Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Job 32:1
So these three men ceased to answer Job, because he [was] righteous in his own eyes.
1. he was righteous ] i. e. would admit no guilt, or, was in the right in his plea against God. Job’s friends abandoned further argument with him because they could not move him from his assertion that God afflicted him wrongly and unjustly; comp. ch. Job 27:2-6.
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
So these three men ceased to answer Job – Each had had three opportunities of replying to him, though in the last series of the controversy Zophar had been silent. Now all were silent; and though they do not appear in the least to have been convinced, or to have changed their opinion, yet they found no arguments with which to sustain their views. It was this, among other things, which induced Elihu to take up the subject.
Because he was righteous in his own eyes – Umbreit expresses the sense of this by adding, and they could not convince him of his unrighteousness. It was not merely because he was righteous in his own estimation, that they ceased to answer him; it was because their arguments had no effect in convincing him, and they had nothing new to say. He seemed to be obstinately bent on maintaining his own good opinion of himself in spite of all their reasoning, and they sat down in silence.
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible
Job 32:1-7
Then was kindled the wrath of Elihu.
Analysis of Elihus speech
After the introduction Elihu reproves Job, because he had claimed too much for himself, and had indulged in a spirit of complaining against God. He goes on to say that it is not necessary for God to develop all His counsels and purposes to men; that He often speaks in visions of the night; and that the great purpose of His dealings is to take away pride from man, and to produce true humility. This He does by the dispensations of His providence, and by the calamities with which He visits His people. Yet he says, if, when man is afflicted, he will be truly penitent, God will have mercy and restore his flesh, so that it will be fresher than that of an infant. The true secret, therefore, of the Divine dispensations, according to Elihu, the principle on which he explains all, is, that afflictions are disciplinary, or are designed to produce true humility and penitence. They are not absolute proof of enormous wickedness and hypocrisy, as the friends of Job had maintained, nor could one in affliction lay claim to freedom from sin, or blame God, as he understood Job to have done. He next reproves Job for evincing a proud spirit of scorning, and especially for having maintained that, according to the Divine dealings with him, it would be no advantage to a man to be pious, and to delight himself in God. Such an opinion implied that God was severe and wrong in His dealings. To meet this, Elihu brings forward a variety of considerations to show the impropriety of remarks of this kind, and especially to prove that the Governor of the world can do nothing inconsistent with benevolence and justice. From these considerations he infers that the duty of one in the situation of Job was plain. It was to admit the possibility that he had sinned, and to resolve that he would offend no more. He then proceeds to consider the opinion of Job, that under the arrangements of Divine Providence there could be no advantage in being righteous; that the good were subjected to so many calamities, that nothing was gained by all their efforts to be holy; and that there was no profit though a man were cleansed from sin. To this Elihu replies, by showing that God is supreme; that the character of man cannot profit Him; that He is governed by other considerations in His dealings than that man has a claim on Him; and that there are great and important considerations which lead Him to the course He takes with men, and that to complain of these is proof of rebellion. Elihu then closes his address by stating–
1. The true principles of the Divine administration, as he understood them; and
2. By saying that there is much in the Divine government which is inscrutable, but that there are such evidences of greatness and wisdom in His government, there are so many things in the works of nature, and in the course of events, which we cannot understand, that we should submit to His superior wisdom. (Albert Barnes.)
Post-exilic wisdom
Elihu appears to represent the new wisdom which came to Hebrew thinkers in the period of the exile; and there are certain opinions embodied in his address which must have been formed during an exile that brought many Jews to honour. The reading of affliction given is one following the discovery that the general sinfulness of a nation may entail chastisement on men who have not been personally guilty of great sin, yet are sharers in the common neglect of religion and pride of heart, and further, that this chastisement may be the means of great profit to those who suffer. It would be harsh to say the tone is that of a mind which has caught the trick of voluntary humility, of pietistic self-abasement. Yet there are traces of such a tendency, the beginning of a religious strain opposed to legal self-righteousness, running, however, very readily to excess and formalism. Elihu, accordingly, appears to stand on the verge of a descent from the robust moral vigour of the original author towards that low ground in which false views of mans nature hinder the free activity of faith Elihu avoids assailing the conception of the prologue, that Job is a perfect and upright man before God. He takes the state of the sufferer as he finds it, and inquires how and why it is, and what is the remedy. There are pedantries and obscurities in the discourse, yet the author must not be denied the merit of a careful and successful attempt to adapt his character to the place he occupies in the drama. Beyond this, and the admission that something is said on the subject of Divine discipline, it is needless to go in justifying Elihus appearance. One can only remark with wonder in passing, that Elihu should ever have been declared the Angel Jehovah, or a personification of the Son of God. (Robert A. Watson, D. D.)
Credulous and incredulous minds
1. Elihu appears to have been a young man of keen perception, vigorous intellect, and possessed of the idea that he had a mission to teach and criticise others. He saw their mistakes as a bystander might, and set himself to correct them. The thing which peculiarly stirs him is, that while Job was clearly wrong, the friends had not hit off the truth, they had erred more than he, and this he considers as overruled for good, that they might not fancy that they had answered him, and that they, and not God, had thrust him down. With this view of their relative positions he goes to work to answer their objections and to correct Job. The opening of his speech to Job gives the impression of a simple and intentionally humble person, nevertheless deeply persuaded that his mission to advise and teach others is from God. Yet there is an inclination to condemn others, and to an apparent arrogance. He first describes himself as full of matter. This looks like vanity, but it need not be. There is an intuitive consciousness of inspiration in the minds of some men, and those often are the young, which seems to point them out as men to do a work for God, or the advancement of souls, in their own day. The power that urges them within is one they cannot resist. It is the teaching and influence of God. Many a youth is conscious of some such energy, and, being conscious of it, can neither resist the consciousness, nor hinder the expression of the power. Society usually condemns such men, though men often have to endorse their work in after days. Such an one Elihu seems to have been. It was not the possession of the power to see truth unseen by others which was his fault; nor was it the consciousness that he possessed it; but the presuming on the power, to offend against the laws of humility and modesty, and the thrusting forward the consciousness of his ability in such a way as to contemn and despise others, or to give to others the impression that they are despised and neglected.
2. Elihu opens his speech with a warm protest in favour of the fairness of Gods dealings, and against the complaints set up by Job assailing the inequality of providence. He shows that there is an end and object in Gods dealings with man through sorrow and chastisement. He dwells on the perfection of His character. He then proceeds to show the power and omniscience of God. His complaint against Job is, not only that he has actually done wrong, but that his arguments are of a kind to fortify the wicked, and to strengthen the position of Gods enemies. He concludes his remonstrance in the magnificent language of chapter 37, in which he sets forth the greatness of the works of creation. He is offended at Jobs deviation from the recognised paths of simple religion into the more devious and intricate ones of a somewhat metaphysical search into the causes of apparent contradictions.
3. The two conditions of mind are best seen in contrast. We often do see them so in life. The following classes of men are frequent and familiar to our mind. There is a man who sincerely serves and loves God. He has no hesitation as to his faith in His love, his choice and his intense desire; nevertheless, his mind is one which surveys and weighs everything. It sees the inequality of the law of God, if only the superficial view be taken; he goes down lower, and strives to find some firm basis founded on the moral sense, and the deeper condition of the progress of society. This man accepts and defends the discoveries of science; he is not startled at seeming contradictions. Such was Job. Elihu did not understand the man of keenly inquiring mind, agitated, as Job was, about the causes of things. There are two classes of men among us; those who reach the end of faith through the gallery of inquiry, and those who rest in it from the beginning, and would shudder at having to ask the question which they consider already finally rocked to sleep in the cradle of unsuspecting and Unhesitating trust.
4. Elihu suggests to Job the various modes of Gods visitations and dealings with men. Elihu expresses some surprise that Job should not more easily and heartily acquiesce in the justice of Gods dealings, without inquiring and searching so deeply into Gods actions and motives. So many men of Elihus kind are surprised at the difficulty which deeper minds feel. He first objects to Job finding fault with God for giving him trouble, as if he had any right to object to the ways and laws of Him who made him. He tries to convince Job of the close connection between cause and effect in Gods dealing with His people, of the reality of His intentions in every act of trial or humiliation to draw the soul of man out of some snare of Satan, some pit of destruction, and to bring him near Himself. Elihus complaint against Job is, that he does not feel all this. He hesitates about this manifest connection between cause and effect; he searches more anxiously, decides more hesitatingly, and takes courage more cautiously. He searches into grounds and causes. Another man under a strong impression that some line of action is a duty, expects everything will guide him with regard to it; sees everything through that atmosphere, possessed in soul of one time, imagines everything he hears is a note which tends to recall it. See how each of these classes would deal with–
(1) Chastisement.
(2) National calamity.
(3) The discoveries and dicta of science.
(4) Natural phenomena.
The two classes of mind are very distinct; but both may be religious, and that in the very highest sense; but they will have a tendency to mistake and misunderstand each other. There is a painful tendency in religious men to be narrow towards each other. We can help being severe in our judgment on each other. (E. Monro.)
The speech of Elihu
I. Religious controversy issuing in utter failure. Long was the controversy of Job and his three friends; hot was their spirit, and varied the arguments employed on both sides. But what was the result? Neither party was convinced. Polemics have proved the greatest hindrance and the greatest curse to the cause of truth. Disagreement, says F.W. Robertson, is refreshing when two men lovingly desire to compare their views, to find out truth. Controversy is wretched when it is an attempt to prove one another wrong. Therefore Christ would not argue with Pilate. Religious controversy does only harm. It destroys the humble inquiry after truth; it throws all the energies into an attempt to prove ourselves right. In that disparaging spirit no man gets at truth. The meek will He grade in judgment. The only effective way to clear the atmosphere of religious errors, is to stir it with the breath and brighten it with the beams of Divine truth. Bring out the truth, regardless of mens opinions.
II. Indignation towards men springing from zeal to God. 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. Also against his three friends was his wrath kindled. Men hating their fellow creatures because their opinions concerning God tally not with their own. How arrogant is this! It is the regarding our own views as the infallible truth; and what is this but the spirit of Popery?
2. How impious is this! A zeal for God which kindles indignation to men, is a false zeal–a zeal abhorrent to the Divine nature.
3. How inhuman is this! Can anything be more inhuman than to be indignant with a man simply because his opinions are not in agreement with our own?
III. Reverence for age restraining the speech of youth. I am young, and ye are very old; wherefore I was afraid, and durst not show you mine opinion. I said, Days should speak, and multitude of years should teach wisdom. Here this young man appears in an aspect most becoming and commendable. He shows–
1. A sense of his theological inferiority arising from his youthhood.
2. A deference for the judgment of his seniors. I said, Days should speak. Age gives a man great advantage in judging things. The aged, says a modern writer, have had an opportunity of long observation. They have conversed much with men. They have seen the results of certain courses of conduct, and they have arrived at a period of life when they can look at the reality of things, and are uninfluenced now by passion. Returning respect for the sentiments of the aged, attention to their counsels, veneration for their persons, and deference for them when they speak, would be an indication of advancement in society in modern times; and there is scarcely anything in which we have deteriorated from the simplicity of early ages, or in which we fall behind the Oriental world, so much as in the want of this. (Homilist.)
Fuente: Biblical Illustrator Edited by Joseph S. Exell
CHAPTER XXXII
Elihu comes forward, and empresses his disapprobation both of
Job and his three friends-with the one for justifying himself;
and with the others for taking up the subject in a wrong point
of view, and not answering satisfactorily-and makes a becoming
apology for himself, 1-22.
NOTES ON CHAP. XXXII
Verse 1. These three men ceased to answer Job] They supposed that it was of no use to attempt to reason any longer with a man who justified himself before God. The truth is, they failed to convince Job of any point, because they argued from false principles; and, as we have seen, Job had the continual advantage of them. There were points on which he might have been successfully assailed; but they did not know them. Elihu, better acquainted both with human nature and the nature of the Divine law, and of God’s moral government of the world, steps in, and makes the proper discriminations; acquits Job on the ground of their accusations, but condemns him for his too great self-confidence, and his trusting too much in his external righteousness; and, without duly considering his frailty and imperfections, his incautiously arraigning the providence of God of unkindness in its dealings with him. This was the point on which Job was particularly vulnerable, and which Elihu very properly clears up.
Because he was righteous tn his own eyes] The Septuagint, Syriac, Arabic, and Chaldee, all read, “Because he was righteous in THEIR eyes;” intimating, that they were now convinced that he was a holy man, and that they had charged him foolishly. The reading of these ancient versions is supported by a MS. of the thirteenth century, in Dr. Kennicott’s collections; which, instead of beeinaiv, in His eyes, has beeineyhem, in THEIR eyes. This is a reading of considerable importance, but it is not noticed by De Rossi. Symmachus translates nearly in the same way: ‘ ; Because he appeared more righteous than themselves.
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
i.e. Was self-conceited, and obstinately resolved to justify himself both against God and men; therefore they give him over as incorrigible.
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole
1-6. Prose (poetry begins with”I am young”).
because, &c.andbecause they could not prove to him that he was unrighteous.
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible
So these three men ceased to answer Job,…. His three friends, Eliphaz the Temanite, Bildad the Shuhite, and Zophar the Naamathite, who came to visit and comfort him under his afflictions; but unawares were led into a controversy with him, occasioned by some rash and impatient expressions of his; which controversy had been carried on between them a considerable time, but now dropped; they grew weary of it, and now rested themselves as men do on a sabbath, as the word signifies; they set themselves down, and made no reply to Job’s vindication of himself, not caring to give themselves any further trouble, or labour the point any more and longer, perceiving it was all to no purpose: or “and these three men ceased”, c. the last words of the preceding chapter are, “the words of Job are ended”, Job 31:40 and the copulative “and” connects these with them, and shows that these men also had done speaking; so that the dispute was closed between Job and them, and the way was clear for another disputant that might think fit to enter, as Elihu did, after mentioned
because he [was] righteous in his own eyes; some take this to express the state of the question between them, rendering the words, “that he was righteous”, c. f. The notion his friends had of him was, that he was righteous in his own account, and as he professed to be, and might so seem to others but was a wicked man, and an hypocrite, as his afflictions showed; this point they had been labouring to prove, but, upon Job’s long and clear vindication of his integrity, they ceased to defend it: others suppose the words to be an inference of Job’s from their silence: “therefore he was righteous”, c. they making no reply to him, he concluded himself to be quit and clear of the charge they had brought against him but they rather, according to our version, contain a reason why they ceased to answer him; because they thought him self-conceited, self-willed, obstinate, and incorrigible; not open to conviction, stiffly insisting on his own innocence, not allowing that he was guilty of any sin or sins, which were the cause of his afflictions; otherwise, in the article of justification before God, Job was no self-righteous man, nor was he so charged by his friends; to say he was is to abuse his character, and is contrary to that which God himself has given of him; nor would he have so highly commended him as to suggest there was none like him on earth, when of all men in the world there are none more abominable to God than a self-righteous man; see Isa 65:4. It is contrary to Job’s knowledge of and faith in Christ, as his living Redeemer, Job 19:25; and to many clear and strong expressions, confessing his sin, disclaiming perfection, and declaring himself no self-justiciary, Job 7:20.
f “quod ille (tantum) justus in oculis suis”, Schmidt.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
1-3 So these three men ceased to answer Job, because he was righteous in his own eyes. And the wrath of Elihu, the son of Barachel the Buzite, of the family of Ram, was kindled: against Job was his wrath kindled, because he justified himself at the expense of God. And against his three friends was his wrath kindled, because they found no answer, and condemned Job.
The name of the speaker is (with Mahpach), son of (with Munach) the buwziy (with Zarka). The name Elihu signifies “my God is He,” and occurs also as an Israelitish name, although it is not specifically Israelitish, like Elijah (my God is Jehovah). Brach’el (for which the mode of writing with Dag. implic. is also found) signifies “may God bless!” (Olsh. 277, S. 618); for proper names, as the Arabian grammarians observe, can be formed both into the form of assertory clauses ( ichbar ), and also into the form of modal ( insha ); the name is in this respect distinguished from the specifically Israelitish name (Jehovah blesseth). The accompanying national name defines the scene; for on the one side and , according to Gen 22:21, are the sons of Nahor, Abraham’s brother, who removed with him (though not at the same time) from Ur Casdim to Haran, therefore by family Aramaeans; on the other side, , Jer 25:23, appears as an Arab race, belonging to the (comp. Jer 9:25; Jer 49:32), i.e., to the Arabs proper, who cut the hair of their heads short all round ( , Herodotus iii. 8), because wearing it long was accounted as disgraceful (vid., Tebrzi in the Hamsa, p. 459, l. 10ff.). Within the Buzite race, Elihu sprang from the family of . Since is the name of the family, not the race, it cannot be equivalent to (like , 2Ch 22:5, = ), and it is therefore useless to derive the Aramaic colouring of Elihu’s speeches from design on the part of the poet. But by making him a Buzite, he certainly appears to make him an Aramaean Arab, as Aristeas in Euseb. praep. ix. 25 calls him (from ). It is remarkable that Elihu’s origin is given so exactly, while the three are described only according to their country, without any statement of father or family. It would indeed be possible, as Lightfoot and Rosenm. suppose, for the poet to conceal his own name in that of Elihu, or to make allusion to it; but an instance of this later custom of Oriental poets is found nowhere else in Old Testament literature.
The three friends are silenced, because all their attempts to move Job to a penitent confession that his affliction is the punishment of his sins, have rebounded against this fact, that he was righteous in his own eyes, i.e., that he imagined himself righteous; and because they now ( of persons, in distinction from , has the secondary notion of involuntariness) know of nothing more to say. Then Elihu’s indignation breaks forth in two directions. First, concerning Job, that he justified himself , i.e., not a Deo (so that He would be obliged to account him righteous, as Job 4:17), but prae Deo . Elihu rightly does not find it censurable in Job, that as a more commonly self-righteous man he in general does not consider himself a sinner, which the three insinuate of him (Job 15:14; Job 25:4), but that, declaring himself to be righteous, he brings upon God the appearance of injustice, or, as Jehovah also says further on, Job 40:8, that he condemns God in order that he may be able to maintain his own righteousness. Secondly, concerning the three, that they have found no answer by which they might have been able to disarm Job in his maintenance of his own righteousness at the expense of the divine justice, and that in consequence of this they have condemned Job. Hahn translates: so that they should have represented Job as guilty; but that they have not succeeded in stamping the servant of God as a , would wrongly excite Elihu’s displeasure. And Ewald translates: and that they had nevertheless condemned him (345, a); but even this was not the real main defect of their opposition. The fut. consec. describes the condemnation as the result of their inability to hit upon the right answer; it was a miserable expedient to which they had recourse. According to the Jewish view, is one of the eighteen ( correctiones scribarum ), since it should be . But it is not the friends who have been guilty of this sin of against God, but Job, Job 40:8, to whom Elihu opposes the sentence , Job 34:12. Our judgment of another such tiqqun , Job 7:20, was more favourable. That Elihu, notwithstanding the inward conviction to the contrary by which he is followed during the course of the controversial dialogue, now speaks for the first time, is explained by what follows.
Fuente: Keil & Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament
| The Address of Elihu. | B. C. 1520. |
1 So these three men ceased to answer Job, because he was righteous in his own eyes. 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. 3 Also against his three friends was his wrath kindled, because they had found no answer, and yet had condemned Job. 4 Now Elihu had waited till Job had spoken, because they were elder than he. 5 When Elihu saw that there was no answer in the mouth of these three men, then his wrath was kindled.
Usually young men are the disputants and old men the moderators; but here, when old men were the disputants, as a rebuke to them for their unbecoming heat, a young man is raised up to be the moderator. Divers of Job’s friends were present, that came to visit him and to receive instruction. Now here we have,
I. The reason why his three friends were now silent. They ceased to answer him, and let him have his saying, because he was righteous in his own eyes. This was the reason they gave why they said no more, because it was to no purpose to argue with a man that was so opinionative, v. 1. Those that are self-conceited are indeed hard to be wrought upon; there is more hope of a fool (a fool of God’s making) than of those who are fools of their own making, Prov. xxvi. 12. But they did not judge fairly concerning Job: he was really righteous before God, and not righteous in his own eyes only; so that it was only to save their own credit that they made this the reason of their silence, as peevish disputants commonly do when they find themselves run a-ground and are not willing to own themselves unable to make their part good.
II. The reasons why Elihu, the fourth, now spoke. His name Elihu signifies My God is he. They had all tried in vain to convince Job, but my God is he that can and will do it, and did it at last: he only can open the understanding. He is said to be a Buzite, from Buz, Nahor’s second son (Gen. xxii. 21), and of the kindred of Ram, that is, Aram (so some), whence the Syrians or Aramites descended and were denominated, Gen. xxii. 21. Of the kindred of Abram; so the Chaldee-paraphrase, supposing him to be first called Ram–high, then Abram–a high father, and lastly Abraham–the high father of a multitude. Elihu was not so well known as the rest, and therefore is more particularly described thus.
1. Elihu spoke because he was angry and thought he had good cause to be so. When he had made his observations upon the dispute he did not go away and calumniate the disputants, striking them secretly with a malicious censorious tongue, but what he had to say he would say before their faces, that they might vindicate themselves if they could. (1.) He was angry at Job, because he thought he did not speak so reverently of God as he ought to have done; and that was too true (v. 2): He justified himself more than God, that is, took more care and pains to clear himself from the imputation of unrighteousness in being thus afflicted than to clear God from the imputation of unrighteousness in afflicting him, as if he were more concerned for his own honour than for God’s; whereas he should, in the first place, have justified God and cleared his glory, and then he might well enough have left his own reputation to shift for itself. Note, A gracious heart is jealous for the honour of God, and cannot but be angry when that is neglected or postponed, or when any injury is done it. Nor is it any breach of the law of meekness to be angry at our friends when they are offensive to God. Get thee behind me, Satan, says Christ to Simon. Elihu owned Job to be a good man, and yet would not say as he said when he thought he said amiss: it is too great a compliment to our friends not to tell them of their faults. (2.) He was angry at his friends because he thought they had not conducted themselves so charitably towards Job as they ought to have done (v. 3): They had found no answer, and yet had condemned Job. They had adjudged him to be a hypocrite, a wicked man, and would not recede from that sentence concerning him; and yet they could not prove him so, nor disprove the evidences he produced of his integrity. They could not make good the premises, and yet held fast the conclusion. They had no reply to make to his arguments, and yet they would not yield, but, right or wrong, would run him down; and this was not fair. Seldom is a quarrel begun, and more seldom is a quarrel carried on to the length that this was, in which there is not a fault on both sides. Elihu, as became a moderator, took part with neither, but was equally displeased with the mistakes and mismanagement of both. Those that in good earnest seek for truth must thus be impartial in their judgments concerning the contenders, and not reject what is true and good on either side for the sake of what is amiss, nor approve or defend what is amiss for the sake of what is true and good, but must learn to separate between the precious and the vile.
2. Elihu spoke because he thought that it was time to speak, and that now, at length, it had come to his turn, Job 32:4; Job 32:5. (1.) He had waited on Job’s speeches, had patiently heard him out, until the words of Job were ended. (2.) He had waited on his friends’ silence, so that, as he would not interrupt him, so he would not prevent them, not because they were wiser than he, but because they were older than he, and therefore it was expected by the company that they should speak first; and Elihu was very modest, and would by no means offer to abridge them of their privilege. Some certain rules of precedency must be observed, for the keeping of order. Though inward real honour will attend true wisdom and worth, yet, since every man will think himself or his friend the wisest and worthiest, this can afford no certain rule for the outward ceremonial honour, which therefore must attend seniority either of age or office; and this respect the seniors may the better require because they paid it when they were juniors, and the juniors may the better pay because they shall have it when they come to be seniors.
Fuente: Matthew Henry’s Whole Bible Commentary
JOB – CHAPTER 32
JOB AND ELIHU
Verse 1:
The Three Cease to Accuse Job
Verse 1 concludes that at this point of Job’s final rebuttal to the three friends, Eliphaz, Bildad, and Zophar from afar, they withdrew from further contention against Job, Job 2:11-13. Even if they were sincere in their charges against Job they were still wrong, hurtful to him, rather than helpful, and were later required to confess their sins of false charges, and make a sacrifice to the Lord, Job 42:7-10, as Job prayed for his persecutors, as we are admonished to do, Mat 5:44. They withdrew from Job because they could not prove to him that he was unrighteous, not recognizing that sufferings were sometimes “for the glory of the Lord,” not because of personal sins, Joh 9:2-3; Joh 11:4; 1Pe 4:12-19; Rom 5:3-5; Rom 8:28; 1Co 10:13.
