Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Job 32:2
Then was kindled the wrath of Elihu the son of Barachel the Buzite, of the kindred of Ram: against Job was his wrath kindled, because he justified himself rather than God.
2 5. Introduction of Elihu, a new speaker, who appears to have been a listener during the progress of the former debate. The descent of Elihu is given with fuller details than in the case of the other speakers. The name Elihu, meaning probably my God is he, occurs elsewhere, 1Sa 1:1; 1Ch 12:20. He is named the Buzite. Buz was brother of Uz, Gen 22:21, and son of Nahor. In Jer 25:23 Buz is mentioned along with Tema (cf. Job 6:19), and reckoned among the Arab tribes. The name Ram, therefore, which does not occur elsewhere, is scarcely to be taken as a contraction for Aram or Syria (though comp. 2Ch 22:5, where Ramites = Aramites).
justified himself rather than God ] The meaning appears to be, justified himself as against God, in his plea with God and at the expense of God’s justice. The sense is given in ch. Job 40:8, where the Lord says to Job, “Wilt thou condemn me that thou mayest be righteous”? There are two points to be attended to in these passages when the question of right is raised, the one a formal point and the other a material one. God had afflicted Job and thus, in Job’s view and the view of his time, passed a verdict of wickedness on him. Against this verdict Job reclaims, God does him wrong in this. This is the formal question of right between Job and God. But this naturally goes back into the material question of Job’s past life. Elihu, defending the righteousness of God, keeps before him chiefly the formal question. He touches little upon Job’s life and history, differing in this entirely from the three friends. He makes a general, abstract question out of Job’s complaints against God, which he argues on general lines with almost no reference to Job’s particular case. Job’s complaints do little more than suggest to him the question, Can God be justly complained of?
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
Then was kindled the wrath – Wrath or anger is commonly represented as kindled, or as burning.
Of Elihu – The name Elihu ( ‘elyhu’) means, God is he; or, since the word He ( hu’) is often used by way of eminence to denote the true God or Yahweh, the name is equivalent to saying, God is my God, or my God is Yahweh. On what account this name was given to him, is now unknown. The names which were anciently given, however, were commonly significant, and it was not unusual to incorporate the name of God in those given to human beings. See the notes at Isa 1:1. This name was probably given as an expression of piety on the part of his parents.
The son of Barachel – The name Barachel barak’el means God blesses, and was also probably given as expressive of the piety of his parents, and as furnishing in the name itself a valuable motto which the child would remember. Nothing more is known of him than the name; and the only propriety of remarking on the philology of the names arises from the fact that they seem to indicate the existence of piety, or of the knowledge of God, on the part of the ancestors of Elihu.
The Buzite – Buz was the second son of Nahor, the brother of Abraham, Gen 22:20-21. A city of the name Buz is mentioned in Jer 25:23, in connection with Dedan and Tema, cities of Arabia, and it is probable that Barachel, the father of Elihu, was of that city. If this name was given to the place after the son of Nahor, it will follow that Elihu, and consequently Job, must have lived after the time of Abraham.
Of the kindred of Ram – Of Ram nothing is certainly known. The Chaldee renders this , of the race of Abraham. Some have supposed that the Ram mentioned here is the same as the ancestor of David mentioned in Rth 4:19, and in the genealogical table in Mat 1:3-4, under the name of Aram. Others suppose that he was of the family of Nahor, and that the name is the same as ‘aram mentioned in Gen 22:21. Thus, by aphaeresis the Syrians are called rammym, 2Ch 22:5, instead of ‘arammym, as they are usually denominated; compare 2Ki 8:29. But nothing certain is known of him who is mentioned here. It is worthy of observation that the author of the book of Job has given the genealogy of Elihu with much greater particularity than he has that of either Job or his three friends. Indeed, he has not attempted to trace their genealogy at all. Of Job he does not even mention the name of his father; of his three friends he mentions merely the place where they dwelt. Rosenmuller infers, from this circumstance, that Elihu is himself the author of the book, since, says he, it is the custom of the Turks and Persians, in their poems, to weave in, near the end of the poem, the name of the author in an artificial manner. The same view is taken by Lightfoot, Chronica temporum et ord. Text. V. T. A circumstance of this kind, however, is too slight an argument to determine the question of the authorship of the book. It may have been that Elihu was less known than either of the other speakers, and hence, there was a propriety in mentioning more particularly his family. Indeed, this fact is morally certain, for he is not mentioned, as the others are, as the friend of Job.
