Job 8:3

8:3 Does God pervert ¹  justice? ² 

Or does the Almighty pervert ³  what is right?

Job 9:19

9:19 If it is a matter of strength, ⁴ 

most certainly ⁵  he is the strong one!

And if it is a matter of justice,

he will say, ‘Who will summon me?’ ⁶ 

Job 9:32

9:32 For he ⁷  is not a human being like I am,

that ⁸  I might answer him,

that we might come ⁹  together in judgment.

Job 13:18

13:18 See now, ¹⁰  I have prepared ¹¹  my ¹²  case; ¹³ 

I know that I am right. ¹⁴ 

Job 19:7

Job’s Abandonment and Affliction

19:7 “If ¹⁵  I cry out, ¹⁶  ‘Violence!’ ¹⁷ 

I receive no answer; ¹⁸ 

I cry for help,

but there is no justice.

Job 27:2

27:2 “As surely as God lives, ¹⁹  who has denied me justice, ²⁰ 

the Almighty, who has made my life bitter ²¹  –

Job 31:13

31:13 “If I have disregarded the right of my male servants

or my female servants

when they disputed ²²  with me,

Job 34:4-6

34:4 Let us evaluate ²³  for ourselves what is right; ²⁴ 

let us come to know among ourselves what is good.

34:5 For Job says, ‘I am innocent, ²⁵ 

but God turns away my right.

34:6 Concerning my right, should I lie? ²⁶ 

My wound ²⁷  is incurable,

although I am without transgression.’ ²⁸ 

Job 34:17

34:17 Do you really think ²⁹ 

that one who hates justice can govern? ³⁰ 

And will you declare guilty

the supremely righteous ³¹  One,

[8:3]  ¹ tn The Piel verb יְעַוֵּת (yÿ’avvet) means “to bend; to cause to swerve from the norm; to deviate; to pervert.” The LXX renders the first colon as “will the Lord be unjust when he judges?”

[8:3]  ² tn The first word is מִשְׁפָּת (mishpat, “justice”). It can mean an act of judgment, place of judgment, or what is just, that is, the outcome of the decision. It basically describes an umpire’s decision. The parallel word is צֶדֶק (tsedeq, “righteousness,” or “what is right”). The basic idea here is that which conforms to the standard, what is right. See S. H. Scholnick, “The Meaning of Mishpat in the Book of Job,” JBL 101 (1982): 521-29.

[8:3]  ³ tn Some commentators think that the second verb should be changed in order to avoid the repetition of the same word and to reflect the different words in the versions. The suggestion is to read יְעַוֵּה (yÿ’avveh) instead; this would mean “to cause someone to deviate,” for the root means “to bend.” The change is completely unwarranted; the LXX probably chose different words for stylistic reasons (see D. J. A. Clines, Job [WBC], 198). The repetition in the Hebrew text is a common type; it strengthens the enormity of the charge Job seems to be making.

[9:19]  ⁴ tn The MT has only “if of strength.”

[9:19]  ⁵ tn “Most certainly” translates the particle הִנֵּה (hinneh).

[9:19]  ⁶ tn The question could be taken as “who will summon me?” (see Jer 49:19 and 50:44). This does not make immediate sense. Some have simply changed the suffix to “who will summon him.” If the MT is retained, then supplying something like “he will say” could make the last clause fit the whole passage. Another option is to take it as “Who will reveal it to me?” – i.e., Job could be questioning his friends’ qualifications for being God’s emissaries to bring God’s charges against him (cf. KJV, NKJV; and see 10:2 where Job uses the same verb in the Hiphil to request that God reveal what his sin has been that has led to his suffering).

[9:32]  ⁷ tn The personal pronoun that would be expected as the subject of a noun clause is sometimes omitted (see GKC 360 §116.s). Here it has been supplied.

[9:32]  ⁸ tn The consecutive clause is here attached without the use of the ו (vav), but only by simple juxtaposition (see GKC 504-5 §166.a).

