Ayub 9:2-3

9:2 “Truly, ¹  I know that this is so.

But how ²  can a human ³  be just before ⁴  God? ⁵ 

9:3 If someone wishes ⁶  to contend ⁷  with him,

he cannot answer ⁸  him one time in a thousand.

Ayub 9:20

9:20 Although I am innocent, ⁹ 

my mouth ¹⁰  would condemn me; ¹¹ 

although I am blameless,

it would declare me perverse. ¹² 

Ayub 15:14

15:14 What is man that he should be pure,

or one born of woman, that he should be righteous?

Ayub 25:4

25:4 How then can a human being be righteous before God?

How can one born of a woman be pure? ¹³ 

Ayub 40:4

40:4 “Indeed, I am completely unworthy ¹⁴  – how could I reply to you?

I put ¹⁵  my hand over my mouth to silence myself. ¹⁶ 

Mazmur 19:12

19:12 Who can know all his errors? ¹⁷ 

Please do not punish me for sins I am unaware of. ¹⁸ 

Mazmur 130:3

130:3 If you, O Lord, were to keep track of ¹⁹  sins,

O Lord, who could stand before you? ²⁰ 

Mazmur 143:2

143:2 Do not sit in judgment on ²¹  your servant,

for no one alive is innocent before you. ²² 

Amsal 21:2

21:2 All of a person’s ways seem right in his own opinion, ²³ 

but the Lord evaluates ²⁴  the motives. ²⁵ 

Roma 3:19-20

3:19 Now we know that whatever the law says, it says to those who are under ²⁶  the law, so that every mouth may be silenced and the whole world may be held accountable to God. 3:20 For no one is declared righteous before him ²⁷  by the works of the law, ²⁸  for through the law comes ²⁹  the knowledge of sin.

Roma 4:2

4:2 For if Abraham was declared righteous ³⁰  by the works of the law, he has something to boast about – but not before God.

[9:2]  ¹ tn The adverb אָמְנָם (’omnam, “in truth”) is characteristic of the Book of Job (12:2; 19:4; 34:12; 36:4). The friends make commonplace statements, general truths, and Job responds with “truly I know this is so.” Job knows as much about these themes as his friends do.

[9:2]  ² sn The interrogative is used to express what is an impossibility.

[9:2]  ³ tn The attempt to define אֱנוֹשׁ (’enosh) as “weak” or “mortal” man is not compelling. Such interpretations are based on etymological links without the clear support of usage (an issue discussed by J. Barr, Comparative Philology and the Text of the Old Testament). This seems to be a poetic word for “human” (the only nonpoetic use is in 2 Chr 14:10).

[9:2]  ⁴ tn The preposition is אִם (’im, “with, before, in the presence of”). This is more specific than מִן (min) in 4:17.

[9:2]  ⁵ sn The point of Job’s rhetorical question is that man cannot be justified as against God, because God is too powerful and too clever – he controls the universe. He is discussing now the question that Eliphaz raised in 4:17. Peake observes that Job is raising the question of whether something is right because God says it is right, or that God declares it right because it is right.

[9:3]  ⁶ tn Some commentators take God to be the subject of this verb, but it is more likely that it refers to the mortal who tries to challenge God in a controversy. The verb is used of Job in 13:3.

[9:3]  ⁷ tn The verb רִיב (riv) is a common one; it has the idea of “contention; dispute; legal dispute or controversy; go to law.” With the preposition אִם (’im) the idea must be “to contend with” or “to dispute with.” The preposition reflects the prepositional phrase “with God” in v. 2, supporting the view that man is the subject.

[9:3]  ⁸ tn This use of the imperfect as potential imperfect assumes that the human is the subject, that in a dispute with God he could not answer one of God’s questions (for which see the conclusion of the book when God questions Job). On the other hand, if the interpretation were that God does not answer the demands of mortals, then a simple progressive imperfect would be required. In support of this is the frustration of Job that God does not answer him.

[9:20]  ⁹ tn The idea is the same as that expressed in v. 15, although here the imperfect verb is used and not the perfect. Once again with the concessive clause (“although I am right”) Job knows that in a legal dispute he would be confused and would end up arguing against himself.

[9:20]  ¹⁰ tn Some commentators wish to change this to “his mouth,” meaning God’s response to Job’s complaints. But the MT is far more expressive, and “my mouth” fits the context in which Job is saying that even though he is innocent, if he spoke in a court setting in the presence of God he would be overwhelmed, confused, and no doubt condemn himself.

