Ayub 1:9-11

1:9 Then Satan answered the Lord, “Is it for nothing that Job fears God? ¹  1:10 Have you ²  not made a hedge ³  around him and his household and all that he has on every side? You have blessed ⁴  the work of his hands, and his livestock ⁵  have increased ⁶  in the land. 1:11 But ⁷  extend your hand and strike ⁸  everything he has, and he will no doubt ⁹  curse you ¹⁰  to your face!”

Zakharia 3:1

Vision Four: The Priest

3:1 Next I saw Joshua the high priest ¹¹  standing before the angel of the Lord, with Satan ¹²  standing at his right hand to accuse him.

Zakharia 3:1

Vision Four: The Priest

3:1 Next I saw Joshua the high priest ¹³  standing before the angel of the Lord, with Satan ¹⁴  standing at his right hand to accuse him.

1 Petrus 5:8

5:8 Be sober and alert. Your enemy the devil, like a roaring lion, ¹⁵  is on the prowl looking for someone ¹⁶  to devour.

[1:9]  ¹ tn The Hebrew form has the interrogative ה (he) on the adverb חִנָּם (khinnam, “gratis”), a derivative either of the verb חָנַן (khanan, “to be gracious, show favor”), or its related noun חֵן (khen, “grace, favor”). The adverb has the sense of “free; gratis; gratuitously; for nothing; for no reason” (see BDB 336 s.v. חִנָּם). The idea is that Satan does not disagree that Job is pious, but that Job is loyal to God because of what he receives from God. He will test the sincerity of Job.

[1:10]  ² tn The use of the independent personal pronoun here emphasizes the subject of the verb: “Have you not put up a hedge.”

[1:10]  ³ tn The verb שׂוּךְ (sukh) means “to hedge or fence up, about” something (BDB 962 s.v. I שׂוּךְ). The original idea seems to have been to surround with a wall of thorns for the purpose of protection (E. Dhorme, Job, 7). The verb is an implied comparison between making a hedge and protecting someone.

[1:10]  ⁴ sn Here the verb “bless” is used in one of its very common meanings. The verb means “to enrich,” often with the sense of enabling or empowering things for growth or fruitfulness. See further C. Westermann, Blessing in the Bible and the Life of the Church (OBT).

[1:10]  ⁵ tn Or “substance.” The herds of livestock may be taken by metonymy of part for whole to represent possessions or prosperity in general.

[1:10]  ⁶ tn The verb פָּרַץ (parats) means “to break through.” It has the sense of abundant increase, as in breaking out, overflowing (see also Gen 30:30 and Exod 1:12).

[1:11]  ⁷ tn The particle אוּלָם (’ulam, “but”) serves to restrict the clause in relation to the preceding clause (IBHS 671-73 §39.3.5e, n. 107).

[1:11]  ⁸ tn The force of the imperatives in this sentence are almost conditional – if God were to do this, then surely Job would respond differently.

[1:11]  sn The two imperatives (“stretch out” and “strike”) and the word “hand” all form a bold anthropomorphic sentence. It is as if God would deliver a blow to Job with his fist. But the intended meaning is that God would intervene to destroy Job’s material and physical prosperity.

[1:11]  ⁹ sn The formula used in the expression is the oath formula: “if not to your face he will curse you” meaning “he will surely curse you to your face.” Satan is so sure that the piety is insincere that he can use an oath formula.

[1:11]  ¹⁰ tn See the comments on Job 1:5. Here too the idea of “renounce” may fit well enough; but the idea of actually cursing God may not be out of the picture if everything Job has is removed. Satan thinks he will denounce God.

[3:1]  ¹¹ sn Joshua the high priest mentioned here is the son of the priest Jehozadak, mentioned also in Hag 1:1 (cf. Ezra 2:2; 3:2, 8; 4:3; 5:2; 10:18; Neh 7:7; 12:1, 7, 10, 26). He also appears to have been the grandfather of the high priest contemporary with Nehemiah ca. 445 b.c. (Neh 12:10).

[3:1]  ¹² tn The Hebrew term הַשָּׂטָן (hassatan, “the satan”) suggests not so much a personal name (as in almost all English translations) but an epithet, namely, “the adversary.” This evil being is otherwise thus described in Job 1 and 2 and 1 Chr 21:1. In this last passage the article is dropped and “the satan” becomes “Satan,” a personal name.

[3:1]  ¹³ sn Joshua the high priest mentioned here is the son of the priest Jehozadak, mentioned also in Hag 1:1 (cf. Ezra 2:2; 3:2, 8; 4:3; 5:2; 10:18; Neh 7:7; 12:1, 7, 10, 26). He also appears to have been the grandfather of the high priest contemporary with Nehemiah ca. 445 b.c. (Neh 12:10).

[3:1]  ¹⁴ tn The Hebrew term הַשָּׂטָן (hassatan, “the satan”) suggests not so much a personal name (as in almost all English translations) but an epithet, namely, “the adversary.” This evil being is otherwise thus described in Job 1 and 2 and 1 Chr 21:1. In this last passage the article is dropped and “the satan” becomes “Satan,” a personal name.

[5:8]  ¹⁵ sn This phrase may be an allusion to Ps 22:13.

[5:8]  ¹⁶ tc A few mss (B Ψ 0206^vid pc) lack the pronoun τινα (tina), while others have it. Those that have it either put the acute accent over the penult, making this an interrogative pronoun (“whom”; L P 322 323 614 630 945 1243 1739 2298 al), or leave off any accent, making this an indefinite pronoun (“someone”; Ï), or are too early to employ accents but nevertheless have the pronoun τινα (Ì⁷² א A). Generally speaking, the shorter and harder reading is to be preferred. In this instance, the omission of the pronoun would obviously be accommodated for by scribes, since both ζητέω (zhtew, “look, seek”) and καταπίνω (katapinw, “devour”) are transitive verbs. However, if the omission were original, one might expect the position of the pronoun to float in the mss – both before and after the infinitive καταπιεῖν (katapiein, “to devour”). Further, other terms might be expected as well, such as ἕνα ἐξ ὑμῶν ({ena ex Jumwn, “one of you”) or τινα ἐξ ὑμῶν (tina ex Jumwn, “a certain one/someone of you”). The uniformity of both the word and its location suggests that the shorter reading (found in but a few Greek mss) in this instance was a scribal mistake. As to whether the pronoun is interrogative or indefinite, since accents were not a part of the earliest mss, such Greek witnesses are of no help to us in this kind of problem. There would be little difference in meaning between the two in this context.