Because he justified himself – Margin, his soul. So the Hebrew; the word nephesh, soul, being often used to denote oneself.
Rather than God – Prof. Lee renders this, justified himself with God; and so also Umbreit, Good, and some others. And so the Vulgate renders it: – coram Deo. The Septuagint renders it, enantion kuriou – against the Lord; that is, rather than the Lord. The proper translation of the Hebrew ( me’elohym) is undoubtedly more than God: and this was doubtless the idea which Elihu intended to convey. He understood Job as vindicating himself rather than God; as being more willing that aspersions should be cast on the character and government of God, than to confess his own sin.
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible
Verse 2. Then was kindled the wrath] This means no more than that Elihu was greatly excited, and felt a strong and zealous desire to vindicate the justice and providence of God, against the aspersions of Job and his friends.
Elihu the son of Barachel the Buzite] Buz was the second son of Nahor, the brother of Abram, Ge 22:21.
Of the kindred of Ram] Kemuel was the third son of Nahor; and is called in Genesis (see above) the father of Aram, which is the same as Ram. A city of the name of Buz is found in Jer 25:23, which probably had its name from this family; and, as it is mentioned with Dedan and Tema, we know it must have been a city in Idumea, as the others were in that district. Instead of the kindred of Ram, the Chaldee has of the kindred of Abraham. But still the question has been asked, Who was Elihu? I answer, He was “the son of Barachel the Buzite, of the kindred of Ram:” this is all we know of him. But this Scriptural answer will not satisfy those who are determined to find out mysteries where there are none. Some make him a descendant of Judah; St. Jerome, Bede, Lyranus, and some of the rabbins, make him Balaam the son of Beor, the magician; Bishop Warburton makes him Ezra the scribe; and Dr. Hodges makes him the second person in the glorious Trinity, the Lord Jesus Christ, and supposes that the chief scope of this part of the book was to convict Job of self-righteousness, and to show the necessity of the doctrine of justification by faith! When these points are proved, they should be credited.
Because he justified himself rather than God.] Literally, he justified his soul, naphhso, before God. He defended, not only the whole of his conduct, but also his motives, thoughts, &c.
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
The Buzite; of the posterity of Buz, Nahors son, Gen 22:21.
Of the kindred of Ram, or of Aram; for Ram and Aram are used promiscuously: compare 2Ki 8:28, with 2Ch 22:5; Rth 4:19; Mat 1:3. Others, of Abraham, who as he was called Abram, possibly was at first called only Ram. His pedigree is thus particularly described, partly for his honour, because his speech declares him to be both a wise and a good man; and principally to evidence the truth of this history, which otherwise might seem to be but a poetical fiction.
He justified himself rather than God; he justified himself, not without reflection upon God, as dealing too severely with him, and denying him that hearing which he so passionately desired. He took more care to maintain his own innocency than Gods glory.
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole
2. Elihumeaning “God isJehovah.” In his name and character as messenger between God andJob, he foreshadows Jesus Christ (Job33:23-26).
Barachelmeaning “Godblesses.” Both names indicate the piety of the family and theirseparation from idolaters.
BuziteBuz was son ofNahor, brother of Abraham. Hence was named a region in Arabia-Deserta(Jer 25:23).
