Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Job 34:33
[Should it be] according to thy mind? he will recompense it, whether thou refuse, or whether thou choose; and not I: therefore speak what thou knowest.
33. Elihu’s answer to this complaint is that it is a claim to regulate the government of God, to give laws to Him how He shall act, and to decide how He shall recompense. Such a position the complainer takes but for himself Elihu repudiates it: Thou must choose, not I. In the concluding words, speak that which thou knowest, Elihu invites Job to state that method of “recompense” which shall be “according to his mind” and better than that observed in God’s rule of the world.
The above seems the most natural interpretation to put on this difficult passage. The A.V., in rendering surely it is meet to be said ( Job 34:31), assumes an irregularity of punctuation which is very improbable. And to regard Job 34:31-32 as a serious confession and example of how a right-minded man would speak greatly impairs the vigour of the passage, and gives a much looser connexion with Job 34:33.
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
Should it be according to thy mind? – Margin, as in Hebrew from with thee – hameimeka. There has been much diversity of opinion in regard to the meaning of this verse. It is exceedingly obscure in the original, and has the appearance of being a proverbial expression. The general sense seems to be, that God will not be regulated in his dealings by what may be the views of man, or by what man might be disposed to choose or refuse. He will act according to his own views of what is right and proper to be done. The phrase, should it be according to thy mind, means that it is not to be expected that God will consult the views and feelings of man rather than his own.
He will recompense it – He will visit with good or evil, prosperity or adversity, according as he shall judge to be right.
Whether thou refuse, or whether thou choose – Whatever may be your preferenccs or wishes. He will act according to his own views of right. The idea is, that God is absolute and independent, and does according to his own pleasure. He is a just Sovereign, dispensing his favors and appointing calamity, not according to the will of individual people, but holding the scales impartially, and doing what he esteems to be right.
And not I – Rosenmuller, Drusius, DeWette, and Noyes, render this, And not he, supposing that it refers to God, and means that the arrangements which are to affect people should be as he pleases, and not such as man would prefer. Umbreit explains it as meaning, It is for you to determine in this matter, not for me. You are the person most interested. I am not particularly concerned. Do you, therefore, speak and determine the matter, if you know what is the truth. The Vulgate renders it, Will God seek that from thee because it displeases thee? For thou hast begun to speak, not I: for if thou knowest anything better, speak. So Coverdale, Wilt thou not give a reasonable answer? Art thou afraid of anything, seeing thou begannest first to speak, and not I? The great difficulty of the whole verse may be seen by consulting Schultens, who gives no less than seventeen different interpretations, which have been proposed – his own being different from all others. He renders it, Lo, he will repay you in your own way; for thou art full of sores – namquesubulceratus es: which, indeed, thou hast chosen, and not I – and what dost thou know? speak. I confess that I cannot understand the passage, nor do any of the interpretations proposed seem to be free from objections. I would submit the following, however, as a paraphrase made from the Hebrew, and differing somewhat from any interpretation which I have seen, as possibly expressing the true sense of the whole verse. Shall it be from thee that God will send retribution on it (that is, on human conduct), because thou refusest or art reluctant, or because it is not in accordance with thy views? For thou must choose, and not I. Settle this matter, for it pertains particularly to you, and not to me, and what thou knowest, speak. If thou hast any views in regard to this, let them be expressed, for it is important to know on what principles God deals with men.
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible
Job 34:33
Should it be according to thy mind?
Conceit rebuked
The verse is written in language of the most ancient kind, which is but little understood. Moreover, it is extremely pithy and sententious, and hence it is obscure. The sense given in our version is, however, that which sums up the other translations, and we prefer to adhere to it.
I. Do men really think that things should be according to their mind?
1. Concerning God. Their ideas of Him are according to what they think He should be; but could He be God at all if He were such as the human mind would have Him to be?
2. Concerning Providence on a large scale, would men rewrite history? Do they imagine that their arrangements would be an improvement upon infinite wisdom? In their own case they would arrange all matters selfishly. Should it be so?
3. Concerning the Gospel, its doctrines, its precepts, its results, should men have their own way? Should the atonement be left out, or the statement of it be modified to suit them?
4. Concerning the Church. Should they be head and lord? Should their liberal ideas erase inspiration? Should Baptism and the Lords Supper be distorted to gratify them? Should taste override Divine commands? Should the ministry exist only for their special consolation, and be moulded at their bidding?
II. What leads them to think so?
1. Self-importance and selfishness.
2. Self-conceit and pride.
3. A murmuring spirit which must needs grumble at everything.
4. Want of faith in Christ leading to a doubt of the power of His Gospel.
5. Want of love to God, souring the mind and leading it to kick at a thing simply because the Lord prescribes it.
III. What a mercy that things are not according to their mind!
1. Gods glory would be obscured.
2. Many would suffer to enable one man to play the dictator.
3. We should, any one of us, have an awful responsibility resting upon us if our own mind had the regulation of affairs.
4. Our temptations would be increased. We should be proud if we succeeded, and despairing if we met with failure.
5. Our desires would become more greedy.
6. Our sins would he uncorrected; for we should never allow a rod or a rebuke to come at us.
7. There would be universal strife; for every man would want to rule and command (Jam 4:5).
If it ought to be according to your mind, why not according to mine?
IV. Let us check the spirit which suggests such conceit.
1. It is impracticable; for things can never be, as so many different minds would have them.
2. It is unreasonable; for things ought not so to be.
3. It is unchristian; for even Christ Jesus pleased not Himself, but cried, Not as I will (Mat 26:39).
4. It is atheistic; for it dethrones God to set up puny man. Pray God to bring your mind to His will. Cultivate admiration for the arrangements of the Divine mind. Above all, accept the Gospel as it is, and accept it now. (C. H. Spurgeon.)
A word to the God-criticising man
I. Should the arrangements of life be according to thy mind? Those who are constantly murmuring under the dispensations of Providence should remember–
1. The circumscribed sphere of their observation.
2. The limitation of human faculties.
3. The brevity of mans mortal existence.
4. The narrowness of human sympathies.
II. Should the method of redemption be according to thy mind? There are many who raise objections to Christianity. Many who imagine that they could have constructed a better system of spiritual redemption. Two facts convince us that the human mind is utterly incompetent to form a scheme for spiritual restoration.
1. The mistakes it has made on the subject in interpreting nature.
2. The mistakes it has made on the subject in interpreting Christianity. The perverters of the Gospel plan of salvation may be divided into two grand classes.
(1) Those that infer from Christianity that they can be saved by a mere intellectual faith in certain theological propositions.
(2) Those that infer that they can be saved by an external observance of certain ceremonies–the intervention of priests, the invocation of saints, the observance of sacraments, etc. Thus we say to the captious sceptic, we cannot have a system of religion according to thy mind. Thy mind is utterly unsuited to construct a religion redemptive to man and acceptable to God. Eye hath not seen, ear hath not heard, etc. (Homilist.)
The condemnation of self-will
The speaker is Elihu. The meaning of the question is obvious. Shall the Supreme Being do nothing without thy consent? Should He ask counsel of thee? Job would instantly have answered, No.
I. To have things according to our mind is a very common wish. Man is naturally self-willed. The disposition appears very early in our children. All sin is a contention against the will of God. It began in Paradise. Enter the world of grace. Behold the revelation which God has given us. One deems it unnecessary; for a second it is too simple; for a third it is too mysterious. We seek to be justified by our own works, while the Gospel assures us we must be justified by the faith of Christ. The same is seen in the world of providence. Who is content with such things as he has? Who does not covet what is denied him? Who does not long to be at his own disposal? But is not this disposition crushed in conversion? Alas, too much of self-will remains even in the choicest saints. We are far from saying that they would have nothing done according to Gods mind, but they are often solicitous to have too many things done according to their own.