Young Elihu Incited to Speak
Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary
Notes
Job. 32:2. Elihu my God is He; or, according to some: My God is Jehovab. Various opinions concerning him, both as to his personality, speeches, and character. He has been considered by some as Balaam, the son of Beor. So JEROME, BEDS, LYRA, and some Rabbins. BEDE saw in him a type of the enemies of the church. Bishop WARBURTON thinks him to have been Ezra, the scribe. Some, as COLEMAN, have supposed him to be the Son of Goda manifestation of the Second Person of the Trinity in the form of a man; a prelibation of His incarnation; what Melehizedech was to Abraham. HODGE regards him as a representative character of the Messiah. KITTO makes him a comparatively obscure and unknown person. According to KIEL and others he was a fourth friend of Job. ZOCKLER understands him to have been a near kinsman of the Patriarch, and not belonging to the party of friends. According to GREGORY: A mere braggadocio; full of pride and vainglory; had the knowledge of God, and boasted of it not a little: from his pride and self-conceit, a type of those who, being left to themselves, become proud of their knowledge. So CODURCUS and MICHAELIS regard him as highly conceited. STRIGELIUS sees in him an example of an ambitious orator, full of ostentation and audacity. So HERDER, UMBREIT, HAHN, DILLMANN. Professor TURNER speaks of him as manifesting a degree of veneration for Job and his friends, but speaking as an inflated youth, wishing to conceal his self-sufficiency under an appearance of modesty. According to VAIHINGER and others, he attempts to give a solution of the problem, but cannot. An entirely opposite view, however, is taken of him by AUGUSTIN, CHRYSOSTOM, AQUINAS, BRENTIUS, CALVIN, SCHULTENS, SCHLOTTMANN, ZOCKLER, and most of the defenders of the authenticity of the speeches ascribed to him. According to COCCEIUS and others, he excelled in modesty, as in wisdom. CARPZOV: Younger, but not inferior to the others in piety. SCULTETUS: Rightly, but too severely blames Jobs speeches. SCOTT, the translator, observes that the sacred writer bears witness to his modesty, and that Jobs attention evidences the pertinence of his speeches; while his plan for humbling Job was pursued and completed by the Almighty Himself. According to HUFNAGEL, he defines the state of the question; hits the true point of view in relation to Jobs conduct more than his predecessors, neither suspecting his piety, nor charging him with vice, but objecting to his impatience, and a finding fault with Divine Providence: with much power of comprehension and real goodness of heart, he has, however, too little experience. KEIL, who defends him, observes that it was not necessary to mention him in the preface; as parties were only introduced when they were to act or speak. According to ZOCKLER, he is only introduced to point out the sinfulness and perversity of Jobs speeches, and to humble his pride; his part in the poem no breach of the connection between Jobs speeches and Gods, and not superfluous, though leaving the mystery unsolved. Elihu the only one of the speakers whose genealogy is given: hence, thought by LIGHTFOOT and ROSENMULLER to have been the author of the book.
INTRODUCTION AND SPEECH OF ELIHU
The place of Elihu, introduced in this chapter, that of an umpire stepping forward of his own accord, under the promptings of zeal and conscious knowledge, to decide the controversy between Job and his three friends on the one hand, and between Job and the Almighty on the other. His speeches contribute to the solution, as showing reasons why Job might be afflicted as he was, without being what his friends suspected him to bea secretly bad man, and also as pointing out wherein he errednamely, in his too strongly justifying himself, and almost censuring the Almighty. His speeches preparatory to the appearance and address of Jehovah, who follows up what Elihu had begun. Elihu in relation to the Almighty, like John the Baptist in relation to Christ. Observe
(1) An honour to be, like Elihu, a peacemaker, in seeking to compose disputes between brethren, and to remove a believers controversy with God.
(2) A high privilege to be, like Elihu also, a forerunner in preparing the way for God himself. Precious to be sent, like the seventy disciples, to preach in places where Christ himself is to come (Luk. 10:1).
I. The occasion of Elihus introduction. Job. 32:1.So these three men ceased to answer Job, because he was righteous in his own eyes.
The great object of these friends, to make Job out to be a secret transgressor, and so deserving the sufferings inflicted on him. This view of his case required by their false theology in respect to the Divine governmentGod viewed by them as necessarily punishing sin and rewarding virtue in this life. Failing to convince Job that he was a bad man, and guilty of such sins as bad justly drawn upon him Gods severe judgments, they ceased to answer Job. Their arguments only in the direction of showing that bad men suffer in this life the consequences of their deeds, however secretly committed, and that good men are invariably prosperous and happy, even in this world. They had employed the last arrow in their quiver without making any impression, and now desist.
Their final charge against Job,He was righteous in his own eyes, partly false and partly true. False, as Job acknowledged himself a sinner (ch. Job. 7:20-21; Job. 9:2-3). True, but both in a right and wrong sense.
1. In a right sense. In the ordinary use of the term, Job a righteous man. This the Divine testimony given of him. The testimony also of his own conscience. His own heart condemned him not. Conscious of having served God sincerely, earnestly, and perseveringly. Like Paul, could testify that he had lived in all good conscience unto this day. Had exercised himself in having a conscience void of offence both towards God and towards men. With this consciousness, Job necessarily and justly righteous in his own eyes. Could not truthfully deny it, or honestly confess the contrary. So far Job simply believed and maintained he was righteous, because he was so. As a matter of fact. Jobs sins not the cause of his sufferings (ch. Job. 2:3).
2. In a wrong sense.
(1) As insisting too strongly on his own righteousness.
(2) In ignoring or regarding too slightly the sins that actually adhered to him.
(3) In being too prone to charge God with cruelty and injustice in dealing with him as He did.
(4) In being much more careful to justify himself than his Maker. His eye so entirely on his own integrity and uprightness as to overlook and forget his short-comings and offences against the Divine law. Righteous before men, he failed to see and acknowledge himself, as he ought, guilty before God. Job still very much in the condition of Paul before his journey to Damascusalive without the law (Rom. 7:9). The commandment was yet to come, in order to his dying in his own eyes as a sinner, and having his mouth stopped as guilty before God (Rom. 3:19). Job yet to learn and realize more deeply than he had yet done, that in Gods sight no man living can be justified (Psa. 143:2). This change in his views and experience soon about to take place. What the three friends failed in doing, God Himself was about to accomplish, first and in part through the instrumentality of Elihu; afterwards and more especially, by the manifestation of Himself (ch. Job. 42:5-6). Observe
(1) Possible to have a conscience void of offence towards God and men, and yet to require to be humbled as a sinner before God.
(2) One of the objects of the law of God, to strip men of self-righteousness. By the law is the knowledge of sin (Rom. 3:20; Rom. 7:7).
(3) The great aim in the Holy Spirits mission into the world, to convince men of sin and of a better righteousness than their own, in order to their acceptance with God (Joh. 16:7; Joh. 16:10). What was to be done in Jobs case by the appearance of God Himself and the ministry of Elihu, now done by the inward operation of the Holy Ghost and the ministry of the word.
(4). Self-righteousness the great enemy to our peace, as well as to our acceptance before God through the righteousness wrought out for us by the Son of God in our nature (Rom. 10:3-4; Php. 3:4; Php. 3:9).
II. Elihus Personality (Job. 32:6).
1. His NAMEElihu. Denotesmy God is he, or, my God is Jehovah. Given at his birth, implies piety on the part of his parents. His name a profession of the faith of his parents, and probably intended to be that of his own. Elihu constantly reminded of the true God by his very name. Probably given him to serve as a guard against advancing idolatry. That object gained. Much in a name. More meaning in names given to individuals, and more importance attached to them, in early times and in the East, than now and with ourselves. Scripture names generally significant. Observe
(1) Wise in parents to impress Divine truth by every suitable means on the minds of their children from their earliest days, and to keep God before them as they grow up.
(2) Not enough to know that Jehovah is the true God, but that He is our God. God is to be appropriated as our own God in Christ. My God, the language of faith and love,O God thou art my God (Psa. 63:1). The first confession of Christ after his resurrection: My Lord and my God (Joh. 20:28). Such appropriation of God and self-consecration to Him, the will of God concerning us (Jer. 3:4; Jeremiah 19, 22). In the covenant of grace, of God gives Himself over to the believing sinner as his God in Christ (Jer. 31:33; Heb. 8:10).
2. His PARENTAGE. Son of Barachel. Elihu the only individual in the poem whose parentage is recorded. Possibly in order to distinguish him from others of the same name, or because his father was a well-known and distinguished man in the country. Possibly because Elihu was yet a young man, and required thus to be distinguished. The addition of the fathers name the ordinary way of naming men in the East, except when the party was advanced in years, or a person of great distinction. The name of Elihus father significant as well as his own. Denotesthe blessing of God, or God hath blessed. Gods goodness and blessing probably recognized by his parents in the gift of a son. Well to mark Gods hand in in our ordinary mercies. Piety not only in Elihus parents but his grand parents. A precious blessing to have a pious ancestry.The privilege of all in Christ to be a Barachel. God hath blessed us with all spiritual blessings in Christ Jesus (Eph. 1:3). Barachel, having realized the blessing expressed in his name, the more anxious that his son should do the same, and should be able to say: The Lord is my God. Hence called him Elihu. Parents enjoying the blessing of a covenant-God themselves, likely to be made a blessing to their children. Elihu the worthy son of a worthy father. Grace does not run in the blood, but often runs in the line.P. Henry. Elihu distinguished for his piety and wisdom even while a young man. Reflected honour on the father whose name was connected with his own. Only truly pious children a real credit and honour to their parents. My son, if thy heart be wise, my heart shall rejoice, even mine (Pro. 23:15).
3. His COUNTRY. The Buzite. Buzthe second son of Nahor, Abrahams brother (Gen. 22:21). A city of this name in Arabia Deserta, mentioned in connection with Dedan in Iduma (Jer. 25:13). The name of the city and the country around probably derived from Buz, Nahors son. Buz himself a Syrian. Probably some of his descendants emigrated south-westwards into Iduma or Arabia. Buz a brother of Uz, from whom the country of Job probably took its name. Job and Elihu thus perhaps not very distantly connected. The Syriaus in general already tinged more or less with idolatry. Hence the command to Abraham to leave his country and his kindred. Idols or images, probably kept as household gods, found in the family of Laban, Nahors grandson (Gen. 31:19). Strange gods worshipped by Terah the father of Abraham and Nahor (Jos. 24:2; Jos. 24:15). Barachel probably an exception. Hence the piety and wisdom of his son. Due to sovereign grace, that generally some are among the faithless, faithful found. Saints in Neros household.
4, His KINDRED. Of the kindred (or clan) of Ram. Ram probably the same as Aram (1Ch. 29:10, with Mat. 1:3-4). Ram or Aram a son of Shem, and the father or brother of Uz (Gen. 10:23; 1Ch. 1:17). Another, the son of Kemuel the son of Nahor, and the brother of Buz and Uz (Gen. 22:21). A third and later Ram or Aram, the father of Amminadab and grandfather of Nahshou, the prince of the children of Judah at the time of the Exodus (1Ch. 2:9-10; Num. 1:7; Num. 1:2-3). From Ram or Aram, Syria had its name, Mesopotamia, the country between the riversnamely, the Tigris and the Euphrates, also hence called Padan Aram, or the Plain of Aram. Hence the Syriac and Chaldaic language called the Aramaic, traces of which appear in the Book of Job, but more especially in the speeches of Elihu.This particularity in the description of Elihu significant, as
(1) An evidence of the historic truth of the poem;
(2) Indicative of the important place he occupies in the controversy, and the part he contributed to its solution;
(3) Expressive of the honour put upon Elihu himself as the most enlightened of the speakers. Them that honour me I will honour.
5. His AGE. Young. Probably even younger than Job. A remarkable peculiarity in his case. The other speakers elderly, and even aged men (Job. 32:6). Unusual in Arabia and the East for young men to take part in a religious controversy. ObserveGrace and wisdom not confined to age. John the most beloved and devoted of the Apostles, believed to have been the youngest, Paul, when chosen to be the Apostle of the Gentiles, a young man. Timothy, his friend and deputy while but a youth. Jesus among the doctors in the temple at the age of twelve. Daniel, Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego, distinguished for piety and wisdom at an early age.
III. Elihus Character. To be gathered from the history and from his own speeches.
1. Ardent and zealous. Hence his anger both against Job and his three friends (Job. 32:2), and his eager endeavour to correct their mistakes. Full of matter, and eager to deliver himself of it (Job. 32:18-19).
2. Modest. Conscious of his youth, he waits till all the other speakers had nothing more to say (Job. 32:4; Job. 32:11). Hesitating and afraid to deliver his opinion (Job. 32:6). Spoke at length, only because inwardly constrained to do so, and conscious of having something to say on the subject (Job. 32:18). Ascribes what knowledge and understanding he had to the Spirit of God (Job. 32:8). The appearance of inflation in his language probably due to Oriental poetry, and to the apologetic style which he assumes in introducing himself.
3. Enlightened. Indicated in his speeches. Answered neither by Job nor his friends. The only speaker not censured by the Almighty. Jehovahs address to Job a continuation of his own.
4. Candid and impartial. Neither justifies Job, though desirous of doing so; nor yet, like the three friends, suspects and condemns him as necessarily a wicked man. Speaks his mind, without either fear or favour, as amenable to his Maker (Job. 32:21-22). Reproves Job, without, like the others, losing his temper.
Elihu may be viewed
(1) As, in character, name, and the attitude he assumes in the controversy, a type of Christ in relation to the Pharisees and doctors of the law, as well as in his office of mediator and revealer of the Father;
(2) As, in his character and speeches, an example to pastors and preachers of the Gospel.
IV. His motives and reasons for entering into the controversy
1. His displeasure with Job and his three friends. Job. 32:2-3.Then was kindled the wrath of Elihu (Oriental expression for strong disapprobation and displeasure); against Job was his wrath kindled, because he justified himself rather than God (or, made himself more righteous than God). Also against his three friends was his wrath kindled, because they had no answer [to Job which was solid and satisfactory], and yet had condemned Job (as a hypocrite and secret transgressor). Elihu, angry with Job for his offence against God; with his friends for their offence against Job.
Observeanger, not always sinful. Be ye angry, and sin not (Eph. 4:26.) Anger may be either holy or unholy. Shewn by God Himself. God angry with the wicked every day. Felt and exhibited by Christ. Looked round about upon his Pharisaic adversaries and opposers with anger (Mar. 3:5). Anger a principle or passion implanted in our nature for wise and holy objects. Only right when
(1) Directed against a proper object. This not always the case with creature anger.
(2) Excited by a just or sufficient cause. Human anger often excited by a bad cause, still more frequently by an insufficient one. Jonah first angry at Ninevehs repentance, and then at the loss of his gourd.
(3) Held under due control. Uncontrolled anger a sinful passiona sin itself, and leading to many others.
(4) Accompanied with love. Jesus wept over the objects of His anger (Luk. 19:41).
5. Not long continued. Let not the sun go down upon your wrath (Eph. 4:26). Anger may enter the breast of a wise man, but rests only in the bosom of fools (Ecc. 7:9). Anger in fallen creatures apt to be sinful. Hence spoken of as a work of the flesh (Gal. 5:25). Believers exhorted to put it away (Eph. 4:31). Anger in fallen men like gunpowder in the hands of childrenuseful but dangerous Often sinful even in good men. Excluded Moses, though the meekest man on earth, from the promised land (Num. 20:10; Num. 20:12). Anger safest where directed against the sin rather than the sinner. Causeless anger murder in the heart, and often leading to murder in the act. Excessive anger a species of madness. The New Testament ruleSlow to speak, slow to wrath. Not soon angry, a precept necessary both for ministers and people. One feature of charity or love that it is not easily provoked (1Co. 13:5).
2. The inability of the three friends to answer Job. Job. 32:3They had found no answer. Job. 32:10Therefore I said, hearken unto me; I also will shew mine opinion. Behold, I waited for your words; I gave ear to your reasons (your arguments, or your views; Margin, your understandings), whilst (or till) ye searched out what to say. Yea, I attended unto you (or to your testimonies), and behold, there was none of you that convinced Job (refuted or convicted him of error), or that answered his words (solidly, suitably, and satisfactorily). Job. 32:15They (i.e., Jobs friends,the words addressed to Job, or to others present at the controversy as by-standers), were amazed (struck down, either by Jobs arguments, his confidence in God, or his obstinacy in maintaining his innocence), they left off speaking. When I had waited (or simply, I waitedspoken after an interval of silence, leaving room for remark), for (or but) they spake not, but stood still (persevered in their silence, or stood as dumb), and answered no more; I said, I will also [though so much younger] answer my part (will contribute my part to the controversy); I also will show my opinion. Becoming in juniors to be silent in a discussion, till others, older and likely to be better informed on the subject, have said what they are able to say upon it. Modesty an ornament to all, but especially to youth. Slow to speak, in most cases a safe rule. Jesus among the doctors, first heard, then asked questions, and then gave answers.
3. The general bestowment of understanding by the Creator on mankind. Job. 32:7.I said, days (men of advanced age) should speak, and the multitude of years should teach wisdom (understanding as to Gods dealings and mans duty). But there is a spirit in man (mankind in general, without being confined to age), and the inspiration of the Almighty giveth them understanding. Great men (great either in age or position) are not always wise; neither do the aged (necessarily or exclusively) understand judgment (what is right either in doctrine or duty). Therefore I said, Hearken to me; I also will shew mine opinion. Observe:
(1) To speak on great and important subjects connected with Divine truth, the especial right and duty of men of age and experience. Growth in wisdom naturally expected to accompany growth in years.
(2) Wisdom not the monopoly of any age or class.
(3). Intelligence the gift of God. Christ the light that lighteth every man that cometh into the world (Joh. 1:9).
(4) A preacher to speak in dependence on, and as the result of, Divine enlightenment. If any speak, let him speak as the oracles of God. The manifestation of the Spirit given to every [believing] man to profit [others] withal (1Co. 12:7; 1Pe. 4:11. Three things necessary for every preacher of Divine truth
(1) A message given him by the Spirit.
(2) The unction of the Spirit in delivering it.
(3) The power of the Spirit to accompany it in the hearts of the hearers.
4. His conviction, in opposition to the self-conceit of the three friends, that the subject under discussion was capable of receiving a more satisfactory treatment. Job. 32:13Lest ye should say (or do not say), We have found out wisdom; God casteth him down, and not man (his afflictions are to be viewed as coming in righteous judgment from the hand of God, and not from man; or, God must confute or overcome him and not man.) Either the language of the friends, as if they had said all that could be advanced on the subject, Job being now incorrigible to all but God himself; or the language of Elihu, as indicating that what he was about to advance was not the mere argument of man, but the teaching of God himself, by whose inspiration he was about to speak. We have found out wisdom, generally the language of ignorance and pride, as if we ourselves had seen the whole truth in relation to a subject, and nothing more could be said about it. The language of many of the philosophers or wise men of antiquity. Professing themselves to be wise. The name philosopher, however, denoting a lover of wisdom, chosen in modesty by Pythagoras its inventor, to indicate, in opposition to many who called themselves wise men, that wisdom was not yet found out, and that all that men could pretend to, was to be lovers or seekers of it; while both Socrates and Plato acknowledged the necessity of a Divine revelation, and anticipated the bestowment of it at some future period. We have found out wisdom, still the language of a vain philosophy, and of science falsely so called. The boast of some modern as well as of ancient schools. Especially made at present in reference to the origin of man and of the universe. Natural Selection to take the place of a personal and intelligent Creator. The Bible account of creation to be set aside, according to some, for the teachings or guessings of science, which yet is obliged to confess that it neither does nor can know anything certain on the subject. I say, says one of those who think they have found out wisdom on this subject, that natural knowledge, seeking to satisfy natural wants, has found the ideas which alone can satisfy spiritual cravings. On a subject, in regard to which science professes it has and can have no evidence and can give no certain account, on which its teachings are far from being in harmony with each other, and one connected with matters of infinite and eternal importance,it would seem not a little wiser to accept the professed and sufficiently-accredited Divine testimony, however it is to be intrepreted, which has been preserved and handed down to us through nearly four thousand years; which has been received as such by Jesus Christ and His Apostles, and by the best men in every age, both before and since, who have had the opportunity of doing so; and is infinitely more calculated to meet the wants and circumstances of humanity, than the theory or guesses which some professors of science would give us in its stead.
5. His having hitherto stood aloof from the controversy, and having arguments to produce which had not yet been advanced. Job. 32:14.Now he (Job) hath not directed his words against me: neither will I answer him with your speeches (either as to the matter or manner of them). Elihu proposes
(1) To bring new matter to bear on the subject under discussion, viz., Gods providential dealings with men;
(2) To speak in a calmer and more dispassionate tone than the three friends, as not having had anything irritating addressed to him by Job. The argument of the friends, that Jobs sufferings proved him to be a transgressor. Elihus object to show that afflictions and trials are often of a disciplinary character.Necessary in a discussion
(1) To be able to say something new;
(2) To keep ones temper.
6. His deep interest in the subject, his consciousness of having much to say upon it, and his earnest desire to deliver it. Job. 32:18.For I am full of matter: the spirit within me (Heb of my belly or heart) constraineth (or straiteneth) me. Behold, my belly (or heart, as Joh. 7:38) is as wine which hath no vent (or outlet for the escape of the gas generated in the course of fermentation); it is ready to burst like new bottles (or, like skin-bottles containing new wine undergoing fermentation; old skins being more liable to burst than new ones, Mat. 9:17-18). I will speak that I may be refreshed (relieved of the inward pressure to deliver what I have to say on the subject); I will open my lips and answer. In the East, a young man only justified in speaking in the presence of seniors, when he has much to say on the subject under discussion. ObserveThe duty of Christians in general, and of preachers in particular:
(1) To be deeply interested in subjects pertaining to the Divine glory and the welfare of men. Well to be zealously affected always in a good thing (Gal. 4:18).
(2) To sympathize with the sufferings of a fellow-creature, and to seek in every way we can to alleviate them.
(3) To obtain correct views as to the cause of afflictions, and the best way to improve them.
(4) To communicate for the comfort and benefit of others what we ourselves have been taught in regard to Divine things. That preacher likely to profit who feels that he has something important to say, and is inwardly constrained to say it. Desirable for a preacher to have the prophets experience,Gods Word as a burning fire shut up in his bones (Jer. 20:9). We cannot but speak the things which we have seen and heard (Act. 4:20). Paul pressed in the spirit at Corinth, and so testified to the Jews that Jesus was the Christ (Act. 18:5). Preachers needed who are ready to burst with the good news they have to communicate to their hearers concerning the great salvation of God. Such the preachers of the Gospel who at first turned the world up-side-down, and would do so again if found in any considerable number.
V. Elihus resolution to be plain and impartial in his discourse, and his reason for it. Job. 32:21-22.Let me not, I pray you, accept any mans person (shew partiality to any on the ground either of age or reputation), neither let me give flattering titles unto man (employing titles of honour and compliment, or speaking blandly and flatteringly, instead of plainly and honestly, and calling things by their right names). For I know not (am neither able nor willing) to give flattering titles; in so doing my Maker would soon take me away (by some signal manifestation of His displeasure; or simply, my Maker will soon take me away, i.e., by death: I shall soon appear in His presence and render an account of what and how I have spoken). The Orientals remarkable for their employment of flattering titles in addressing others. Observe
(1) Plainness of speech in a preacher not incompatible with courtesy. Paul an example of both.
(2) The preacher neither to be influenced by fear nor favour in delivering his message or performing his office. His business not to please but persuade men, or to please only in so far as it may tend to their edification, and with that object (Rom. 15:2; 1Co. 10:33; 1Co. 9:22). His duty to declare the whole counsel of God; to speak necessary truth, however unpalatable; to deliver his message faithfully, whether men will hear or whether they will forbear.
(3) Important recollection for a preacher: My Maker will soon take me away. Good to speak as a dying man to dying men.
(4) The remembrance of Christs presence as a hearer the best safeguard to the faithfulness of the preacher, and the best means of deliverance from the fear of man. Fear or flattery of man on the part of a preacher, an insult to his Master. Foolish as well as base to court the pages favour instead of the sovereigns. That man preaches before me as if he had the Almighty standing at his elbowJames the First, of one of his Court Preachers. Latimers introduction to his sermon before Henry the Eighth: Remember, Hugh Latimer, that thou speakest before the king, and, therefore, take good heed to what thou sayest in presence of his majesty; but remember also, Hugh Latimer, that thou speakest before the King of Kings, whose servant thou art, and who shall one day call thee to account.
Fuente: The Preacher’s Complete Homiletical Commentary Edited by Joseph S. Exell
TEXT 32:16a
So these three men ceased to answer Job, because he was righteous in his own eyes. (2) Then was kindled the wrath of Elihu the son of Barachel the Buzite, of the family of Ram: against Job was his wrath kindled, because he justified himself rather than God. (3) Also against his three friends was his wrath kindled, because they had found no answer, and yet had condemned Job. (4) Now Elihu had waited to speak unto Job, because they were elder than he. (5) And when Elihu saw that there was no answer in the mouth of these three men, his wrath was kindled.
(6) And Elihu the son of Barachel the Buzite answered and said,
COMMENT 32:16a
Job. 32:1Job is finished speaking. Enter Elihu, who makes four speeches[328] (Job. 32:1Job. 37:24). He is described as a listener who has become too emotionally involved in Jobs defense and the inadequacies of his friends arguments that he must break his silence. Theologically, his central theme is not suffering, as many assume, but rather the nature of God. Elihu disapproves of Jobs pride before God and his dogmatic insistence of his righteousness before his holy God.[329] He also rejects the traditional thesis of Jobs friends that suffering is exclusively retributory. Rather, he suggests that suffering may be Gods way of warning against human hybris. If a person would repent, God would restore him. After all of this is said, Elihus practical advice is no different from Jobs three friends. Elihus speeches contain approximately 150 lines compared with the ca. 220 lines allotted to all three consolers in the dialogue section of Job. Many critics reject the speeches as integral to the structure of the book. Though his speeches reveal a knowledge of the themes and content of the preceding dialogue, some of the reasons given for rejecting the speeches as an original part of the book are: (1) Elihu is not mentioned in either the Prologue or Epilogue; (2) Job does not respond to his speeches; (3) Gods Shattering of His Silence in chapter 38 follows naturally from chapter 31, and ignores Elihus speeches; (4) Gods rebuke is addressed only to Jobs three friends, completely ignoring Elihu; (5) Perhaps the most crucial and most technically powerful reason is that the Hebrew grammar suggests a later period in the history of the language. The most powerful argument for the presence of this great passage (chapters 3237) is that it powerfully prepares the way for The Shattering of Silence, i.e., Yahwehs speeches. Only the creative relevatory word from outside can answer Jobs dilemma.