RamAram, nephew ofBuz. Job was probably of an older generation than Elihu. However, theidentity of names does not necessarily prove the identity of persons.The particularity with which Elihu’s descent is given, as contrastedwith the others, led LIGHTFOOTto infer Elihu was the author of the book. But the reason forparticularity was, probably, that Elihu was less known thanthe three called “friends” of Job; and that it was rightfor the poet to mark especially him who was mainly to solve theproblem of the book.
rather than Godthatis, was more eager to vindicate himself than God. In Job4:17, Job denies that man can be more just than God.UMBREIT translates,”Before (in the presence of) God.”
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible
Then was kindled the wrath of Elihu the son of Barachel the Buzite,…. Both against Job and his three friends, for reasons after given; who this person was is not easy to say; they debase him too much, who make him to be Balaam the soothsayer, according to the tradition of the Jews g; for neither the time he lived in, nor his character, will agree with him; this man living before the times of Balaam; and being also a holy good man, which all his discourses show: and they too much exalt him who make him to be Christ; for though some phrases, being strained, may seem to agree with him, and some things in the signification of his name, and the names of his ancestors, may be thought to answer to him; Elihu signifying, “my God is he”; the son of Barachel, “the son of the blessed God”; of the kindred of Ram, of the high and holy line; the Buzite, one “despised” and reproached; yet there are other things that cannot be said of him, as particularly in
Job 32:22; besides, the Messiah seems to be spoken of by him as another person, Job 33:23; it is very probable that he was one of Job’s relations that was come to visit him in his melancholy circumstances, had been a bystander, and an hearer of the whole dispute between Job and his friends, with the management of which he was not a little displeased; he is described by his descent, when Job’s other three friends are not, because he was a young man, and not known as they were: and this serves to show the truth of this history, that it is not a mere apologue, or moral fable, but a real fact; though who his father Barachel the Buzite was cannot easily be determined; it is probable he was a descendant of Buz, the son of Nahor, Abraham’s brother, Ge 22:20; of this opinion are Aben Ezra and Ben Gersom; unless it can be thought he was so called from the city Buz, of which he might be an inhabitant, mentioned along with Dedan and Tema,
Jer 25:23, places in Edom or Idumea, where or near to which Job lived:
of the kindred of Ram; according to the Targum, of the kindred of Abraham, in which it is followed by other Jewish writers h; and some even take him to be Isaac, the son of Abraham i; Aben Ezra thinks he is the same with Ram the father of Amminadab, Ru 4:19; but he is abundantly too late for this man to be of his kindred; others take him to be the same with Aram, the son of Kemuel, a brother of Buz,
Ge 22:21; these names being used for one another, either by adding or removing a letter; see Mt 1:3; compared with Ru 4:19;
against Job was his wrath kindled, because he justified himself rather than God; not that he made himself more just than God, he could never think or say so, see Job 4:17; nor that he was just before him or by him; for he was so in an evangelic, though not in a legal sense; and Elihu would not have been displeased with him for asserting that; he did not deny that Job was a righteous man in the sight of God; nor that he was righteous, and in the right in the sight of God, with respect to the controversy between him and his friends; nor did he blame him for justifying himself from their charges; but that he justified himself “more” than God; so the Jewish writers k generally render it: he spent more time, and insisted longer on his own justification than upon the justification of God in the dealings of his providence with him; he was more careful of his own character and reputation than he was of the honour of God, and the glory of his justice; he said more for himself than he did for God; and this displeased Elihu; it gave this good man some concern, that, though Job did not directly charge God with unrighteousness in his dealings with him, yet by consequence; and he expressed himself in such language that would bear such a construction, whether it was his real sense or not; and to hear him complain so heavily of God, and at the same time enlarge so much on his own innocence, and to importune in so bold and daring a manner to have a hearing of his cause; these things being observed by Elihu, raised his choler and indignation.