II. The desire is unreasonable. For we are wholly unqualified to govern; while God is in every way adequate to the work in which He is engaged. Nothing can be more absurd than to labour to displease Him, and substitute ourselves as the creators of destiny, the regulators of events. Have you not often found yourselves mistaken where you thought yourselves most sure? Have you not frequently erred in judging yourselves, and generally erred in judging others? And hove can we decide on the means which the Supreme Being employs, while we are ignorant of the reasons which move Him, and the plan which He holds in view?
III. The desire is criminal. The sources are bad.
1. It argues ingratitude. It is infinite condescension in God to be mindful of us. For all this He surely deserves our thankful acknowledgments, and we insult Him with murmuring complaints.
2. It springs from discontent. It shows that we are dissatisfied with His dealings, for if we were not dissatisfied why do we desire a change?
3. It betrays earthly-mindedness. The soul feels it when cleaving to the dust. According to our attachments will be, all through life, our afflictions and our perplexities. More attached are we to our fleshy interests than to our spiritual concerns.
4. It is the produce of impatience. This will suffer no delay, and bear no denial.
5. It is the offspring of pride and independence. It is a presumptuous invasion of the authority and prerogative of God. Your place is the footstool, not the throne. Maintain your distance here, and do not encroach on the Divine rights.
IV. The desire is dangerous. If it were accomplished, all parties would suffer,–God, our fellow creatures, and ourselves. In a word, you would be too ignorant to choose well. In order to determine what will promote our happiness, it is necessary for us to know the things themselves from among which we are to make our choice. Nor is it less needful to understand ourselves, For a man must be adapted to his condition, or he will never be happy in it. Here another difficulty occurs. It is impossible for us to judge of ourselves in untried circumstances and connections. We are not only liable to err on the side of our hopes, but also of our fears.
V. The desire is impracticable.
1. The desires of mankind are often opposite to each other; hence they cannot all be accomplished.
2. The plan of Divine government is already fixed. Learn–
(1) Not to think ourselves guilty of the disposition to censure, when we only indulge allowed desire.
(2) The subject preaches submission.
(3) It inspires with consolation. (Willlam Jay.)
Gods providence
Gods work of providence is His most holy, wise, and powerful, preserving and governing all His creatures and all their actions. The truth is, we must either bring God into all, or keep God out of all. To Him, and to His presiding providence, all must be attributed–all or nothing. If the great events of life are brought about by the hand of God, so also must the little; for, in the web of human destiny, the two are inseparably interwoven. There are some who reject this view of Gods providence. It is not consistent with their notions of the dignity and greatness of God, to think of Him as taking notice of our race in its feebleness and insignificance. What is the reply? We argue too much from ourselves up to the Almighty. We know only a few things: we know nothing thoroughly. It is only the outside of things we see. It is one of the sad entails of scientific exploration, that we have got, in these latter days, into a labyrinthine maze of second causes The belief in Providence is too happy to be parted with. God is watching all our fortune, guarding all our welfare, guiding all our way. The mysterious and fearful dispensations of His providence may seem inscrutable and past finding out. Alas! we are all very apt to believe in Providence when we get our own way, but when things go awry, we think, if there is a God, He is in heaven, and not on the earth. (A. B. Jack, D. D.)
God judges better than man
When we consider that there is a God of infinite perfection at the head of the universe, extending His providence to every event, and making it the expression of His will, it seems to be the plainest of all truths that such creatures as we are, ought to be cheerfully subject to His disposal. Time was when submission to God on the part of man was not deemed grievous. Then the will of man and the will of his God were one. But man would be wiser than his Maker, and vainly imagined that, in consulting his own will, higher satisfaction was to be found than in according with the holy will of a perfect God: in the same path of miserable adventure have gone, ever since, his blind and unhappy offspring. To develop this form of human selfishness, and to show how unbecoming it is in such a creature as man, let us consider it–
I. As highly presumptuous. Look at the lesson of experience. In all their estimates men are not merely liable to mistakes, but they constantly fall into them. The very events to which men are chiefly indebted for their happiness are not of their own contriving. It is the testimony of experience, that we neither understand well how to choose events, nor how to control them. The presumption is still more strikingly apparent if we reflect on our own incompetence to govern. Can we even look through time? Can we cast an eye over immensity and through eternity? The presumption is still more striking when we reflect on our inability by comparison or contrast. What is man, and what is God?
II. This desire, if accomplished would be fatal to the highest and best interests. What would become of the glory of God? The effects would not be less fatal to the interests of any community. It would be equally fatal to the individual interests of lash. And still more fatal to their spiritual interests. How differently we should order events from the manner in which God orders them, if things might be according to our mind.
III. This state of mind is highly offensive to God. It betrays almost every evil temper and disposition. It shows a sordid attachment to our own selfish interests. This desire betrays also dissatisfaction with God. It bespeaks ingratitude to God. It is in direct rebellion against God. To govern the world is the prerogative of God. To wish to change the administration at all is an invasion of that prerogative, and high treason against the King of kings. It is distrust of God. Remarks–
1. Submission to the Divine will is necessary to secure the blessings which we need.
2. Acquiescence in the Divine will is a duty which respects a/l events.
3. Let this subject support us under the trials of this world, and animate us in our way to a better. (N. W. Taylor, D. D.)
Presumption reproved
This was a very proper question to be put to Job, whose danger was, to challenge and arraign the ways of God. But the principle reproved in him is largely diffused among men. Our proneness to oppose our judgments to the Divine determinations sometimes appears.
I. With respect to the extent of the Divine law. We allow His right to govern. God claims to govern the opinions of men; to regulate the will, by a wise adjustment of its degrees of choice to the degrees of moral goodness.
II. With respect to religion as a matter of experience. If it were according to thy mind, what would be the system of experimental piety set before us?
III. With reference to the method of our pardon as sinners. That beings who have so greatly offended should ever stand upon being pardoned in a way prescribed by themselves to their greatly-offended God, though a strange fact, is yet established. And here man claims, proudly and petulantly claims, that it shall be according to his mind.
IV. The principle is illustrated in another, but not an uninstructive manner by that tendency there is in us to wrestle with the appointments of God in the choice of our lot and portion in life. Here, indeed, we not unfrequently think that it ought to be according to our mind: and we as often find ourselves very painfully crossed in our endeavours to make it so.
V. This principle is apt to show itself, even in good men, in what we may call the circumstances of their experience. Far better take religion as described in the Scriptures. To take our providential lot, and extract good from it. And to leave the process of our recovery from sin to holiness in the hands of God. (R. Watson.)
The mind of God
The mind of man is not the mind of God. Suppose man had the ordering of things, what an alteration would he make in the Lords counsels and arrangements. Is the mind of the spiritual man opposite to that of God? Through the abounding grace of his Redeemer it is in great measure otherwise. But in him, yea, even in him, there is a frame of mind, at times, which rises, or which strives to rise, against the mind of God. There are certain dispensations of Gods providence which even he is often under strong temptations to wish otherwise. When affliction comes upon him, he sometimes thinks Gods hand presses too sore, and beyond what the case asks for. Even the mind of the believer is not, in many points, conformed to the mind of God. Consider a comparison of God and His creatures.