[9:20]  ¹¹ tn The verb has the declarative sense in the Hiphil, “to declare guilty [or wicked]” or “to condemn.”

[9:20]  ¹² tn The verb עָקַשׁ (’aqash) means “to be twisted; to be tortuous.” The Piel has a meaning “to bend; to twist” (Mic 3:9) and “to pervert” (Jer 59:8). The form here is classified as a Hiphil, with the softening of the vowel i (see GKC 147 §53.n). It would then also be a declarative use of the Hiphil.

[25:4]  ¹³ sn Bildad here does not come up with new expressions; rather, he simply uses what Eliphaz had said (see Job 4:17-19 and 15:14-16).

[40:4]  ¹⁴ tn The word קַלֹּתִי (qalloti) means “to be light; to be of small account; to be unimportant.” From this comes the meaning “contemptible,” which in the causative stem would mean “to treat with contempt; to curse.” Dhorme tries to make the sentence a conditional clause and suggests this meaning: “If I have been thoughtless.” There is really no “if” in Job’s mind.

[40:4]  ¹⁵ tn The perfect verb here should be classified as an instantaneous perfect; the action is simultaneous with the words.

[40:4]  ¹⁶ tn The words “to silence myself” are supplied in the translation for clarity.

[19:12]  ¹⁷ tn Heb “Errors who can discern?” This rhetorical question makes the point that perfect moral discernment is impossible to achieve. Consequently it is inevitable that even those with good intentions will sin on occasion.

[19:12]  ¹⁸ tn Heb “declare me innocent from hidden [things],” i.e., sins. In this context (see the preceding line) “hidden” sins are not sins committed in secret, but sins which are not recognized as such by the psalmist.

[130:3]  ¹⁹ tn Heb “observe.”

[130:3]  ²⁰ tn The words “before you” are supplied in the translation for clarification. The psalmist must be referring to standing before God’s judgment seat. The rhetorical question expects the answer, “No one.”

[143:2]  ²¹ tn Heb “do not enter into judgment with.”

[143:2]  ²² tn Heb “for no one living is innocent before you.”

[21:2]  ²³ tn Heb “in his own eyes.” The term “eyes” is a metonymy for estimation, opinion, evaluation.

[21:2]  ²⁴ tn Heb “weighs” (so NASB, NIV, NRSV); NLT “examines”; NCV, TEV “judges.”

[21:2]  ²⁵ tn Heb “the hearts.” The term לֵב (lev, “heart”) is used as a metonymy of association for thoughts and motives (BDB 660-61 s.v. 6-7). Even though people think they know themselves, the Lord evaluates motives as well (e.g., Prov 16:2).

[3:19]  ²⁶ tn Grk “in,” “in connection with.”

[3:20]  ²⁷ sn An allusion to Ps 143:2.

[3:20]  ²⁸ tn Grk “because by the works of the law no flesh is justified before him.” Some recent scholars have understood the phrase ἒργα νόμου (erga nomou, “works of the law”) to refer not to obedience to the Mosaic law generally, but specifically to portions of the law that pertain to things like circumcision and dietary laws which set the Jewish people apart from the other nations (e.g., J. D. G. Dunn, Romans [WBC], 1:155). Other interpreters, like C. E. B. Cranfield (“‘The Works of the Law’ in the Epistle to the Romans,” JSNT 43 [1991]: 89-101) reject this narrow interpretation for a number of reasons, among which the most important are: (1) The second half of v. 20, “for through the law comes the knowledge of sin,” is hard to explain if the phrase “works of the law” is understood in a restricted sense; (2) the plural phrase “works of the law” would have to be understood in a different sense from the singular phrase “the work of the law” in 2:15; (3) similar phrases involving the law in Romans (2:13, 14; 2:25, 26, 27; 7:25; 8:4; and 13:8) which are naturally related to the phrase “works of the law” cannot be taken to refer to circumcision (in fact, in 2:25 circumcision is explicitly contrasted with keeping the law). Those interpreters who reject the “narrow” interpretation of “works of the law” understand the phrase to refer to obedience to the Mosaic law in general.

[3:20]  ²⁹ tn Grk “is.”

[4:2]  ³⁰ tn Or “was justified.”