g T. Hieros. Sotah, fol. 20. 4. Hieron. Quaest. seu Traditiones in Gen. fol. 69. D. so Bolducius. h Jarchi, Bar Tzemach, &c. i T. Hieros. Sotah, fol. 20. 4. k Jarchi, Aben Ezra. Ben Gersom.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
Verses 2-22:
Verse 2 Introduces Elihu, a rash young man, intemperate of speech conceited and ready to make an assault against Job’s Integrity of character. He was a Buzite, of the kindred of Ram, and the son of Barchel, Gen 22:21, of the lineage of Nahor, and Milcah, Abraham’s brother, and his wife. The name Elihu means, “God Is Jehovah,” Barachel his father’s name means, “God blesses.” A region in Arabian Deserts was named for Buz, Nahor’s son, Jer 25:23.
Verses 3-5 add that Elihu was angry also against Job’s three friends because they had condemned Job without securing any confession of great sin from him or offering a single witness to prove their accusations. He justly concluded that the three had offered nothing more than Insinuations of character debasing nature, without any sustaining evidence. He had waited until Job and his three accusers had completely finished their addresses, but out of respect for their seniority or age, that was far above his, 1Pe 5:5.
Verse 6 states that Eilhu then addressed Job and his three friends, first conceding that he was young, a junior and they were ail very old. And because of his respect for and cowing fear of their disapproval, or offending them he had waited long to speak, to express his opinion or judgment on why the righteous come to suffer, Job 15:10; Deu 32:24-25.
Verses 7, 8 recount Elihu’s concession that “days should speak and multitude of years should teach,” the voice of the aged should be highly esteemed first, Job 15:10. Yet he set forth the premise, a true one, that there exists a spirit, In every man; And the inspiration of the Almighty doles out understanding to them, a very true premise, as set forth Job 35:11; Job 38:36; Job 1 Kg 3:12; 4:29; Proverbs 26; Ecc 2:26; Dan 1:17; Dan 2:21; Mat 11:25; Jas 1:5; Joh 8:57; Joh 20:22.
Verses 9,10 add that great old men (leaders) are not always wise, v.6. Neither do old men, the greater always comprehend judgment, witnessed by the fall of Pharaoh in the Red Sea and both Belshazzar and Nebuchadenezzar, as well as Herod and his fall, Act 12:20-23.
Verse 10 asserts that based on this factual premise he requested that they listen to his opinion or knowledgeable judgment in the matter of the suffering of the righteous.
Verses 11,12 are a direct address of Elihu to Eliphaz, Bildad, and Zophar. He told them that he had waited in patience for their extended reasoning against Job, as they often faltered to search out or grasp what to say. He affirmed that he had listened, with definitive detail to their words, and it was his opinion that each had completely failed to convince Job that his afflictions were sent of God for personal sins. He joined with Job in telling them that they had totally lost their hot-air debate; Their invalid arguments were empty, without factual evidence, 1Co 2:14; 1Co 3:19.
Verse 13 declares that they had failed in their arguments against Job, because they had totally relied on platitudes and proverbial bits of wisdom of the flesh from the ages, apart from or without spiritual light or revelation from God, which he claimed to have. God had cast Job down or permitted his calamity, but not for the reasons they had posed, without evidence, Job 2:6-10; Jer 9:23. The great argument is that only God can cast a man down, not man. Elihu’s words appeal to his claim of a special commission or direction of the spirit of God, v.8; Job 33:4; Job 33:6; 1Co 1:29.
Verse 14 recounts that Elihu disclaimed any prejudice against either Job or his friends, yet, he told those friends that Job had not addressed his remarks to him, but to the three of them, he was therefore without ground for prejudice toward either of them or Job in what he would say, at length. He did declare to them that he would not use any of their speeches against Job for a basis of any of his remarks.
Verse 15 discloses that they (the three friends) were amazed, startled, shocked; They laid off, withdraw, or refrained from trying to defend themselves any more at all, either to him or to Job. Their wisdom was of the world, foolish or moronic and their faint hearts melted under his rebuke, 1Co 3:19.
