³ tn Heb “all/any flaw shall not be in it.”

¹ tn Heb “gives a flaw in”; KJV, ASV “cause a blemish in.”

¹ tn Heb “all which in it [is] a flaw.” Note that the same term is used for physical flaws of people in Lev 21:17-24. Cf. KJV, ASV, NRSV “blemish”; NASB, NIV, TEV “defect”; NLT “with physical defects.”

² tn Heb “who in him is a flaw”; cf. KJV, ASV “any blemish”; NASB, NIV “a defect.” The rendering “physical flaw” is used to refer to any birth defect or physical injury of the kind described in the following verses (cf. the same Hebrew word also in Lev 24:19-20). The same term is used for “flawed” animals, which must not be offered to the Lord in Lev 22:20-25.

² sn The line could mean that God has regarded Israel as the ideal congregation without any blemish or flaw. But it could also mean that God has not looked on their iniquity, meaning, held it against them.

³ sn When the choice morsels of gossip are received, they go down like delicious food—into the innermost being; they have been too easily believed. R. N. Whybray says, “There is a flaw in human nature that assures slander will be listened to” (Proverbs [CBC], 105).

² tn The term rendered “spot” derives from a root meaning “mixed” or “confused” (cf. NAB “walleyed”). It apparently refers to any kind of marked flaw in the eye that can be seen by others. Smr, Syriac, Tg. Onq., and Tg. Ps.-J. have plural “his eyes.”

¹ sn The text here uses an implied comparison (a figure of speech known as hypocatastasis): It compares the perfection of every word from God with some precious metal that has been refined and purified (e.g., Ps 12:6). The point is that God’s word is trustworthy; it has no defects and flaws, nothing false or misleading. The second half of the verse explains the significance of this point—it is safe to trust the Lord.

³ tn The form יַחְקְרֶנּוּ (yakhq^erennu) means “he searches him” (cf. KJV, ASV) or “he examines him”; a potential imperfect nuance fits well here to indicate that a discerning person, even though poor, can search the flaws of the rich and see through the pretension and the false assumptions (cf. NAB, NASB, NIV “sees through him”). Several commentators have connected the word to the Arabic root hqr, which means “despise” (D. W. Thomas, “Notes on Some Passages in the Book of Proverbs,” JTS 38 [1937]: 400-403), but that would be both predictable and flat.

¹ sn In this chapter Job actually answers the ideas of all three of his friends. Here Job finds the flaw in their argument—he can point to wicked people who prosper. But whereas in the last speech, when he looked on his suffering from the perspective of his innocence, he found great faith and hope, in this chapter when he surveys the divine government of the world, he sinks to despair. The speech can be divided into five parts: he appeals for a hearing (2-6), he points out the prosperity of the wicked (7-16), he wonders exactly when the godless suffer (17-22), he shows how death levels everything (23-26), and he reveals how experience contradicts his friends’ argument (27-34).

⁶ tn The word תָּהֳלָה (toholah) is a hapax legomenon, and so has created some confusion in the various translations. It seems to mean “error; folly.” The word is translated “perverseness” in the LXX, but Symmachus connects it with the word for “madness.” Some commentators have repointed the word to תְּהִלָּה (t^ehillah, “praise”) making the line read: “he finds no [cause for] praise in his angels.” Others suggest תִּפְלָה (tiflah, “offensiveness, silliness”) a bigger change; this matches the idiom in Job 24:12. But if the etymology of the word is הָלַל (halal, “to be mad”) then that change is not necessary. The feminine noun “madness” still leaves the meaning of the line a little uncertain: “[if] he does not impute madness to his angels.” The point of the verse is that God finds flaws in his angels and does not put his trust in them.

² tn Heb “for their being ruined [is] in them, flaw is in them”; NRSV “are mutilated, with a blemish in them”; NIV “are deformed and have defects.” The MT term מָשְׁחָתָם (moshkhatam, “their being ruined”) is a Hophal participle from שָׁחַת (shakhat, “to ruin”). Smr has plural בהם משׁחתים (“deformities in them”; cf. the LXX translation). The Qumran Leviticus scroll (11QpaleoLev) has תימ הם[…], in which case the restored participle would appear to be the same as Smr, but there is no ב (bet) preposition before the pronoun, yielding “they are deformed” (see D. N. Freedman and K. A. Mathews, The Paleo-Hebrew Leviticus Scroll, 41 and the remarks in J. E. Hartley, Leviticus [WBC], 358).

¹ tn Heb “who there is in him a broken leg or a broken arm,” or perhaps “broken foot or broken hand.” The Hebrew term רֶגֶל (regel) is commonly rendered “foot,” but it can also refer to the “leg,” and the Hebrew יָד (yad) is most often translated “hand,” but can also refer to the “[fore]arm” (as opposed to כַּף, kaf, “palm of the hand” or “hand”). See HALOT 386 s.v. יָד and 1184 s.v. רֶגֶל respectively (cf. the NJPS translation). In this context, these terms probably apply to any part of the limb that was broken, including hand and the foot. B. A. Levine (Leviticus [JPSTC], 146) points out that such injuries often did not heal properly in antiquity because they were not properly set and, therefore, remained a “physical flaw” permanently.