Ayub 9:12

9:12 If he snatches away, ¹  who can turn him back? ² 

Who dares to say to him, ‘What are you doing?’

Ayub 9:14

The Impossibility of Facing God in Court

9:14 “How much less, ³  then, can I answer him ⁴ 

and choose my words ⁵  to argue ⁶  with ⁷  him! ⁸ 

Ayub 9:29

9:29 If I am guilty, ⁹ 

why then ¹⁰  weary myself ¹¹  in vain? ¹² 

Ayub 9:32

9:32 For he ¹³  is not a human being like I am,

that ¹⁴  I might answer him,

that we might come ¹⁵  together in judgment.

[9:12]  ¹ tn E. Dhorme (Job, 133) surveys the usages and concludes that the verb חָתַף (khataf) normally describes the wicked actions of a man, especially by treachery or trickery against another. But a verb חָתַף (khataf) is found nowhere else; a noun “robber” is found in Prov 23:28. Dhorme sees no reason to emend the text, because he concludes that the two verbs are synonymous. Job is saying that if God acts like a plunderer, there is no one who can challenge what he does.

[9:12]  ² tn The verb is the Hiphil imperfect (potential again) from שׁוּב (shuv). In this stem it can mean “turn back, refute, repel” (BDB 999 s.v. Hiph.5).

[9:14]  ³ tn The construction אַף כִּי־אָנֹכִי (’af ki ’anokhi) is an expression that means either “how much more” or “how much less.” Here it has to mean “how much less,” for if powerful forces like Rahab are crushed beneath God’s feet, how could Job contend with him?

[9:14]  ⁴ tn The imperfect verb here is to be taken with the nuance of a potential imperfect. The idea of “answer him” has a legal context, i.e., answering God in a court of law. If God is relentless in his anger toward greater powers, then Job realizes it is futile for him.

[9:14]  ⁵ sn In a legal controversy with God it would be essential to choose the correct words very carefully (humanly speaking); but the calmness and presence of mind to do that would be shattered by the overwhelming terror of God’s presence.

[9:14]  ⁶ tn The verb is supplied in this line.

[9:14]  ⁷ tn The preposition אִם (’im, “with”) carries the idea of “in contest with” in a number of passages (compare vv. 2, 3; 16:21).

[9:14]  ⁸ tn The LXX goes a different way after changing the first person to the third: “Oh then that he would hearken to me, or judge my cause.”

[9:29]  ⁹ tn The clause simply has “I am guilty.” It is the same type of construction found in v. 24. It is also the opposite of that in v. 20. GKC 317 §107.n lists this as an example of the use of the imperfect to express an obligation or necessity according to the judgment of others; it would therefore mean “if I am to be guilty.”

[9:29]  ¹⁰ tn The demonstrative pronoun is included to bring particular emphasis to the question, as if to say, “Why in the world…” (see R. J. Williams, Hebrew Syntax, 24, §118).

[9:29]  ¹¹ tn The verb means “tire oneself”; see 3:17.

[9:29]  ¹² tn Here הֶבֶל (hevel, “breath, vapor, vanity”) is used as an adverb (adverbial accusative).

[9:32]  ¹³ 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]  ¹⁴ 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]  ¹⁵ tn The sense of the verb “come” with “together in judgment” means “to confront one another in court.” See Ps 143:2.