Albert Barnes Commentary Job 9:33

"There is no umpire betwixt us, That might lay his hand upon us both." — Job 9:33 (ASV)

Neither is there any daysman - Margin: "One that should argue," or "umpire." The word "daysman" in English means "an umpire or arbiter, a mediator" (Webster). Why such a man is called a "daysman" I do not know.

The Hebrew word rendered "daysman," מוכיח môkı̂yach, is from יכח yâkach—which is not used in the Qal form. It means to be before, in front of; then to appear, to be clear, or manifest. In the Hiphil form, it means to cause to be manifest; to argue, prove, or convince; and then to argue down, to confute, or reprove. See the word used in Job 6:25: “What doth your arguing reprove?” It then means to make a cause clear; to judge, determine, or decide, as an arbiter, umpire, or judge (Isaiah 11:3; Genesis 31:37). Jerome renders it, “Non est qui utrumque valeat arguere.” The Septuagint translates it, “if there were,” or, “O that there were a mediator (ὁ μεσίτης ho mesitēs), and a reprover (καί ἐλέγχων kai elengchōn), and one to hear us both (καί διακούων ἀναμέτον ἀμφοτέρων kai diakouōn anametOn amphoterōn).”

The word as used by Job does not mean mediator, but arbiter, umpire, or judge—one before whom the cause might be tried, who could lay the hand of restraint on either party, who could confine the pleadings within proper bounds, who could preserve the parties within the limits of order and propriety, and who had power to determine the question at issue. Job complains that there could be no such tribunal. He feels that God was so great that the cause could be referred to no other, and that he had no prospect of success in the unequal contest.

It does not appear, therefore, that he desired a mediator in the sense in which we understand that word—one who comes between us and God, manages our cause before Him, and is our advocate at His bar. He rather says that there was no one above God, or no umpire uninterested in the controversy, before whom the cause could be argued, and who would be competent to decide the matter in issue between him and his Maker. He had no hope, therefore, in a cause where one of the parties was to be the judge, and where that party was omnipotent; and he had to give up the cause in despair.

It is not with strict propriety that this language is ever applied to the Lord Jesus, the great Mediator between God and man. He is not an umpire to settle a dispute in the sense in which Job understood it; He is not an arbiter to whom the cause in dispute between man and his Maker is to be referred; He is not a judge to listen to the arguments of the respective parties and to decide the controversy. He is a mediator between us and God, to make it proper or possible for God to be reconciled to the guilty, and to propose to mankind the terms of reconciliation; to plead our cause before God, and to communicate to us the favors which He proposes to bestow on mankind.

That might lay his hand upon us both - It is not improbable that this may refer to some ancient ceremony in courts where, for some reason, the umpire or arbiter laid his hand on both parties. Or, it may mean merely that the umpire had the power of control over both parties; that it was his office to restrain them within proper limits, to check any improper expressions, and to see that the argument was fairly conducted on both sides. The meaning of the whole here is that if there were such an umpire, Job would be willing to argue his cause. As it was, it was a hopeless situation, and he could do nothing more than be silent.

That there was irreverence in this language must be admitted; but it is language taken from courts of law, and its substance is that Job could not hope to maintain his cause before One so great and powerful as God.