1. In point of rank and eminency.
2. In point of wisdom.
3. Think of the Lords graciousness and goodness.
The experience of all ages is enough to teach us how ill it has been when things have been according to mens own minds, and how well it has been when they have submitted to the mind of God. The Lord has sometimes let men have their own way; and sad has been the consequence. A last reason why the believer ought not to desire that things should be according to his mind, is that such was not the spirit of Christ his Saviour. Even Christ pleased not Himself. And yet how much reason there is to fear that this is the secret wish of too many of us. Else why so much of fretfulness and discontent when things are not according to our mind? (A. Roberts, M. A.)
Submission to the Divine will
Man is so imperfect in his views, so weak in his faith, so worldly in his spirit, and so selfish in his actions, as to be incapable of wisely directing his own affairs; how much more then is he incapable of suggesting anything to Him, who is wonderful in counsel and excellent in working!
I. Explain the nature of this submission. It is the yielding of the heart to God in all the dispensations of His providence, and in the administration of His government. It is a state entirely remote from apathy or stoicism. It cherishes, rather than destroys, the best sensibilities of our nature. Some have distinguished between submission and resignation. This state of mind is the subjection of our reason to the supreme authority in reference to various truths which we cannot comprehend. It is the surrender of the will to His gracious arrangements.
II. Urge the importance of this subject. To submit ourselves unto God is a duty founded on the most solid principles, and urged by the most cogent and feasible considerations. Consider–
1. The state of man. As a creature, it is that of subjection to God, and entire dependence upon Him. As a sinner, man has fallen into the lowest degradation–abject poverty and complete vassalage.
2. The character of God. He has a right to dispense His favours as He may please.
3. The nature of Gods moral government. The whole of the Divine procedure to man is founded on the most sacred principles, the everlasting principles of moral justice, the essential principles of moral goodness, and the unalterable principles of moral rectitude. Can such a being do wrong?
4. The state of mind evinced in some of the most distinguished characters. Example is of great consequence and of great influence. Take the prophets, who have spoken in the name of the Lord, for an example of suffering affliction, and patience–such as Aaron, Eli, Job, etc.
III. Illustrate the advantages of this state of mind. Our duty and our happiness are closely united; in keeping of Gods commands there is great reward.
1. Submission is the effect of Divine influence, and thus becomes an evidence of grace.
2. It is the operation of sacred principle, and accordingly prepares the mind for future trials. Religion does not exempt from suffering; but it ensures adequate support.
3. It is a blessing of the New Covenant, and, as such, is an earnest of heaven.
IV. Suggest motives to its exercise.
1. Reflect much on your own moral guilt. Wherefore doth a living man complain, a man for the punishment of his sins?
2. Contemplate the sufferings of Christ; these were numerous, direful, overwhelming. He suffered in His person, in His circumstances, in His character. He suffered in His soul. He suffered as a substitute.
3. Contrast present sufferings with future glories.
4. Consider the great inconsistency of the want of submission with your own character as creatures, with your state as sinners, and with your profession and prayers and obligations as Christians. (John Arundel.)
Whose way shall it be
The theology of Jobs friends was, that success waits on a right character and sorrow attends a wrong one. With this theology, if a man has sorrow, misfortune, and pain, it is certain his character is amiss. Like many other of later times, they never once thought of revising their theology when they found it did not fit the facts. They take a short cut; they revise the facts. The fact is, that the good are not free from suffering, and the bad are not given up to it. Becoming a Christian does not exempt a person from trial, or give him what he wants. He can have what he wants, if he wants what God wants him to have; He can have his way if his way is Gods way. To become Christians is, in general, to give up our plans to Him, our will to His. Religion is self-surrender. What is the freedom of the will? Freedom is not an absolute but a relative term. There is no such thing as unqualified freedom. Freedom of the will does not mean freedom from all restraints; it does not mean licence; but freedom from some particular kind of restraint or inducement to which other beings are subject. Freedom is nor freedom from the influence of motives, but freedom to make choice of motives. Mans will is subject to motives. Here is what we mean when we speak of forming a character, To form a character is to induce a probability that a man under given conditions will act in a manner which can be foreseen. Man can see where he is weak, and when he sees a motive coming to assail him which he thinks too strong for him, he can interpose another to shut out the first. The education of a man is for a man to come under the controlling influence of certain motives; a right education is to come under the easy and permanent control of the best motives. We see, then, that not the man most obedient to determined motives is the slave, but he whose conduct can be the least foreseen. The slave is one who is subject to the impulse of the moment, given over to the whim and caprice of any passion that may strike him. The strong man, the free man, the large, hopeful, intelligent, brave man, is he who has made the most perfect surrender to the best motives. We have the paradox, striking but true, that the man who possesses this freedom of will in its most valuable form is the one whose will is the most nearly a slave to the best motives, and who therefore obeys them easily and without rebellion. It comes to this, that when we speak of religion as being self-surrender to God, we mean that human freedom consists in the frank, conscious, total, irreversible, glad surrender to Him in whom all the highest motives which actuate humanity reside, and from whom they take their origin. The Lord Jesus represents this central character to the world. This self-surrender to the will of God is wisdom. We are starting out with the end in view to make something of ourselves which shall stand the shock of death and the wear of eternity. Now it is wise to give the conduct of this process into the hands of God. And for two very simple reasons.
1. Because we do not know the elements which would work into the character we desire. And,
2. We have not the power to combine them if we did. (Henry Elliot Mort.)
Should it be according to our mind
No one has all he wishes. Many have a great deal in the life lot which they deprecate, object to, resent, and strive against with all their might, albeit in vain. Much depends on the mind a man has. How much mind has he to begin with? Of what nature is it? How is it ordered and kept? If the temper is keen, and the will strong, and the view of life and duty defined and decisive, then between the soul and events there will be continual collision. Things will not take their right shape;–all this will be, unless there shall come in, happily, the explanation and corrective of a trustful faith, of true religion. The only answer we can give to the question of the text is in the negative. It should not be according to our mind.
1. Because our knowledge is so limited. Our judgment of things is quite as imperfect as our knowledge of them.
2. We mistake the nature of what we do see. The forms of things are not the things themselves.
3. If this were granted in one case, it must be granted in all.
4. The very thing we seek by self-will is not attained by it. No self-willed man is happy. Not even when in a large measure he gets what he seeks.
5. There is one moral Governor of this world, and only one, who governs and keeps us all. His will is sufficiently made known to each to be to him rule of practical, guidance in everything he has to do. The providence of natural law contemplates and provides for only one plan of life for each–the best. The failure of that must bring penalty, and, indeed, irretrievable disaster. Well may it be according to the mind of God, and ill must it be with any who still insist that it shall be according to their own. (Alex. Raleigh, D. D.)
Justice requires government by an unerring mind
Judgment must be shaped according to knowledge, and where ignorance prevails, how can the judgment be just? A railroad engineer was arrested and tried for manslaughter because his train ran into another, passing half-way through one carriage before it stopped. In the trial the defendant deposed that he was running on schedule time, only fifteen miles an hour, and so was not responsible for the disaster. The prosecution charged that he was running thirty miles an hour, and was, therefore, entirely to blame. It was a question of the rate of speed, and an accurate knowledge of this one fact was essential to a just decision. With certain figures at his command, a professor in the Massachusetts Institute of Technology carefully calculated the momentum of the moving train and the inertia of the ill-fated carriage, and found that the result was in perfect accord with the statement of the engineer. Had the rate of speed been thirty miles an hour it was clearly shown that the increased momentum would have forced his engine four times as far. And the engineer was at once set at liberty. Now, without this knowledge of mathematics, who would presume to sit in just judgment upon such a case? Shall men of less experience, and much more limited understanding, affirm that justice must be according to their mind? Before presuming thus much, it might be well to make at least one honest attempt to answer the wonderful questions which the Lord asked Job out of the whirlwind, and then confess that our knowledge is as the rivulet, our ignorance as the sea. (R. Cox, D. D.)