[328] For good survey of Elihu speeches, see Marvin E. Tate, The Speeches of Elihu, Review and Expositor, The Book of Job, fall, 1971, pp. 487495; D. N. Freedman, The Hihu Speeches in the Book of Job, Harvard Theological Review, LXI, 1968, 5159; L. Dennefeld, Les discours d Elihou, Revue Biblique, 1939, pp. 163180; G. Fohrer, Die Weisheit des Elihu, Archiv fur Orientforschung, 19591960, pp. 8394; H. D. Buby, ElihuJobs Mediator? S. E. Asia Journal of Theology, 1965, PP-3354; and R. N. Carstensen, The Persistence of the Elihu Tradition in Later Jewish Writers, Lexington Theological Quarterly, 1967, pp. 3746.
[329] See excellent brief introduction by R. A. F. MacKenzie, Job, Jerome Biblical Commentary (Prentice-Hall, 1968), pp. 528529; also R. Gordis, Elihu the Intruder, Biblical and Other Studies, ed. by A. Altaian, 1963, pp. 60ff; J. H. Kroeze, Die Elihureden in Buche Hiob, Oudtestamentische Studien, 1943, pp. 156ff.
In the first speech (chapters 3233), we are informed four times that Elihu is angry, and he enters the verbal arena to supply the deficiency, to redeem the failure, and to rebuke Jobs three friends. Following his introduction in Job. 32:1-5, the speeches divide into six sections: (1) Elihus youth is wiser than their aged wisdomJob. 32:6-14; (2) The collapse of Jobs friends causes Elihu to interveneJob. 32:15-22; (3) He invites Job to give attention to his counselJob. 33:1-7; (4) Elihu declares that Jobs contention of innocence and unjust affliction is falseJob. 32:8-13; (5) He maintains that Jobs experience refutes his complaint that God is silentJob. 32:14-18; and (6) Elihus final appeal to JobJob. 32:19-22. These three friends in Job. 2:11; Job. 19:21; Job. 42:10 abandon Job. Elihu distributes blame impartially to Job and his three friends by the phrase in his own eyes (LXX reads in their eyes). The debate was useless and futile because of Jobs incorrigible self-righteousness. He is not innocent, and God has not afflicted him without just provocation.
Job. 32:2The name Elihu means he is my God and appears elsewhere in scripture in 1Sa. 1:1; 1Ch. 12:21; 1Ch. 26:7; 1Ch. 27:18. He is the son of Barachel, which means God has blessed. This is a strange inclusion of data in that neither the father of Job nor the fathers of his three friends are mentioned. Barachel is of the clan of Buz (an Aramaen name), the brother of UzGen. 22:21and so is closely related to JobJob. 1:1. An Arabian Buz is mentioned in Jer. 25:23. Ram (means lofty) has Judahite connections in 1Ch. 2:9; 1Ch. 2:25; 1Ch. 2:27; Rth. 4:19; Mat. 1:3; Luk. 3:33. Thus, we have genealogical connections all the way to Jobs redeemer. But Job not only declared his innocence, he brought an indictment against God.
Job. 32:3Elihu is aroused not because the friends condemned Job, but because they had not devised effective arguments against him. Rabbinic traditions list this verse as one of the eighteen corrections of the scribes, and the last line of the original text had declared God in the wrong, not Job. Yet this seems strange in that no condemnation of God follows from their failure to adequately respond to Job. The text wakes perfectly good sense as it standsbecause they had found no answer by which they could prove Job guilty (as condemned in A. V.)Blommerde.
Job. 32:4Elihu had waited for Jobs words. He gives as reason for his previous reticence his youth. Elihus youthful modesty is excelled only by his youthful assurance.
Job. 32:5The intensity of Elihus anger is suggested by the fact that the phrase his wrath was kindled appears three times in these five verses.
Job. 32:6The introductory narrative is finished; now Elihu begins his speech with the omniscience of youth. He initiates his speech with the reasons that compel him to join in the debate.
2. Silent because they are older, yet the spirit of the Almighty has given him understanding. (Job. 32:6 b10)
TEXT 32:6b10
I am young, and ye are very old;
Wherefore I held back, and durst not show you mine opinion.
7 I said, Days should speak,
And multitude of years should teach wisdom.
8 But there is a spirit in man,
And the breath of the Almighty giveth them understanding,
9 It is not the great that are wise,
Nor the aged that understand justice.
10 Therefore I said, Hearken to me;
I also will show mine opinion.
COMMENT 32:6b10
Job. 32:6He denies that wisdom is prerogative of the aged. He has given them adequate time in which to answer Job, if they only had the power of mind and words to do so. He timidly held backJob. 32:4while they spoke (bedabberam rather than bidbarim). The rendering of A. V. opinion does not express the text which reads knowledge. Elihu is giving forth with more than his opinion. He is not troubled by timidity. He expresses his position with brashful speech, not bashful silence.
Job. 32:7Older men should speak out of their reservoir of experience. Because of his youth, he was silent, but no more.
Job. 32:8The spirit (ruah) of God gives life, wisdom, intelligence, or any special and significant abilityJob. 27:3; Job. 33:4; Exo. 31:3; Isa. 11:2; Dan. 5:12-13. Wisdom does not necessarily flow from old ageJob. 12:12 and Job. 15:10. Since wisdom comes from God, piety is a prerequisitePro. 1:7; Pro. 2:6; Pro. 10:31; Pro. 15:33; Wisdom of Solomon 1:5-7; 7:2223; 1Co. 2:6. Like the PsalmistPsa. 119:99youthful Elihu believes that he has more understanding than his elders, because God is the origin of all wisdom. Wisdom belongs to Gods Spirit rather than age. Elihu is correct in this part of his assertion, but his immodest assertions are inexcusable.
Job. 32:9He correctly claims that it is not the great (as in A. V. does not mean powerful or influential) in age, as the parallel line showscf. Gen. 25:23that have wisdom. The word means something like seniors, as the use of zeqenim in the Manual of Discipline suggests, i.e., senior members of the order.
Job. 32:10Because wisdom derives from the Spirit of God, not from old age, Elihu said Hearken to me. The verb hearken or listen is in the singular form and thus addressed to Job. He will declare true knowledge based on real wisdom.
3.
Since the friends have no answer, Elihu can no longer restrain himself from speaking. (Job. 32:11-22)
Fuente: College Press Bible Study Textbook Series
XXXII.
(1) So these three men ceased.The next six chapters are taken up with the reply of a fourth person not before mentioned, but who appears to have been present during the discussion, and who is described as Elihu, the son of Barachel the Buzite, of the kindred of Ram. The name appears to mean, He is my God. The person from whom he was descended seems to have been the son of Nahor, Abrahams brother (Gen. 22:21); and a city of the like name is mentioned in Jer. 25:23. There is a Ram mentioned in Rth. 4:19, who was the great grandson of Judah; but we can hardly suppose this was the Ram of whose kindred Elihu was. On the other hand, we have no clue to the identification; for even if, with some, we suppose him to have been the same as Aram, the son of Kemuel, and great nephew of Abraham, it is not easy to see how a descendant of Buz, his uncle, should have been described as of the kindred of Ram. One tradition identifies Ram with Abraham, but this is mere conjecture, and in this case highly improbable; the only inference we can draw is that this specification of Elihu serves to show that he was a real, and not an imaginary, personage. The Targum speaks of Elihu as a relative of Abraham. If we are right in putting the life of Elihu so far back, the whole position and surroundings of Jobs history become the more probable, because what is told us of Abraham and the patriarchs corresponds with the description and character of Job; and then, also, the traditional Mosaic origin of the Book of Job becomes the more probable.
Because he was righteous in his own eyes.This appears from Job. 3:26; Job. 6:10; Job. 6:29; Job. 10:7; Job. 13:15; Job. 19:6, &c., Job. 23:7; Job. 23:10-12; Job. 27:6; Job. 29:12, &c.
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
Introduction in Prose accounting for the intervention of Elihu, Job 32:1-6 a.
The sacred writer proceeds to apologize for the intervention of Elihu, and more especially for the imperfections of his first address; not only for the impetuosity and conceit which it betokened, but for its painful embarrassment and the obvious inadequacy of its exordium the former of which were unbecoming a young man, and the latter of which should seemingly have led him to keep his silence. (See note on Job 32:6.) The introduction, however, quietly assures us in advance of the noble character of the speaker and of the fitness of his speech, notwithstanding adverse appearances; and prepares us to coincide with the estimate of Lowth: “The lenity and moderation of Elihu serve as a beautiful contrast to the intemperance and asperity of the other three. He is pious, mild, and equitable; equally free from adulation and severity; and endued with singular wisdom, which he attributes entirely to the inspiration of God; and his modesty, moderation, and wisdom are the more entitled to commendation when we consider his unripe youth. As the characters of his detractors were in all respects calculated to inflame the mind of Job, that of this arbitrator is admirably adapted to soothe and compose it. To this point the whole drift of the argument tends, and on this the very purport of it seems to depend.” Hebrew Poetry, sec. 34.
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
1. Righteous in his own eyes The friends had failed to convince him of unrighteousness. On the contrary, in arraigning the rightness of the divine government, they conceived his object to be the establishment of his own righteousness. Seemingly about to retire from the field and leave Job to his vanity and obduracy, the friends console themselves, and excuse their pitiable defeat, by the solace that Job is “righteous in his own eyes.” The author apparently makes the remark in the interest of “the friends,” notwithstanding Hengstenberg’s view that he speaks in his own person.
The words are significant in their bearing upon the solution of the problem of the book.
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
Job 32:1 So these three men ceased to answer Job, because he was righteous in his own eyes.
Job 32:1
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.
Job 32:2
Job 32:2 Word Study on “Barachel” – Strong says the Hebrew name “Barachel” (H1292) means, “God has blessed.”
Job 32:2 Word Study on “Ram” Strong says the Hebrew name “Ram” (H7410) means, “high.”
Job 32:2 Comments The book of Job makes no mention of Elihu until Job 32:2; yet he says he has heard the speeches of Job and his three friends. Evidently, Elihu had been present mourning with Job along with others while his three friends were speaking.
Fuente: Everett’s Study Notes on the Holy Scriptures
The Pause After Job’s Speech
v. 1. So these three men ceased to answer Job because he was righteous in his own eyes, v. 2. Then was kindled the wrath of Elihu, the son of Barachel, the Buzite, v. 3. Also against his three friends was his wrath kindled because they had found no answer and yet had condemned Job. v. 4. Now, Elihu, v. 5. When Elihu saw that there was no answer in the mouth of these three men,
Fuente: The Popular Commentary on the Bible by Kretzmann
EXPOSITION
A new personage is now introduced upon the scene, who speaks in a new style and almost in a new language. No previous mention has been made of him; no subsequent notice is taken of his arguments; and nothing is said of him in the historical section wherewith the work concludes (Job 42:7-17). It is therefore scarcely surprising that some exception has been taken to the genuineness of the entire passage (Job 32-37), or that it has been regarded by many excellent critics as an interpolation into the Book of Job, made by one who was not the original author, at a date considerably later than the rest of tile composition. A modification of this extreme view is suggested by M. Renan, who thinks that the original author may have added the passage in his old age. This view is entitled to consideration. The subject has been discussed at some length in the Introduction, so that no more need be stated here. We are confronted with the fact that the passage has come down in us as a substantive portion of the Book of Job, in all the Hebrew manuscripts that have reached our time, as well as in all the ancient versionsthe Septuagint, the Syriac, the Chaldee, the Arabic, the AEthiopic, the Vulgate, etc. To excise it, therefore, would be too bold a measure, though some moderns have not shrunk from doing so.
Job 32:1-5
The discourse of Elihu is prefaced by a short introduction in plain prose, explaining who he was, and giving the reasons which actuated him in coming forward at this point of the dialogue.
Job 32:1
So these three men ceased to answer Job. Zophar had been silenced earlier. Eliphaz and Bildad now felt that they had no more to say. They had exhausted the weapons of their armoury without any effect, and were conscious that nothing would be gained by mere reiteration. All their efforts had aimed at convincing Job of sin; and he was still unconvincedhe remained righteous in his own eyes.
Job 32:2
Then was kindled the wrath of Elihu. The name “Elihu” was not uncommon among the Israelites. It is found among the ancestors of Samuel (1Sa 1:1), among the Korhite Levites of the time of David (1Ch 26:7), and as a variant for Eliab, one of David’s brothers (1Ch 27:8) The meaning of the word was, “He is my God” (). The son of Barachel. Barachel is also a significant name. It means, “Bless, O God,” or “God blesses” ( ). Both names imply that the new interlocutor belonged to a family of monotheists. The Buzite. “Huz” and “Buz” were brothers, the sons of Nahor, Abraham’s brother, by Maleah, the daughter of Haran (Gen 11:29; Gen 22:20, Gen 22:21). Of the kindred of Ram. By “Ram” we are probably to understand “Aram,” who was the son of Kemuel, a brother of Huz and Buz. (On the connection of Huz and Buz with the Arabian tribes of Khazu and Bazu, see the comment on Job 1:1.) Against Job was his wrath kindled, because he justified himself rather than God. Elihu was well-intentional; and it is perhaps not surprising that he had been shocked by some of Job’s expressions. Job had himself apologized for them (Job 6:26); and certainly they went perilously near taxing God with injustice (see Job 40:8). But it is to be remembered that finally God justifies Job’s sayings, while condemning those of his “comforters.” “My wrath is kindled,” he says to Eliphaz, “against thee, and against thy two friends: for ye have not spoken of me the thing that is right, as my servant Job hath” (Job 42:7).
Job 32:3
Also against his three friends was his wrath kindled, because they had found no answer. Elihu thought that Job’s reasonings and complaints admitted of being satisfactorily answered, and was vexed that the three “friends” had not made the right replied It is the main object of his speech to supply them. And yet had condemned Job. They had condemned him on wrong grounds and of sins that he had not committed (Job 22:6-9). Elihu condemns him as much (Job 33:9-12; Job 34:7-9, etc.), but for entirely different reasons.
Job 32:4
Now Elihu had waited till Job had spoken; rather, to speak to Job (see the Revised Version) He had waited impatiently until the three special “friends” had said their say, and be might come forward without manifest presumption. Because they were elder than he. (On the respect paid to age at this time in the land wherein Job lived, see the comment on Job 29:8.)
Job 32:5
When Elihu saw that there was no answer in the mouth of these three men, then his wrath was kindled (comp. Job 32:3 and the comment).
Job 32:6-22
The speech of Elihu now begins. In the present chapter, after a short apologetic exordium, excusing his youth (Job 32:6-9), he addresses himself exclusively to Job’s friends. He has listened attentively to them, and weighed their words (verses 11, 12). but has found nothing in them that confuted Job. They had not “found wisdom”they had not “vanquished Job”at the last they had been “amazed, and had not had a word more to say” (verses 13-16). Elihu, therefore, will supply their deficiency; he has kept silence with difficulty, and is full of thoughts, to which he would fain give utterance (verses 17-20). In all that he says he will show no favouritismhe will “accept no man’s-person,” “give no flattering titles,” but express sincerely what he believes (verses 21, 22).
Job 32:6
And Elihu the son of Barachel the Buzite answered and said, I am young, and ye are very old. We can only guess at the exact ages of Job and his friends. From the fact that God at the last “gave Job twice as much as he had before” (Job 42:10), and the further fact that he lived, after he had recovered his prosperity, a hundred and forty years (Job 42:16), it has been conjectured that he was seventy years of age at the time of his conference with his friends, and that he died at the age of two hundred and ten. But this clearly is quite uncertain. He may not have been much more than fifty when his calamities fell upon him. If this were so, the age of his friends need not have exceeded from sixty to seventy. Perhaps Elihu was himself not more than thirty. Wherefore I was afraid, and durst not show you mine opinion; rather, I held back and was afraid to utter what I knew in your presence. Elihu would have been thought unduly pushing and presumptuous if he had ventured to come forward until his seniors had ended their colloquy.
Job 32:7
I said; i.e. “I kept saying to myself, when the desire to interrupt came upon me.” Days should speak. Age should give wisdom, and the speech of the old should be most worthy of being attended to. Elihu had been brought up in this conviction, and therefore refrained himself. And multitude of years should teach wisdom. “Old experience should attain to something of prophetic strain.” “One ought to give attention,” says Aristotle, “to the mere unproved assertions of wise and aged men, as much as to the actual demonstrations of others” (‘Eth. Nit.,’ Job 6:11, ad fin. comp. also Job 10:12; Job 15:10; Pro 16:31).
Job 32:8
But there is a spirit in man. But, after all, it is not mere age and experience that make men wise and able to teach others. “There is a spirit in man” (see Gen 2:7); and it is according as this spirit is or is not enlightened from on high that men speak words of wisdom or the contrary. The inspiration of the Almightythis it is, whichgiveth them understanding. And such inspiration it is in the power of God to bestow, as he pleases, on the old or on the young, on the great of the earth, or on those of small reputation. Hence Elihu’s conclusion
Job 32:9
Great men are not always wise: neither do the aged (always) understand judgment. Elihu lays down the universal law, before applying it to the particular instance. True wisdom is from God, not from observation and experience. Therefore many aged men are not wise; many experienced men, great in position, versed in affairs, do not possess understanding. It is a trite remark, “With how little wisdom the world is governed!”
Job 32:10
Therefore I said, Hearken to me. Elihu evidently claims, not exactly what is ordinarily understood by inspiration, but that his spirit, is divinely enlightened, and that therefore he is more competent to take part in the controversy that has been raised than many of the aged. I also will show mine opinion. “I also,” or “even I”i.e. I, young as I am, “will show my opinion,” or “utter what I know on the subject.” Elihu does not speak of his convictions as mere “opinions,” but claims to be in possession of actual “knowledge.”
Job 32:11
Behold, I waited for your words; i.e. “I was full of expectation; I waited impatiently to hear what you would say.” Then, while you spoke, I gave ear to your reasonsor, your reasonings; I did my best to apprehend your meaningwhilst ye searched out what to say. Professor Lee translates, “whilst ye examined Job‘s conclusions; but the Authorized Version is probably correct. Elihu means that he listened carefully while the friends hunted out all the arguments they could think of in order to confute Job.
Job 32:12
Yea, I attended unto youor, lent you my attentionand, behold, there was none of you that convinced Job; rather, that convicted (or, confuted) Job. Or that answered his words. In Elihu’s opinion, the argumentative value of all the long speeches of the three friends was nil; they had entirely failed to answer Job’s arguments.
Job 32:13
Lest ye should say, We have found out wisdom; or, beware lest ye say, We have found wisdom (see the Revised Version). “Do not suppose, i.e; that you have triumphed in the controversy, that your mode of meeting Job’s complaints is the wise and right one. The exact reverse is the case. You have not vanquished Job. On the contrary, he is unvanquished, and remains master of the field. If he is ever to be vanquished, it will not be by you. God thrusteth him down, not man. A true prophecy! (see Job 40:1-14).
Job 32:14
Now he hath not directed his words against me. Elihu thinks that he can interfere in the controversy with the better prospect of a good result, since he is untouched by any of Job’s words, and can therefore speak without passion or resentment. Neither will I answer him with your speeches. He is also going to bring forward fresh arguments, which, as they avoid the line taken by the three friends, may soothe, instead of exasperating, the patriarch.
Job 32:15
They were amazed, they answered no more. A change from the second to the third person, possibly as seeming less disrespectful. Or perhaps Elihu turns from the three friends at this point, as Professor Lee supposes, and addresses himself to Job. Job’s “comforters,” he says, “were amazed” by his last speech, and could find nothing to say in reply to it. Consequently, they left off speaking.
Job 32:16
When I had waited (for they spake not, but stood still, and answered no more); rather, as in the Revised Version, and shall 1 wait‘ because they speak not, because they stand still‘ and answer no more? Am I to wait until they shall have recovered themselves, and found something to answer? Surely this is not necessary. Neither courtesy nor etiquette prescribes it. Especially when I have waited so long, and have so much to say, and am so exceedingly anxious to say it (see Job 32:18-20). Elihu shows all the impatience and ardour of a young speaker (see Job 32:6), and feels the confidence that young men so often feel in the wisdom and persuasiveness of their words (comp. Job 33:1-6).
Job 32:17
I said, I will answer also my part, I also will show mine opinion. The initial “I said” is superfluous. Elihu, having asked himself the question, “Shall I wait?” in Job 32:16, here gives the answer. He will not wait any longer, he will take the word, he will set forth his conviction.
Job 32:18
For I am full of matter; literally, I am full of words; i.e. I have very much to say. The spirit within me constraineth me; literally, the spirit of my belly; i.e. “my inward feelings and emotions.” Compare Zophar’s statements in Job 20:2, Job 20:3; and Job’s own declarations in Job 13:1-28; that he must speak (Job 13:13, Job 13:19). There is a state of internal excitement, when reticence becomes impossible.
Job 32:19
Behold, my belly is as wine which hath no vent. The process of fermentation properly takes place in the vat, from which the gas evolved in the operation can freely escape. When wine was put into skins before fermentation was complete, and gas continued to be evolved, the effect was that the skins became distended, as the gas had no vent, and then not unfrequently the skins would burst, especially if they were old ones (see Mat 9:17). It is ready to burst like new bottles. Even if the skins were new, they would undergo distension, and would appear as if “ready to burst,” though the actual catastrophe might be avoided. Elihu’s pent-up feelings seem to him, if they do not obtain a vent, to threaten some such a result.
Job 32:20
I will speak, that I may be refreshed; rather, that I may obtain relief; or, according to some, “that I may be able to breathe” (Cook, Rosenmuller). Elihu feels almost suffocated by conflicting feelings of rage (Job 32:1-3), disappointment (Job 32:11, Job 32:12), and anxiety to vindicate God’s honour (Job 32:2). I will open my lips and answer. In the remainder of Elihu’s discourse the attempt is made to “answer” Job (see ch. 33-37), with what success will be considered elsewhere.
Job 32:21
Let me not, I pray you, accept any man’s person. Elihu hopes that, in what he is about to say, he will not permit himself to be swayed by any personal bias; that he will neither unduly favour the upper classes nor the vulgar, but will treat all fairly and equitably. Neither let me (he says) give flattering titles unto man. Professor Lee observes on this: “The Oriental practice of giving long and fulsome titles is too well known to need anything beyond the mere mention of the fact.” Elihu certainly, in the whole of his address, flatters no one.
Job 32:22
For I know not to give flattering titles; i.e. it is not my habit to give flattering titles, nor have I any knowledge of the art. I should expect that, if such were my habit, my Maker would soon take me away; would soon, i.e; remove me from the earth, as one whose influence was not for good, but for evil. Flattery is condemned by Job, in Job 17:5 : by David, in the Psalms (Psalm 3:9; Psa 12:2, Psa 12:3; Psa 78:36); and by Solomon, in the Book of Proverbs (Pro 2:16; Pro 7:21; Pro 20:19; Pro 28:23, etc.).
HOMILETICS
Job 32:1-5
The intervention of Elihu.
I. THE DISCOMFITURE OF THE FRIENDS. “So these three men”Eliphaz, Bildad, and Zophar”ceased to answer Job;” i.e. did not respond to the lamentations and protestations which he uttered in his parable.
1. The reason they perhaps assigned for their silence. “Because he,” i.e. Job, “was righteous in his own eyes.” If this was scarcely accurate in the strict theological sense of the expression, since Job had more than once acknowledged himself a sinner (Job 7:20, 24; Job 9:2, Job 9:3), and even subscribed to the sentiment of Eliphaz and his associates that no mortal man can be just before God (Job 9:20; Job 14:3, Job 14:4), it is yet difficult to exonerate the patriarch entirely from the charge here preferred against him; for, though righteous to the extent of being free from flagrant transgression, which his friends alleged he was not, and sincerely devoted to the ways of holiness, as God himself had testified (Job 1:1), he nevertheless insisted on his blamelessness of life and uprightness of character with such pertinacity as to overstep the bounds of true humility, advancing these as a ground or reason why God should have dealt with him differently from what he had done, and thus, as it were, constructing out of them a claim of merit, or self-righteousness before God.
2. The reason they forgot to assign for their silence. “Because they had found no answer,” i.e. to Job. For this explanation of their conduct we are indebted to the observation of Elihu, a new interlocutor who appears upon the scene. Unable to convince Job of immorality and hypocrisy, they were likewise, in Elihu’s judgment, incompetent to reply to his arguments and protestations. Doubtless the matter did not so present itself to the contemplation of the friends. According to their theology, Job, being a great sufferer, must have been a great sinner; and any declarations on his part to the contrary only proved that he had not been sufficiently humbled before God, and was indulging in self-deception. This, however, as Job explained, entirely failed in its applicability to him, whose past life of stainless purity, fervent piety, and unwearied philanthropy gave conspicuous demonstration of the falsehood of their allegations, and whose present consciousness reproached him with no dereliction of duty, but rather loudly proclaimed the steadfast character, untarnished beauty, and unmixed sincerity of his integrity to Heaven. But, inasmuch as the above-cited nostrum was the only specific which remained in the pharmacopoeia of the friends, they judiciously abandoned the case as beyond their skill. They had spent every weapon in their quiver without overthrowing their antagonist; and, accordingly, with commendable prudence, observing a discreet reticence as to the secret motive of their behaviour, they retired from the contest.
