Job 1:21-22

1:21 He said, “Naked ¹  I came from my mother’s womb, and naked I will return there. ²  The Lord gives, and the Lord takes away. ³  May the name of the Lord ⁴  be blessed!” 1:22 In all this Job did not sin, nor did he charge God with moral impropriety. ⁵ 

Job 13:15

13:15 Even if he slays me, I will hope in him; ⁶ 

I will surely ⁷  defend ⁸  my ways to his face!

Job 27:5-6

27:5 I will never ⁹  declare that you three ¹⁰  are in the right;

until I die, I will not set aside my integrity!

27:6 I will maintain my righteousness

and never let it go;

my conscience ¹¹  will not reproach me

for as long as I live. ¹² 

Psalms 26:1

Psalm 26 ¹³ 

By David.

26:1 Vindicate me, O Lord,

for I have integrity, ¹⁴ 

and I trust in the Lord without wavering.

Psalms 41:12

41:12 As for me, you uphold ¹⁵  me because of my integrity; ¹⁶ 

you allow ¹⁷  me permanent access to your presence. ¹⁸ 

James 1:12

1:12 Happy is the one ¹⁹  who endures testing, because when he has proven to be genuine, he will receive the crown of life that God ²⁰  promised to those who love him.

James 1:1

Salutation

1:1 From James, ²¹  a slave ²²  of God and the Lord Jesus Christ, to the twelve tribes dispersed abroad. ²³  Greetings!

James 1:7

1:7 For that person must not suppose that he will receive anything from the Lord,

[1:21]  ¹ tn The adjective “naked” is functioning here as an adverbial accusative of state, explicative of the state of the subject. While it does include the literal sense of nakedness at birth, Job is also using it symbolically to mean “without possessions.”

[1:21]  ² sn While the first half of the couplet is to be taken literally as referring to his coming into this life, this second part must be interpreted only generally to refer to his departure from this life. It is parallel to 1 Tim 6:7, “For we have brought nothing into this world and so we cannot take a single thing out either.”

[1:21]  ³ tn The two verbs are simple perfects. (1) They can be given the nuance of gnomic imperfect, expressing what the sovereign God always does. This is the approach taken in the present translation. Alternatively (2) they could be referring specifically to Job’s own experience: “Yahweh gave [definite past, referring to his coming into this good life] and Yahweh has taken away” [present perfect, referring to his great losses]. Many English versions follow the second alternative.

[1:21]  ⁴ sn Some commentators are troubled by the appearance of the word “Yahweh” on the lips of Job, assuming that the narrator inserted his own name for God into the story-telling. Such thinking is based on the assumption that Yahweh was only a national god of Israel, unknown to anyone else in the ancient world. But here is a clear indication that a non-Israelite, Job, knew and believed in Yahweh.

[1:22]  ⁵ tn The last clause is difficult to translate. It simply reads, “and he did not give unseemliness to God.” The word תִּפְלָה (tiflah) means “unsavoriness” or “unseemliness” in a moral sense. The sense is that Job did not charge God with any moral impropriety in his dealings with him. God did nothing worthless or tasteless. The ancient versions saw the word connected with “foolishness” or “stupidity” (תָּפֵל, tafel, “to be tasteless”). It is possible that “folly” would capture some of what Job meant here. See also M. Dahood, “Hebrew-Ugaritic Lexicography XII,” Bib 55 (1974): 381-93.

[13:15]  ⁶ tn There is a textual difficulty here that factors into the interpretation of the verse. The Kethib is לֹא (lo’, “not”), but the Qere is לוֹ (lo, “to him”). The RSV takes the former: “Behold, he will slay me, I have no hope.” The NIV takes it as “though he slay me, yet will I hope in him.” Job is looking ahead to death, which is not an evil thing to him. The point of the verse is that he is willing to challenge God at the risk of his life; and if God slays him, he is still confident that he will be vindicated – as he says later in this chapter. Other suggestions are not compelling. E. Dhorme (Job, 187) makes a slight change of אֲיַחֵל (’ayakhel, “I will hope”) to אַחִיל (’akhil, “I will [not] tremble”). A. B. Davidson (Job, 98) retains the MT, but interprets the verb more in line with its use in the book: “I will not wait” (cf. NLT).