Our own way preposterous
We are all very apt to believe in Providence when we get our own way; but when things go awry, we think, if there is a God, He is in heaven and not upon earth. The cricket, in the spring, builds his house in the meadow, and chirps for joy because all is going so well with him. But when he hears the sound of the plough a few furrows off, and the thunder of the oxens tread, then his sky begins to darken, and his young heart fails him. By and by the plough comes craunching along, turns his dwelling bottom-side up, and as he goes rolling over and over, without a house and without a home, Oh, he says, the foundations of the world are breaking up, and everything is hastening to destruction. But the husbandman, as he walks behind the plough, does he think the foundations of the world are breaking up? No. He is thinking only of the harvest that is to follow in the wake of the plough; and the cricket, if it will but wait, will see the husbandmans purpose, My hearers, we are all like crickets. When we get our own way we are happy and contented. When we are subjected to disappointment we become the victims of despair. (A. B. Jack.)
Our mind should be in harmony with Gods mind
There is a way by which you may get everything according to your own mind. Men have been labouring to discover the philosophers stone–the secret by which they could transmute iron, copper, tin, all their possessions into gold. Now, there is a way–and I will show it in one word–there is a way by which we may get everything according to our own mind. They tell me, if you take two instruments and tune them into perfect harmony, and lay your finger on one and sound it, that the other, though in a fainter tone, sends forth the same note, as though an invisible musician stood by the harp and touched it with the light finger of a spirit. Be that true or not, of all instruments, I know that if the Holy Spirit tune your discordant soul into perfect harmony with God; I know that if there be a holy harmony between heaven and earth, your mind and God, then you have everything according to your own mind, because your mind is according to the mind of God. (A. B. Jack.)
Pride catechised
I. To begin at the beginning, here is, first, a question: Should it be according to thy mind? You say that you are willing to find mercy, and that you are very teachable; but you object to the plan of salvation as it is revealed in the Scriptures. First, then, what is it to which you object? Do you object to the very basis of the plan, namely, that God will forgive sin through the atoning sacrifice of Jesus Christ, His Son? But, possibly, you do not object to the doctrine of substitution, but your objection is to the way of salvation by faith. But if you object to this doctrine, how would you like to have it altered? Oh, well! I would like to have some good feelings put in with faith. And how, then, would any man be saved? Can he command his own feelings? Oh, but! say some, we object to the requirements of the Gospel, especially to that verse where Christ says, Ye must be born again. Well, sirs, as you say that Christs requirements are not according to your mind, what would you like them to be? What sin is there, in the whole world, that would be put to death if men were left to pick and choose the Agag which each one wished to save? Should it be according to thy mind? No, certainly not; for, putting all reasons into one, it is not the slightest use for you to make any objection to the Gospel, for you will be lost if you do not accept it just as it is revealed in the Scriptures. I have thus tried to mention a few of the objections which men make to Gods plan of salvation. Now let me ask two or three questions. First, should not God have His way? You know that when we give even a trifling charity, we like to do it in our own way. O Lord, if Thou wilt but save me, save me anyhow! Further, is not Gods way the best? The mind of God is so infinitely great, and good, and wise, that it cannot be supposed that, even if He left the plan of salvation to our option, we could choose anything half as good as what He decrees and appoints. Suppose the plan of salvation should be according to any human mind, whose mind is to decide what it shall be? Yours? Nay, mine. And another says, No, mine.
II. Now, secondly, here is a warning: He will recompense it, whether thou refuse, or whether thou choose. By this I understand that, whatever our will may be, God will carry out His own purpose. I would also remind you that, though you cavil at Gods way of salvation, God will punish sin just the same. And further, though you may object to Gods way of salvation, others will be saved by it. Christ did not die in vain. Just once more, upon this point, let me say that God will certainly magnify His own name, whoever may oppose Him,
III. This brings us to the third part of our subject, on which I desire to say exactly what Elihu said: and not I. We cannot be absolutely sure what these three words mean; but if they mean what I think they do, they teach us a lesson, which I have called a protest. Whenever you find anyone opposing God, say to yourself, and not I. When there is any wrong thing being done, and it comes under your notice, say, and not I. Take care that you go not with a multitude to do evil. What Elihu did mean, I think, was this. Whoever opposes God should know that he is not dealing with a man like himself. Elihu also means, I think, I will not be responsible for the man who refuses Gods Word. I will not stand in his place, or take the blame which is due to him. And, once more, Elihu means, If you refuse Gods Word, it is not I. I will not share in your rebellion against Him.
IV. Our last head is, a challenge and an invitation. If there are any who refuse the Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ, for any reason known only to themselves, we venture to ask them to say what it is: Therefore speak what thou knowest. It was not in Elihus mind to tell Job to be silent, and never open his mouth again. Speech is the glory of man, and freedom of speech, as far as concerns his fellow creatures, is the right of every man. It is far better that, when there is a difficulty or an objection, it should be fairly stated, than that it should lie smothered up within the soul to breed untold mischief. Therefore, if thou hast an objection to Gods Word, write it out, and look at it. But at the same time, when thou art speaking, speak what thou knowest. Now, what dost thou really know of God? Little enough do the most of us know; but, still, I think we know enough to know that He is not the god of modern times whom some preach. It is well for us to speak of God as we have found Him. He has dealt kindly and graciously with us: He lath not dealt with us after our sins; nor rewarded us according to our iniquities; else had we been cast away forever. (C. H. Spurgeon.)
Fuente: Biblical Illustrator Edited by Joseph S. Exell
Verse 33. According to thy mind? he will recompense it] Mr. Good renders the whole passage thus: –
“Then in the presence of thy tribes
According as thou art bruised shall he make it whole.
But it is thine to choose, and not mine;
So, what thou determinest, say.”
This may at least be considered a paraphrase on the very obscure original. If thou wilt not thus come unto him, he will act according to justice, whether that be for or against thee. Choose what part thou wilt take, to humble thyself under the mighty hand of God, or still persist in thy supposed integrity. Speak, therefore; the matter concerns thee, not me; but let me know what thou art determined to do.
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
Having advised and directed Job how to behave himself, and what to say to God in his case, he now proceedeth to enforce his advice by solid arguments.
Should it (to wit, Gods chastening of thee, about which the great controversy was)
be according to thy mind? Heb. from with thee, as thou wouldst have it? Shall thy opinion or affection give laws and measures to God that he shall afflict only such persons, and in such a manner and measure, and so long, as thou wouldst have him. Doth God need, or should he seek for, thy advice how to govern the world, and whom and when to reward or punish? Dost thou quarrel with God, because he punisheth thee worse and longer than thou expectest or desirest?