II. THE INTERPOSITION OF ELIHU. “Then was kindled the wrath of Elihu the son of Barachel the Buzite, of the kindred of Ram.”
1. The personality of Elihu. Details such as theseconcerning the name (Elihu, equivalent to “He is my God”), parentage (son of Barachel, or “God blesseth”), country (the Buzite, probably a descendant of Nahor through his second son (Gen 22:21), and therefore of Aramsean extraction, though by birth an Arabian, Buz being mentioned with Dedan and Tema as a city of Idumea in the time of Jeremiah, Jer 25:23), kindred (of the family of Ram, otherwise unknown, unless connected with Aram, the son of Shem, Gen 10:23, the brother of Buz, Gen 22:21, or the grandfather of Nahshon, cf. Num 1:7 with 1Ch 2:9, 1Ch 2:10)dispose of the patristic conceit that the new interlocutor was Jesus Christ. Equally, however, do they preclude the hypothesis (Cox) that he was simply one of the young men of Job’s city (Job 29:8). They rather hint that be “belonged to a family which had retained the knowledge of the God of heaven” (Cook); and, indeed, when it is considered that Elihu distinctly claims to speak under Divine impulse (Job 32:8; Job 33:4), proposes himself as a response to Job’s oft-repeated demand for a daysman (Job 33:6), and unfolds views of Divine truth concerning the remedial character of affliction and the doctrine of atonement (Job 33:14-30) that seem like anticipations of gospel discoveries, it is hard to resist the inference that in Elihu we have a young Arabian prophet who had been providentially brought upon the scene, as the friends were, and was moved at the appropriate juncture to deliver certain preliminary judgments on the cause then pending.
2. The time of his appearing. We are inclined to think that, as the result of the strife of tongues between the patriarch and his friends, to which also we can suppose that Elihu had listened, the citadel of Job’s integrity, if not in danger of being captured, was at any rate rudely shaken, and that victory, in the grand fundamental debate or controversy of the poem, was inclining to the side of the devil But as God never leaves his people in their hour of need, so neither was Job suffered to be taken captive by the craft of Satan. And accordingly Elihu is at this point introduced upon the stage.
3. The purpose of his introduction.
(1) Doctrinal completeness. Considered as a theological discussion, nothing could have been less satisfactory than the position of matters at the close of Job’s monologue. On the one hand, the friends had exhausted themselves in an attempt to demonstrate their particular theory without convincing Job. On the other hand, Job had uttered his last word without converting them to his way of thinking. On the one side, they remained exactly as they were, both as to the truth of their dogma and as to its bearing on the case of Job. On the other side, Job himself was hopelessly entangled in a futile endeavour to reconcile the seemingly insoluble contradiction which existed between his outward lot and his inward condition. So far as the right relation of suffering to sin was concerned, neither of the disputants had discovered it. Occasionally, indeed, Job seemed to get a glimpse of it (Job 23:10), as also did Eliphaz (Job 5:17); but for the most part the remedial, corrective, beneficent, paedagogic uses of adversity were not understood. This view of affliction, therefore, required to be prominently exhibited, if the poem were at all to be redeemed from a charge of incompleteness, of starting a problem it could not answer, of propounding an enigma it could not solve; and this was done by setting forth Elihu to clear away the doctrinal fogs which had gathered around the otherwise acute mind of Job, no less than round the less penetrative intellects of his friends.
(2) Dramatic unity. Recurring to the problem lying at the basis of the poem, the controversy represented as existing between God and Satan, and solemnly put to trial in the person of Job, was not whether man, standing alone and unaided on the platform of nature, could maintain his integrity to Heaven, but whether man could do so on the platform of grace (vide Job 1:9, homiletics). It was needful, therefore, that, just at the moment when Job seemed to be on the eve of giving way, he should receive such assistance as grace could impart; and this, again, was done by Elihu, who, speaking from a Divine impulse, “sets before Job clearer, fuller, and more accurate views of the Divine character and modes of procedure in dealing with the children of men, and thereby seeks to reinforce him in his struggle with his friends, and to prevent him from succumbing beneath the temp-rations of the foe”. Thus the interlocution of Elihu is not so much “what Job had repeatedly called for, a confutation of his opinions, not effected by an overwhelming display of Divine power, but by rational an “human argument” (Canon Cook, in ‘Speaker’s Commentary’), or “the human verdict on the controversy between Job and the friends, which we want to hear almost as much as the Divine verdict, (Cox), as the special illumination which Divine grace had to shed upon the problem agitated between him and them, which illumination was conveyed to him through the instrumentality of Elihu, as it is now more amply and luminously unfolded to us in the gospel.
4. The spirit of his intervention.
(1) His wrath was kindled. That Elihu should have given way to an uncalled-for ebullition of anger, if such be the view adopted of his passionate excitement, was no more a proof that he did not speak under inspiration than was the fact that he made use of Aramaisms, and committed certain inelegancies of style. “It is good to be zealously affected in a good thing,” and Elihu’s indignation was amply vindicated by the conduct first of Job (verse 2), and secondly of the friends (verse 3). Yet
(2) his modesty was conspicuous. The style of severe animadversion adopted by many commentators, beth ancient and modern, in stigmatizing Elihu as “an emblem of confident arrogance” (Gregory the Great), as an example of the ambitious orator (Strigei), as “arrogant and bold” (Herder), as “a conceited prater” (Umbreit), and his addresses as “the weak and rambling speeches of a boy,” is quite unwarranted. Not only had he waited respectfully until his elders had concluded their disputations (vex. 4), but with much humility he attributed any value his contributions might Possess, not to the intrinsic excellence of his own genius, but to the fact of his inspiration (verse 8), which rendered him little more than the mouthpiece of Heaven.
Learn:
1. It is one mark of true wisdom to know when to be silent.
2. It is specially becoming in young men to be deferential towards their elders.
3. It is quite possible for good men to be righteous in their own eyes.
4. It is commonly the case that of two controversialists both are wrong.
5. It is not unseemly fur even young men to be jealous of the Divine honour.
6. It is no sin for young men who know the truth to instruct old men who know it not.
7. It is right in those who speak for God to be raised above the fear of man.
8. It is certain that God never suffers saints to be tempted without reinforcing them by Divine grace and teaching.
9. It is observable that heavenly succour mostly comes to men when human resources are exhausted.
Job 32:6-22
The apology of Elihu.
I. THE REASONS OF HIS PREVIOUS RETICENCE. Elihu had been an earnest listener to the controversy Job waged with his three friends, “waiting for Job with words” (verse 4), i.e. eager to pour out in speech the arguments that trembled on his lips; and now he declares that two things had restrained him from joining earlier in the discussion.
1. A modest respect for their superior age. He was but a young man (literally, “few of years”), while they were very old. Their venerable aspect had inspired him with such awe that he feared to utter his opinion in their presence. Young men in modern times are not always so deferential towards their elders. But seniores priores is a maxim which should be of universal application. While it is at all times unbecoming and impertinent for a youth to interrupt or precede an elder in conversation, it is a special mark of rudeness in religious discussion for an inexperienced Boy to “show his opinion” before men of mature years have delivered theirs. Jesus, at the age of twelve, among the doctors in the temple, was not delivering his convictions, but “hearing and asking them questions.”
2. A lofty esteem for their superior knowledge. He considered that old age, with its rich experience, should have had wise and weighty thoughts immeasurably more worthy of being listened to than any crude sentiments and immature judgments that he could utter. A young man who thus accurately gauges the relative importance of the wisdom of age and the “opinions” of youth is a rare phenomenon. It is characteristic of youth, though born like a wild ass’s colt, to fancy itself as wise as Solomon. For the most part, the education of a lifetime is required to enable any one to gather successfully the ripe fruits of wisdom; and even then, the wisdom one gathers is chiefly this, that what one knows is as nothing in comparison to that of which one is ignorant. Occasional examples may be found of amazing talent, immense learning, extraordinary genius, in youth; but ripe wisdom, i.e. carefully verified, well-digested, skilfully arranged knowledge, is preeminently the property of age.
II. THE MOTIVES FOR HIS PRESENT INTERFERENCE. In justification of his behaviour, he offers the following considerations.
1. That true wisdom in its ultimate analysis is an inspiration of Heaven. “Truly it is the spirit in man [literally, ‘weak, feeble, mortal man’], and the breath of Shaddai that giveth them [i.e. man collectively] understanding” (verse 8). That is to say, human life in all its departmentsphysical, intellectual, spiritualis not an evolution or development from dead matter, but is the creation of God’s Spirit (Gen 2:7). It is the breath of the Almighty that sustains the thinking principle in man no less than the principle of purely animal existence. Hence wild, m, spiritual insight, intellectual penetration, religious understanding, has its origin rather from within than from without. It is dependent not so much (it at all) upon accidental circumstances, such as age, capacity, opportunity, as upon the quickening influence of the vitalizing and enlightening Spirit. Nay, it demonstrates the possibility of a supernatural communication of wisdom to whomsoever Shaddai wills, and upon whatsoever theme he may please. It proves that no man can justly, or without presumption, claim a monopoly of wisdom. The doctrine of Elihu, that all intelligence in man, and much more all spiritual understanding, proceeds from a Divine afflatus which breatheth when, where, and how it wills, was the doctrine of Pharaoh (Gen 41:38), of Moses (Exo 31:3), of Nehemiah (Neh 9:20), of Isaiah (Isa 11:2), of Christ (Joh 16:13), of St. Paul (1Co 2:10), and of St. John (1Jn 2:20).
2. That true wisdom is not necessarily the property of age. “Great men are not always wise: neither do the aged understand judgment” (verse 9). This was an advance upon the previous thought. Not only was wisdom not the property of age alone; the discourses to which he had listened had painfully convinced him it was not necessarily a characteristic of age at all. This witness is true. If juvenile witlings abound among all ranks and classes of society, there is unfortunately no lack of aged dullards. Partly through lack of capacity, partly from defective education, partly from long-continued negligence, many come to old age without acquiring wisdom (Job 4:21), and sometimes without possessing common sense. It is not, therefore, wrong for young men of piety and culture to offer to instruct these persons in Divine truth or secular information; only even to such as these it becomes young men to manifest the courtesy and deference that are always due to age.
3. That in particular the old men before him had not displayed a high degree of wisdom. He had hearkened to their “understandings,” i.e. their explanations of the subject-matter in dispute, and had carefully examined the replies with which they had endeavoured to convince and silence Job; but in no single instance had they fairly combated his position. It was not reasonable to say, “Lo! we have found out wisdom,” and here it is: “God thrusteth him down, not man,” so that from this his punishment we infer his guilt (verse 13); because that was exactly the point at issue throughout the entire course of the discussion. Nor, again, was it reasonable to assert that their dogma was the absolute wisdom, though Job was of so obstinate a temper that only God could convince him, since obviously man could not. That, again, was to beg the question entirely; and, in default of argument, to abuse the plaintiff’s attorney. Job’s words must be fairly and honestly controverted. But these old preachers did not understand the business. A well-known interpretation of verse 13 makes Elihu say that only God could overthrow Job, while he really means that only such uncommon genius as he (Elihu) possessed could vanquish a disputant so obstinate as Job (Umbreit); but this is putting the worst construction possible on language which may legitimately signify that in Elihu’s judgment Job’s position could not be turned by merely human wisdom, but demanded the light of inspiration such as he was about to shed upon the theme.
4. That the contribution he proposed to offer was entirely fresh and original. The position he intended to occupy was not one against which Job had already directed his attacks; nor had the arguments he designed to use in confutation of the patriarch occurred to any of the friends. The new thoughts Elihu proposed to introduce into the discussion related chiefly to the disciplinary character of affliction; and it is doubtful if such a view of life’s tribulations could have occurred to any one apart from Divine revelation. The interpretation which understands Elihu to say that, inasmuch as he had not been personally interested in the debate which Job and the friends had conducted, he was able both to deliver an impartial verdict on the point at issue, and to preserve a more equal temper than they, the friends, had been able to do, though perhaps admissible, is not so forcible or apt.
5. That the strength of his convictions would no longer admit of his keeping silence. So powerfully had the truth seized upon him, and so long had he endeavoured to restrain it, that now his soul (literally, “his belly,” as the seat of spiritual emotions) seemed like a wine-skin on the eve of bursting through the fermentation of the liquor it contained (verses 17-19). So every Heaven-born idea, to whomsoever it is first communicated, irresistibly strives after utterance. For a season the living thought may be kept in abeyance, carefully secluded from the world at large, but ultimately there comes a moment when it asserts its Heaven-granted supremacy over the mind of the man that has received it, and, refusing to be longer concealed, eventually drives that mind to speak forth the God-imparted message. So the Word of the Lord was in Jeremiah’s heart as a burning fire shut up in his bones (Jer 20:9). So SS. Peter and John told the Sanhedrin they could not but speak the things which they had seen and heard (Act 4:20). So St. Paul felt that necessity was laid upon him to preach the gospel (1Co 9:16). So Mahomet proclaimed to the rude Arab tribes of a later day the sublime discovery of the unity of God; and Luther could not keep back the truth which God’s Spirit had flashed into his soul on Pilate’s Staircase, that “the just shall live by faith.” So when God gives to any manprophet, poet, preacher, writer, inventor, discoverer, or man of genius generally, a new idea, it renders him uncomfortable until it has been liberated, brought to the birth, as it were, and sent forth to wander through the world on its Heaven-designed mission. If the possessor of such an idea would have ease and comfort in his soul, he must give it voice. As Elihu says, he must speak in order to be refreshed.
III. THE CHARACTER OF HIS FORTHCOMING UTTERANCE. The two closing verses are by some understood to contain an additional reason for Elihu’s interposition, viz. that continued silence would evince such a mean and cowardly deference to merely human authority, that he could not hope to escape punishment for it at the hands of God (‘Speaker’s Commentary;’ Cox); but it seems preferable to view them as setting forth first the principles he intended to observe in his proposed interlocution, and, secondly, the reasons or arguments on which those principles were based (Delitzsch, Carey, Fry, etc.).
1. The principles he intended to observe. These were:
(1) The strictest impartiality as between man and man: “Let me not, I pray thee, accept any man’s person” (verse 21). The acceptance of persons, or the favouring of the great at the expense of the small, of the rich at the expense of the poor, of the powerful at the expense of the weak, results either from moral cowardice, intellectual vanity, or personal dishonesty. Condemned in the Word of God (Pro 18:5), it is specially unbecoming in the followers of Christ (Jas 2:1). Charged by Job against the friends (Job 13:8), it was a sin which Elihu felt it incumbent upon him to avoid.
(2) The directest honesty as regards the individual himself. “Neither let me give flattering titles to any man.” Unlike his Oriental countrymen, Elihu would be guilty of no adulation or compliment to any man; but with simplicity and godly sincerity would deliver the sentiments with which he had been charged. So Elijah preached to Ahab (1Ki 18:18), and the Baptist to Herod (Mat 14:4). So did St. Paul preach the gospel at Corinth (2Co 1:12), Thessalonica (1Th 2:4), Athens (Act 17:22), and elsewhere. So preached Luther to the princes of Germany, Latimer to Henry VIII. of England, and John Knox to Mary Queen of Scots.
2. The reasons he alleged for his intended behaviour. These were extremely creditable to himself.
(1) He had not learnt the art of flattery. He possessed a soul too large, honest, and independent to reside in a courtier’s bosom. Adulation was abhorrent to his nature. Such souls are scarce. Yet there is no better mark of true spiritual nobility than an incapacity to either give or receive the honeyed words and fawning courtesies of flattery.
(2) he would certainly be punished if he did commit the wickedness alluded topunished, according to the interpretation of the last clause (Carey, Fry), with the richly merited contempt of God: “How little would my Maker esteem me!”according to another rendering (Delitzsch, Cook, Cox), with some signal manifestation of his displeasure, as e.g. by sudden death.
Learn:
1. There is a time to speak and a time to keep silence, even in regard to the most sacred matters.
2. It is a high proof of wisdom to be able to recognize whence all wisdom comes.
3. It is proper to sift the opinions and doctrines of even the oldest and wisest of men; to prove all things, and hold last that which is good.
4. It would largely contribute to the world’s happiness if those who undertook to teach others never spoke until they were impelled by the force of inward conviction.
5. The men who move the world are those whose souls are illumined and inflamed by the light and fire of great ideas.
6. One of the greatest pleasures a human soul can enjoy on earth is that of propounding and diffusing new and lofty thoughts.
7. Sincerity of mind and heart is an indispensable qualification for the teacher whom God employs.
8. Want of fidelity to the truth and to those who hear is one of the greatest crimes a preacher can commit.
9. God despises and will punish those who yield to fear or favour.
10. God can easily remove those who are unfaithful to the trust they have received.
HOMILIES BY E. JOHNSON
Verse 1-37:24
Elihu and his discourse.
In the person of the young Elihu a new speaker comes forward, who mediates between Job and his friends. Calmer and juster in thought than either, he takes up the word when “wit and reason” on both sides are at an end; he shows the weakness of the friends, but at the same time reproaches Job with his past wild speeches, and refutes certain of his errors. Thus he prepares the way for the appearance of Jehovah himself. In Job 32:1-22 and Job 33:1-33; after a long introduction, he advances an argument for the truth that man may not esteem himself pure and just in the presence of God.J.
Verse 1-33:7
Appearance of Elihu: the motives of his address.
I. HIS CHARACTER INDICATED. (Job 33:1-6.) In a few touches the temper and spirit of this new speaker are set before us.
1. His warm piety, which could not tolerate the confidence and the self-justifying spirit of Job. His sense of the greatness of God and his holiness is so profound that he cannot endure what seems to be the bold and haughty attitude of the creature. His feeling seems to be, “Let God be true, and every man a liar!”
2. His spirit of justice, which was indignant at the unfairness of the friends, who held Job for guilty, and condemned him without being able to give an answer to his plea. These are two grand elements in a noble character. Without zeal for God and his righteousness, our sympathy for the suffering may degenerate into a sickly and immoral sentimentalism. But without feeling for the wrongs of the oppressed, without the passion for justice, our zeal for God will become an unholy and pernicious fire. This last has been the cause of many of those terrible persecutions which have defaced the history of the world. Let us beware in our spirit and temper of these extremes-and avoid either dishonouring God through a weak pity for mere suffering, or being cruel to men through a zeal for God. Zeal is a good servant, but a bad master; the spring of heroic deeds or of dreadful crimes.
3. His modesty and respect, shown by his keeping silence in the presence of his elders, so long as they might desire to speak. As the shade to a figure in a picture, so does modesty impart a strength and beauty to the character; it adds to virtue the charm that chastity adds to beauty. But there is a limit to every grace; and modesty becomes a weakness if it leads a man to withhold truth from the world, or to keep his mouth shut whoa flue “word in season” ought to be spoken.
II. THE EXPLANATION OF ELIHU‘S INTERFERENCE (Verses 6-10.) His modest sense of his own youth and his respect for their age held him back in the presence of his seniors. But, on the other hand, conscience and the inspiration of God’s truth within him impelled him to speak. This little fragment is very instructive, and yields several important lessons. There is a lesson of prudence and tact. The speaker should ever seek to gain the good will of his audience, by laying aside every appearance of assumption or conceit, by testimonies of graceful respect for his audience. Especially should this rule be kept in mind by those who have the most important truths to deliver. Before sowing the seed let the ill weeds be rooted out, and the soil be well broken up. We must try to soften the minds of our hearers as a preparative for impressing them. Augustine says, “He who strives to persuade others to goodness should neglect none of these three things: to please, to teach, to sway their minds; thus he will be heard gladly, intelligently, obediently.“ But higher than these is the lesson of conscientiousnessattention to the voice within. The Spirit of God finds its truest echo in the conscience. All distinctions of persons and of age fade away in presence of this supreme truth. For wisdom depends not on age, but on the Divine illumination. Well for us if we can forget in whose presence we are speaking, whether younger or elder, richer or poorer, wiser or more unlearned, because absorbed like Elihu in the sense of God’s truth and the desire for his glory. “Let no man despise thy youth” (1Ti 4:12). If young men have a sound knowledge of Divine things, the elder need not be ashamed to listen and learn from them.
III. THE JUSTIFICATION OF ELIHU‘S INTERFERENCE. (Verses 11-22.) In this passage his character and spirit are further unfolded in points that are worthy of admiration and imitation.
1. His love of reason: He waited expectantly to hear some satisfactory reply from the friends to Job’s clear arguments and statements in self-vindication. He expected either that they would confute him, or that they would candidly admit they were worsted in the strife. “We found wisdom (in Job); God can strike him, not man.” His wisdom is so superior to ours that God only can drive him from the field (verse 13). This is a lesson on the morals of controversy. Meet your antagonist with resin for reason; and, when you can do so no longer, be willing to own yourself beaten. Reasonableness and candour, the desire to persuade others or to be persuaded one’s self of the truth,this is the chivalry of controversy; these are the jewels that shine amidst the cloud of words; the precious balsam-drops that these woeful wars distil. A sullen conspiracy of silence is the retreat and fortress of the dishonourable and the coward.
2. His depth of heart. Elihu is not convinced by Job; his mind teems with matter of deep and living truth. His is no shallow logic of the schools, which falls powerless upon the true heart armed with the justice of its cause. His is no fool’s bolt, soon shot, and leaving him in helplessness. His bosom is like a skin of new wine; he is bursting to tell forth all that experience and reflection have taught him concerning the truths of life. “Out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks.” Let us harvest the instruction of time, lay up a good store of heart-memories, that we may ever have a good and useful word to speak in season. Let us take care of those strong impulses that they are true and pure before we speak; but never hesitate to speak when we are conscious that God is inspiring us. To be led by the Spirit, we must walk in the Spirit.
3. His fearless sincerity. He has no respect of persons when truth is concerned, reverential as he otherwise is in the presence of his elders. He will not flatter; he does not understand the base art. The fear of God is before his eyes. “Flatterers are the worst kind of traitors,” says Sir Walter Raleigh. He who is true to God and to himself will never distil this poison from his tongue. In Elihu, then, we have the picture of what a man should be, of what we all should desire in a friendfairness, honour, candour; sympathy and affection based upon the only sure foundation, love of truth, piety toward God.
IV. ELIHU‘S SPECIAL APPEAL TO JOB FOR A PATIENT HEARING. (Job 33:1-7.) Here we see the following traits:
1. Intense earnestness. (Verses 1, 2.) For these opening words, which might seem to our Western ears like a “beating about the bush,” are in fact Oriental phrases by which the speaker calls the most solemn attention to, and lays the greatest weight upon, what he is about to speak. Such opening formulae may be found in Mat 5:2; Act 10:34; 2Co 6:11. Let it be clear in one way or another to those who listen that we mean what we say, that we are not talking to fill up time, or using words to conceal the void of thought.
2. Perfect sincerity. (2Co 6:3.) His sayings am the straightforward utterances of his heart, very different from the stale and secondhand commonplaces of the three friends. True eloquence, like the substance of every virtue and every art, is in the heart. The bullet finds its way to the mark, according to the old legend, that has been first dipped in the marksman’s blood. Words that come from the heart will reach to the heart.
3. The sense of dependence upon God (2Co 6:4), for all light and wisdom, which, while it makes a man humble, makes him truly confident and strong. God’s Spirit has made him. He appeals to no special inspiration, however, bat simply to that genuine human wisdom, that common sense which he recognizes to be a Divine endowment. It is a mark of true piety to own the presence of the Divine Spirit in all the ordinary as well as the extraordinary gifts of intelligence. It is this that chastens, sweetens, and sanctifies the use of every bright talent of the mind and heart.
4. Fellow-feeling. (2Co 6:6, 2Co 6:7.) He does not pretend to stand nearer to God than the fellow-man he has arisen to comfort and instruct. He is made of the same clay, moulded by the hand of the Divine Potter. Therefore Job has not to fear an unequal struggle with Elihu as he has with God. Would that all teachers would remember this! The artificial distinctions of life, as prince or peasant, lettered or unlettered, mean but little; those of talent, character, and attainment have a certain value; but the common constitution God has given us is the great ground of appeal, the great source of authority. Those are the best teachers who most deeply read and interpret this common nature; and every truth must at last be certified, not by the ipse dixit of a dogmatizing teacher, but by the utterance of the universal heart and conscience.J.
HOMILIES BY R. GREEN
Job 32:1-22
The voice of juvenile self-confidence.
We now approach the solution of the mystery, the untying of the knot, the end of the controversy. Job’s three friends have failed to convince Job that he is suffering the wellmented consequences of evil-doing; and he has failed to convince them of his integrity. Now a younger friend speaks with kindled wrath because the three friends “had found no answer.” He speaks with the undue confidence of youth; but he weaves many words of truth and wisdom into his speech, from which we may gather some for our guidance. With some hesitation, and a complimentary reference to the claims of age, Elihu nevertheless reveals the impatient self-confidence of youth. Even though truth may be on its side, youthful self-confidence is an error. The error manifests itself here as so often elsewhere
I. IN AN UNDUE ASSUMPTION OF EQUALITY WITH AGE, The “spirit” that is “in man” and “the inspiration of the Almighty,” is assumed to give them “understanding” equally. At least Elihu puts himself on their level, though he afterwards affirms their inferiority.