[9:32]  ⁹ tn The sense of the verb “come” with “together in judgment” means “to confront one another in court.” See Ps 143:2.

[13:18]  ¹⁰ tn The particle הִנֵּה (hinneh) functions almost as an imperative here, calling attention to what follows: “look” (archaic: behold).

[13:18]  ¹¹ tn The verb עָרַךְ (’arakh) means “to set in order, set in array [as a battle], prepare” in the sense here of arrange and organize a lawsuit.

[13:18]  ¹² tn The pronoun is added because this is what the verse means.

[13:18]  ¹³ tn The word מִשְׁפָּט (mishpat) usually means “judgment; decision.” Here it means “lawsuit” (and so a metonymy of effect gave rise to this usage; see Num 27:5; 2 Sam 15:4).

[13:18]  ¹⁴ tn The pronoun is emphatic before the verb: “I know that it is I who am right.” The verb means “to be right; to be righteous.” Some have translated it “vindicated,” looking at the outcome of the suit.

[19:7]  ¹³ tn The particle is used here as in 9:11 (see GKC 497 §159.w).

[19:7]  ¹⁴ tc The LXX has “I laugh at reproach.”

[19:7]  ¹⁵ tn The same idea is expressed in Jer 20:8 and Hab 1:2. The cry is a cry for help, that he has been wronged, that there is no justice.

[19:7]  ¹⁶ tn The Niphal is simply “I am not answered.” See Prov 21:13b.

[27:2]  ¹⁶ tn The expression חַי־אֵל (khay-’el) is the oath formula: “as God lives.” In other words, the speaker is staking God’s life on the credibility of the words. It is like saying, “As truly as God is alive.”

[27:2]  ¹⁷ tn “My judgment” would here, as before, be “my right.” God has taken this away by afflicting Job unjustly (A. B. Davidson, Job, 187).

[27:2]  ¹⁸ tn The verb הֵמַר (hemar) is the Hiphil perfect from מָרַר (marar, “to be bitter”) and hence, “to make bitter.” The object of the verb is “my soul,” which is better translated as “me” or “my life.”

[31:13]  ¹⁹ tn This construction is an adverbial clause using the temporal preposition, the infinitive from רִיב (riv, “contend”), and the suffix which is the subjective genitive.

[34:4]  ²² sn Elihu means “choose after careful examination.”

[34:4]  ²³ tn The word is מִשְׁפָּט (mishpat) again, with the sense of what is right or just.

[34:5]  ²⁵ tn Heb “righteous,” but in this context it means to be innocent or in the right.

[34:6]  ²⁸ tn The verb is the Piel imperfect of כָּזַב (kazav), meaning “to lie.” It could be a question: “Should I lie [against my right?] – when I am innocent. If it is repointed to the Pual, then it can be “I am made to lie,” or “I am deceived.” Taking it as a question makes good sense here, and so emendations are unnecessary.

[34:6]  ²⁹ tn The Hebrew text has only “my arrow.” Some commentators emend that word slightly to get “my wound.” But the idea could be derived from “arrows” as well, the wounds caused by the arrows. The arrows are symbolic of God’s affliction.

[34:6]  ³⁰ tn Heb “without transgression”; but this is parallel to the first part where the claim is innocence.

[34:17]  ³¹ tn The force of הַאַף (ha’af) is “Is it truly the case?” The point is being made that if Job were right God could not be judging the world.

[34:17]  ³² tn The verb חָבַשׁ (khavash) has the basic idea of “to bind,” as in binding on the yoke, and then in the sense of subduing people under authority (cf. Assyrian absanu). The imperfect verb here is best expressed with the potential nuance.

[34:17]  ³³ tn The two words could be taken separately, but they seem to form a fine nominal hendiadys, because the issue is God’s justice. So the word for power becomes the modifier.