He will recompence it, to wit, thy iniquity, expressed Job 34:32. Whether thou art satisfied or offended with his proceedings, he regards not, as not being obliged to give thee an account of his matters, whether thou would refuse his punishments or accept of them. It is not I, nor thou, that must prescribe to God, but he will do what he pleaseth. Or, but not I, i.e. do thou refuse or choose as thou pleasest, and contend with God for doing with thee otherwise than according to thy opinion or good will; but so would not I do, if it were my case; and I can say nothing for this course which thou takest, and therefore do thou
speak what thou knowest, or what thou canst say for it, as it here follows. If thou cans, say any thing for this practice, here I am ready to hear thy defence, and to justify thee as far as I can truly and righteously do. But this verse is and may well be otherwise rendered, and that very agreeably to the Hebrew, though still the sense will be the same, Shall he, i.e. God, render or recompense it (to wit, thy iniquity) according to thy mind, (i.e. no further than thou dost like and consent,) because thou refusest? (to wit, his chastisement. Is he obliged to forbear punishing thee because thou art not pleased with it? Shall not he dispense either favours or afflictions as he sees fit without thy consent?) shalt thou choose, and not I? (so Elihu speaks this in the name and person of God; such sudden changes of persons being not unusual in this book. Shalt thou, O Job, choose for me, and not I for myself?)
therefore speak what thou knowest. If this be thy opinion, speak what thou cans, in defence of it; and here am I ready to plead for God against thee. So here Elihu returns to speak in his own person.
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole
33. Rather, “should Godrecompense (sinners) according to thy mind? Then it is for thee toreject and to choose, and not me” [UMBREIT];or as MAURER, “Forthou hast rejected God’s way of recompensing; state therefore thyway, for thou must choose, not I,” that is, it is thypart, not mine, to show a better way than God’s.
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible
[Should it be] according, to thy mind?…. O Job, for the words seem to he directed to him; and may respect either the government of the world in general, and the disposal of all things in it, treated of in this chapter, though more remotely, Job 34:13. Is it not proper that God should govern it, who has made it, and do all things in it as he pleases? is it fit he should consult with men what to do, or be instructed and taught by them in the path of judgment? is it meet that every man should have his mind and will, and have everything go in the form and course most eligible to him? Or else they may respect chastisement, with which the words are more nearly connected; and so the sense be, should man be consulted, as Job or any other, and his mind known first, whether he should be chastened or not? should a son or a servant be asked first by a parent or master, whether it is fitting to give correction or not? or is man to be advised with in what way and manner he should be chastened of God, whether in his person, or family, or estate? or how long the chastening should endure upon him, and when it should be removed? no, surely; all should be left with God, the wise and sovereign Disposer of all things;
he will recompense it, whether thou refuse, or whether thou choose,
and not I; that is, God will recompense chastisement; he will chastise whom he pleases, and in what manner he pleases, and as long as he pleases, whether man consents or submits to it or not; he will not ask his leave; he will do according to the counsel of his own will; and thou Job mayest choose or refuse to submit to him as thou likest best; for my part, was it my case, I would not refuse submission to his will; I would say, “it is the Lord, let him do what seemeth good in his sight”. Some make this last clause the words of God, put by way of question, “shouldest thou choose or refuse, and not I?” shouldest thou have thine option and refusal, and not I? should man be his own chooser, or choose for himself what he likes best? should he not say, the Lord shall choose mine inheritance for me, though that inheritance is affliction? The words are rendered by others to different senses, all which to observe would be too tedious: some l to this sense,
“what is of thyself God recompenses;”
sin is of a man’s self, it flows from his corrupt heart and will, he is not tempted to it of God; nor is it to be ascribed to the temptations of Satan, which, though they may have their influence, sin is a man’s own act and deed; and God will recompense it in one way or another, whether man will or not; either in a way of punishment on the sinner himself, or on his surety for him; or in a way of fatherly correction and chastisement; and this is the Lord’s doing and not mine, and he is just in so doing;
therefore speak what thou knowest: if thou knowest anything better than this, or canst contradict what is said: or as others m to this purpose,
“did ever such a speech come from thee, as expressed in the preceding verses? God will recompense it, if thou refusest to speak in such a submissive manner; thou mayest refuse to do it, I would not; I should choose to submit and hear the affliction patiently; if thou thinkest otherwise, speak out thy mind.”
l “ecce de tuo rependit illud”, Schultens. m Junius and Tremellius, Grotius.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
33 Shall He recompense it as thou wilt? For thou hast found fault,
So that thou hast to determine, not I,
And what thou knowest speak out!
34 Men of understanding will say to me,
And a wise man who listeneth to me:
35 “Job speaketh without knowledge,
“And his words are without intelligence.”
36 O would that Job were proved to the extreme
On account of his answers after the manner of evil men;
37 For he addeth transgression to his sin,
Among us he clappeth
And multiplieth his speeches against God.
The question put to Job, whether then from him or according to his idea ( in as Job 23:10; Job 27:11, which see) shall God recompense it (viz., as this “it” is to be understood according to Job 34:32: man’s evil-doing and actions in general), Elihu proves from this, that Job has despised (shown himself discontented with it) the divine mode of recompense, so that therefore (this second signifies also nam , but is, because extending further on account of the first, according to the sense equivalent to ita ut ) he has to choose (seek out) another mode of recompense, not Elihu (who is perfectly satisfied with the mode with which history furnishes us); which is then followed by the challenge ( not infin., but as Job 33:32): what (more corresponding to just retribution) thou knowest, speak out then! Elihu on his part knows that he does not stand alone against Job, the censurer of the divine government of the world, but that men of heart (understanding) and (every) wise man who listens to him will coincide with him in the opinion that Job’s talk is devoid of knowledge and intelligence (on the form of writing as Jer 3:15, vid., Ges. 53, rem. 2).
In Job 34:36 we will for the present leave the meaning of undecided; is certainly intended as optative: let Job be tried to the extreme or last, i.e., let his trial by affliction continue until the matter is decided (comp. Hab 1:4), on account of the opposition among men of iniquity, i.e., after the manner of such (on this Beth of association comp. , Job 36:14), for to , by which the purpose of his affliction is to be cleared up, he adds , viz., the wickedness of blasphemous speeches: among us (therefore without fear) he claps (viz., his hands scornfully together, only here thus absolute instead of fo dae , Job 27:23, comp. Job 36:18 with Job 20:22)
(Note: The mode of writing with instead of is limited in the book of Job, according to the Masora, to Job 34:26, Job 34:37.)
and multiplies ( , fut. apoc. Hiph. as Job 10:17, and instead of the full fut., as , Job 33:27) his speeches against God, i.e., exceeds himself in speeches which irreverently dictate to and challenge God.
