Job 4:17

4:17 “Is ¹  a mortal man ²  righteous ³  before ⁴  God?

Or a man pure ⁵  before his Creator? ⁶ 

Job 14:3-4

14:3 Do you fix your eye ⁷  on such a one? ⁸ 

And do you bring me ⁹  before you for judgment?

14:4 Who can make ¹⁰  a clean thing come from an unclean? ¹¹ 

No one!

Job 25:4

25:4 How then can a human being be righteous before God?

How can one born of a woman be pure? ¹² 

Job 32:2

32:2 Then Elihu son of Barakel the Buzite, of the family of Ram, became very angry. ¹³  He was angry ¹⁴  with Job for justifying ¹⁵  himself rather than God. ¹⁶ 

Job 33:9

33:9 ¹⁷ ‘I am pure, without transgression;

I am clean ¹⁸  and have no iniquity.

Job 34:5

34:5 For Job says, ‘I am innocent, ¹⁹ 

but God turns away my right.

Job 34:1

Elihu’s Second Speech ²⁰ 

34:1 Elihu answered:

Job 8:1

Bildad’s First Speech to Job ²¹ 

8:1 Then Bildad the Shuhite spoke up and said:

Psalms 130:3

130:3 If you, O Lord, were to keep track of ²²  sins,

O Lord, who could stand before you? ²³ 

Psalms 143:2

143:2 Do not sit in judgment on ²⁴  your servant,

for no one alive is innocent before you. ²⁵ 

Romans 3:20

3:20 For no one is declared righteous before him ²⁶  by the works of the law, ²⁷  for through the law comes ²⁸  the knowledge of sin.

[4:17]  ¹ tn The imperfect verbs in this verse express obvious truths known at all times (GKC 315 §107.f).

[4:17]  ² tn The word for man here is first אֱנוֹשׁ (’enosh), stressing man in all his frailty, his mortality. This is paralleled with גֶּבֶר (gever), a word that would stress more of the strength or might of man. The verse is not making a great contrast between the two, but it is rhetorical question merely stating that no human being of any kind is righteous or pure before God the Creator. See H. Kosmala, “The Term geber in the OT and in the Scrolls,” VTSup 17 (1969): 159-69; and E. Jacob, Theology of the Old Testament, 156-57.

[4:17]  ³ tn The imperfect verb in this interrogative sentence could also be interpreted with a potential nuance: “Can a man be righteous?”

[4:17]  ⁴ tn The classification of מִן (min) as a comparative in this verse (NIV, “more righteous than God”; cf. also KJV, ASV, NCV) does not seem the most probable. The idea of someone being more righteous than God is too strong to be reasonable. Job will not do that – but he will imply that God is unjust. In addition, Eliphaz had this vision before hearing of Job’s trouble and so is not addressing the idea that Job is making himself more righteous than God. He is stating that no man is righteous before God. Verses 18-21 will show that no one can claim righteousness before God. In 9:2 and 25:4 the preposition “with” is used. See also Jer 51:5 where the preposition should be rendered “before” [the Holy One].

[4:17]  ⁵ sn In Job 15:14 and 25:4 the verb יִזְכֶּה (yizkeh, from זָכָה [zakhah, “be clean”]) is paralleled with יִצְדַּק (yitsdaq, from צָדֵק [tsadeq, “be righteous”).

[4:17]  ⁶ tn The double question here merely repeats the same question with different words (see GKC 475 §150.h). The second member could just as well have been connected with ו (vav).

[14:3]  ⁷ tn Heb “open the eye on,” an idiom meaning to prepare to judge someone.

[14:3]  ⁸ tn The verse opens with אַף־עַל־זֶה (’af-’al-zeh), meaning “even on such a one!” It is an exclamation of surprise.

[14:3]  ⁹ tn The text clearly has “me” as the accusative; but many wish to emend it to say “him” (אֹתוֹ, ’oto). But D. J. A. Clines rightly rejects this in view of the way Job is written, often moving back and forth from his own tragedy and others’ tragedies (Job [WBC], 283).

[14:4]  ¹⁰ tn The expression is מִי־יִתֵּן (mi-yitten, “who will give”; see GKC 477 §151.b). Some commentators (H. H. Rowley and A. B. Davidson) wish to take this as the optative formula: “O that a clean might come out of an unclean!” But that does not fit the verse very well, and still requires the addition of a verb. The exclamation here simply implies something impossible – man is unable to attain purity.