[13:15]  ⁷ tn On אַךְ (’akh, “surely”) see GKC 483 §153 on intensive clauses.

[13:15]  ⁸ tn The verb once again is יָכָה (yakhah, in the Hiphil, “argue a case, plead, defend, contest”). But because the word usually means “accuse” rather than “defend,” I. L. Seeligmann proposed changing “my ways” to “his ways” (“Zur Terminologie für das Gerichtsverfahren im Wortschatz des biblischen Hebräisch,” VTSup 16 [1967]: 251-78). But the word can be interpreted appropriately in the context without emendation.

[27:5]  ⁹ tn The text uses חָלִילָה לִּי (khalilah li) meaning “far be it from me,” or more strongly, something akin to “sacrilege.”

[27:5]  ¹⁰ tn In the Hebrew text “you” is plural – a reference to Eliphaz, Zophar, and Bildad. To make this clear, “three” is supplied in the translation.

[27:6]  ¹¹ tn Heb “my heart.”

[27:6]  ¹² tn The prepositional phrase “from my days” probably means “from the days of my birth,” or “all my life.”

[26:1]  ¹³ sn Psalm 26. The author invites the Lord to test his integrity, asserts his innocence and declares his loyalty to God.

[26:1]  ¹⁴ tn Heb “for I in my integrity walk.”

[41:12]  ¹⁵ tn Or “have upheld.” The perfect verbal form can be taken as generalizing/descriptive (present) or as a present perfect.

[41:12]  ¹⁶ sn Because of my integrity. See Pss 7:8; 25:21; 26:1, 11.

[41:12]  ¹⁷ tn The prefixed verbal form with vav (ו) consecutive has the same aspectual function as the preceding perfect. It is either generalizing/descriptive (present) or has a present perfect nuance (“you have allowed”).

[41:12]  ¹⁸ tn Heb “and you cause me to stand before you permanently.”

[1:12]  ¹⁹ tn The word for “man” or “individual” here is ἀνήρ (anhr), which often means “male” or “man (as opposed to woman).” However, as BDAG 79 s.v. 2 says, here it is “equivalent to τὶς someone, a person.”

[1:12]  ²⁰ tc Most mss ([C] P 0246 Ï) read ὁ κύριος (Jo kurio", “the Lord”) here, while others have ὁ θεός (Jo qeo", “God”; 4 33^vid 323 945 1739 al). However, several important and early witnesses (̲³ א A B Ψ 81 co) have no explicit subject. In light of the scribal tendency toward clarification, and the fact that both κύριος and θεός are well represented, there can be no doubt that the original text had no explicit subject. The referent (God) has been specified in the translation for clarity, not because of textual basis.

[1:1]  ²¹ tn Grk “James.” The word “From” is not in the Greek text, but has been supplied to indicate the sender of the letter.

[1:1]  ²² tn Traditionally, “servant” or “bondservant.” Though δοῦλος (doulos) is normally translated “servant,” the word does not bear the connotation of a free individual serving another. BDAG notes that “‘servant’ for ‘slave’ is largely confined to Biblical transl. and early American times…in normal usage at the present time the two words are carefully distinguished” (BDAG 260 s.v.). The most accurate translation is “bondservant” (sometimes found in the ASV for δοῦλος), in that it often indicates one who sells himself into slavery to another. But as this is archaic, few today understand its force.

[1:1]  ²³ tn Grk “to the twelve tribes in the Diaspora.” The Greek term διασπορά (diaspora, “dispersion”) refers to Jews not living in Palestine but “dispersed” or scattered among the Gentiles.