II. IN A DESPISAL OF THE TEACHINGS OF AGE. So the young lips are ready to affirm, “Great men are not always wise: neither do the aged understand judgment.”
III. IN AN UNWARRANTED SELF–CONFIDENCE. How ready is youth to give its judgment! “I also will show mine opinion.”
IV. IN AN EAGERNESS TO GIVE EXPRESSION TO OPINIONS. “I am full of matter, the spirit within me constraineth me,” etc.
V. IN A PRESUMPTION OF FREEDOM FROM PREJUDICE. “I know not to give flattering titles.” Thus speaks youth in a confidence which is so often the effect of ignorance and inexperience. The true attitude for youth is
(1) lowliness and humility;
(2) teachableness;
(3) patience;
(4) reverent regard for age and for the counsels of experience.R.G.
HOMILIES BY W.F. ADENEY
Job 32:1
Silence after the storm.
The three friends first comforted Job with seven days of silence (Job 2:13). They relapse into silence after their painful controversy with the suffering man. We feel a sense of relief, and breathe freely now that their dogmatic delusions are done with, and we have silence after the storm.
I. IT IS WISE TO KNOW WHEN TO BE SILENT. We cannot attribute much of this wisdom to the three friends. They would have been more commendable if they had practised it throughout. Still, they were not wholly senseless and heartless. They were able to perceive at length that no more words of theirs would help their case. Part of the art of speaking is to perceive the time for ceasing to speak. It is difficult for many people to come to an end of their words. Let us note some of the times for silencing our speech.
1. When we have no more to say. A man should only speak because he has something to say, never because he has to say something.
2. When our words are not heard. If we speak to heedless ears we waste our breath. It is vain to pour out words that our auditors cannot or will not drink in.
3. When our words are not accepted. If we cannot persuade men by what we say, we shall not do so by mere reiteration. We may find that no words will move our hearers; then further words are wasted on them. If we are altogether out of sympathy with our audience we cannot benefit them by adding words to words.
4. When the time for action has arrived. It will not be wise for the general to be haranguing his men when the enemy are already in the field. Words have their place; but this is not to usurp the place of deeds.
5. When another should be heard. Elihu has been waiting patiently while the old men have been talking. Now his time has come. Talkative people are tempted to be selfish. St. Paul ordered that when many wished to speak in the Church at Corinth each should have his turn, one giving place to another (1Co 14:30).
II. SILENCE IS MOST VALUABLE WHEN IT FOLLOWS A STORM. This second silence has not the beauty of the first silence of sympathy. But it has a deeper significance in some respects.
1. It is a relief from distressful controversy. It is painful to be perpetually arguing with our friends. When the controversy rises to angry words the best thing is to break it off and relapse into silence.
2. It affords time for reflection. If anything worth remembering has been said, it is well that people should have time to think over it. Probably our religious services would be more fruitful if people would only have patience to allow of pauses for quiet meditation.
3. It is a means of establishing peace. When words only irritate, peace will be best secured by silence. If the three friends wished to be reconciled to Job, their wisest course was to wait for the heat of discussion to cool down.
4. It is itself a blessing. Other voices speak in the silence. Then the unseen world draws near to us. After the storm is hushed the heavens open. We all need more silence, especially after times of strain and difficulty.W.F.A.
Job 32:2, Job 32:3
Elihu the young man.
We now reach another act in the drama. The vexatious controversy between Job and his three friends is over. Suddenly and quite unexpectedly a new character appears on the stage. We need not trouble ourselves with the question as to whether the Elihu episode was an original part of the poem or whether it was inserted later by the author or even by another hand. We may be thankful that we have it, and we may make use of its lessons with confidence; for we do not know who was the author of any part of the Book of Job, and yet we find the grand work alive with Divine inspiration and rich in spiritual lessons. Let us consider the character of Elihu. Most contradictory opinions have been expressed about him.
I. A YOUNG MAN. The elders have spoken; now is the time for youth. Wisdom does not wholly reside with age. In the present day an American freedom is doing away with old-fashioned restraints upon youth, and young people are enjoying a prominence which was once regarded as not becoming. Whether the change is wholly profitable may be gravely questioned. But most assuredly it is not without some advantages. There is an elan, a freshness, and a vivacity which only the young can contribute to life; all the world should be thankful for the breezy vigour that accompanies youthful activity, for all the world is the better for it.
II. A CONFIDENT MAN. Elihu waited in modesty while the old men were speaking; yet there is a touch of satire in his tone of humility. For, in fact, he has a supreme contempt for the droning commonplaces of the elder advisers. Even Job comes under his lash. He hits out all round. It is exceedingly difficult for young people to believe that they are not infallible. The confidence that is natural to youth tends to develop into censoriousness.
III. A KEEN–SIGHTED MAN. Elihu had some ground for his confidence. He could see that the three friends had blundered most outrageously. Job, too, was in error. Elihu comes forward with a new truth. The friends should not accuse Job; Job should not accuse God. The sufferings of Job were not penal at all; they were medicinal. Thus this young man lifts the question on to a new stage. He it is who introduces the great thought of the disciplinary character of suffering.
IV. AN INSPIRED MAN. Elihu claimed a direct inspirationnot one that is peculiar to seers like Eliphaz, and that comes in startling vision, but one that is vouchsafed to man as man. He claims to have a share in this inspiration himself. Thus he too would speak for God; and to a certain extent he is right. Hence the truth and value of his words. We can only reach truth when we touch God. We must be free from worldly maxims and selfish prejudices, and open to the voice of Heaven, if we would possess Divine truth.W.F.A.
Job 32:6
Youth and age.
Elihu speaks with becoming modesty in these words, although most of his discourse shows that he is perfectly self-confident, and full of contempt for the old censors of Job. He cannot but admit at least the conventional distinctions between the claims and dues of youth and age. Let us look at these distinctions.
I. DEFERENCE IS DUE TO AGE. We all feel that this is appropriate, even though age does not always appear in a light that fully justifies its claims. On what grounds does this deference rest?
1. The experience of age. Certainly age has had opportunities of gaining wisdom that are not afforded to youth. Whether a good use has been made of those opportunities is another matter. Still, it is scarcely possible to pass through the world without learning something, if only from one’s own blunders.
2. The maturity of age. There is a certain rawness about youth. Apart from its acquisitions from without, the growth of the inner life of a man should ripen, and time should mellow his temperament.
3. The dignity of age. Age is not always dignified; still, the fatherly relation implies a certain rank that is only found with added years. We must respect the orderly arrangement that gives places of honour to years.
4. The achievements of age. The old hero may have become a feeble invalid. Yet he still wears the scars of the battles of bygone days, and we must respect him for what he has done.
5. The infirmities of age. These claim considerate and sympathetic treatment, not slighting and scornful disregard.
II. MODESTY IS BECOMING IN YOUTH. This is especially fit on two grounds.
1. The claims of age. If these are to be respected, youth must stand back for a time. However it might desire to assert itself, youth here finds itself confronted by an obstacle that must not be rudely thrust aside. It may chafe against the restraints, and think them most unreasonable. Perhaps it would be well for the young to consider that they will be aged some day, and will need the consideration shown to age. Meanwhile their advantages are greater than those of the aged in many respects, so that the attempt to surround a naturally melancholy lot of increasing infirmities with honours is really a pathetic confession of the loss of many of the solid boons of life. The young need not envy the honours of age, seeing that they have the powers and opportunities and delights of the sunny spring-time of life.
2. The imperfection of youth. New and untried powers promise great things, hut they need regulating and guiding. It is possible to do immense harm by rushing forward ignorantly and without circumspection. It is wiser to begin quietly, and feel our way by degrees.
III. NEITHER THE DEFERENCE DUE TO AGE NOR THE MODESTY BECOMING IN YOUTH SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO INTERFERE WITH DUTY. Old men should be careful not to suppress the generous enthusiasm of youth. They should rather mourn that they have lost it, if it is no longer with them. No venerable position can justify the obstruction of good works. The young have to learn to combine a suitable modesty with fidelity to truth and right. There will be no progress if the constitutional timidity of age is permitted to stand in the way of every proposed improvement. Deference does not mean absolute submission. After all, the consequences of actions are much more important to the young, who will live to reap them, than to the old, who will soon leave the world. The future is for the young; the young must be allowed to shape it.W.F.A.
Job 32:8
The common inspiration of man.
Elihu here utters a great and daring thought. He turns from the dogmas of the ancients to the present Divine inspiration; from the teaching of authority to the voice of truth in the heart of man.
I. THERE IS A DIVINE INSPIRATION OF MAN. Elihu affirms its existence. The old men had grown stiff in thought, worldly, and dim-sighted. If ever they had quivered beneath the touch of inspiration this was in bygone days, and they had forgotten the experience. But the young, enthusiastic Elihu is alive to spiritual influence. Here we are at the root of religion, which does not spring from man’s worship of God, but from God’s touching man.
II. THIS INSPIRATION IS FOR ALL MEN. Elihu is not thinking of the special and rare vision of the seer which Eliphaz had described as so awe-inspiring (Job 4:12-16). He is thinking of something more simple, more natural, and more common. God does not only teach us indirectly by means of prophets and intermediate messengers. He has not left himself without witness in the heart of man. Conscience is the voice of God in the soul. Reason in man is a spark from the Logos, the great Word and Reason of God. Whenever men read truth they are in contact with the ever-present Spirit of truth. We do not live in a God-deserted world, nor in one that is only visited at rare intervals by Divine influences. God is nearer to us than we suspect. Job has been crying out for God; Elihu shows that God is not far off’
III. THE COMMON INSPIRATION OF MAN IS SEEN IN VARIOUS FORMS. It does not make every man a prophet, much less does it always confer the gift of infallibility. In Bezaleel it was a faculty for artistic workmanship (Exo 35:30-35). Samson found it a source of physical strength (Jdg 13:25). God gives his Spirit in science, leading men to truth; in art, teaching what is beautiful, and helping men to discriminate between meretricious, hurtful art and true, fruitful art; in daily life, affording guidance in perplexity and strength in difficulty; in religion, not only under the Jewish and Christian dispensations, where indeed it is most gloriously developed, but in every truly religious life. God has not abandoned India, nor did he abandon Greece or Egypt. Even amidst the monstrous delusions and the gross corruptions of heathenism the still small voice of God may be detected. Whatever is good and true in the world is an inspiration of God.
IV. CHRISTIANITY DEEPENS AND QUICKENS THE INSPIRATION OF MAN. Joel predicted the time when God’s Spirit should be poured out on all flesh (Joe 2:28), and St. Peter claimed that that time had come on the Day of Pentecost (Act 2:16-18). St. Paul tells us that all Christians together constitute a temple of the Holy Ghost (1Co 6:19). If the Spirit of God is felt in the world, much more must the gracious Divine presence be enjoyed in the Church. Every Christian is, indeed, an inspired man. He is not infallible. But he has a Guide to truth, a Comforter in distress, a Strength for service, and a Grace for holiness.W.F.A.
Job 32:20
The refreshment of speech.
Elihu will speak that he may be refreshed. Let us consider some of the ways in which this refreshment may be experienced.
I. THE SENSE OF RELIEF.
1. In utterance of what is strongly felt. It is difficult to restrain powerful emotions. Passion inspires speech. We long to tell out what burns in our hearts. Difficulty of utterance often arises from deadness of souloften, but not always, for many of the best men have no facility of speech. Still, the surest road to eloquence is through emotion.
2. In confession of what is deeply distressing. It is hard to hide a dark secret. Criminals have been known to confess their evil deeds simply because they could not endure to keep silence about them. Great sorrows find relief in utterance. While the sufferer suppresses himself in stony grief his reason is in danger; let him weep and speak, and the worst anguish or his soul will find some relief. Prayer in great distress is not only appealing to God for help; it is also relieving the overburdened soul by utterance. It is much to be able to unbosom one’s self to God, to open out sad secrets to Heaven.
II. THE EXERCISE OF POWER. No doubt the lower motive of desiring to feel his power was influencing Elihu, though he would have been too vain to have admitted it. Some people delight to hear the sound of their own voices. The importance and publicity of speaking before others is found to be attractive. When the speaker discovers that he can move an audience by his eloquence, a new fascination lays hold of him, and if he can influence by means of speech, he will find a pleasure in wielding so powerful an instrument. But there is great danger in all this, lest the speaker should idolize his own eloquence, and try to influence others merely for the sake of making them feel the weight of his utterance. It must be remembered that there is great. responsibility in speech. A hasty utterance may be followed by a long repentance, when the speaker will give worlds to recover his mischievous words.
III. THE ACHIEVEMENT OF GOOD. A good man will desire to speak for the profit of others. He who knows God’s truth will long to declare it to others. So great a treasure is not to be hidden. For Christ’s sake and for the world’s sake it must be made known far and wide. The Christian should feel that a serious obligation is upon him to lead others to share in those privileges of the gospel which all need, and which are designed for all. St. Paul felt an awful necessity laid on him, and exclaimed, “Woe is unto me if I preach not the gospel!” (1Co 9:16). The lepers of Samaria felt that they would be guilty of a great sin if they feasted in the camp of the Syrians, and did not let the starving city know that there was abundance of good outside the gates (2Ki 7:9). But nor only is it a duty to preach Christ; it is a great joy. The body may be wearied by the effort, but the soul will be refreshed. There is a cheering and invigorating influence in making truth known; this is greatest when the work is to bring the knowledge of God’s love in Christ to sorrowing men and women.W.F.A.
Job 32:21, Job 32:22
Flattery.
Elihu promises to be frank and outspoken, not “accepting any man’s person” in perversion of truth, and giving “flattering titles” to no man. This resolve would be very significant in the East, where personal rank counts for much even in courts of justice, and where a “flattering title” is given as a matter of course, especially when some favour is sought, even though it belies the true opinion held by the flatterer; e.g. Act 24:2.
I. TEMPTATIONS TO FLATTERY.
1. To win favour. This is the lowest motive with which to flatter; it is without any valid I excuse; its character is wholly selfish.
2. To avoid harm. This is also a selfish motive; but it may be urged by fear and encouraged by weakness. The flattery of a tyrant is not creditable to anybody concerned; but it is one of the certain effects of tyranny on weak natures.
3. To give pleasure. Without any deep design of gain, agreeable people wish to please those with whom they are associated. A certain foolish kindness may help the flattery.
4. To express humility. Very humble people are tempted to ascribe good qualities to others in contrast with their own unworthiness.
II. THE SIN OF FLATTERY. Elihu justly repudiates the idea of flattering any one, though he does so with a needless ostentation of independence. Flattery is bad in many ways, and involves many evil things.
1. Falsehood. This is the very first element of flattery. You praise a man to his face beyond your true thoughts of him.
2. Cowardice. If the flattery is indulged in in order to propitiate a powerful tyrant, the flatterer humiliates himself, and appears in the miserable character of a cringing coward
3. Godlessness. Flattery of man tends to a disregard of the law and will of God. If the dignity and rank of a person is made too much of, he is really becoming to us almost a god; we are in danger of giving to him the deference which should only be offered to our Maker.
III. THE EVIL CONSEQUENCES OF FLATTERY.
1. The overthrow of justice. If a man “accepts persons” he will neglect justice. Instead of considering what is right and fair, the flatterer considers what is pleasant. Thus right and equity are set aside.
2. The destruction of confidence. Flattery is sure to be discovered, and the habit of flattering will be soon recognized. Then words of admiration cease to have any meaning. It becomes impossible to give true honour to a person, because this cannot be distinguished from the false honours which the sycophant heaps on his patron. It is no longer possible to know whether approval, support, and loyalty are maintained or not. Traitors hide under the cloak of flattery.
3. The anger of God. Elihu talks somewhat brusquely about his Maker taking him away. It is a trait of his self-confidence to be quite at home in speaking of God. Yet there is a truth in his words. God cannot endure falsehood and injustice. His favour is not won by flattery; the flattery of men is sure to be detected by God, and therefore the flatterer must lie under the disfavour of Heaven, even while he enjoys the favour of his earthly patron.W.F.A.
Fuente: The Complete Pulpit Commentary
CHAP. XXXII.
Elihu is angry with Job and his three friends; with the one for justifying himself; with the others for not answering satisfactorily. He apologises for his youth and zeal to speak.
Before Christ 1645.
Job 32:1. Because he was righteous, &c. Wherefore he was righteous. Job had given in his plea, to which the three friends made no reply: the consequence was, that he accounted himself acquitted from the accusation. Heath.
Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke
The Second Stage of the Disentanglement
Job 33-37
Elihus Discourses, devoted to proving that there can be really no undeserved suffering, that on the contrary the sufferings decreed for those who are apparently righteous are dispensations of divine love, designed to purify and to sanctify them through chastisement: The first half of the positive solution of the problem
INTRODUCTION: ELIHUS APPEARANCE, AND THE EXORDIUM OF HIS DISCOURSE, GIVING THE REASONS FOR HIS SPEAKING
Job 32:1 to Job 33:7
1. Elihus appearance (related in prose)
Job 32:1-6 a
1So these three men ceased to answer Job, because he was righteous in his own eyes. 2Then was kindled the wrath of Elihu the son of Barachel the Buzite, of the kindred of Earn; against Job was his wrath kindled, because he justified himself rather than God. 3Also against his three friends was his wrath kindled, because they had found no answer, and yet had condemned Job 4 Now Elihu had waitedtill Job had spoken, because they were elder than he. 5When Elihu saw that therewas no answer in the mouth of these three men, then his wrath was kindled. 6And Elihu the son of Barachel the Buzite answered and said:
2. An explanation addressed to the previous speakers, showing why he had taken part in their controversy: Job 32:6-10
6b I am young, and ye are very old;
wherefore I was afraid,
and durst not show you mine opinion.
7I said, Days should speak,
and multitude of years should teach wisdom.
8But there is a spirit in man;
and the inspiration of the Almighty giveth them understanding.
9Great men are not always wise;
neither do the aged understand judgment.
10Therefore I said, Hearken to me;
I also will show mine opinion.
3. Setting forth that he was justified in taking part, because the friends had showed, and still showed themselves unable to refute Job: Job 32:11-22
11Behold, I waited for your words;
I gave ear to your reasons,
whilst ye searched out what to say.
12Yea, I attended unto you,
and behold, there was none of you that convinced Job,
or that answered his words.
13Lest ye should say: We have found out wisdom:
God thrusteth him down, not man.
14Now he hath not directed his words against me;
neither will I answer him with your speeches.
15They were amazed, they answered no more:
they left off speaking.
16When I had waited (for they spake not,
but stood still, and answered no more);
17I said, I will answer also my part,
I also will show mine opinion.
18For I am full of matter,
the spirit within me constraineth me.
19Behold, ray belly is as wine which hath no vent,
it is ready to burst like new bottles.
20I will speak, that I may be refreshed:
I will open my lips and answer.
21Let me not, I pray you, accept any mans person,
neither let me give flattering titles unto man.
22For I know not to give flattering titles:
in so doing my Maker would soon take me away.
4. A special appeal to Job to listen calmly to him [Elihu], as a mild judge of his guilt and weakness: Job 33:1-7
1Wherefore, Job, I pray thee, hear my speeches,
and hearken to all my words.
2Behold, now I have opened my mouth,
my tongue hath spoken in my mouth.
3My words shall be of the uprightness of my heart;
and my lips shall utter knowledge clearly.
4The Spirit of God hath made me,
and the breath of the Almighty hath given me life.
5If thou canst answer me,
set thy words in order before me, stand up.
6Behold, I am according to thy wish in Gods stead:
I also am formed out of the clay.
7Behold, my terror shall not make thee afraid,
neither shall my hand be heavy upon thee.
FIRST DISCOURSE; OF MANS GUILT BEFORE GOD
Job 33:8-33
a. Preparatory: Reproof of Jobs confidence in his entire innocence: Job 33:8-11
8Surely thou hast spoken in mine hearing,
and I have heard the voice of thy words, saying:
9I am clean without transgression,
I am innocent, neither is there iniquity in me.
10Behold, He findeth occasions against me,
He counteth me for His enemy:
11He putteth my feet in the stocks,
He marketh all my paths.
b. Didactic discussion of the true relation of sinful men to God, who seeks to warn and to save them by manifold dispensations and communications from above; Job 33:12-30
12Behold, in this thou art not just:
I will answer thee, that God is greater than man.
13Why dost thou strive against Him?
for He giveth not account of any of His matters.
14For God speaketh once, yea twice,
yet man perceiveth it not.
15In a dream, in a vision of the night,
when deep sleep falleth upon men,
in slumberings upon the bed;
16then He openeth the ears of men,
and sealeth their instruction,
17that He may withdraw man from his purpose,
and hide pride from man.
18He keepeth back his soul from the pit,
and his life from perishing by the sword.
19He is chastened also with pain upon his bed,
and the multitude of his bones with strong pain:
20so that his life abhorreth bread,
and his soul dainty meat.
21His flesh is consumed away, that it cannot be seen;
and his bones that were not seen stick out.
22Yea, his soul draweth near unto the grave,
and his life to the destroyers.
23If there be a messenger with him,
an interpreter, one among a thousand,
to show unto man his uprightness;
24then He is gracious unto him, and saith,
Deliver him from going down to the pit:
I have found a ransom.
25His flesh shall be fresher than a childs;
he shall return to the days of his youth:
26he shall pray unto God, and He will be favorable unto him;
and he shall see His face with joy;
for He will render unto man His righteousness.
27He looketh upon men, and if any say,
I have sinned, and perverted that which was right,
and it profited me not;
28He will deliver his soul from going into the pit,
and his life shall see the light.
29Lo, all these things worketh God
oftentimes with man,
30to bring back his soul from the pit,
to be enlightened with the light of the living.
c. Conclusion; Calling upon Job to give an attentive hearing to the discourses by which he would further instruct him: Job 33:31-33
31Mark well, O Job, hearken unto me;
hold thy peace, and I will speak.
32If thou hast anything to say, answer me:
speak, for I desire to justify thee.
33If not, hearken unto me:
hold thy peace, and I shall teach thee wisdom.
EXEGETICAL AND CRITICAL
1. On the general subject of the genuineness of Elihus discourses, comp. Introd., 10, as well as below, Doctrinal and Ethical Remarks.The circumstantiality of the twofold introduction to these discoursesfirst that of the author in prose, then the self-introduction of Elihu (Job 32:6 bJob 33:7) which latter again consists of three subdivisionsis to be explained by the fact that in Elihu there was to be introduced the representative of a new stand-point, which had not yet received its statement, differing as it did from that of all the former speakers. For neither Jobs one-sided denial of his guilt nor the blunt and rough way in which he had been attacked, satisfies this new speaker. He appears to speak for and against Job, whose better self he in some measure represents (comp. Victor Andre, p. 139); hence the three stages of his self-introduction: (1) the captatio benevolenti with which he begins; or the apology for his youth addressed to all the former speakers (Job 32:6 b10); (2) the reprimand administered to the three friends, as having shown themselves incompetent to refute Job (Job 32:11-22);and (3) the appeal to Job to give a hearing to his instructions (Job 33:1-7) an appeal full of earnest admonition and loving encouragement. The last of these divisions provides a direct transition to the first of Elihus discourses proper (Job 33:8-33), in which he sets forth the foundation of Jobs sufferingthe universal sinfulness and guilt of men before God, this discourse again occupying three divisions, of which the middle, being the longest (Job 32:12-22), contains the proper didactic exposition of the subject, while the first, by citing the propositions of Job which are to be refuted, prepares the way for the discussion; and the third furnishes, together with a practical conclusion, the transition to the didactic discourse which follows. The most of these divisions are at the same time coincident each with a single strophe, except that the long middle sections (Job 32:11-22 and Job 33:12-30) are subdivided into several strophes, the former into two, the latter into four, together with a short epiphonema of two verses (Job 32:2930).
2. Introduction in prose (although with poetic accentscomp. above, 3, p. 264) [the poetic mode of accentuation retained, because a change in the middle of the book, and especially in a piece of such small compass appeared awkward,: Del.] Job 32:1-6 a.Then the three men ceased to answer Job. This notification occurs first here, not after Job 26. or Job 28., because it was only through the last monologues of Job that the defeat of the three opponents became complete.Because he was righteous in his own eyes;i. e., because he would not admit that his suffering was in any degree whatever the consequence of his guilt; a statement which refers back in particular to the contents of Job 31.
