4:7 Call to mind now: 1
Who, 2 being innocent, ever perished? 3
And where were upright people 4 ever destroyed? 5
11:2 “Should not this 6 abundance of words be answered, 7
or should this 8 talkative man 9
be vindicated? 10
11:3 Will your idle talk 11 reduce people to silence, 12
and will no one rebuke 13 you when you mock? 14
11:4 For you have said, ‘My teaching 15 is flawless,
and I am pure in your sight.’
17:5 If a man denounces his friends for personal gain, 16
the eyes of his children will fail.
32:21 I will not show partiality to anyone, 17
nor will I confer a title 18 on any man.
32:22 for I do not know how to give honorary titles, 19
if I did, 20 my Creator would quickly do away with me. 21
36:4 For in truth, my words are not false;
it is one complete 22 in knowledge
who is with you.
3:5 But if our unrighteousness demonstrates 27 the righteousness of God, what shall we say? The God who inflicts wrath is not unrighteous, is he? 28 (I am speaking in human terms.) 29 3:6 Absolutely not! For otherwise how could God judge the world? 3:7 For if by my lie the truth of God enhances 30 his glory, why am I still actually being judged as a sinner? 3:8 And why not say, “Let us do evil so that good may come of it”? – as some who slander us allege that we say. 31 (Their 32 condemnation is deserved!)
4:2 Be devoted to prayer, keeping alert in it with thanksgiving.
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.
2 tn The use of the independent personal pronoun is emphatic, almost as an enclitic to emphasize interrogatives: “who indeed….” (GKC 442 §136.c).
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 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.
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.”
6 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.
7 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.
8 tn The word is supplied here also for clarification.
9 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.
10 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.
11 tn The word means “chatter, pratings, boastings” (see Isa 16:6; Jer 48:30).
12 tn The verb חָרַשׁ (kharash) in the Hiphil means “to silence” (41:4); here it functions in a causative sense, “reduce to silence.”
13 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).
14 tn The construction shows the participle to be in the circumstantial clause: “will you mock – and [with] no one rebuking.”
15 tn The word translated “teaching” is related etymologically to the Hebrew word “receive,” but that does not restrict the teaching to what is received.
16 tn Heb “for a portion.” This verse is rather obscure. The words are not that difficult, but the sense of them in this context is. Some take the idea to mean “he denounces his friends for a portion,” and others have a totally different idea of “he invites his friends to share with him.” The former fits the context better, indicating that Job’s friends speak out against him for some personal gain. The second half of the verse then promises that his children will suffer loss for this attempt at gain. The line is surely proverbial. A number of other interpretations can be found in the commentaries.
17 tn The idiom is “I will not lift up the face of a man.” Elihu is going to show no favoritism, but speak his mind.
18 tn The verb means “to confer an honorary title; to give a mark of distinction,” but it is often translated with the verb “flatter.” Elihu will not take sides, he will not use pompous titles.
19 tn The construction uses a perfect verb followed by the imperfect. This is a form of subordination equivalent to a complementary infinitive (see GKC 385-86 §120.c).
20 tn The words “if I did” are supplied in the translation to make sense out of the two clauses.
21 tn Heb “quickly carry me away.”
22 tn The word is תְּמִים (tÿmim), often translated “perfect.” It is the same word used of Job in 2:3. Elihu is either a complete stranger to modesty or is confident regarding the knowledge that he believes God has revealed to him for this situation. See the note on the heading before 32:1.
23 tn Or “expel you from.”
24 sn See the note on synagogue in 6:59.
25 tn Grk “an hour.”
26 sn Jesus now refers not to the time of his return to the Father, as he has frequently done up to this point, but to the disciples’ time of persecution. They will be excommunicated from Jewish synagogues. There will even be a time when those who kill Jesus’ disciples will think that they are offering service to God by putting the disciples to death. Because of the reference to service offered to God, it is almost certain that Jewish opposition is intended here in both cases rather than Jewish opposition in the first instance (putting the disciples out of synagogues) and Roman opposition in the second (putting the disciples to death). Such opposition materializes later and is recorded in Acts: The stoning of Stephen in 7:58-60 and the slaying of James the brother of John by Herod Agrippa I in Acts 12:2-3 are notable examples.
27 tn Or “shows clearly.”
28 tn Grk “That God is not unjust to inflict wrath, is he?”
29 sn The same expression occurs in Gal 3:15, and similar phrases in Rom 6:19 and 1 Cor 9:8.
30 tn Grk “abounded unto.”
31 tn Grk “(as we are slandered and some affirm that we say…).”
32 tn Grk “whose.” Because of the length and complexity of the Greek sentence, this relative clause was rendered as a new sentence in the translation.
33 tn Grk “much in every way.”
34 tc ‡ Most witnesses (א A D2 33 Ï) have γάρ (gar) after μέν (men), though some significant Alexandrian and Western witnesses lack the conjunction (B D* G Ψ 81 365 1506 2464* pc latt). A few
35 tn Grk “they were.”
36 tn The referent of λόγια (logia, “oracles”) has been variously understood: (1) BDAG 598 s.v. λόγιον takes the term to refer here to “God’s promises to the Jews”; (2) some have taken this to refer more narrowly to the national promises of messianic salvation given to Israel (so S. L. Johnson, Jr., “Studies in Romans: Part VII: The Jews and the Oracles of God,” BSac 130 [1973]: 245); (3) perhaps the most widespread interpretation sees the term as referring to the entire OT generally.