But we now ask, what does that , Job 34:36, signify? According to the accentuation with Rebia, it appears to be intended to signify pater m i (Jer.), according to which Saad. ( ja rabb ) and Gecat. ( munchi , my Creator) translate it. This would be the only passage where an Old Testament saint calls God ; elsewhere God is called the Father of Israel, and Israel as a people, or the individual comprehending himself with the nation, calls Him . Nevertheless this pater mi for Elihu would not be inappropriate, for what the writer of the Epistle to the Hebrews, Heb 12:7, says to believers on the ground of Pro 3:11: , ye suffer for the purpose of paternal discipline, is Elihu’s fundamental thought; he also calls God in Job 32:22; Job 36:3, which a like reference to himself, and – this ejaculatory “my Father!” especially in conjunction with the following wish, remains none the less objectionable, and only in the absence of a more agreeable interpretation should we, with Hirz., decide in its favour. It would be disproportionately repulsive if Job 34:36 still belonged to the assenting language of another, and Elihu represented himself as addressed by (Wolfson, Maur.). Thus, therefore, must be taken somehow or other interjectionally. It is untenable to compare it with , Pro 23:29, for (Arab. ah wa – awah ) is “ah! and alas!” The Aramaic , vae vae (Buxtorf, col. 294), compared by Ges. to , signifies just the same. The Targ. translates , I wish; after which Kimchi, among moderns, Umbr., Schlottm., Carey, and others derive from , a wish (after the form , ), but the participial substantival-form badly suits this signification, which is at once improbable according to the usage of the language so far as we at present know it. This interpretation also does not well suit the , which is to be explained at the same time. Ewald, 358, a, regards as the fuller form of , and thinks is dialectic = = = , but this is an etymological leger-demain. The two Schultens (died 1750 and 1793) were on the right track when they traced back to , but their interpretation: rem eo adducam ut ( = , as it is certainly not unfrequently written, e.g., 1Ki 21:29, with the assumption of a root cognate with ), is artificial and without support in the usage of the language and in the syntax. Krber and Simonis opened up the right way, but with inadequate means for following it out, by referring (vid., Ges. Thes. s.v. ) to the formula of a wish and of respect, bawwak allah , which, however, also is bajjak . The Kamus interprets bajjak , though waveringly, by bawwak , the meaning of which (may he give thee a resting-place) is more transparent. In an annotated Codex of Zamachschari hajjak allah wa – bajjak is explained: God preserve thy life and grant thee to come to a place of rest, bawwaaka (therefore Arab. bawa = bawa’a ) menzilan . That (as also ) is connected with this bajjak since the latter is the Piel -form of an old verb bajja (vid., supra, p. 559), which with the forms Arab. ba’a (whence Arab. bat , a sheltering house) and Arab. bw’ ( bwa ) has one root similar in signification with , the following contributions of Wetzstein will show.
In elucidation of the present passage he observes: The expressions ab teb , jeb ; neb , tebu , jebu , are so frequent in Damascus, that they very soon struck me, and on my first inquiry I always received the same answer, that they are a mutilation of Arab. ‘bgy , abghi , I desire, etc. [ vid. supra, p. 580], until one day a fugitive came into the consulate, and with these words, ab walidek , seized me in that part of the body where the Arabs wear the girdle ( zunnar ), a symbolic action by which one seeks some one’s protection. Since the word here could not be equivalent to abghi (“I desire” thy parents), I turned to the person best acquainted with the idiom of the country, the scribe Abderrahmn el-Mdni, which father had been a wandering minstrel in the camps for twenty years; and he explained to me that abghi only signifies “I desire;” on the contrary, ab , “I implore importunately, I pray for God’s sake,” and the latter belongs to a defective verb, Arab. bayya , from which, except the forms mentioned, only the part. ana baj , “I come as a suppliant,” and its plur. nahn bajin , is used. The poet Musa Rr from Krje in the south of Hauran, who lived with me six months in Damascus in order to instruct me in the dialect of his district, assured me that among the Beduins also the perf. forms bt , bna (I have, we have entreated), and the fut. forms tabn (thou, woman … ), jaben (they, the women … ), and taben (ye women … ), are used. In the year 1858, in the course of a journey in his native country, I came to Dms, whither they had brought two strange Beduins who had been robbed of their horses in that desert ( Sahra Dms), and one of them had at the same time received a mortal gunshot-wound. As I can to these men, who were totally forsaken, the wounded man began to express his importunate desire for a surgeon with the words ja shech neb arabak , “Sir, we claim the protection of thy Arabs,” i.e., we adjure thee by thy family. Naturally ab occurs most frequently. It generally has its obj. in the acc., often also with the praepos . Arab. ly , exactly like Arab. dchl (to enter, to flee anywhere and hide), which is its correct synonym and usual substitute in common life. It is often used without an obj., and, indeed, very variously. With women it is chiefly the introduction to a question prompted by curiosity, as: ab (ah, tell me), have you really betrothed your daughter? Or the word is accompanied by a gesture by the five fingers of the right hand, with the tips united, being stretched out towards the hasty or impatient listener, as if one wished to show some costly object, when ab signifies as much as: I pray thee wait till I have shown thee this precious thing, i.e., allow me to make one more remark to thee in reference to the matter. Moreover, (probably not corrupted from , but a derived nomen concretum in the sense of dach l or mustagr , one seeking protection, protg, after the form , , from = ) still exists unaltered in Hauran and in the steppe. The Beduin introduces an important request with the words ana b ahlak , I am a protg of thy family, or ana b irdak , I trust to thine honour, etc.; while in Damascus they say, ana dachl ahlak , harmak , auladak , etc. The Beduin women make use of this b in a weakened signification, in order to beg a piece of soap or sugar, and ana b lihjetak , I pray by thy beard, etc., is often heard.
If now we combine that of Elihu with abghi (from Arab. bga , Hebr. , Aram. , fut. , as with ) or with ab = , from the verb bajja = ( ),
(Note: We cannot in any case, with Wetzst., explain the , 2Ki 2:12; 2Ki 13:14, according to the above, so that the king of Israel adjured the dying prophet by the national army and army of the faithful not to forsake him, as an Arab is now and then adjured in most urgent and straitened circumstances “by the army of Islam;” vid., on the other hand, 2Ki 6:21, comp. Job 5:13; Job 8:9 ( ). Here rather, if an Arabian parallel be needed, the usual death wail, bi – ab anta (thou wast dear as a father to me), e.g., in Kosegarten, Chrestom. p. 140, 3, is to be compared. , 1Sa 24:12, might more readily, with Ew. 101, c, be brought in here and regarded as belonging to the North Palestine peculiarities of the book of Kings; but by a comparison of the passages cited, this is also improbable.)
it always remains a remarkable instance in favour of the Arabic colouring of the Elihu section similar to the rest of the book, – a colouring, so to speak, dialectically Hauranitish; while, on the other hand, even by this second speech, one cannot avoid the impression of a great distance between it and the rest of the book: the language has a lofty tone, without its special harshness, as there, being the necessary consequence of a carefully concentrated fulness of thought; moreover, here in general the usual regularity of the strophe-lines no longer prevails, and also the usual symmetrical balance of thought in them.
If we confine our attention to the real substance of the speech, apart from the emotional and rough accessories, Elihu casts back the reproach of injustice which Job has raised, first as being contradictory to the being of God, Job 34:10.; then he seeks to refute it as contradicting God’s government, and this he does (1) apagogically from the unselfish love with which God’s protecting care preserves the breath of every living thing, while He who has created all things might bring back all created things to the former non-existence, Job 34:12-15; (2) by induction from the impartial judgment which He exercises over princes and peoples, and from which it is inferred that the Ruler of the world is also all-just, Job 34:16-20. From this Elihu proves that God can exercise justice, and from that, that He is omniscient, and sees into man’s inmost nature without any judicial investigation, Job 34:21-28; inaccessible to human accusation and human defiance, He rules over peoples and individuals, even over kings, and nothing turns His just punishment aside but lowly penitence blended with the prayer for the disclosure of unperceived sin, Job 34:29-32. For in His retributive rule God does not follow the discontented demands of men arrogant and yet devoid of counsel, Job 34:33. It is worthy of recognition, that Elihu does not here coincide with what has been already said (especially Job 12:15), without applying it to another purpose; and that his theodicy differs essentially from that proclaimed by the friends. It is not derived from mere appearance, but lays hold of the very principles. It does not attempt the explanation of the many apparent contradictions to retributive justice which outward events manifest, as agreeing with it; it does not solve the question by mere empiricism, but from the idea of the Godhead and its relation to the world, and by such inner necessity guarantees to the mysteries still remaining to human shortsightedness, their future solution.
