9:3 If someone wishes 1 to contend 2 with him,
he cannot answer 3 him one time in a thousand.
33:13 Why do you contend against him,
that he does not answer all a person’s 4 words?
6:10 Whatever has happened was foreordained, 5
and what happens to a person 6 was also foreknown.
It is useless for him to argue with God about his fate
because God is more powerful than he is. 7
45:9 One who argues with his creator is in grave danger, 8
one who is like a mere 9 shard among the other shards on the ground!
The clay should not say to the potter, 10
“What in the world 11 are you doing?
Your work lacks skill!” 12
45:10 Danger awaits one who says 13 to his father,
“What in the world 14 are you fathering?”
and to his mother,
“What in the world are you bringing forth?” 15
45:11 This is what the Lord says,
the Holy One of Israel, 16 the one who formed him,
concerning things to come: 17
“How dare you question me 18 about my children!
How dare you tell me what to do with 19 the work of my own hands!
50:8 The one who vindicates me is close by.
Who dares to argue with me? Let us confront each other! 20
Who is my accuser? 21 Let him challenge me! 22
50:1 This is what the Lord says:
“Where is your mother’s divorce certificate
by which I divorced her?
Or to which of my creditors did I sell you? 23
Look, you were sold because of your sins; 24
because of your rebellious acts I divorced your mother. 25
1 tn Some commentators take God to be the subject of this verb, but it is more likely that it refers to the mortal who tries to challenge God in a controversy. The verb is used of Job in 13:3.
2 tn The verb רִיב (riv) is a common one; it has the idea of “contention; dispute; legal dispute or controversy; go to law.” With the preposition אִם (’im) the idea must be “to contend with” or “to dispute with.” The preposition reflects the prepositional phrase “with God” in v. 2, supporting the view that man is the subject.
3 tn This use of the imperfect as potential imperfect assumes that the human is the subject, that in a dispute with God he could not answer one of God’s questions (for which see the conclusion of the book when God questions Job). On the other hand, if the interpretation were that God does not answer the demands of mortals, then a simple progressive imperfect would be required. In support of this is the frustration of Job that God does not answer him.
4 tc The MT has “all his words.” This must refer to “man” in the previous verse. But many wish to change it to “my words,” since it would be summarizing Job’s complaint to God.
5 tn Heb “already its name was called.”
6 tn Or “and what a person (Heb “man”) is was foreknown.”
7 tn Heb “he cannot contend with the one who is more powerful than him.” The referent of the “the one who is more powerful than he is” (God) has been specified in the translation for clarity. The words “with God about his fate” have been added for clarity as well.
8 tn Heb “Woe [to] the one who argues with the one who formed him.”
9 tn The words “one who is like a mere” are supplied in the translation for stylistic reasons and clarification.
10 tn Heb “Should the clay say to the one who forms it?” The rhetorical question anticipates a reply, “Of course not!”
11 tn The words “in the world” are supplied in the translation to approximate in English idiom the force of the sarcastic question.
12 tn Heb “your work, there are no hands for it,” i.e., “your work looks like something made by a person who has no hands.”
13 tn Heb “Woe [to] one who says” (NASB and NIV both similar); NCV “How terrible it will be.”
14 tn See the note at v. 9. This phrase occurs a second time later in this verse.
15 sn Verses 9-10 may allude to the exiles’ criticism that the Lord does not appear to know what he is doing.
16 sn See the note on the phrase “the Holy One of Israel” in 1:4.
17 tc The Hebrew text reads “the one who formed him, the coming things.” Among various suggestions, some have proposed an emendation of יֹצְרוֹ (yotsÿro, “the one who formed him”) to יֹצֵר (yotser, “the one who forms”; the suffixed form in the Hebrew text may be influenced by vv. 9-10, where the same form appears twice) and takes “coming things” as the object of the participle (either objective genitive or accusative): “the one who brings the future into being.”
18 tn Heb “Ask me” The rhetorical command sarcastically expresses the Lord’s disgust with those who question his ways.
19 tn Heb “Do you command me about…?” The rhetorical question sarcastically expresses the Lord’s disgust with those who question his ways.
20 tn Heb “Let us stand together!”
21 tn Heb “Who is the master of my judgment?”
22 tn Heb “let him approach me”; NAB, NIV “Let him confront me.”
23 sn The Lord challenges the exiles (Zion’s children) to bring incriminating evidence against him. The rhetorical questions imply that Israel accused the Lord of divorcing his wife (Zion) and selling his children (the Israelites) into slavery to pay off a debt.
24 sn The Lord admits that he did sell the Israelites, but it was because of their sins, not because of some debt he owed. If he had sold them to a creditor, they ought to be able to point him out, but the preceding rhetorical question implies they would not be able to do so.
25 sn The Lord admits he did divorce Zion, but that too was the result of the nation’s sins. The force of the earlier rhetorical question comes into clearer focus now. The question does not imply that a certificate does not exist and that no divorce occurred. Rather, the question asks for the certificate to be produced so the accuser can see the reason for the divorce in black and white. The Lord did not put Zion away arbitrarily.
26 tc Some of the better representatives of the Alexandrian and Western texts have a passive verb here instead of the active ἀποκατήλλαξεν (apokathllaxen, “he has reconciled”): ἀποκατηλλάγητε (apokathllaghte) in (Ì46) B, ἀποκατήλλακται [sic] (apokathllaktai) in 33, and ἀποκαταλλαγέντες (apokatallagente") in D* F G. Yet the active verb is strongly supported by א A C D2 Ψ 048 075 [0278] 1739 1881 Ï lat sy. Internally, the passive creates an anacoluthon in that it looks back to the accusative ὑμᾶς (Juma", “you”) of v. 21 and leaves the following παραστῆσαι (parasthsai) dangling (“you were reconciled…to present you”). The passive reading is certainly the harder reading. As such, it may well explain the rise of the other readings. At the same time, it is possible that the passive was produced by scribes who wanted some symmetry between the ποτε (pote, “at one time”) of v. 21 and the νυνὶ δέ (nuni de, “but now”) of v. 22: Since a passive periphrastic participle is used in v. 21, there may have a temptation to produce a corresponding passive form in v. 22, handling the ὑμᾶς of v. 21 by way of constructio ad sensum. Since παραστῆσαι occurs ten words later, it may not have been considered in this scribal modification. Further, the Western reading (ἀποκαταλλαγέντες) hardly seems to have arisen from ἀποκατηλλάγητε (contra TCGNT 555). As difficult as this decision is, the preferred reading is the active form because it is superior externally and seems to explain the rise of all forms of the passive readings.