Verses 16, 17 add that when Elihu had made the above remarks about the speeches of Job’s three friends they stood dumbfounded, unable, or afraid to reply. He states that though younger he now feels justified in the spirit to answer or speak on his part, to give his judgment with reference to Job’s affliction, v.10, 11.
Verse 18 declares that Elihu claimed to be full of the matter, much to say, whereas Job’s friends had come to dumbfounded defeat, would not open their mouths further, v.15, 16. He asserted that the “spirit within me constraineth me,” a thing neither of Job’s feigned friends claimed, Job 33:4; Like Jeremiah he “could not stay,” Jer 20:9; and like Paul he was “pressed in the spirit,” Act 18:5; Psa 58:11; Exo 4:15; Rev 22:19.
Verse 19 witnesses that he was stirred like one whose belly was full of wine which had no vent or release. He must speak or burst; He added that he was ready to burst, explode like bottles of new wine, as also expressed Mat 9:17; Act 12:22. He was moved like the apostles who had to speak or witness what they had seen and heard, Act 4:20; Jer 20:9.
Verse 20 continues Elihu’s declaration that he will now set forth to unburden his soul that he may be refreshed, or relieved of the weight of the message on his heart. He stated he was ready to open his lips and give an answer on the question “why the righteous suffer,” He needed an air of relief, 1Sa 16:23.
Verse 21 recounts Elihu’s resolve not to accept any man’s person, to avoid partiality toward either Job or God, a thing Job’s three friends had not done, Job 13:8-10. He also asked them to excuse him from giving flattering titles to any man; For such is unbecoming in matters of impartial judgment, Pro 24:23.
Verse 22 states Elihu’s claim that he did not know how to give or dole out flattering titles, Pro 24:23. For in so doing he declared that his maker, his God, would soon take him away to be judged for using deceit in judgment, Psa 102:24. He feared to engage in such, Pro 29:25. See also Psa 78:36; Pro 2:16; Pro 24:24; Eze 33:31; Isa 29:13; Mat 15:8-9; Mr 7:6, 7.
Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary
(2) Because he justified himself rather than God.See Job. 19:6. Job maintained his innocence, and could not understand how his affliction could be reconciled with the justice of God. Yet, at the same time, he declared that God was his salvation (Job. 13:16), and that it was impossible for man to be absolutely just with God (Job. 9:2; Job. 9:28), though at the same time he might hope in His righteousness (Job. 23:3 seqq.).
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
2. Elihu My God is he, (Gesenius.) This name, together with that of his father, Barachel, “May God bless,” points to a religious line of descent, perhaps through Nahor, the brother of Abraham. Gen 22:21. The Buzite Huz and Buz, the names of two sons of Nahor, Abraham’s brother, thus reappear, the one in the name of Job’s country, and the other in that of the tribe to which Elihu belonged. “The circumstance of his belonging to the family of Buz was thus pointedly mentioned by the sacred writer to draw respectful attention to him, notwithstanding his youth, on account of his relationship to Abraham.” ( Kitto, D.B.I.) Genealogical wastes like that of Gen 22:21 are made to blossom, as one part of the Scripture thus interweaves itself with another.
Kindred of Ram Ewald and others think the word Ram may be interchangeable with the Aram mentioned in Genesis in connexion with Huz and Buz. Gen 22:21. This may sufficiently account for the Aramaic forms of speech with which the language of Elihu is marked, and nullify all objections urged against Elihu on the ground of his Aramaisms.
Rather than God The same comparison as in Job 4:17, on which see note.
