cannot be imperative (Rosenm., De Wette); for although imperatives, joined by waw to sentences of a different construction, do occur (Psa 77:2; 2Sa 21:3), such an exclamation would destroy the connection and tone of the strophe in the present case.
Verse 16
Job 10:16 יגאה is hypothetical, like וצדקתי, but put in the future form, because referring to a voluntary act (Ewald, §357, b): and if it (the head) would (nevertheless) exalt itself (גאה, to raise proudly or in joyous self-consciousness), then (without waw apod., which is found in other passages, e.g., Job 22:28) Thou wouldst hunt me like a shachal (vid., Job 4:10), - Job likens God to the lion (as Hos 5:14; Hos 13:7), and himself to the prey which the lion pursues-Thou wouldst ever anew show Thyself wonderful at my expense (תּשׁב, voluntative form, followed by a future with which it is connected adverbially, Ges. §142, 3, b; תּתפּלּא, with â in the last syllable, although not in pause, as Num 19:12; Ewald, §141, c.), i.e., wonderful in power, and inventive by ever new forms off suffering, by which I should be compelled to repent this haughtiness. The witnesses (עדים) that God continually brings forth afresh against him are his sufferings (vid., Job 16:8), which, while he is conscious of his innocence, declare him to be a sinner; for Job, like the friends, cannot think of suffering and sin otherwise than as connected one with the other: suffering is partly the result of sin, and partly it sets the mark of sin on the man who is no sinner. תּרב (fut. apoc. Hiph. Ges. §75, rem. 15) is also the voluntative form: Thou wouldst multiply, increase Thy malignity against me. עם, contra, as also in other passages with words denoting strife and war, Job 13:19; Job 23:6; Job 31:13; or where the context implies hostility, Psa 55:19; Psa 94:16. The last line is a clause by itself consisting of nouns. וצבא חליפות is considered by all modern expositors as hendiadys, as Mercier translates: impetor variis et sibi succedentibus malorum agminibus; and צבא is mostly