Fuente: Keil & Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament
(33) Should it be according to thy mind? is obscure from its abruptness. We understand it thus: Should he recompense it (i.e., a mans conduct) according to thy mind, with thy concurrence, whether thou refusest or whether thou choosest?
And not Ii.e., Then why not according as I refuse or choose? If thou art to influence and direct His dealing and government, why may not I? why may not any one? And if so, He is no longer supreme or absolute. What knowest thou, then? Speak, if thou hast anything to say to this reasoning.
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
33. According to thy mind This verse is exceedingly obscure. It may be read: Shall he repay it (thy doings) according to thy mind, that thou dost refuse. But thou must choose, and not I; then what thou knowest, speak. In murmuring at his lot, Job has complained of the ordering of God’s providence. If he is not satisfied with the divine scheme, let him take the responsibility of proposing a better one. A pertinent rebuke to grumblers of every grade.
Refuse . The sense will be made more intelligible by the insertion either of the words “thy lot,” “fate,” or “suffering.” See the same verb in Job 7:16; Job 42:6.
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
Job 34:33. Should it be according to thy mind? &c. It is He will recompence that which proceedeth from thee; whether thou refusest, or whether thou choosest; and not I. The latter clause is an invitation to a confession of his crimes; and includes an argument, that it was God who was to punish them, and not man: as he, therefore, was perfectly acquainted with them, there was no reason why he should not make an ample confession. Heath.
REFLECTIONS.1st, Elihu, encouraged by Job’s silence to proceed, resumes his discourse.
1. He addresses the audience. Perhaps the important debate had been attended by others, besides Job’s friends; or, though in the present case they erred greatly, yet they were probably, in the general, both wise and good men. He desired to be judged by their wisdom, persuaded that his arguments would bear the test; and those whose taste was most correct would best relish his discourse.
He proposes, therefore, to proceed with the subject, that they might come to a right judgment of Job’s case, and consult as to what would be the best advice to give him under his present distress. Note; Mutual assistance is the means of mutual improvement.
2. He recites the charge which he draws from Job’s assertion. Job hath said, I am righteous, so as not to deserve (he thought) so heavy visitations, chap. Job 27:6. And God hath taken away my judgment, chap. Job 27:2 because he had not appeared to remove his afflictions, or silence the accusations of his friends. Should I lie against my right? my wound is incurable without transgression, chap. Job 9:17 Job 16:17-20 he hath said, it profiteth a man nothing that he should delight himself with God: Not expressly indeed; but Elihu infers this as the consequence of his reasoning; chap. Job 9:22 Job 21:14-15 not that Job really thought so; but, in the rashness of dispute, unguarded expressions give a just handle for rebuke.
3. He expresses his astonishment, that so good a man as Job should say or insinuate such improper things. What man is like Job, who drinketh up scorning like water? either lays himself open by such words to scorn and contempt of the enemies of religion, or is so free in his reflections upon God, and so liberal of ridicule and contempt on his friends. See chap. Job 11:3. Which goeth in company with the workers of iniquity, and walketh with wicked men, not in his conduct indeed, but by uttering such speeches as seemed to countenance and encourage them in their iniquities. Note; it is a grief to good men, when the conduct or conversation of professors gives occasion to the adversary to speak reproachfully, or to the wicked an argument to harden themselves in sin.
2nd, Elihu had proved, that God, in afflicting men, designed their good. Here he vindicates him from the charge of wrong, directing his discourse to the company, who, if Job would not hear, might bear testimony to the truth of what he advanced.
1. He asserts, that God neither can nor will do any injury to any man, nor, though Sovereign and Almighty, abuse his power by a capricious use of it; but with infinite justice deal with all men, giving them according to their works; and he rejects, with the greatest abhorrence, the very suggestion of the contrary. Note; (1.) As long as a sinner is out of hell, he is bound to lay his hand on his mouth before a righteous God, and own that he has received less than his iniquity deserves. (2.) Though God’s justice does not always evidently appear here, the day is at hand when he shall be acknowledged just in all his judgments.
2. He proves this by arguments drawn from the sovereign dominion and irresistible power of God. Who hath given him a charge over the earth? He hath no superior whom he should fear, and be influenced by to do iniquity: Or, who hath given man a charge over the earth? hath not God? And can it be supposed that, after being so beneficent, he would become unjust? assuredly not: Or, who hath disposed the whole world with such order and regularity, and filled it with such a variety of blessings? How absurd then the thought, that he should do wickedly, who filleth the whole earth with his goodness. If he set his heart upon man, in strict justice to enter into judgment with him; if, as he might, he should gather unto himself his spirit and his breath, which once he gave, the consequence would be, that all flesh shall perish together, and man, even the whole human race, shall turn again unto dust. As we are creatures, he who made us may unmake us when he pleases; it is but to withdraw his support, and we breathe our last; and, as we are sinners, he would appear righteous if he consumed the earth. But he spares us, and thereby shews how far he is from doing man any injustice, when daily we hold our all, though forfeited, through his mercy.
3rdly, Elihu appeals to Job, if, or seeing, he was a man of understanding, for the absurdity of his positions: he admitted God’s government, yet complained that he was oppressed: condemning thereby the most just. Even to man that is a worm, if placed on a throne, it were insolent and highly improper, though there were foundation for the charge, to call him son of Belial, or wicked. How much more then must it appear presumptuous to lay such a charge against the King of Kings, who regardeth no man’s person; but, with the strictest justice and impartiality, considering all men alike the work of his hands, pronounces sentence and executes judgment upon them. Note; Great and poor must shortly stand before the same judge where the greatness of the one, and the poverty of the other, will be no plea for favour or compassion; but every man shall receive according as his work is: to beget therefore in Job higher and more worthy thoughts of God, and a more humble and lowly sense of his own deserts, Elihu suggests the following considerations:
1. God’s omnipotence. The mightiest men are unable to stand before him; death, sudden as terrible, shall overtake them: At midnight there shall be a cry of destruction; and with strokes of judgment, invisible but irresistible, they fall. Let the loftiest tremble; they are as easily brought down, and as unable to grapple with the arm of death, as the meanest creature that they may despise.
2. His omniscience. As none are above his judgment, neither can any escape his notice. Naked and open before him are all the ways of men; he observes and minutes even the secrets of their souls. Though darkness, thick as the shadow of death, be sought to conceal their sins from his all-seeing eye, they are not hid; or, though wrapped up within the closest cells of a corrupted heart, there is not a thought passes there but he knoweth it altogether. As, therefore, he will not be unjust through want of power; so neither can he be so through error or mistake. Note; (1.) It is the folly of sinners, that they think to hide their sins, as if, by concealing them from the eyes of men, they could elude the scrutiny of God. (2.) There is not a more awakening consideration, which should affect the sinner’s soul, than that the eye of God is constantly observing his heart and all his ways.
3. His justice. He never will give any man cause to complain of him. When he visits for iniquity, he will not lay a heavier burden than the sin deserves. And, therefore, as there is no appeal from his bar, nor possibility of altering the sentence of the most just, it were the highest folly to demand a fresh trial, when the result must necessarily be on that plan in disfavour of the sinner.
