §128.t). Zophar is saying that Job pours out this stream of words, but he is still not right.

⁵ tn The word is literally “be right, righteous.” The idea of being right has appeared before for this word (cf. 9:15). The point here is that just because Job talks a lot does not mean he is right or will be shown to be right through it all.

NET Notes: Job 11:3

¹ tn The word means “chatter, pratings, boastings” (see Isa 16:6; Jer 48:30).

² tn The verb חָרַשׁ (kharash) in the Hiphil means “to silence” (41:4); here it functions in a causative sense, “reduce to silence.”

³ tn The form מַכְלִם (makhlim, “humiliating, mocking”) is the Hiphil participle. The verb כָּלַם (kalam) has the meaning “cover with shame, insult” (Job 20:3).

⁴ tn The construction shows the participle to be in the circumstantial clause: “will you mock – and [with] no one rebuking.”

NET Notes: Job 11:4

¹ tn The word translated “teaching” is related etymologically to the Hebrew word “receive,” but that does not restrict the teaching to what is received.

NET Notes: Job 11:5

¹ tn The wish formula מִי־יִתֵּן (mi yitten, “who will give”; see GKC 477 §151.b) is followed here by an infinitive (Exod 16:3; 2 Sam 19:1).

² sn Job had expressed his eagerness to challenge God; Zophar here wishes that God would take up that challenge.

NET Notes: Job 11:6

¹ tn The text seems to be saying “that it [wisdom] is double in understanding.” The point is that it is different than Job conceived it – it far exceeded all perception. But some commentators have thought this still too difficult, and so have replaced the word כִפְלַיִם (khiflayim, “two sides”) with כִפְלָאִים (khifla’im, “like wonders,” or, more simply, “wonders” without the preposition). But it is still a little strange to talk about God’s wisdom being like wonders. Others have had more radical changes in the text; J. J. Slotki has “for sound wisdom is his. And know that double [punishment] shall God exact of you” (“Job 11:6,” VT 35 [1985]: 229-30).

² tn The verb is the imperative with a ו (vav). Following the jussive, this clause would be subordinated to the preceding (see GKC 325 §110.i).

³ tn Heb “God causes to be forgotten for you part of your iniquity.” The meaning is that God was exacting less punishment from Job than Job deserved, for Job could not remember all his sins. This statement is fitting for Zophar, who is the cruelest of Job’s friends (see H. H. Rowley, Job [NCBC], 88). Others in an attempt to improve the text make too many unwarranted changes. Some would read יִשְׁאָלְךָ (yish’alkha, “he asks of you”) instead of יַשֶּׂה לְךָ (yasseh lÿka, “he causes to be forgotten for you”). This would mean that God demands an account of Job’s sin. But, as D. J. A. Clines says, this change is weak and needless (Job [WBC], 254-55).

NET Notes: Job 11:7

¹ tn The verb is מָצָא (matsa’, “to find; to discover”). Here it should be given the nuance of potential imperfect. And, in the rhetorical question it is affirming that Job cannot find out the essence of God.

² tn The word means “search; investigation”; but it here means what is discovered in the search (so a metonymy of cause for the effect).

³ tn The same verb is now found in the second half of the verse, with a slightly different sense – “attain, reach.” A. R. Ceresko notes this as an example of antanaclasis (repetition of a word with a lightly different sense – “find/attain”). See “The Function of Antanaclasis in Hebrew Poetry,” CBQ 44 (1982): 560-61.

⁴ tn The abstract תַּכְלִית (takhlit) from כָּלָה (kalah, “to be complete; to be perfect”) may mean the end or limit of something, perhaps to perfection. So the NIV has “can you probe the limits of the Almighty?” The LXX has: “have you come to the end of that which the Almighty has made?”