Job 32:2. Then was kindled the wrath of Elihu, the son of Barachel, etc., which is written below without the final (Job 32:4; Job 35:1) signifiesmy God is he, and appears also as an Israelitish name (1Sa 1:1; 1Ch 12:20). The Elihu of our passage is a Nahorite, of the tribe of Buz (), who in Gen 22:21 is mentioned as the brother of Uz, and the second son of Nahor, and whose tribe, according to Jer 25:23, like Dedan and Tema, belonged to the inhabitants of the Arabian desert. The family of Ram is mentioned only here. The identification of the name with is inadmissible, for is simply the name of a family, not of a people. The Aramaic origin of the Buzites, according to the above description, admits indeed of no doubt, and the same may be said respecting the poets purpose in that connection to impart an Aramaic coloring to Elihus discourses. Lightfoot and Rosenmller curiously imagine that under the character of Elihu the poet has concealed himself, and that this explains the particularity with which, in opposition to what is characteristic of the book elsewhere, he describes the origin of the new speaker. This detailed account of Elihus genealogy is undoubtedly a little singular, but it may be satisfactorily explained by the poets desire to represent him as a kinsman of the same race with Job, or it may be his desire to distinguish between him and some other well-known person of the name. In respect to the question whether Elihus position is that of one not simply near to the Abrahamitic revelation, but of one standing within the pale of it (as Vilmar thinks, l. c.), nothing definite can be established from the genealogical statement before us.Respecting the name (instead of which some MSS. write , with a latent Daghesh). It signifiesmay God-bless! and is thus distinguished as an imperative formation from the indicative of the specifically Israelitish name (Jehovah blesseth).Because he declared himself righteous before God. instead of the Hiph. which, is elsewhere more common in this signification, occurs again Job 33:32, and often in Jerem. and Ezek., not more than God, at the expense of God (Ew., Delitz.) [E. V., Con., Nov., Carey, Words., etc.], but before, accordingly as in Job 4:17. The comparison of the passage in Job 40:8 is scarcely sufficient to confirm the former rendering.
Job 32:3 states how far the conduct of the three friends had caused Elihus discontent:because they found no answer, and still condemned Job. Sotaking in adversativelymay the words be rendered with the greatest probability (so Hirzel, Ewald) [E. V., Noy., Con., Carey, Rodwell, Elz., Schlottm., Renan]. For the fact that the friends had condemned Job notwithstanding their inability to answer him aggravates the guilt of the three in Eliuns eyes; and that he really attributed to them double guilt, as compared with Job, is evident from the passage which follows, and which involves more rigid censure of the friends (Job 32:11 seq. ; 15 seq.) than of Job (comp. also Job 32:5). With this interpretation agrees essentially that of Delitzsch and Kamphausen: because they, from their inability to answer him, condemned him. [The fut. consec. describes the condemnation as the result of their inability to hit upon the right answer; it was a miserable expedient to which they had recourse. Del.]. The language admits still further of the explanation of Hahn and Dillmann (with the influence of the negation extended to the second member): because they did not find an answer, and (consequently) did not, condemn him [i.e., secure his condemnation, by stripping him of his self-righteousness]. The opinion of the Masoretes, that in this passage we have one of the 18Tiqquney Sopherim (comp. on Job 7:20), according to which we should read instead of , is refuted by Job 40:8, where it is not the friends, but Job, who is said to have shown himself to be one who had condemned God.
Job 32:4. But Elihu had waited for Job with words. pluperf., comp. Ewald, 135, a; i. e., he had waited until Jobs speeches were ended, until he had spoken his last word in the controversy, the reason being:because they were older than he in days (, as in Job 30:1, and below Job 32:6), i. e., because he was the youngest of all,younger than all the former speakers.
3. First section of Elihus introduction: captatio benevolenti, addressed to all the former speakers: Job 32:6 b10.Young am I in days, and ye are hoary ( as in Job 12:12; Job 15:10; Job 29:8); therefore I was afraid and feared. in Heb. elsewhere to crawl, here in the sense of fearing, customary in Aramaic, but not met with elsewhere in the O. T. [Carey: I did slink]. Also for is an expression peculiar to the Aramaizing constructions of Elihus language (comp. again Job 32:10; Job 32:17; Job 36:3; Job 37:16), while on the contrary to declare, to communicate, occurs else-where in our book. [It becomes manifest even here that the Elihu section has in part a peculiar use of the language. Del.].
Job 32:7. Respecting the plur. with , comp. Job 21:21.
Job 32:8. Still the spirit it is in mortal man which gives them understanding. verum, only here by Elihu, instead of , which is elsewhere customary in this sense. The subjects and have for their common predicate with at the close of the second member as a relative clause of closer specification. The spirit in man is the principle of his life and thought wrought into him by the Spirit of God; here, as also in Job 27:3; Job 33:4; Job 34:14, identical with the breath of the Almighty, the Divine creative breath (Gen 2:7); comp. also Ecc 12:7. [Noyes happily quotes the following from Milton, in the preface to his Reason of Church Government, urged against Prelaty: And if any man think I undertake a task too difficult for my years, I trust, through the supreme enlightening assistance, far otherwise; for my years, be they few or many, what imports it? So they bring reason, let that be looked on]. is used collectively, as is evident from the plur. suffix in b referring to it.
Job 32:9. Not the aged are wise; lit. not the great () [grandvi], i. e., great in years, comp. the of the LXX., also Gen 25:23; and , small = young, above (Job 32:6 b).
Job 32:10. Therefore I say: Hearken to me!The Imperfect singular, , is used distributively, applying to each individual of those who are summoned to hear, (not referring specially to Job, to whom Elihu does not address himself until below in Job 33:1 seq.). The ancient versions, except the Targ., as well as some MSS. read an emendation to relieve the difficulty [arising from El.s addressing the friends in the plur. in the next verse]. I also will declare my knowledge (comp. Job 32:6, b). [Rather, more modestlyI will declare my knowledge, even I. Words.]. Respecting the appearance of vain self-praise, of which Elihu is guilty in consequence of these and the preceding expressions, comp. below Doctrinal and Ethical Remarks, No. 2.
4. Second section of Elihus introduction: Showing his claims to speak, in contrast with the friends, as the feeble and incompetent opponents of Job: Job 32:11-22.a. Address to the friends touching their lack of skill in refuting Job. Behold, I waited for your words; or for words from you. are not the words actually uttered by them (Stick., Hahn, Schlott.), but those for which Elihu had waited in vain, expecting that they would produce them, more particularly explained in b as being their words of intelligence, speeches full of wisdom (). The construction of , contracted form for ) with shows clearly enough that the object of the hearkening or listening was wholly in expectation. Until ye might find out replies. , a second parallel term to , can denote here only words from the friends, suited to refute Job, such words as they had shown themselves unable to search out, or to think out. ().
Job 32:12. And unto you I gave heed.means here ; or it may mean giving heed until they should produce a real confutation of Job. [Carey translates the three times it occurs in Job 32:10-11 to the utmost ofperhaps a little too artificially. It does however express more emphatically than the simple the act of close attention.E.].
Job 32:13. That ye may not say; or since ye do not say, etc.Respecting the dissuasive particle that not, comp. Ew., 337, b. We found wisdom (i. e., with Job): God can smite him, not man.That is, we have come upon such superior wisdom in Job that only God can drive him out of the field (discutere, dispellere, used elsewhere of the chasing of chaff, straw, smokecomp. Psa 1:4; Psa 68:3 [2]) [chosen here with great propriety, because after every answer from the three Job showed himself again in the arena. Dillm.]. Only this explanation, adopted by most moderns, gives a meaning that is intelligent, and suited to the context, not that of the ancient commentators (also more recently of Rosenmller, Arnheim, Welte, etc.): Only do not say we have brought up against him true wisdom, to wit: that God Himself contends against, and routs him out of the-field (by the severe sufferings which He has decreed for him [and so substantially Lee, Bernard. According to another explanation the second member is spoken by Elihu, not the friends, the general meaning being: Ye have been silenced, lest ye should become proud and boast of your wisdom, and that his defeat may come visibly from God and not from men. So Good, Wordsworth, Carey, Wemyss, Rodwell, Barnes, most of whom make the first member dependent on the second; e. g. Rodwell: Lest ye should sayWe hare found out wisdom,El, not man, shall vanquish him.Schlottmann explains: Say not: We have found wisdom, i. e. we for our part have not erred, we have hit the exact truth, but God must smite him, not man, i. e. Job is so obstinate that the most exhaustive proofs of our doctrine fail to affect him, wherefore God only can convict him of his error.]
Job 32:14. For he bath not arrayed words against me;i. e. he has produced no argument which actually convinces me of his innocence, sensu forensi as in Job 13:18; Job 23:4, The whole verse introduced by with a fin. verb following, forms a clause subordinate to that which precedes, like Job 13:3 (comp. Ewald, 341, a).
b. A declaration respecting the unavoidable necessity of his taking part in the colloquy, the friends although still referred to being spoken of in the third person.
Job 32:15. They are confounded, they answer no more, or without answering again (comp. Ewald, 849, a), words are fled away from them, i.e. have deserted them; here accordingly intransitive; to depart, to wander away, like Gen 12:8; Gen 26:22, not transitive, as in Job 9:5 (against Hirzel).
Job 32:16. And should I (still) await, because they speak not?This interrogative rendering of the Perf. consec. is the only one that yields a suitable meaning, not the affirmative, which used to be the prevalent one, and I waited, because, etc., by which the verse would express a quite unendurable tautology with Job 32:11-12.
Job 32:17. So then I also will answer my part, i.e. what comes to my part (comp. Job 15:2; Pro 18:23); I will in like manner throw the weight of my opinion into the scales. [Elihu speaks more in the scholastic tone of controversy than the three. Delitzsch. The twice repeated is far from implying conceit or arrogance on the part of the speaker. It is possible indeed to explain it, with Barnes, even I, notwithstanding my youth and inexperience, in the tone of modest self-depreciation. More probably however it indicates rather the independent, individual position of the speaker, differing as it did from the rest, as we should sayon my part. In any case, as Schultens remarks: jucunda et decora formula; scire meumquantum mihi quidem sciere, et percipere datum. Frustra sunt, qui hc ad arrogantiam detorquent. E.] The Fut. Hiph., , expresses as e. g.Eccles. v. 19 (see on the passage); Hos 2:23, etc., the strengthened sense of Kal: to make answer, to put in a reply. Ewald renders quite too artificially: so then I also plough my field ( Hiph. from the other root , to be sunk), which would be proverbial forI also begin my speech.
Job 32:18 seq. describe the powerful inward impulse to speak, which Elihu discovers is himself, and which makes it impossible for him to be silent. The spirit (Job 32:8) constraineth me in my inward part; lit. the spirit of my inward part, of my belly (), comp. Job 15:2; Job 15:35. Respecting the scriptio defectiva, in a, comp. on Job 1:21.
Job 32:19. Behold, my interior is like wine which is not opened, i. e. to which there is no vent, so that it threatens to burst its vessel. It is of course new, fresh wine that is intended, as in the parallel New Testament passages, which refer to this place, Mat 9:17; Luk 5:39, which show moreover that the new bottles in b can be none other than such as are filled with new wine, so that the attribute new denotes not the firmness of the material of the bottles, but rather the age and the quality of their contents. Furthermore, is neither a relative clause to (Hirzel) [Ges., Con.], nor an adverbial subordinate clausewhen it will burst,but the direct predicate of , which indeed is feminine, but here with the passive, is treated as the grammatical object; comp. Job 22:9. The LXX. read , and rendered the preceding in the sense of bellows: . The figure thus arising is not unsuitable; still, according to the preceding explanation, there is no sufficient ground for departing from the Masoretic reading. On Job 32:21 comp. Job 13:8. [The distinction between and is not to be overlooked; the former expressing the subjective wish, or purpose; the latter the objective fact. E.].
Job 32:22 gives the reason for that which is declared in Job 32:21, b:For I know not how to flatter. is logically subordinate to the preceding , and is used accordingly for the Inf. , or for ; comp. Ewald, 285, cOtherwise my Maker would speedily snatch me away; lit. lift me up; [which seems designedly to harmonize with Delitzsch, and perhaps involves a play on , Job 32:21; Dillmann], an expression derived from a stormy wind; comp, Job 27:21; 2Ki 2:16. The Imperf. here with a modal force [= would, or might]; comp. Ewald, 136, f.
5. Third section of Elihus Introduction: Calling on Job to listen calmly to the discourses of instruction and admonition which follow: Job 33:1-7.
Job 33:1. Nevertheless hear now, O Job, my discourses. interruptive, and introducing to something new, like verumtamen; com. Job 1:11; Job 11:5; Job 12:7; Job 14:18 and often. The particular address to Job by name, which it is true occurs only in the mouth of Elihu (besides here again in Job 33:31 and Job 37:14), has nothing in it that is especially surprising, seeing that in every case it serves as a special summons to Job, in distinction from the three friends.
Job 33:2. The circumstantiality with which Elihu announces here the beginning of his discourse is by no means without significance. It is designed to call attention to the importance of that which he has to say to him, and it may be compared in this respect with introductory formulas of the New Testament, such as Mat 5:2; Act 10:34; and especially 2Co 6:11. [My tongue hath begun to speak, lit. my tongue hath spoken in my palate (the latter word a synecdoche). The Pret. denotes here the present, but as an act reaching over into the present out of the past. This, we have judged, called for the free translation which we have given. Schlottm.]
Job 33:3. My words are the uprightness of my heart; they are the honest open expression of the thought of my heart, precisely that therefore which Job had so painfully missed in the three friends (see Job 6:25).And the knowledge of my lipsthey declare it purely.The knowledge of my lips is either prefixed as casus absolutus, and as touching the knowledge of my lipsthey speak it purely; or as the object: and what my lips know, that, etc. can be a predicate accusative [and knowledge that is pure my lips declare], referring to , which is elsewhere also used in the masculine (e. g.Pro 2:10; Pro 14:6); but it can just as well be taken adverbially (comp. Ewald, 279, a).
Job 33:4. The Spirit of God hath made me, etc.The object of this appeal to the derivation of Elihus spirit from Gods Spirit must be essentially the same with that of the similar utterance in Job 32:8. It is not a special, nor an altogether wonderful, prophetic inspiration that Elihu here asserts for himself; he simply claims that it is a universal human wisdom residing in his spirit by virtue of his innate dignity as a man, on the basis of which he here applies himself to instruct Job. It is, so to speak, the humanistic, the genuine original and unperverted human character of his knowledge and experimental wisdom, to which Elihu appeals, when, as a young man, he presents himself to the more aged Job as his instructor. It is to this genuinely human character of his wisdom that he calls attention, both in this passage, where he emphasizes the divine origin of his spiritual life (Job 33:4-5), and in the following, where he sets forth his participation in the material part of mans nature, in his earthly human corporeity (Job 33:6 seq.). The older Church exegesis readily availed itself of this verse as an argument for the divine trinity, on the ground that it mentions (1) Deus omnipotens: (2) Spiritus Dei (= Sapientia s. Filius); and (3) Spiraculum Dei (= Sp. Sanctus). So e. g. Cocceius on the passage; approximately also Starke.
Job 33:5. If thou canst, then answer me ( as in Job 32:14), draw up against me ( scil. , see Job 32:14; , lit. before me, here against me), take thy stand, viz. for the controversy, take thy post; the same expression used 1Sa 17:16 of Goliaths putting himself in a military attitude, and challenging the Israelites to combat.[The very ring of the words in Heb. has in them the tone of haughty defiance. Schlottmann.]
Job 33:6. Behold, I am Gods, as thou art;i. e., I stand no nearer to him; I am, like thee, His creature. [The here may be either the of possession, dependence, according to the explanation just given (comp. , Job 12:16); or the of relation: I am like thee in relation to God. In our relation to Him we are both equal. The rendering of E. V., Bernard, Barnes: Behold, I am according to thy wish in Gods stead, is much less suitable to the connection, and less in harmony with Elihus claims.E.]Out of clay was I also formed: lit. out of clay was I also cut off, nipped off (Del.). The verb (lit. to nip, to pinch), which forcibly and onomatopoetically describes the action of the potter in forming his vessels, is found in Pual only here. Comp. Job 10:9, and the parallel passages there cited.
Job 33:7. Behold, my terror will not affright thee:i. e. in view of this my genuinely human and earthly character, thou needest not fear an unequal contest with me, as would be the case against God, whom thou didst pray, that His majesty might not terrify thee. The passage contains an unmistakable allusion to Job 9:34; Job 13:21,to the latter passage also by means of the hapax legom. , pressure, weight, which appears here in place of the like-sounding , which is there used. The LXX. ( ) [E. V. my hand] read also in the present passage, but disregard in so doing the Hebrew usage, which is wont everywhere else to connect the verb with , not .
6. The first speech of Elihu.a. Reference to Jobs objectionable language, in which he maintains his entire innocence in opposition to God, his hostile persecutor: Job 33:8-11.Surely, thou hast said in mine hearing, etc.The restrictive rendering of = only [not otherwise than] (Ewald, Hahn, Dillmann, etc.) is less suitable here than the affirmative: verily, surely (Rosenm., Hirzel, Umbreit, Delitzschin general most of the moderns) [and so E. V.: To say anything of another is in Hebrew equivalent to saying it not secretly, and so as to be liable to misconstruction, but aloud and distinctly. Del.].
Job 33:9-11. A collection of several objectionable utterances by Job, which are cited in part literally, in part according to the sense, and with the refutation of which ail that follows to the close of these discourses is occupied, so that these three verses contain to some extent the common theme of all the four discourses of Elihu (comp. below on Job 35:1).Pure am I, without ( as in Job 31:39) wickedness. Comp. Job 9:21; Job 10:7; Job 16:17; Job 23:10; Job 27:5 seq. The word (lit. tersus, lotus, rubbed down smooth, grown fine) used here in b as a synonym of , was not used by Job, and occurs only here. The same may be said of , oppositions, hostilities, alienations (comp. Num 14:34) in Job 33:10 a, with which are to be compared utterances of Job like those in Job 10:13 seq.; Job 19:11; Job 30:21. In regard to Job 33:10 b comp. Job 13:24; and with Job 33:11 comp. Job 13:27, which passage Elihu quotes with literal accuracy, doubtless because he had taken particular offense at this accusation of God as Jobs jailer and most crafty watcher.
7. Continuation.b. Didactic exhibition of the true relation of sinful men to God, who seeks to turn them to Himself by manifold dispensations and communications, to wit: a. By the voice of conscience in dreams; Job 33:12-18.Behold, in this thou art not right, I answer thee (not: I will answer thee, Hirzel [E. V.], etc.). , accus. of nearer definition to refers to the citations from Jobs speeches in Job 33:9-11. Respecting in the signification to be right, comp. Job 11:2. The second member gives the reason for this assertion that Job, with his suspicions of Gods greatness and love, was in the wrong: for Eloah is greater than mortal man, will not therefore after the manner of man, play the part of a hateful or vindictive persecutor of feeble creatures. [Del. explains: God is too exalted to enter into a defence of Himself against such vain-glorying interwoven with accusations against Him. And for this reason Elihu will enter the lists for God. But a deeper and more satisfactory meaning is obtained by the explanation in the Commentary. God is too great to be actuated by the petty malignities which Job had imputed to Him. Job was wrong; God is just, because He is great. E. V. and several commentators connect with what follows, either rendering that, or for with Delitzschs explanation. But the Masoretic accentuation connects it with what precedes, and this harmonizes better with the poetic rhythm of the verse, and with the weight of thought in b.E.]
Job 33:13. Why hast thou contended ( instead of , Gesenius, 73 [ 72], 1) against Him?Such striving or murmuring against God on the part of Job had found expression, e. g., in Job 7:20; Job 10:18; Job 13:24 seq.The second member declares the ground or contents of this contention against God to be: that [for] He gives account of none of His doings; lit. that He answers not ( as in Job 32:12; Job 40:2; Job 9:3) all His words (or matters, ). So correctly Gesenius, Umbreit, Vaih., Delitzsch [E. V., Con., Words., Rod., Elz., Bar., Renan], etc., while the explanations of other moderns vary widely, e. g. to all his (mans) words giveth He no answer (Hirzel, Heiligst., Hahn) [Carey on the contrary: since to none of His words doth man answer, i. e. man is deaf when God speaks]; or that all his words to Him (suffix in referring to the object) He easily answers (Stickel, and similarly Welte): or with not a single word does He answer (Schlottmann, Kamph.); or that He makes no answer to all thy words (Dillmann, changing to ), etc.
Job 33:14. For (on the other hand) God speaketh once and twice;i. e. many times, often, repeatedly; comp. Job 40:5; also Job 5:19. Those commentators who explain: in many ways (Arnh., Hirz., Stick., Del., etc.) make too much of the simple form of enumeration used; it is only the of the divine revelation, and not of also its , which is here spoken of. Respecting the before and , comp. besides Job 40:5, also Psa 62:12 [11]. The subj. of the follg. , which the Masoretic accentuation also separates from what goes before, cannot be God again, but only man, used indefinitely; hence one perceiveth it not ( with a neut. suffix, in the general meaning of observing, perceiving, precisely as in Job 35:13). This short clause stands accordingly in a limitative, or an adversative relation to the preceding thought: only man observes it not, or yet man, etc. [E. V.]. It is possible also to render it as a circumstantial clause: without any one observing it (Schlottm.). [Gods speech is unnoticed, not recognized by the senses, understood only by the susceptible feelings. Schlottmann.] The explanation of this verse by Schultens, Ewald and Vaihinger is peculiar (comp. the Vulg. and Pesh.): for God speaks onceHe does not glance at it a second time [i. e. to reconsider or change what He has once said]. Against this is (1) the Masoretic accentuation; (2) the connection with Job 33:15 seq., which would there stand quite torn apart; (3) the fact that cannot signify revidere (it would in that case have to be changed into ).
Job 33:15 seq. now mentionif not several kinds (Hirzel, Schlottm., Del.)at least several examples of impressive communications from God to men, or, according to the language used in Job 33:14, of speeches by God. The first instance mentioned is that of revelation by dreams, Job 33:15-18, which Elihu describes in language which is a close, and in part a literal copy of that of Eliphaz (Job 4:12-16). The statement prefixed of time and circumstance (Job 33:15) is almost literally the same as Job 4:13 (see on the passage).
Job 33:16. Then opens He the ear of men;i. e. He opens their understanding for His confidential communications; the same phrase in Job 36:10; Job 36:15; 1Sa 9:15, and oftenAnd presses a seal upon their instruction (, an alternate form of , found only here); i. e. He impresses upon them all the more deeply the earnest admonitions and warnings which He administers to them by all the various experiences of life (not particularly by painful diseases as Ewald, Hahn, and Dillmann explain, on the strength of Job 33:19 seq.); He assures them by such dreams and visions that they are to recognize such serious dispensations of life as coming from Him, as rules of His divine agency in educating men; comp. Job 36:10. Note how according to this Elihu regards every man as being continually subject to the operations of a divine discipline. As to with (different from with , Job 9:7), comp. Job 37:7. Several of the ancient versions (LXX., Aqu., Pesh.) and Luther translate as though they had read , He terrifies them.
Job 33:17-18. The aim of this nocturnal opening of the ear, and sealing of the divine instruction.In order to withdraw man from transgression.So according to the improved reading (Hirz., Del., Dillm., etc.), which is sufficiently attested by the [of the LXX.]. According to the common reading , man must be regarded as subj. of : that he may put away evil-doing. In respect to , facinus, comp. e. g.1Sa 20:19.And to hide pride from man; so that he does not see it, and so remains preserved from it (Hirzel, etc.), or: so that he becomes unaccustomed to it (Del.). Concerning the syncopated form , see on Job 22:29. It is unnecessary to amend the verb to to cause to disappear (Dillmann), or to , to set aside, to remove (Bttcher).
Job 33:18. To keep back his soul from the grave, i.e. to preserve him from death; comp. Psa 16:10; Psa 30:4 [3], 10 [9].And his life ( always with Elihu, equivalent to elsewhere; comp. Job 33:20; Job 33:22; Job 33:28) from perishing by the dart.So (with Dillmann) [E. V. by the sword, but rather means missile] are we to understand the phrase , which occurs only here and Job 36:12 (comp. in Job 34:20). The common explanation: to precipitate ones self into [or upon] the dart (iruere in telum) is not so natural, and is not confirmed by the expression in Job 33:28, which, although of similar sound, is essentially different in signification (against Hirzel, Delitzsch, etc.). [Here everything in thought and expression is peculiar. Del.]
8. Continuation. The second instance of the divine visitation; . By grievous painful disease: Job 33:19-22. Ewald, Hahn, Dillmann, groundlessly endeavor to treat this new instance as only a special expansion of that which precedes, because that already in Job 33:16 reference is made to severe suffering on the part of him to whom God addresses His dream-revelationan inadmissible forcing of the meaning of in that passage, and at the same time disproved by the at the beginning of the present verse, which is a connective, introducing a new thought, not an explicative particle, referring back to , from which it is much too far removed.He is chastised also with pains on his bed, while the strife in his bones goes on continually.So according to the Kthibh = strife, contest [admirably describing disease as a disturbance of the equilibrium of the powers: Del.], and in accordance with the correct rendering of (=, comp. Job 32:18) as predicate, not as the attribute of (and by the continual conflict, etc.), for the latter rendering (Hirzel, Vaih., Del.) is forbidden by the absence of the article before , Following the Kri, , which is supported by the ancient versions, and several MSS., we should have to explain (with Ewald, Dillmann, etc.): while the multitude of his limbs is still vigorous throughout (comp. Job 12:19; Job 20:11). [E. V.: and the multitude of his bones with strong (or unceasing) pain. So Aben-Ezra, Junius, Tremellius, Arn. (Vulg.: et omnia ossa ejus marcescere facit), but the construction of is unnatural.]
Job 33:20. And his life makes bread a loathing. causative Piel of the verb , not found elsewhere in the Hebrew, which, according to the Arabic, signifies to stink; hence to cause to stink, to excite loathing (not as intensive of Kal, to be disgusted, as Rosenm., Umbr., Vaih., Hahn, etc., explain it). again is here not = craving, hunger, any more than the parallel in b, but as always with Elihu: life, vital energy. Schlottmann truly remarks: It expresses very vividly the thought that the proper vital power, the proper , when it is consumed by disease, gives one a loathing for that which it otherwise likes as being a necessary condition of its own existence.