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
Job 32:2. Elihu, the son of Barachel, &c. Elihu, a new personage, here makes his appearance. Attentive all the time to the debate between Job and his friends, he utters not a word till both sides have done speaking; and then shews, that a stander-by, though of less abilities and penetration, may sometimes see farther into a dispute than those who are eagerly engaged therein; and who, by having their passions raised to an undue height, are very apt to carry things to an extreme. This useful moral presents itself to us, in the strongest light, from the description here given of Elihu, a young man, of little knowledge and experience in comparison of the other speakers, who were famous for wisdom, and venerable for their years. Elihu is said to be the son of Barachel the Buzite, but of the family of Ram: he also was descended from Nahor, (see the note on chap. Job 2:11.) and, taking up his habitation in the country of the Buzites, had thence his denomination; but he is very carefully distinguished by the author from the posterity of Buz; being described as a descendant from Ram, or Aram, who was the grandson of Nahor, by his son Kemuel. The land of Buz was, doubtless, somewhere in the neighbourhood of Job, as the posterity of Nahor settled in this country. It is mentioned in Jer 25:23 and joined with Dedan and Temah; and therefore, like them, was most probably a city of Edom. Elihu was provoked at the behaviour of Job, as well as that of the three friends: at Job, for attempting so to vindicate himself, as to leave an imputation of injustice on God’s providence; at the three friends, for charging Job with such atrocious crimes, and falling so miserably short when they should have come to the proof, as not to be able to convict him of one of them. Elihu therefore, having waited awhile for the reply of the friends, and finding that they had no intention of making any, begins with a modest apology, drawn from his youth, for his engaging in the dispute at all;for old age in those days was so highly honoured, that a young man scarcely dared to open his mouth before his elders: Job 32:6-10. He tells them, that he has waited a long time to hear what they would offer; but, finding that they do not design to reply, he desires their leave to speak his opinion; a liberty, however, in which he would not indulge himself if they were willing to make answer, or could any way convict Job of what they had laid to his charge: he adds, that his intention was, to attack him in a manner quite different from what they had done; for which reason he should not think himself at all obliged to answer the arguments that he had urged against them: Job 32:11-14. But at the same time he declares that it was not his intention to speak partially in his favour; since the acceptance of persons was a crime which, he was sensible, would be severely punished by the Almighty: Job 32:21-22. He therefore addresses Job, and gives him to understand, that the manner in which he had urged his defence, and the representation that he had made of the treatment which he had received at the hands of the Almighty, were very unbecoming: chap. Job 33:1-9. He had represented himself as perfectly innocent, and God as inflicting punishment upon him without a cause; but he ought to consider that he was a man, and consequently liable to many infirmities, and therefore should readily acknowledge the justice of God’s providence, Job 33:9-13. That God had, by revelation, declared the manner of behaviour which was acceptable to him; which was, to put away the evil of his doings, and to cast off all pride; hinting, that this last was, at the bottom, the real motive to his stubborn behaviour: Job 33:14-19. That, if he would conform himself to this rule, he might expect, though he was even at death’s door, that God would restore him to his health and vigour; more especially if he had a prophet near him (intimating that he himself was such a one) who would represent his past righteousness in his behalf before God; in which case, he would have an opportunity in the face of all his people: Job 33:20-22. This, however, must be attended with a confession of his faults, a public acknowledgement of God’s justice, and a sincere purpose of amendment. If he had any objection to make to this, he desires him to make it; if not, to have patience with him, while he shewed him the course which, he was persuaded, it was his wisest method to pursue, Job 33:29 to the end. See Peters and Heath. But we shall not be just to the argument, if we omit to mention here, that Dr. Hodges, in a work intitled Elihu, has advanced a very peculiar opinion respecting that personage, and with regard to the principal scope and design of the Book of Job. He supposes Elihu to have been no other than the second person in the Divine Trinity, the Son of the blessed God, who assumes the office of mediator, and speaks the same language with Jehovah: see the 38th and following chapters. And he conceives, that the chief scope of the book, and the principal intention of Elihu, was, to convict Job of self-righteousness; and to instruct him, and all mankind, in the great doctrine of justification by faith: see Rom 3:21; Rom 3:31. We refer such of our readers as are desirous of knowing more respecting this opinion, to the work which is written in support of it. See also the Reflections.
Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke
(2) Then was kindled the wrath of Elihu the son of Barachel the Buzite, of the kindred of Ram: against Job was his wrath kindled, because he justified himself rather than God.
The wrath of man worketh not the righteousness of God. Yet Elihu’s anger was not altogether out of place. It seems that Elihu’s anger was not so much against Job for justifying himself, as for justifying himself rather than GOD. And certain it is, that if Job had only made use of the arguments he brought forward to show GOD’S righteousness was not at all impeached by his afflictions, instead of endeavoring to show that his unrighteousness was not the cause wherefore he was thus visited, though the issue would have been the same, yet the method would have been more suitable and becoming. Elihu’s anger therefore was excited against Job, because he seemed to have manifested a greater jealousy for his own character than for the glory of GOD. The name of Elihu is striking. Eli signifies my GOD ; – hu, is he. Perhaps a Buzite might mean, that he was a descendant from that Buz which is spoken of, Gen 22:21 .
Fuente: Hawker’s Poor Man’s Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
Job 32:2 Then was kindled the wrath of Elihu the son of Barachel the Buzite, of the kindred of Ram: against Job was his wrath kindled, because he justified himself rather than God.
Ver. 2. Then was kindled the wrath of Elihu ] Or, Then burnt the nose of Elihu; a periphrasis of anger, which appeareth in the nose, eyes, and other parts of the body. Quis enim celaverit ignem? Who can hide fire? The Rabbis have a saying, that a man shows what he is becos, bechis, becagnas, by his purse, his cups, and his anger; which, if it be rash and unadvised, is a mortal sin, and not venial (as the Papists falsely infer from Mat 5:22 ), dispossessing a man of his wit and reason, and disfiguring his body with fieriness of the face, swelling of the veins, stammering of the tongue, gnashing of the teeth, and many other impotent and unmanly behaviours. Hence angry men were counselled, in the heat of their fit, to look themselves in a glass, where they may see themselves swollen like a toad, glowing like a devil, &c. But Elihu’s anger was not of this kind. A fire it was, but the flame of God, as holy zeal is called, Son 8:6 , a most vehement flame (as it is there rendered) kindled upon the hearth of his heart by the spirit of judgment and of burning, Isa 4:4 , and such as many waters could not quench, for the zeal is the extreme heat of all the affections; and the coals thereof are coals of fire, Son 8:6 , only we must see that it burns clear and quick, without all smoke of sin; wherein, though Elihu somewhat faulted, yet, because he was right for the main, all was well taken. We are apt to mingle sin with our best actions, and so to plough with an ox and an ass. But God considers whereof we are made, and graciously lays the finger of mercy on the scars of our sins, as that painter in the story.
Of Elihu the son of Barachel the Buzite
Of the kindred of Ram
Because he justified himself rather than God
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
Elihu = God is Jehovah; or, my God is He. Not named before. His addresses occupy six chapters, His two counts of indictment (verses: Job 32:2, Job 32:3) are based upon what precedes, and lead up to “the end of the Lord” in what follows from Job 32:13.
Barachel = whom God hath blessed.
Buzite. Descended from Buz, the second son of Nahor, the brother of Abraham (Gen 22:20, Gen 22:21). See notes on p. 666.
Ram = Aram, related to Buz (Gen 22:21).
himself = his soul. Hebrew. nephesh. App-13.