4. He illustrates this justice, power, and omniscience of God, in his dealings with men. The wicked, though never so numerous or great, are broken in pieces, and better men rise up in their stead. He knows their works, and brings their destruction upon them unawares, when, in the night, asleep and secure, they dream of no danger near. He makes his vengeance visible, that others may see and take warning by the ruin of these sinners, whose iniquities always justify God in his punishments. Because they rejected his government, and would pay no regard to his will and ways, but by oppression extorted the cries of the afflicted and needy; therefore doth vengeance, terrible as righteous, come upon them. Note; (1.) They who will not be guided by God’s word, will assuredly be smitten with his rod of judgment, and broken in pieces as a potter’s vessel. (2.) Rejection of God’s warnings, and obstinate disregard of his will and ways, fill up the measure of men’s iniquities. (3.) The groanings of the poor against the hard-hearted, and of the oppressed against the unjust, are heard by the righteous and compassionate God, and he will shortly recompence them.
5. God’s dealings are not to be controlled by weak man. When he giveth quietness, whether to communities in peace and safety protecting them from their enemies; or to individuals, prospering their worldly affairs, especially filling their souls with spiritual peace and joy in believing; who then can make trouble? and interrupt or disturb them in the enjoyment of the quietness that he bestows? and when he hideth his face in anger, who then can behold him, or appear before an offended God, whether it be done against a nation, or against a man only? None can rescue a devoted people from their destruction; nor can any bear up under a sense of God’s wrath, or relieve the distresses of the soul that he hath wounded but himself. Note; (1.) National peace and security are from God alone. (2.) If a soul enjoy a sense of the divine favour through faith in Jesus, no accusations of sin, or fears of death or hell, need disturb it. (3.) When God is our enemy, the whole world, and all that is in it, cannot procure us one helper to protect us from the frowns of his displeasure.
6. He watcheth over the welfare of kingdoms, that the hypocrite reign not, who by craft and fraud sought to step into the throne, and tyrannise over the people whom he had deluded. God disappoints his devices, lest the people be ensnared. Note; (1.) Ambition often creeps in order to climb. (2.) When religion has been made the usurper’s pretext, good men have been ready to fall into the snare.
4thly, Elihu means not to leave the conviction of what is wrong to grieve the afflicted Job, without direction how to behave, that he may be extricated from his distress.
1. He suggests to him what in his case was proper to be said and done. Surely it is meet to be said unto God, I have borne chastisement, and desire to submit cheerfully and patiently, and wait the Lord’s leisure for its removal. I will not offend any more, by charging God foolishly, as severe and unjust. That which I see not, teach thou me: I see much evil which deserves punishment, yet I see but a part: Who can understand his errors? Open my eyes, and make my conscience tender and sensible. If I have done iniquity, I will do no more; the past sufficeth: henceforward, through divine grace, I hope to walk more holily and humbly than I have hitherto done. Note; (1.) They who are truly humbled for sin, will never complain against God for what they suffer. (2.) When we are afflicted, we are especially called upon to inquire after the cause. (3.) When we turn to God, we must resolutely turn from sin: Christ and Belial cannot agree.
2. He reproves him for his waywardness. Should it be according to thy mind? It were highly unreasonable that the creature’s will should prevail against his creator and governor: Beside, He will recompence it, whether thou refuse, or whether thou choose: And therefore it is in vain to struggle against his will. But if thou shouldst persist, thou must bear the blame, and not I: never will I object to any of his dispensations, which are all holy, and just, and good: Therefore speak what thou knowest, if it appear a wiser method of proceeding than that which I have suggested. Note; (1.) He who knows what is most for our good, and designs that in all he doth, must needs do well; and it is the height of folly to object. (2.) To struggle against God, or find fault with him, is as useless as it is foolish and sinful.
3. He appeals, for the reasonableness of what he had advanced, to all men of wisdom and godliness. However, wise Job might be, in the present case he apprehends that he had betrayed some want of understanding, as well as some defect in piety. And he wished heartily that the company would weigh Job’s words, as well as his answer, as he disputed not for victory, but truth. Three reasons he gives for wishing Job’s case to be thoroughly tried. [1.] Because he apprehended that his speeches had a tendency to strengthen the hands of the wicked. [2.] Because he had appeared hastily to triumph in his defence, when, in fact, he was justly to be blamed, though clear of some particulars which his friends had suggested. [3.] Because to his impatience under reproof, he had added rebellion against God; and, by continued self-vindication, accused him as unrighteous. Note; (1.) Great men, and good men, are still but men, and will see daily cause to say, “Forgive us our trespasses.” (2.) The kindest office of christian friendship is, to improve and lead us to a right and humbling view of ourselves.
Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke
Job 34:33 [Should it be] according to thy mind? he will recompense it, whether thou refuse, or whether thou choose; and not I: therefore speak what thou knowest.
Ver. 33. Should it be according to thy mind ] Heb. From with thee; q.d. Must things be as thou wilt? And is it fit for thee to prescribe to the Almighty? Hos 8:4 to set the sun by thy dial?
He will recompense it, whether thou refuse, &c.
And not I
Therefore speak what thou knowest
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
Should it be. See rendering below.
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
Should: Job 9:12, Job 18:4, Isa 45:9, Rom 9:20, Rom 11:35
according to thy mind: Heb. from with thee
he will: Job 34:11, Job 15:31, Psa 89:30-32, Pro 11:31, 2Th 1:6, 2Th 1:7, Heb 2:2, Heb 11:26
whether thou refuse: Psa 135:6, Mat 20:12-15
what: Job 33:5, Job 33:32
Reciprocal: Jer 25:28 – if Jer 38:21 – if thou
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
Job 34:33. Should it be according to thy mind? Having advised and directed Job how to conduct himself, and what to say to God in his afflicted state, he now proceeds to enforce his advice with solid arguments; should it Namely, Gods chastening of thee, about which the great controversy was; be according to thy mind? Or, as thou wouldst have it? Shall thy opinion or affection give laws and measures to God, that he shall afflict only such persons, and in such a manner and measure, and so long, as thou choosest? Does God need, or should he seek for, thy advice how to govern the world, and whom and when to reward or punish? Dost thou quarrel with him because he chastises thee more severely and longer than thou expectedst? He will recompense it Namely, thy iniquity, expressed Job 34:32; whether thou choose, or whether thou refuse Whether thou art satisfied with his dispensations, and patiently submittest thereto, or whether thou art offended with them, and rebellest against them; and not I It is not I nor thou, that must prescribe to God, but he will do what he pleaseth. Or, the Hebrew, , velo ani, may be rendered, But not I, and then the sense of the clause will be, Do thou choose or refuse as thou pleasest, and contend with God for acting otherwise with thee than according to thy opinion he ought to act; but so would not I do, if it were my case; and I can say nothing for such a course: but do thou speak what thou knowest, or what thou canst say for it, as it follows. The reader will observe, that the preceding exposition of this obscure verse is given according to our present translation, some of the first words of which, however, namely, those in Italic letters, are not in the Hebrew, and are thought by some learned men to be improperly supplied. Heath, Dodd, and many others, leaving out those words, propose to read the verse thus: It is he will recompense that which proceedeth from thee, whether thou refusest or whether thou choosest, and not I. The words, they think, were intended to induce Job to make confession of his sins, and, in order thereto, include this argument: It is God who is to punish thy sins, and not man: as he, therefore, is perfectly acquainted with them, there is no reason why thou shouldst not make an ample confession of them, since, whether thou comply or refuse, thou wilt receive the same retribution of thy actions.
Fuente: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
34:33 [Should it be] according to {b} thy mind? he will recompense {c} it, whether thou refuse, or whether thou choose; and not I: therefore speak what thou knowest.
(b) Will God use your counsel in doing his works?
(c) Thus he speaks in the person of God, as though Job should chose and refuse affliction at his pleasure.