Job 9:31-35

9:31 then you plunge me into a slimy pit ¹ 

and my own clothes abhor me.

9:32 For he ²  is not a human being like I am,

that ³  I might answer him,

that we might come ⁴  together in judgment.

9:33 Nor is there an arbiter ⁵  between us,

who ⁶  might lay ⁷  his hand on us both, ⁸ 

9:34 who ⁹  would take his ¹⁰  rod ¹¹  away from me

so that his terror ¹²  would not make me afraid.

9:35 Then ¹³  would I speak and not fear him,

but it is not so with me. ¹⁴ 

Job 16:21

16:21 and ¹⁵  he contends with God on behalf of man

as a man ¹⁶  pleads ¹⁷  for his friend.

Job 23:4-7

23:4 I would lay out my case ¹⁸  before him

and fill my mouth with arguments.

23:5 I would know with what words ¹⁹  he would answer me,

and understand what he would say to me.

23:6 Would he contend ²⁰  with me with great power?

No, he would only pay attention to me. ²¹ 

23:7 There ²²  an upright person

could present his case ²³  before him,

and I would be delivered forever from my judge.

Job 31:37

31:37 I would give him an accounting of my steps;

like a prince I would approach him.

[9:31]  ¹ tn The pointing in the MT gives the meaning “pit” or “ditch.” A number of expositors change the pointing to שֻׁחוֹת (shukhot) to obtain the equivalent of שֻׂחוֹת (sukhot) / סֻחוֹת (sukhot): “filth” (Isa 5:25). This would make the contrast vivid – Job has just washed with pure water and soap, and now God plunges him into filth. M. H. Pope argues convincingly that the word “pit” in the MT includes the idea of “filth,” making the emendation unnecessary (“The Word sahat in Job 9:31,” JBL 83 [1964]: 269-78).

[9:32]  ² 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]  ³ 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]  ⁴ tn The sense of the verb “come” with “together in judgment” means “to confront one another in court.” See Ps 143:2.

[9:33]  ⁵ tn The participle מוֹכִיחַ (mokhiakh) is the “arbiter” or “mediator.” The word comes from the verb יָכַח (yakhakh, “decide, judge”), which is concerned with legal and nonlegal disputes. The verbal forms can be used to describe the beginning of a dispute, the disputation in progress, or the settling of it (here, and in Isa 1:18).

[9:33]  ⁶ tn The relative pronoun is understood in this clause.

[9:33]  ⁷ tn The jussive in conditional sentences retains its voluntative sense: let something be so, and this must happen as a consequence (see GKC 323 §109.i).

[9:33]  ⁸ sn The idiom of “lay his hand on the two of us” may come from a custom of a judge putting his hands on the two in order to show that he is taking them both under his jurisdiction. The expression can also be used for protection (see Ps 139:5). Job, however, has a problem in that the other party is God, who himself will be arbiter in judgment.

[9:34]  ⁹ tn The verse probably continues the description from the last verse, and so a relative pronoun may be supplied here as well.

[9:34]  ¹⁰ tn According to some, the reference of this suffix would be to God. The arbiter would remove the rod of God from Job. But others take it as a separate sentence with God removing his rod.

[9:34]  ¹¹ sn The “rod” is a symbol of the power of God to decree whatever judgments and afflictions fall upon people.

[9:34]  ¹² tn “His terror” is metonymical; it refers to the awesome majesty of God that overwhelms Job and causes him to be afraid.

[9:35]  ¹³ tn There is no conjunction with this cohortative; but the implication from the context is that if God’s rod were withdrawn, if the terror were removed, then Job would speak up without fear.

[9:35]  ¹⁴ tn The last half of the verse is rather cryptic: “but not so I with me.” NIV renders it “but as it now stands with me, I cannot.” This is very smooth and interpretive. Others transpose the two halves of the verse to read, “Since it is not so, I with myself // will commune and not fear him.” Job would be saying that since he cannot contend with God on equal terms, and since there is no arbiter, he will come on his own terms. English versions have handled this differently: “for I know I am not what I am thought to be” (NEB); “since this is not the case with me” (NAB); “I do not see myself like that at all” (JB).

[16:21]  ¹⁵ tn E. Dhorme (Job, 240) alters this slightly to read “Would that” or “Ah! if only.”

[16:21]  ¹⁶ tn This is the simple translation of the expression “son of man” in Job. But some commentators wish to change the word בֵּן (ben, “son”) to בֵּין (ben, “between”). It would then be “[as] between a man and [for] his friend.” Even though a few mss have this reading, it is to be rejected. But see J. Barr, “Some Notes on ‘ben’ in Classical Hebrew,” JSS 23 (1978): 1-22.

[16:21]  ¹⁷ tn The verb is supplied from the parallel clause.

[23:4]  ¹⁸ tn The word מִשְׁפָּט (mishpat) is normally “judgment; decision.” But in these contexts it refers to the legal case that Job will bring before God. With the verb עָרַךְ (’arakh, “to set in order; to lay out”) the whole image of drawing up a lawsuit is complete.

[23:5]  ¹⁹ tn Heb “the words he would answer me.”

[23:6]  ²⁰ tn The verb is now רִיב (riv) and not יָכַח (yakhakh, “contend”); רִיב (riv) means “to quarrel; to dispute; to contend,” often in a legal context. Here it is still part of Job’s questioning about this hypothetical meeting – would God contend with all his power?

[23:6]  ²¹ tn The verbal clause יָשִׂם בִּי (yasim bi) has been translated “he would pay [attention] to me.” Job is saying that God will not need all his power – he will just have pay attention to Job’s complaint. Job does not need the display of power – he just wants a hearing.

[23:7]  ²² tn The adverb “there” has the sense of “then” – there in the future.

[23:7]  ²³ tn The form of the verb is the Niphal נוֹכָח (nokkakh, “argue, present a case”). E. Dhorme (Job, 346) is troubled by this verbal form and so changes it and other things in the line to say, “he would observe the upright man who argues with him.” The Niphal is used for “engaging discussion,” “arguing a case,” and “settling a dispute.”