[14:4]  ¹¹ sn The point being made is that the entire human race is contaminated by sin, and therefore cannot produce something pure. In this context, since man is born of woman, it is saying that the woman and the man who is brought forth from her are impure. See Ps 51:5; Isa 6:5; and Gen 6:5.

[25:4]  ¹² sn Bildad here does not come up with new expressions; rather, he simply uses what Eliphaz had said (see Job 4:17-19 and 15:14-16).

[32:2]  ¹³ tn The verse begins with וַיִּחַר אַף (vayyikhar ’af, “and the anger became hot”), meaning Elihu became very angry.

[32:2]  ¹⁴ tn The second comment about Elihu’s anger comes right before the statement of its cause. Now the perfect verb is used: “he was angry.”

[32:2]  ¹⁵ tn The explanation is the causal clause עַל־צַדְּקוֹ נַפְשׁוֹ (’al-tsaddÿqo nafsho, “because he justified himself”). It is the preposition with the Piel infinitive construct with a suffixed subjective genitive.

[32:2]  ¹⁶ tc The LXX and Latin versions soften the expression slightly by saying “before God.”

[33:9]  ¹⁷ sn See Job 9:21; 10:7; 23:7; 27:4; ch. 31.

[33:9]  ¹⁸ tn The word is a hapax legomenon; hap is from חָפַף (khafaf). It is used in New Hebrew in expressions like “to wash” the head. Cognates in Syriac and Akkadian support the meaning “to wash; to clean.”

[34:5]  ¹⁹ tn Heb “righteous,” but in this context it means to be innocent or in the right.

[34:1]  ²⁰ sn This speech of Elihu focuses on defending God. It can be divided into these sections: Job is irreligious (2-9), God is just (10-15), God is impartial and omniscient (16-30), Job is foolish to rebel (31-37).

[8:1]  ²¹ sn This speech of Bildad ignores Job’s attack on his friends and focuses rather on Job’s comments about God’s justice. Bildad cannot even imagine saying that God is unjust. The only conclusion open to him is that Job’s family brought this on themselves, and so the only recourse is for Job to humble himself and make supplication to God. To make his point, Bildad will appeal to the wisdom of the ancients, for his theology is traditional. The speech has three parts: vv. 2-7 form his affirmation of the justice of God; vv. 8-19 are his appeal to the wisdom of the ancients, and vv. 20-22 are his summation. See N. C. Habel, “Appeal to Ancient Tradition as a Literary Form,” ZAW 88 (1976): 253-72; W. A. Irwin, “The First Speech of Bildad,” ZAW 51 (1953): 205-16.

[130:3]  ²² tn Heb “observe.”

[130:3]  ²³ tn The words “before you” are supplied in the translation for clarification. The psalmist must be referring to standing before God’s judgment seat. The rhetorical question expects the answer, “No one.”

[143:2]  ²⁴ tn Heb “do not enter into judgment with.”

[143:2]  ²⁵ tn Heb “for no one living is innocent before you.”

[3:20]  ²⁶ sn An allusion to Ps 143:2.

[3:20]  ²⁷ tn Grk “because by the works of the law no flesh is justified before him.” Some recent scholars have understood the phrase ἒργα νόμου (erga nomou, “works of the law”) to refer not to obedience to the Mosaic law generally, but specifically to portions of the law that pertain to things like circumcision and dietary laws which set the Jewish people apart from the other nations (e.g., J. D. G. Dunn, Romans [WBC], 1:155). Other interpreters, like C. E. B. Cranfield (“‘The Works of the Law’ in the Epistle to the Romans,” JSNT 43 [1991]: 89-101) reject this narrow interpretation for a number of reasons, among which the most important are: (1) The second half of v. 20, “for through the law comes the knowledge of sin,” is hard to explain if the phrase “works of the law” is understood in a restricted sense; (2) the plural phrase “works of the law” would have to be understood in a different sense from the singular phrase “the work of the law” in 2:15; (3) similar phrases involving the law in Romans (2:13, 14; 2:25, 26, 27; 7:25; 8:4; and 13:8) which are naturally related to the phrase “works of the law” cannot be taken to refer to circumcision (in fact, in 2:25 circumcision is explicitly contrasted with keeping the law). Those interpreters who reject the “narrow” interpretation of “works of the law” understand the phrase to refer to obedience to the Mosaic law in general.

[3:20]  ²⁸ tn Grk “is.”