Ayub 9:19

9:19 If it is a matter of strength, ¹ 

most certainly ²  he is the strong one!

And if it is a matter of justice,

he will say, ‘Who will summon me?’ ³ 

Ayub 9:33-34

9:33 Nor is there an arbiter ⁴  between us,

who ⁵  might lay ⁶  his hand on us both, ⁷ 

9:34 who ⁸  would take his ⁹  rod ¹⁰  away from me

so that his terror ¹¹  would not make me afraid.

Ayub 13:21

13:21 Remove ¹²  your hand ¹³  far from me

and stop making me afraid with your terror. ¹⁴ 

Yesaya 27:4

27:4 I am not angry.

I wish I could confront some thorns and briers!

Then I would march against them ¹⁵  for battle;

I would set them ¹⁶  all on fire,

Yesaya 27:8

27:8 When you summon her for divorce, you prosecute her; ¹⁷ 

he drives her away ¹⁸  with his strong wind in the day of the east wind. ¹⁹ 

Yehezkiel 20:33

20:33 As surely as I live, declares the sovereign Lord, with a powerful hand and an outstretched arm, ²⁰  and with an outpouring of rage, I will be king over you.

Yehezkiel 20:35

20:35 I will bring you into the wilderness of the nations, and there I will enter into judgment with you face to face.

[9:19]  ¹ tn The MT has only “if of strength.”

[9:19]  ² tn “Most certainly” translates the particle הִנֵּה (hinneh).

[9:19]  ³ 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).

[9:19]  sn Job is saying that whether it is a trial of strength or an appeal to justice, he is unable to go against God.

[9:33]  ⁴ 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]  sn The old translation of “daysman” came from a Latin expression describing the fixing of a day for arbitration.

[9:33]  ⁵ tn The relative pronoun is understood in this clause.

[9:33]  ⁶ 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]  ⁷ 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]  ⁸ tn The verse probably continues the description from the last verse, and so a relative pronoun may be supplied here as well.

[9:34]  ⁹ 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]  ¹⁰ sn The “rod” is a symbol of the power of God to decree whatever judgments and afflictions fall upon people.

[9:34]  ¹¹ tn “His terror” is metonymical; it refers to the awesome majesty of God that overwhelms Job and causes him to be afraid.

[13:21]  ¹² tn The imperative הַרְחַק (harkhaq, “remove”; GKC 98 §29.q), from רָחַק (rakhaq, “far, be far”) means “take away [far away]; to remove.”

[13:21]  ¹³ sn This is a common, but bold, anthropomorphism. The fact that the word used is כַּף (kaf, properly “palm”) rather than יָד (yad, “hand,” with the sense of power) may stress Job’s feeling of being trapped or confined (see also Ps 139:5, 7).

[13:21]  ¹⁴ tn See Job 9:34.

[27:4]  ¹⁵ tn Heb “it.” The feminine singular suffix apparently refers back to the expression “thorns and briers,” understood in a collective sense. For other examples of a cohortative expressing resolve after a hypothetical statement introduced by נָתַן with מִי (miwith natan), see Judg 9:29; Jer 9:1-2; Ps 55:6.

[27:4]  ¹⁶ tn Heb “it.” The feminine singular suffix apparently refers back to the expression “thorns and briers,” understood in a collective sense.

[27:8]  ¹⁷ tn The Hebrew text reads literally, “in [?], in sending her away, you oppose her.” The meaning of this line is uncertain. The form בְּסַאסְּאָה (bÿsa’ssÿ’ah) is taken as an infinitive from סַאסְּאָה (sa’ssÿ’ah) with a prepositional prefix and a third feminine singular suffix. (The MT does not have a mappiq in the final he [ה], however). According to HALOT 738 s.v. סַאסְּאָה the verb is a Palpel form from an otherwise unattested root cognate with an Arabic verb meaning “to gather beasts with a call.” Perhaps it means “to call, summon” here, but this is a very tentative proposal. בְּשַׁלְחָהּ (bÿshalkhah, “in sending her away”) appears to be a Piel infinitive with a prepositional prefix and a third feminine singular suffix. Since the Piel of שָׁלָח (shalakh) can sometimes mean “divorce” (HALOT 1514-15 s.v.) and the following verb רִיב (riv, “oppose”) can be used in legal contexts, it is possible that divorce proceedings are alluded to here. This may explain why Israel is referred to as feminine in this verse, in contrast to the masculine forms used in vv. 6-7 and 9.

[27:8]  ¹⁸ tn The Hebrew text has no object expressed, but one can understand a third feminine singular pronominal object and place a mappiq in the final he (ה) of the form to indicate the suffix.

[27:8]  ¹⁹ sn The “east wind” here symbolizes violent divine judgment.

[20:33]  ²⁰ sn This phrase occurs frequently in Deuteronomy (Deut 4:34; 5:15; 7:19; 11:2; 26:8).