Job 33:21. So that his flesh consumes away ( abbreviated for , comp. Ew. 233, a) that it cannot be seen, lit. away from seeing, or away from sightliness. Comp. in respect to (pausal form for ) 1Sa 16:12; Isa 52:14; Isa 53:2.And his wasted limbs are scarcely to be seen any more (or are become invisible). So following the Kthibh , which according to the Hebrew root, , to be bare, expresses the notion of bareness, meagreness (scarcely as Gesen., Hirz., Del., etc. think, that of rottenness, putrefaction, after the Aram.), and in connection with the genitive produces the collective notion: the wasting of his members = his wasted members, with which the plur. predicate, , agree perfectly well (comp. the similar constructions with or above, Job 32:7; Job 15:20; Job 21:21, and often). The Kri , and are made bare, owes its origin to the attention being fixed on this incorrectly understood plural . [After and before the Perf. with is out of place. Dillm.] In respect to the pointing , with Dagh. in , comp. Delitzsch on the passage, and Ewald, 21, e. [Green, 121, 1, who, however, inclines to regard it as Mappik. In either case its function is to indicate the guttural quality of , here to be carefully observed, to give strength to the description.E.]
Job 33:22. On a comp. Job 33:18.And his life to the angels of death, lit. the slayers, or destroyers (), by which are intended not only mortal pains (Rosenm., Schlottmann) [Barnes, Carey], but, according to Psa 78:49; 2Sa 24:16; 1Ch 21:15, angelic powers sent from God, and commissioned to destroy men. [The former explanation does not commend itself, because the Elihu section has a strong angelological coloring in common with the book of Job. Del.]
9. Continuation. The third instance of the divine visitation: . By sending a mediating angel as a deliverer out of distress, and so by a wonderful removal of the painful disease and danger of death just described: Job 33:23-28.If then there is for him [, for, better than with him] an angel, a mediator ( here otherwise than in Job 16:20, where it was used in malem partem), one of thousands, to declare to man his duty (lit. his uprightness, his right way, comp. Pro 14:2).Oecolampad., Schult,, Schnurr., Bouil., Eichh., Rosenm., Welte, v. Hofmann [Noyes, Barnes, Carey] understand by the a human interpreter of the will of God, a prophet, or teacher of true wisdom, such as Job had before himself in Elihu. But the ancient reference to an angel (comp. Job 4:18) to which the majority of moderns also adhere, is supported by the following considerations. (1) The mention, just before, of the angel of death, to which manifestly there is now about to be introduced a contrast. (2) The contrast with in c, as well as the office of delivering from death, with which, according to Job 33:23, the is invested. (3) His being called one of a thousand, which would scarcely characterize him as a man of an extraordinary sort, such as can scarcely be met with as one among a thousand, but rather as belonging to the innumerable hosts of heavena description, accordingly, which is to be understood not according to Ecc 7:28, but according to Dan 7:10; Psa 68:18 [17]. The latter designation, moreover, makes it impossible to regard this mediating or interpreting angel (comp. Gen 42:23; Isa 43:27; 2Ch 32:31) as an angel of peculiarly high rank, as e. g. the Malak-Jehovah of the Pentateuch, or as the Angel of the Presence, or the Metathron of the later Jewish literature, as Schlottmann and Del. [Lee, Wordsw., Canon Cook in Smiths Bib. Dic.] think; for the force of the clause is simply to put this one messenger of God on an equality with many others, whom God might in like manner entrust with such a commission, not to exalt him above them. The Messianic meaning, which many expositors attribute to the verse (even among those who understand the of a human messenger of God, e. g. Schultens, Velthusen, J. D. Michaelis, also J. Pye Smith, Script. Testimony to the Messiah, I. 307, the last indeed only tentatively, and without definitely deciding the question), is accordingly in any case very indirect and general. Moreover a special Christological vaticinium of the kind which the majority of the older exegetes maintained (comp. especially J. D. Michaelis: De angelo interprete, Hal. 1707), would scarcely seem appropriate in the mouth of an extra-Israelitish sage of the patriarchal era, any more than that celebrated verse of the dipus Coloneus of Sophocles:
One soul, in my opinion, for ten thousand will suffice
To make atonement, if with kindly feelings it draws nigh,
could be understood as Messianic otherwise than very remotely (comp. Luthardt, Apolog. Vortrge ii. 224).
[In the extra-Israelitish world a far more developed doctrine of angels and demons is everywhere found than in Israel, which is to be understood not only subjectively, but also objectively; and within the patriarchal history after Genesis 16. that () appears, who is instrumental in effecting the progress of the history of redemption, and has so much the appearance of the God of revelation, that He even calls Himself God, and is called God. He it is whom Jacob means, when (Gen 48:15 seq.), blessing Joseph, he distinguishes God the Invisible, God the Shepherd, i.e. Leader and Ruler, and the Angel who delivered () me from all evil; it is the Angel who, according to Psa 34:8, encampeth round about them that fear God, and delivereth them; the Angel of the Presence, whom Isaiah in the Thephilla, 63:7 seq., places beside Jehovah and His Holy Spirit as a third hypostasis. Taking up this perception, Elihu demands for the deliverance of man from the death which he has incurred by his sins, a superhuman angelic mediator. The Angel of Jehovah of primeval history is the oldest prefigurement in the history of redemption of the future incarnation, without which the Old Testament history would be a confused quodlibet of premises and radii, without a conclusion and a centre; and the angelic form is accordingly the oldest form which the hope of a deliverer assumes, and to which it recurs, in conformity to the law of the circular connection between the beginning and the end, in Mal 3:1. Delitzsch.See further Remarks on Job 33:24.]
Job 33:24 is not the apodosis to the preceding verse (Hirzel, Hahn, Delitzsch, Kamphausen) [E. V., Con., Noyes, Renan, Rodwell], for Gods commission to the angel: Deliver him, etc.belongs as yet to the preliminary conditions of the deliverance, which is first described in Job 33:25. The conditional particle of the preceding verse accordingly extends its influence over the present verse: and (if) He hath mercy on him, and saith, etc.,This divine commission presupposes that the sorely afflicted one has truly repented, and laid to heart the salutary teachings of the angel. It is unnecessary with Schlottmann to take the angel as the subject of this brief clause, for the reason that the exercise of mercy cannot be the function of an angel.Deliver him from going down into the pit (comp. Job 33:18 a), I have found a ransom, viz. for him. [One is here reminded of Heb 9:12, . Del.] By this is meant the intercession of the mediating angel, who had preached repentance, not in vain, to the sick one, and had therefore appeared before God, interceding in his behalf. Instead of (from a root , liberare, which is not elsewhere found, and which is hardly intelligible), it would seem natural to read either or (from = ); some MSS. show , solve eum, which, however, would be suitable only in case the angel addressed were the angel of death. [ according to its primary notion is not a covering = making good, more readily a covering = cancelling (from , Talmud, to wipe out, away), but, as the usual combination with shows, a covering of sin and guilt before wrath, punishment, or execution on account of guilt, and in this sense , a means of getting free, ransom-money. The connection is satisfied if the repentance of the chastened one (thus e. g. also von Hofm.) is understood by this ransom, or better, his affliction, inasmuch as it has brought him to repentance. But wherefore should the mediatorship of the angel be excluded from the notion of the ? Just this mediatorship is meant, inasmuch as it puts to right him who by his sins had worked death, i.e. places him in a condition in which no further hindrance stands in the way of the divine pardon. If we connect the mediating angel, like the angel of Jehovah of the primeval history with God Himself, as then the logos of this mediating angel to man can be Gods own logos communicated by him, and he therefore as , Gods speaker (if we consider Elihus discourse in the light of the New Testament), can be the divine Logos himself, we shall here readily recognize a passage of the mystery which is unveiled in the New Testament: God was in Christ, and reconciled the world unto Himself. A presage of this mystery, flashing through the darkness, we have already read in Job 17:3 (comp. Job 16:21; and, on the other hand, in order to see how this anticipation is kindled by the thought of the opposite, Job 9:33). The presage which meets us here is like another in Psalms 107.a Psalm which has many points of coincidence with the book of Jobwhere in Job 33:20 we find: He sent His word, and healed them. At any rate Elihu expresses it as a postulate, that the deliverance of man can be effected only by a superhuman being, as it is in reality accomplished by the man who is at the same time, and from all eternity the Lord of the angels of light. Delitzsch.
In addition to the suggestions which may be found in the two extracts from Delitzsch, given above in favor of explaining the of this passage in the higher sense of the O. T. , the following considerations may be urged:
1. To understand the words of an ordinary angel furnishes no adequate explanation of the description here given of him. Especially is it difficult to understand on this theory why he should be spoken of as one out of a thousand. Is it (a) simply as a rhetorical amplification of the word angelone of the innumerable hosts of heaven? (Renan). But this would be here a meaningless rhetorical flourish. What has his being one of a countless angelic company to do with the function here assigned to him? Is it (b) as a more precise definition of the Malakah, to indicate that he is an angelic, or celestial messenger? (Dillmann). But that would have been expressed in more definite language. Is it (c) restrictivebut one among a thousand? (Rodwell). Apart from the obscurity of the language to express such a thought, it is difficult to see the force of such a restriction. Not to indicate any unwillingness on the part of the angels in general, for that would be nothing to the purpose. It could only serve to magnify Gods willingness to be graciouslet but one mediator appear, and God will have mercy. But to this there are several decisive objections. (1) It is against the proper view of the connection, according to which Job 33:24 is not the consequent, but a part of the conditional antecedent. (2) It seems to be founded on the opinion that means an intercessor (so Rodwellinterceding angel), whereas he is Gods representative, not mans. (3) It lies outside the scope of the passage. The sufferer has in the verses immediately preceding been brought to the verge of the grave. But all at once a glorious possibility presents itselfa Messenger from God, to show the sufferer the way of right, mercifully commissioned to deliver him, and lo! he is rescued, his youth renewed, and he beholds the face of God in joy] To interject the thought that such a messenger would be only one of a thousand like himself, would be confusing and weakening. The same objection would apply still more forcibly if we should take it to mean (d) any one of a thousand.
But Job 2 : understood of a of high rank, the words are significant. They indicate dignity, superiority.1 He is One out of, or above ( combining its local and comparative force) a thousand, or thousands, or the thousand. Good explains: one of the supreme chyliad, the preeminent thousand that shine at the top of the empyreal hierarchy, possessed of transcendent and exclusive powers, and confined to functions of the highest importance. Granting that this explanation of is problematical, it may still be said that whether we take it indefinitely for a thousand or collectively for thousands, i.e. all the angels, the phraseoneout of a thousandmost naturally suggests rareness, pre-eminence. And this view of it accords with the rest of the description.
(1) The term , in such a connection, would naturally convey the idea of dignity. He is an ambassador, internuncius (see 2Ch 32:31), an angelic envoy endowed with an extraordinary commissioncertainly not here, as the context shows, the mere mouthpiece of another (as in Gen 42:23).
(2) His functionto show to man the right way (his rightness, his true life)suggests at once the Prophet foretold by Moses (Deu 18:15 seq.), one who should interpretdeclaremore clearly than mere man could the will of God by which man is to be saved.
(3) His remedial commission, it will be seen, is extraordinary: (a) In its origin, in the special, solemn, formal manner in which he is invested with it. (b) In its natureinvolving as it does deliverance from the pit, and the completion of mans ransoma word used again by Elihu (Job 36:18) in the most solemn connection with reference to deliverance from the most terrible of destinies (comp. also Psa 49:8, and the use of the cognates , and , as significant of the expiation of sin): (c) In its resultsespecially as embracing reconciliation with God (Job 33:26).
3. Add that the idea of Divine Grace, as developed so remarkably in Job 33:26-27, comes into more fitting connection with such an interpretation of the passage as involves an evangelic anticipation of the revelation of grace in Christ, the great .
4. The passage is not indeed to be constrained into a complete exposition of Christs mediatorial office. Here, as elsewhere in our book, the truth is fragmentary, obscure, a prophetic hint, little more than the yearning after a possibility. This consideration however would all the more seem to put it in the category of such passages as Job 14:14 seq.; Job 17:3; Job 19:25 seq. It is a hypothesis, hanging on an Ifbut it is an If, the answer to which is the Amen of the Gospel.
If, as shown above, the language itself points in the highest direction here indicated, we are still further justified in taking that direction by the position which must be accorded to Elihus discourses in the book. Assuming here their genuineness, they must be regarded as a part of the solution of the problem. So regarded, it would seem strange if they did not once show us those heights of aspiration and faith, of which Jobs words have already given us such wonderful glimpses. On the other hand, it should not seem to us strange that the young sage, the precursor of Jehovah, in the disentanglement of the books mystery, whose especial mission in the book it is to throw the light of inspired thought on the mystery, should reflect upon it some rays from the mediatorial cross. E.].
Job 33:25. Apodosis to Job 33:23 seq.: (then) his flesh swells with the vigor of youth. In respect to the Perf. quadril. to be over-juicy, to swell, comp. Ewald, 131, g [Green, 180, a]. [peculiar to the Elihu section] here and in Job 36:14, instead of the customary . The before this word is used not comparatively, but causally, as the parallel thought in b shows.
Job 33:26. If he prayeth to Eloah, He accepteth him graciously (comp. Job 22:27), and causeth him to behold His face with rejoicing, or: so that he sees His face with rejoicing: both renderings are equally possible, according as we render as imper. Kal, or Hiph. The rendering of Umbreit and Ewald, however, is inappropriate: and He cause his face to look upon joy, because already signifies of itself, to see joy (see Job 33:28 b).And He gives back again to man his righteousness, which he had lost; not requites to man his uprightness, as Delitzsch (after Luther) translates, for Job 33:27 b does not agree with this. Moreover to express this idea of the recompense of upright actions, we should rather expect to find . The idea of a righteousness in the rescued sinner, restored to him by God as a free gift, is peculiar to Elihu. It at least retires quite into the background in the descriptions, otherwise quite similar, of the three friends, such as Job 5:19 seq.; Job 8:21; Job 11:15 seq.; Job 22:23 seq., and thus characterizes Elihus religious and ethical views as more free from legal narrowness and externality.
Job 33:27. He singeth to man, and saith., abbreviated Imperf. from = (comp. Job 36:24). , lit. to men, addressed to them; comp. Pro 25:20. As to the thought, however, comp. Psa 22:23 [Psa 22:22] seq.; Psa 51:14, and often. The song of thanksgiving chanted by the redeemed and justified one [a psalm in nuce, Del.] now begins, and extends to the end of the following verse.Still it was not recompensed to me; lit. it was not made equal to me, non quatum est mihi (, neuter or impersonal) [E. V.: and it profited me not (Syr., Targ.) is a legitimate rendering of the Heb., but is far less appropriate to the connection. It misses entirely the recognition of grace, in that he had not received the just recompense of his sins. The rendering of the first part of the verse is also more forced, and less satisfactory, when is rendered: He looketh, and : and if any say: against which may still further be urged the Vav. consec. here, and the Perf. , and the Kthibh in 28a.E.].
Job 33:28. He hath redeemed my soul (read with the Kthibh , for the eucharistic discourse of the redeemed one is still continued here), from going down into the pit (comp. Job 33:18), and my life shall enjoy seeing the light;i.e. the light of this world (Joh 11:9), which, as the upper world, stands here in contrast with the gloomy grave, and so also in Job 33:30; comp. Job 3:16; Job 3:20. Delitzsch,, against the context, and with an interpolation of thought: in the light of the divine (countenance, in the gracious presence of God.
10. Conclusion: first of all (Job 33:29-30) of the second chief divisionteaching the gracious and righteous dispensations of God in educating His human children; and then (Job 33:31-33) of the whole discoursethe last sentence being a summons to Job to bear attentively the discourses of instruction which follow.Behold, all this God doesreferring back to all of which he has spoken from Job 33:14 on, with a recurrence in particular of the idea of repeatedness found also in that passage, for this is what is expressed there by and , here by bis terquean expression which on account of the lack of the between the two adverbs of time, the ancient versions misunderstood, and so read as though it were [three times; E. V. more indefinitely oftentimes].
Job 33:30. On a comp. Job 33:18; on b, Job 33:28, and Ps. 56:14 [Psa 56:13]. [ here for the fifth time in this speech, without being anywhere interchanged with or another synonym, which is remarkable. Del.] , syncopated form of the Inf. Niphal, instead of [Gr., 159, 2], that he may be lighted, or enlightened with the light of life (in contrast with the darkness of death, with which he had already been overshadowed.
Job 33:31. Attend, O Job, and hearken to me.This can scarcely be regarded as a summons to ponder quietly on what he had heard (Del.), but rather to listen to what he had further to communicate, as b incontrovertibly proves.
Job 33:32. If (however) thou hast words, then reply to me (comp. Job 33:5); speak, for I desire thy justification, i.e. not that thou shouldst justify thyself (Hirzel), but that thou mayest stand vindicated, I wish to see thee declared righteous (comp. Job 32:2, with Job 33:26 c). Here also again the normal evangelical notion of justification, in contrast with all false self-justification, is expressed by Elihu.
Job 33:33. If not ( , to wit , comp. Gen 30:1), then do thou hear me. emphatic: thou on thy part.Be silent (as in Job 33:31 b), and I will teach thee wisdom. here instead of the several times used in the introduction (comp. Job 32:6 b, 10, 17; Job 33:3). , to teach, as in Job 15:5
DOCTRINAL AND ETHICAL
1. Partly on the ground of Elihus circumstantial self-introduction in Job 32:6 to Job 33:7, partly on the ground of the first discourse of admonition and instruction which immediately follows, very unfavorable judgments o have from ancient times down to our own been delivered in respect to the person and the religious and ethical stand-point of this speaker. Following the example of Jerome,2 Gregory the Great, at the close of his exposition of the first discourse, describes Elihu as an arrogans, who dum vera ac mystica, loquitur, subito per tumor em cordis qudam inania ac superba permiscet. The Venerable Bede even identifies him with the false prophet (ariolus) Balaam.3 following perhaps the guidance of the Rabbis, for in the Talmud and Midrash the same worthless conceit recurs (as in like manner it seems to be an anonymous Jewish writer, who recently [in Bernsteins Analecten, Vol. III., under the title, Der Satan als Irrgeist und Engel des Lichts] has made the attempt to represent Elihu as Satan in disguise). Olympiodorus judges him more favorably, but is still of opinion that he has not done full justice to Job, the truly pious and holy man, and is for that same reason at last neither praised nor blamed by God (Catena in Job, ed. Lond. p. 484). Most of the Jesuit commentators in modern times regard Elihu as an empty, puffed up boaster, whom God rightly ignores, and whose hatred against Job is to be explained from his near relationship to him, his Nahorite descent; so e. g. Escobai (Comment. in Biblia, Tom. IV., p. 94, 125); while other Roman Catholic exegetes, e. g. the Capuchin Volducius (Comment. Tom. II., p. 445 seq.) adjudge him to be in the right, so far as all that is essential is concerned.Among Protestant commentators Luther, so far as may be gathered from various scattered intimations, partly from his translation of chs. 3237., partly from his Introduction to the book of Job, and other expressions on the subject, seems to have put Elihus discourses, as respects their theological value and contents, on the same plane with those of the three friends. Vict. Strigel renders a decidedly unfavorable verdict upon them, Elihu being to him an exemplum ambitiosi oratoris, qui plenus sit ostentatione et audacia insinuata in mente. Herder calls Elihus speech, in comparison with the majestic thunder-speech of the Creator, the weak, rambling talk of a boy, and says: Elihu, a young prophet, intemperate, bold, alone wise, draws fine pictures, without end or aim; hence no one answers him, and he stands there as a mere shadow (Vom Geist der Ebr. Psie, p. 101, 142). Umbreits language is similar, only yet stronger. Elihus appearance he describes as the uncalled-for stumbling in of a conceited young philosopher into the conflict that is already properly ended, and the silent contempt with which he is allowed to speak is the merited reward of a babbler (Komment., 2d Ed., p. XXV seq.). In like manner Wohlfarth, who says that Elihu is a vain-glorious conceited boaster, as it were a spiritual Goliath! M. Sachs (Stud. u. Kritiken, 1834, IV. p. 416 seq.), and A. Hahn, who (Komment. p. 18) calls him a most conceited and arrogant young man, who with all his undeniable scientific knowledge is boastful and officious [Noyes, who calls him forward], and this in accordance with the purpose of the poet, who represents him as such a character intentionally. The judgment of those who oppose the genuineness of the Elihu-episode is naturally to some extent unfavorable. See a number of such expressions collected together out of de Wettes Introduction, in Umbreit (l. c.); also Eichhorn in Schlottmann, p. 54; v. Hofmann in Delitzsch (II., 240); and very recently Dillmanns closing opinion in respect to Elihus self-introduction (p. 297): The impression which this long introductory discourse makes on the reader is not favorable; Elihus self-praise, and his verbose vaunting of that which he is about to do, is somewhat unseemly, etc. So also what he says of the first discourse (p. 304)that Elihus representation of the suffering of Job as a means of discipline and improvement employed by God exhibits throughout nothing new, that it is precisely the same method of explanation as that which the three friends had adopted in the beginning of the controversy, which Eliphaz especially, in Job 5:17 seq., had sharply and clearly expressed. and which Job would have been perfectly justified in rejecting as unacceptable.
To these unfavorable judgments respecting the character of their speaker there may indeed be opposed, a number equally large of such as are favorable, which, finding their principal support as well in Job 32. and 33. see in Elihu a direct forerunner, not only on the negative, but also on the positive side, of the final decision of the controversy by Jehovah. So already Augustine, according to whom Elihu ut primas partes modesti habuit ita et sapienti; Chrysostom, who represents him in two respectsin respect of his speech, and of his silenceas an eloquent witness to true Wisdom 4 subsequently Thomas Aquinas (Opp. Tom. I., p. 137, 184, ed. Venet.), Brentius, Oecolampadius, Calvin, Pareau (see the passage quoted out of his commentary above in the Introduction 10, Rem.) Cocceius, Sebastian Schmidt, Starke, [Schultens, Lightfoot, Bp. Patrick, Matt. Henry], etc.; and quite recently in particular Schlottmann, Rbiger (Del. Jobi sent, primaria), Hengstenberg, Vlk, and the greater part of those who advocate the genuineness of these discourses [to whom may be added some even of the opponents of their genuineness, such as Davidson, Introd. II., pp. 210213; Delitzsch II., 239 seq.]. We must declare ourselves decidedly in favor of the latter estimate of the value and import of this section, although it seems to us a one-sided, or at least an incautious statement to say that it is (according to Hengstenbergs Vortrage ber das Buch Hiob, p. 27) the throbbing heart of the whole poem, or that (according to v. Gerlach, A. T. III., 86) these discourses give us the true intent of the whole, the views of the author himself, or that Elihu, unlike the three friends, is introduced as standing within the pale of the Abrahamitic revelation (so Vilmar, see above on Job 32:2). It is certainly the poets intention that Elihu should be regarded as a factor needing to be corrected or to be supplemented by the entire colloquy, otherwise he would not actually furnish such very important supplementary additions as are found in Jehovahs discourses, and the final action in the epilogue. But he does unquestionably represent him as a speaker who approaches very closely the complete Divine truth, nearer than any one of the preceding speakers. This is seen at the outset, in the way he introduces himself in these two chapters, and lays down the foundation of the didactic discussion which follows.
2. Respecting the point, that in Elihus self-introduction, as well as in the poets introduction which precedes it (Job 32:2-6), there is nothing that is unbecoming, nothing that justifies the charge of vanity, or an overweening self-conceit, or idle loquacity against Elihu, see above Introduction 10, ad, 6 and 7 seq. Here attention is specially called to the fact that the frequency and confidence with which he puts forth his knowledge (Job 32:6 b, 10, 17; Job 33:3) was indispensable, inasmuch as it was precisely on this intellectual possession of the speaker that his right to make his appearance along with those men so much older than himself rested, inasmuch indeed as, if he had not been endowed with an extraordinary fullness of knowledge and wisdom, he could not have escaped the reproach of impudent self-intrusion, or shameless arrogance. The reader is still further reminded there that the humility and modesty of Elihu appear not only in the fact that as the youngest he had hitherto been silent, but also in the fact that at the close of his self-introduction he solemnly declares (Job 33:4-7) that it is his purpose to address himself to Job as man to man, as the medium accordingly of a wisdom which is purely human, and which by no means denies its earthly originnot as though he were about presumptuously to communicate a divine revelation which should confound or terrify him, in short not as a preacher of repentance, or a prophet, thundering upon him from above (see the Exegetical Remarks on the above passages.)
