9:14 “How much less, 1 then, can I answer him 2
and choose my words 3 to argue 4 with 5 him! 6
13:8 Will you show him partiality? 7
Will you argue the case 8 for God?
15:3 Does he argue 9 with useless 10 talk,
with words that have no value in them?
1 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?
2 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.
3 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.
4 tn The verb is supplied in this line.
5 tn The preposition אִם (’im, “with”) carries the idea of “in contest with” in a number of passages (compare vv. 2, 3; 16:21).
6 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.”
7 sn The idiom used here is “Will you lift up his face?” Here Job is being very sarcastic, for this expression usually means that a judge is taking a bribe. Job is accusing them of taking God’s side.
8 tn The same root is used here (רִיב, riv, “dispute, contention”) as in v. 6b (see note).
9 tn The infinitive absolute in this place is functioning either as an explanatory adverb or as a finite verb.
sn Eliphaz draws on Job’s claim with this word (cf. Job 13:3), but will declare it hollow.
10 tn The verb סָכַן (sakhan) means “to be useful, profitable.” It is found 5 times in the book with this meaning. The Hiphil of יָעַל (ya’al) has the same connotation. E. LipinÃski offers a new meaning on a second root, “incur danger” or “run risks” with words, but this does not fit the parallelism (FO 21 [1980]: 65-82).