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
Elihu
Elihu has a far juster and more spiritual conception of the problem than Eliphaz, Bildad, and Zophar because he has an infinitely higher conception of God. The God of Eliphaz and the others, great though they perceive Him to be in His works, becomes in their thought petty and exacting in His relations with mankind. It is the fatal misconception of all religious externalists and moralizers. Their God is always a small God. Elihu’s account of God is noble and true, and it is noteworthy that at the last Jehovah does not class him with Eliphaz, Bildad, and Zophar (cf) Job 42:7 but he is still a dogmatist, and his eloquent discourse is marred by self-assertiveness (e.g); Job 32:8; Job 32:9; Job 33:3. Jehovah’s judgment of Elihu is that he darkened counsel by words Job 38:2 the very charge that Elihu had brought against Job.; Job 34:35; Job 35:16. Furthermore, the discourse of Jehovah is wholly free from the accusations of Job with which even Elihu’s lofty discourse abounds.
himself Heb. his soul.
Fuente: Scofield Reference Bible Notes
kindled: Psa 69:9, Mar 3:5, Eph 4:26
Buzite: Gen 22:21
because: Job 10:3, Job 27:2, Job 34:5, Job 34:6, Job 34:17, Job 34:18, Job 35:2, Job 40:8, Luk 10:29
himself: Heb. his soul
Reciprocal: Job 9:2 – how Job 9:20 – justify Job 9:24 – if not Job 32:5 – his wrath Job 36:3 – ascribe Job 42:7 – My Eze 18:25 – way Act 17:16 – his spirit
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
Job 32:2-4. Then was kindled the wrath of Elihu Elihu, a new personage, here makes his appearance. Attentive, all the while, to the debate between Job and his friends, he utters not a word till both sides have done speaking; and then shows, that a stander-by may sometimes see further into a dispute than they who are eagerly engaged therein, and who, by having their passions raised to an undue height, are very apt to carry things to an extreme. The son of Barachel the Buzite Of the posterity of Buz, Nahors son, Gen 22:21; of the kindred of Ram Or, Aram; for the names Ram and Aram are used promiscuously in the Hebrew, as the learned reader may see, by comparing 2Ki 8:28, and 2Ch 22:5. The land of Buz was doubtless somewhere in the neighbourhood of Job, as the posterity of Nahor settled in this country. His pedigree is thus particularly described, partly for his honour, as being both a wise and a good man, and principally to evidence the truth of this history. Because he (Job) justified himself rather than God He justified himself not without reflection upon God, as dealing severely with him. He took more care to maintain his own innocence than Gods glory. The word Elihu signifies, My God is he. They had all tried in vain to convince Job, but My God is he, who both can and will convince him. Elihu was not a little provoked at the behaviour of Job for attempting so to vindicate himself as to leave an imputation of injustice on Gods providence. Also against his three friends was his wrath kindled For charging Job with such atrocious crimes, and falling so miserably short, when they should have come to the proof, as not to be able to convict him of one of them. Now Elihu had waited With patience and expectation, as the word , chiccha, here used, means; till Job had spoken And his three friends; because they were elder than he Old age in those days was so highly honoured, that a young man scarcely dared to open his mouth before his elders. Elihu therefore begins with a very modest apology for his engaging in the dispute at all, drawn from his youth. He tells them he had waited a long while to hear what they would offer; but, finding they did not design to reply, he desired their leave to speak his opinion; a liberty, however, which he would not indulge himself in, if they were willing to make an answer, or could any way convict Job of what they had laid to his charge. He intimates that his intention was to attack him in a quite different manner from what they had done, for which reason he should not think himself at all obliged to answer the same arguments he had urged against them. But, at the same time, he declares it was not his intention to speak partially in his favour, since the acceptance of persons was a crime which he was sensible would be severely punished by the Almighty.
Fuente: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
32:2 Then was kindled the wrath of Elihu the son of Barachel the {a} Buzite, of the kindred of {b} Ram: against Job was his wrath kindled, because he justified himself {c} rather than God.
(a) Which came from Buz, the son of Nahor, Abraham’s brother.
(b) Or, as the Chaldee translation reads, Abram.
(c) By making himself innocent, and by charging God of rigour.