3. This same purely human, and for that reason mild and humane impress stamps itself on the beginning of his didactic expositions in the first discourse. Elihu here exhibits himself as far less of a legalist than the three censurers of Job who have preceded him. He certainly does maintain against Job that his assertion that he is altogether pure and innocent, and his other assertion, that God is cruelly persecuting him, are without justification and presumptuous (Job 33:12 seq.). But instead of at once proceeding to threaten him with Gods direst punishments for his conduct, or setting before his eyes that terrible picture of the irretrievable destruction of obstinate evil-doers, which was the favorite theme of the descriptions of his predecessors, he assumes an incomparably gentler, more comforting, more affectionate tone. He puts in the foregroundherein proving himself to be a genuine teacher of wisdom, an apostle of the real Divine wisdom revealed in the New Testamentthe idea of the (Job 33:16), i. e. of chastisement, of Gods discipline, strict and yet mild as that of a father, attributes to Jobs grievous suffering essentially the significance which is conferred upon it by such a disciplinary standard (such purifying suffering in the way of temptation, in contrast with suffering merely in the way of trial 5), and in a friendly way points out to Job how near God is to him in the midst of his misery, and how little reason he has to doubt His help and deliverance. He then describes this deliverance itself, on the one side as depending on the intervention of a superhuman mediating angel, commissioned to declare to him the merciful and gracious will of God (Job 33:23 seq.), on the other side as immediately followed by the gracious restoration of his former righteousness, a justification (Job 33:26 c; Job 33:32) which is to be viewed as forgiveness, or a solemn readmission to the position of a child of God. In both these utterances respecting the deliverance hypothetically promised to Job, Elihu approximates most remarkably the fundamental features of the New Testament revelation of salvation. For his idea of justification differs from the evangelical Pauline idea only in the absence of a direct reference to the crucified and risen Redeemer as the ground of the (causa meritoria justificationis). His supposition that God would send one of His thousands of angels, as a mediating power, to a sorely tried and chastised mortal, to rescue and convert him, and to instruct him concerning the way of salvation, and so to facilitate his redemption and restoration to the energy and joy of a new life, comes in contact indeed only remotely with the Messianic idea. For certain as it is that the mediatorial angel of salvation is put essentially on an equality with the angel of disease and death mentioned just before, not exalted above him (comp. Job 33:22 b, with Mat 8:9, and parallel passages), so certain is it that the passage is related only indirectly to the idea and fact of the Gospel revelation of the divine-human mediator, Jesus Christ. It does nevertheless unquestionably stand in a certain typical and prophetic relation to the New Testament ideas of the Messiah. This is made certain by the fact that the commission with which the mediatorial messenger from God is entrusted is not of a physical, external and medicinal character, but before all redemptive in the religious and ethical sense, and also by the fact that the messenger whom Elihu supposes to be entrusted with the execution of this divine commission is not an earthly and human, but a heavenly, superhuman being (comp. the Exeget. Rem. on Job 33:23). In more than one respect accordingly does this speaker, even in this his first didactic exposition, show his superiority to the three friends. He reveals a higher calling, and shows incomparably greater skill than they in producing an enlightening, ennobling and elevating influence on the mind of Job, longing as he does for heavenly comfort; and he proves himself to be in truth the most advanced, the most richly furnished, intellectually the largest possessor of the human Chokmah among the four who successively encounter Job as human comforters and teachers of wisdom. Comp. Starkes remarks: Elihu sees much deeper into the mystery of affliction than the three former friends. He is much more discreet and reasonable in his intercourse with Job than the others; he does not make him out a hypocrite, or one who is evidently ungodly, but he shows how by affliction God would purge him of all reliance on his own righteousness, and simply point him to the righteousness of the Messiah. What he says so beautifully Job 33:23 in respect to the intercession of the mediator, and the whole context clearly show this to be his purpose.
4. In a homiletic respect, it is of course the second half of the section here embraced by us, or Job 33:8-33, that furnishes by far the richest and most fruitful material. Here Elihu, the Aramaic sage of the patriarchal age, presents himself as the proclaimer of truths which show many points of contact with those of the New Testament system of redemption, and which justify us in regarding him as an unconscious prophet of Christ, if not of His person, at least of His work. Much that is stimulating may nevertheless be derived even from the first introductory half, especially when we take, as our highest point of observation, the circumstance that Elihu there desires to apologize for his youth, and for that reason sets forth so much in detail the necessity for his speaking. The basis for such reflections might be found in some such parallel as ElihuJeremiahTimothy (comp. Jer 1:6; 1Ti 4:12).
HOMILETICAL AND PRACTICAL
Particular Passages
Job 32:2 seq. Zeyss: It is not wrong to show wrath against evil, especially where Gods honor is concerned. But we must take particular care that such a holy fire of righteous anger be not mixed with the strange fire of earthly affections. Eph 4:26.
Job 32:6 seq. Cocceius: The man who is about to plant seed in his field, first weeds out noxious herbs, and ploughs thoroughly the surface of the soil. He who expects to instil his own arguments into the mind of another, must first mollify it, and free it of suspicion, in order that afterwards it may receive more eagerly that which is to be communicated. The obstacles in the way of Elihu seemed to be the suspicion of arrogance on his part, and his age, and also the authority of the friends, and their opinion concerning themselves. He attacks the first obstacle in these verses, etc.Jo. Lange: In true wisdom, that which is of importance isnot age, butthe illumination of the Holy Spirit. If young people have a clear perception of divine things, those who are older need not be ashamed to hear them, and to learn from them.V. Gerlach: The illumination of the Holy Ghost is not confined to old age. This very saying (Job 32:9) shows that we must not take offence at the apparent boastfulness of Elihus words, seeing that he gives the glory not to himself, but to God. The vivid, copious, oriental style gives to the discourse a different look in the eyes of the less ardent inhabitants of the West, from what it had in its own fatherland.
Job 32:18 seq. Starke: The man whose heart is full, his mouth runs over. Let a man therefore store up goodly treasure in his heart, and he will speak that which is good and useful.Dost thou find in thyself a strong impulse to say or do something, first search well to see whether it proceeds from a good or an evil spirit (Rom 8:14).V. Gerlach: At the close he repeats the assurance that although he presumes to speak, and to rebuke the aged, he nevertheless feels himself under a divine compulsion, and can therefore have in view only the glory of God, not that of any man whatsoever.
Job 33:4-7. Brentius: This is a most potent reason why one should not despise another, nor treat him scornfully. For we have all been made by the same God, through the same Word, in the same Spirit; we have earth, water, air, heaven, as our common heritage. But if you look at Christians, they have a still closer bond uniting them together; for in Ephesians 4. it is said: There is one body, one spirit, one Lord, one faith, one baptism, etc.; and in Romans 14.: Destroy not thy brother, for whom Christ died. If therefore this idea were treasured up deep in our faith, it would without difficulty restrain us from wronging, despising or slandering our brethren, if we verily believed that our brother is of such dignity that Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, for his sake descended from heaven, and poured out His blood.
Job 33:15 seq. Oecolampadius: It behooved that this way (that of an by dreams) should have been the first and most familiar to us, so that written communications would have been superfluous, the Holy Spirit writing on our hearts. But after that we had turned aside from God to the vanity of this world, it is one of the rarest things known. Philosophers, ignoring both the dignity of man and the harm wrought by sin, have decided that man can acquire knowledge only through the teaching of the senses; for which reason they also deride the gift of . Elihu seems to have spoken not of ordinary dreams, but of such as visited Abimelech and Laban.Zeyss: After that God had at sundry times and in divers manners spoken to the fathers, by revelations, visions, and dreams, etc., as well as by the prophets, He hath at last spoken to us by His Son. He therefore who values his own happiness, and would escape destruction, let him believe and obey, the Word of God.v. Gerlach: A sufferer, who lives in fellowship with God, receives from Him in dreams of the night (and in many such ways), instructive intimations respecting the divine purposes in his calamities; he thus learns to understand aright what God would say to him in such ways. Elihu intimates here (especially in Job 33:16) that Job might have received divine communications, without observing them.
Job 33:23 seq. Cocceius: This passage makes evident to us the faith of the Ancient Church touching the Mediator. These things indeed are spoken by Elihu, in accordance with the condition of those times, ; but they are nevertheless in such exact accordance with the predictions of the prophets, and the declarations of the Apostles, that unless it be supposed that the Holy Spirit wished to lead the men of old somewhere else than towards the mystery of the Gospel, and to teach something else than the same forms of speech would convey in later times, there is not the slightest doubt that this is the true meaning of these words of Elihu, which had proceeded from the Spirit of God, and which were understood by himself in accordance with his own standard. Neither indeed was there anything which Elihu could more readily or suitably impress upon Job. For although Job had clearly enough professed faith in a Mediator, especially in Job 19. (?) he had nevertheless not so evidently touched upon the doctrine concerning Christs merits and satisfaction, nor had he in his discussions either considered this usefulness of affliction, which Elihu sets forth, or magnified it in proportion to its worth.Starke: see above [Doctrinal, etc.] No. 3.Wohlfarth: Although an unprejudiced exposition cannot find in these words the doctrine of an atonement through Jesus Christ, we have nevertheless so obvious a reminder of Christ here, that we cannot help observing it. If in ancient times men placed their hope in the intercession of heavenly spirits with God, how much more glorious the consolation which we have, who can say with exultation: We thank Thee, O God, that Thou hast so loved the world, etc., (Joh 3:16; 2Co 5:19-21; 1Pe 1:24).v. Gerlach: We are not to infer from the language here used that there is a particular angel, whose office it is to bring the prayers of men before God; rather does the expressionone of a thousanddenote one of the many messengers of God, who are appointed to watch over the life of His people, and to conduct them to eternal bliss (Heb 1:14). It does however contain the thought of representation, intercession before God, and in so far this passage points to the only Mediator between God and men (1Ti 2:5), and likewise to the Holy Ghost, who intercedes for Gods children with groanings that cannot be uttered (Rom 8:26), and is thus an anticipation of the New Testament. The thought to which Elihu here gives expression is essentially related to that which Job has already expressed in Job 17:3; Job 19:25, although it is by no means the same thought. But here the thought is supplied which is there wanting,that the office of the redeeming angel is not so much to attest the innocence, or the already perfected righteousness of men before God, but rather as mans advocate to intercede in his behalf because of his repentance. This it was in the perception of which Job was as yet lacking.
Job 33:26 seq. From the regeneration and quickening of the Gospel the most abundant fruits grow. First prayer, than which a greater gift can scarcely come from God to man. The second fruit is the joy of the Holy Ghost, which is Gods sweet face gladdening our consciences. The third fruit is confessionnot that which is of the ear, auricular, but the true confession of the heart, the acknowledgment of sins, etc.Starke: So beautifully has Elihu seen into the ways and purposes of God, even in the midst of trials, and where it seems as though He would destroy and cast off a soul, that he puts forth the assurance that it all has no other end in view than the true, eternal deliverance of the sufferer. And this was exactly the plaster for Jobs wounds, in order that his pain and his disquietude under the strokes of Gods hands might be assuaged and allayed, while he should be led to perceive Gods faithfulness, and to thank Him for it.
Footnotes:
[1]This is the meaning of the clause assumed by the commentators who suppose a human messenger to be referred to; e. g. Rosenmller: facit ad dignitatem ejus commendandam.
[2]Or rather of the Pseudo-Jerome, i. e. of that presbyter, Philippus, whose Expositio interlinearis on our book, found among the works of Jerome, was afterwards revised by the Venerable Bede (comp. Opp. Hieronymi, ed, Vallars, Tom. III., Append., p. 895 seq.).
[3]Sunt alii extra ecclesiam, qui Christo ejusque ecclesi similiter adversantur, quorum imaginem prtulit Balaam ille ariolus, qui et Elieu sicut patrum traditio habet, qui contra ipsum sanctum Job multa improbe et injuriose locatus est, in tantum ut esiam displiceret inconcinna ejus et in disciplinata loquac tas (Bed Opp. ed. Basil. III., c. 602).
[4] . De Patient. Job., Homil. IV.
[5]In respect to the distinction between suffering for temptation, and suffering for trial, comp. Vilmar, Past.-Theol., XI. 62 seq., (also Theolog. Moral. I. 174 seq.) A temptation is, according to this striking discrimination, which is no less instructive than Scriptural, a punitive act of God (inflicted through Satan), by which man is to be made conscious that in his inmost soul the adversary can yet find points of contact, by which to allure and urge him onward. By the temptation the secret sin is first disclosed, then perceived, and finally overcome (comp. Psa 90:8). The object of a trial on the other hand is simply to prove those whom God has already recognized as holy and good to be such. The suffering of trial, as the same is described especially in Psalms 42, 56 (to some extent also in the book of Job,a fact not sufficiently recognized by Vilmar), does not exclude the entire nearness of God, and the consciousness of this nearness, whereas in temptation the gracious nearness of God is not only not realized, but on the contrary God appears as a God afar off, as an angry God, etc.
Fuente: A Commentary on the Holy Scriptures, Critical, Doctrinal, and Homiletical by Lange
CONTENTS
This chapter opens with a new speaker, one whose name is Elihu. His discourse is in reproof, not only of Job, but of his three friends: and he prosecutes the subject through the whole of this and several succeeding chapters.
Job 32:1
(1) So these three men ceased to answer Job, because he was righteous in his own eyes.
The reason of Job’s three friends forbearing any further dispute, was rather ill founded. Job had only endeavored to clear himself from their charge, and not to assert that he was righteous.
Fuente: Hawker’s Poor Man’s Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
Job 32:2
Job’s friends kindly argued with him, ‘You are suffering, therefore you are guilty’. And the argument was bad, because they only saw an exceptional accident in the life of a good man; but if that eternal life had been passed in continual residence on this globe, if notorious bad fortune had pursued him through eternity in the nineteenth generation, his descendants might well have said, ‘Oh, Job, there is something wrong in you, for you never come out right’.
Bagehot on The Ignorance of Man.
Job 32:4
‘I speak not as claiming reverence for my own age and office,’ says Mr. Lyon to Felix Holt ( Felix Holt, chap. v.), ‘not to shame you, but to warn you. It is good that you should use plainness of speech, and I am not of those who would enforce a submissive silence on the young, that they themselves, being elders, may be heard at large; for Elihu was the youngest of Job’s friends, yet was there a wise rebuke in his words.’
Job 32:7
If youth is the season of unrest, when change is welcomed for its own sake, and when orderly growth is despised, it is also the brooding-time of speculation, the maturing-time of adventure. Old men are probably best fitted for carrying on the mechanical and routine work of the world, but the artists, the poets, the explorers, the propagators of new ideas, are habitually to be found among the young. Of two great changes that have powerfully influenced modern society, it may probably be said that both the Reformation and the Revolution owed their impetus to the generation under forty.
C. H. Pearson.
Job 32:8
Here it is that humanity culminates, or reveals the summit of its dignity; it is, in being, spirit, and, as such, open to the visitation and the indwelling power of God. This it is, and this only, that makes us properly religious beings. No created being can excel in order a soul so configured to God as to be inspirable by Him, able to receive His impulse, fall into His movement, rest in His ends, and be finally perfected in the eternity of His joys.
Bushnell.
What the light of your mind, which is the direct inspiration of the Almighty pronounces incredible, that, in God’s name, leave uncredited; at your peril do not try believing that.
Carlyle, Life of Sterling.
Thy own God-created Soul; dost thou not call that a ‘revelation’? Who made Thee? where didst thou come from? The voice of eternity, if thou be not a blasphemer, and poor asphyxiated mute, speak with that tongue of thine! Thou art the latest birth of Nature; it is ‘the inspiration of the Almighty’ that giveth thee understanding.
Carlyle, Past and Present.
True, nevertheless, forever it remains that Intellect is the real object of reverence, and of devout prayer, and zealous wish and pursuit among the sons of men; and even, well understood, the one object. It is the Inspiration of the Almighty that giveth men understanding…. Human Intellect, if you consider it well, is the exact summary of Human Worth.
Carlyle, Latter-day Pamphlets (iii.).
Carlyle, never tired of quoting this verse, recurs again to it in describing the Presbyterianism of Scotland (in the essay on Sir Walter Scott): ‘A country where the entire people is, or even once has been, laid hold of, filled to the heart with an infinite religious idea, has “made a step from which it cannot retrograde”. Thought, conscience, the sense that man is denizen of a Universe, Creature of an Eternity, has penetrated to the remotest cottage, to the simplest heart. Beautiful and awful, the feeling of a Heavenly Behest, of Duty God-commanded, over-canopies all life. There is an inspiration in such a people; one may say in a more special sense, “the inspiration of the Almighty giveth them understanding”.’
Reference. XXXII. 8. J. E. Vaux, Sermon Notes (4th Series), p. 22.
Job 32:9
We are idolaters of the old. We do not believe in the riches of the soul, in its proper eternity and omnipresence. We do not believe there is any force in today to rival or recreate that beautiful yesterday. We linger in the ruins of the old tent, where once we had bread and shelter and organs, nor believe that the spirit can feed, cover, and nerve us again. But we sit and weep in vain. The voice of the Almighty saith, ‘up and onward for evermore’. We cannot stay among the ruins.
Emerson.
In these days, what of lordship or leadership is still to be done, the youth must do it, not the mature or aged man; the mature man, hardened into sceptical egoism, knows no monition but that of his own frigid cautions, avarices, mean timidities; and can lead nowhither towards an object that even seems noble.
Carlyle, Latter day Pamphlets (i.).
I know nothing can conduce more to letters than to examine the writings of the ancients, and not to rest on their sole authority or take all upon trust from them…. For to all the observations of the ancients we have our own experience: which if we will use and apply, we have better means to pronounce. Let Aristotle and others have their dues; but if we can make further discoveries of truth and fitness than they, why are we envied?
Ben Jonson.
An institution is healthy in proportion to its independence of its own past, to the confident freedom with which it alters itself to meet new conditions.
Prof. Seeley.
‘Great men are not always wise; neither do the aged understand judgment.’
This verse is put as the motto to the fifth chapter of Mr. Winston Churchill’s biography of his father, which describes Lord Randolph’s outburst in 1885 against ‘the old men who crooned over the fires at the Carlton’ and the older leaders of the Conservative Party.
Age is no better, hardly so well, qualified for an instructor than youth, for it has not profited so much as it has lost. One may almost doubt if the wisest man has learned anything of absolute value by living. Practically, the old have no very important advice to give the young, their own experience has been so partial, and their lives have been such miserable failures, for private reasons, as they must believe. I have lived some thirty years on this planet, and I have yet to hear the first syllable of valuable or even earnest advice from my seniors. They have told me nothing, and probably cannot tell me anything to the purpose.
Thoreau, Walden (‘ Economy’).
Compare the words of the Fool to Lear (Act i. Scene 4): ‘Thou hadst little wit in thy bald crown, when thou gavest thy golden one away’.
Job 32:10
‘We once were lusty youths and tall:’ one by the younger men, ‘we still are stout, come, try a fall’; and the third by the children, ‘but we’ll be stronger than you all’.
Plutarch (describing the Spartan festivals, at which three choruses were sung).
The centuries are conspirators against the sanity and authority of the soul…. Man is timid and apologetic, he is no longer upright; he dare not say, ‘I think,’ ‘I am,’ but quotes some saint or sage. He is ashamed before the blade of grass or the blowing rose. These roses under my window make no reference to former roses or to better ones; they are for what they are; they exist with God today.
Emerson.
In The Pilgrimage of Pleasure Swinburne makes Youth cry as follows:
‘Away from me, thou Sapience, thou noddy, thou green fool! What ween ye I be as a little child in school? Ye are as an old crone that mooneth by a fire, a bob with a chestnut is all thine heart’s desire.’
Job 32:21-22
Among all the Diseases of the Mind, there is not one more epidemical or more pernicious than the love of flattery…. When there is not Vanity enough awake in a man to undo him, the flatterer stirs up that dormant weakness, and inspires him with Merit enough to be a Coxcomb.
Steele in The Spectator (No. 238).
Villari, in the ninth chapter of his Savonarola, describes Lorenzo the Magnificent on his deathbed as unable to ‘believe in his confessor’s sincerity. Accustomed to see his slightest wish obeyed, and all the world bow to his will, he could not realize that anyone would dare to deny him absolution. Accordingly the blessing of the Church was powerless to lighten the weight burdening his conscience, and he was more and more cruelly tortured by remorse. No one has ever dared to refuse me anything he thought to himself, and then the idea that had once been his pride became his worst torment.’
What is it we heartily wish of each other? Is it to be pleased and flattered? No, but to be convicted and exposed, to be shamed out of our nonsense of all kinds, and made men of, instead of ghosts and phantoms.
Emerson on New England Reformers.
Reference. XXXIII. Spurgeon, Sermons, vol. xliii. No. 2505.
Fuente: Expositor’s Dictionary of Text by Robertson
The Speech of Elihu. I.
Job 32
This is the beginning of Elihu’s declaration. It is quite a new voice. We have heard nothing like this before. So startling indeed is the tone of Elihu that some have questioned whether his speech really forms part of the original poem, or has been added by some later hand. We deal with it as we find it here. It is none the less welcome to us that it is a young voice, fresh, charmful, bold, full of vitality, not wanting in the loftier music that is moral, solemn, deeply religious. It appears, too, to be an impartial voice; for Elihu says I am no party to this controversy: Job has not said anything to me or against me, therefore, I come into the conference wholly unprejudiced: but I am bound to show my opinion: I do not speak spontaneously; I am forced to this; I cannot allow the occasion to end, though the words have been so many and the arguments so vain, without also showing what I think about the whole matter. Such a speaker is welcome. Earnest men always refresh any controversy into which they enter: and young men must speak out boldly, with characteristic freshness of thought and word; they ought to be listened to; religious questions are of infinite importance to them: sometimes they learn from their blunders; there are occasions upon which self-correction is the very best tutor. It is well for us to know what men are thinking. It is useless to be speaking to thoughts that do not exist, to inquiries that really do not excite the solicitude of men. Better know, straightly and frankly, what men are thinking about, and what they want to be at, and address oneself to their immediate pain and necessity. Elihu will help us in this direction.
“Then was kindled the wrath of Elihu… against Job was his wrath kindled…. Also against his three friends was his wrath kindled” ( Job 32:2-3 ).
Elihu is full of wrath. This is right. Wrath ought to have some place in the controversies of men. We cannot always be frivolous, or even clever and agile in the use of words, in the fencing of arguments; there must be some man amongst us whose anger can burn like an oven, and who will draw us away from frivolity, and fix our minds upon vital points. “Let not the sun go down upon your wrath “; “Be ye angry, and sin not.” There is a holy anger. What can make men so wrathful as to hear preachers, leaders, teachers, writers giving the wrong answers to the burning questions of the time? We shall have more hope of the Church when men become more wrathful about the words that are spoken to them. The pulpit will respond to the impatience of the heart when it will not follow the lead of the arbitrary intellect. Who can sit still and hear men’s deepest questions treated lightly? Here it is that wrath comes to fulfil its proper function. It will not ask little questions, it will not be content with superficial replies; it says in effect, You do not understand the disease; you are crying Peace, peace; when there is no peace, or you are daubing the wall with untempered mortar: silence! ye teachers of vanity and followers of the wind. Anything is better in the Church than mere assent, indifference, neglect, intellectual passivity, the sort of feeling that has no feeling, mere decency of exterior, and a cultivation of patience which is only anxious to reach the conclusion. Let us have debate, controversy, exchange of opinion, vital, sympathetic conference one with another; then we shall know the true meaning, and the real depth and urgency of human want, and be sent back to find solid and living answers to the great cries of the soul.
Job 32
How courteously the young man dismisses the old form of teaching.
“I am young, and ye are very old; wherefore I was afraid, and durst not shew you mine opinion. I said, Days should speak, and multitude of years should teach wisdom” ( Job 32:6-7 ).
The old might be dismissed with some dignity. A time does come in human teaching when we pass from one set of teachers to another; but in passing to the higher range of teachers we need not be uncivil to the men who have told us all they knew, and who have brought their religious knowledge up to date. We cannot live in tomorrow; we cannot now speak the language that will be spoken in the Church fifty years hence: all we can do is to make one another welcome to our present acquisitions, and our present information, and our present sympathy. We do not claim finality for these things; we say in effect, This is all we know today: if we knew more, we would speak more; but knowing only this, we have only this to tell. Why sneer at the old theologians? They worked much harder than many work who are endeavouring to bring them into contempt. Why smile with a species of patient complacence upon the long-laboured theological treatises of the men of the seventeenth century? If they lived now they would speak the language of the day, they would adapt themselves to the methods of the day; but they did all that in their power lay, and really if we are going to leave them, what if we show some sign of civility, courtesy, indebtedness, thanking the men who went so far and saying to them, You would have gone farther if you could: in God’s name we bless you, for you have done all that lay in your power? This is not the way with men. The old preacher is often turned off uncivilly; he is said to be out of date, not to be abreast with the times, to have fallen astern; he has had his day, and he must be content to sit down. That is rough talk; that is uncourteous treatment. You would hardly treat a horse so, that had won many a race or served the family many a year: you would find some kind of suitable pasture for the dumb beast; you would remember how fiery and capable he once was, and would not deny him what is appropriate for his old age. Let us be thankful to our teachers who have spoken earnestly all they knew, and hail the young and new teachers with enthusiasm, only withholding our confidence until they have established their claim to it.
Elihu takes solid ground when he says:
“There is a spirit in man: and the inspiration of the Almighty giveth them understanding” ( Job 32:8 ).
Inspired instinct is greater and trustier than cultivated intellect Let nature speak. Let all that is deepest in you have full expression. We so often talk up through the burden of our information, acquisition, attainment of any and every kind. We are kept back by the very fact that we may possibly be offending something that is written in the books. We more frequently go by the book than by the soul. By “the book” we do not mean the Book of Revelation, but the man-made book; the traditional system, doctrine, or thought; the scientific form: we are afraid lest we should offend there; and so inspired instinct has not fair play in this great process of spiritual education. If our instinct, being inspired, had fair, free, ample utterance, it would put an end to many a wordy fray. What does inspired instinct declare? Hearing men arguing grammatically about salvation, settling doctrine upon mere grammatical accuracy, building churches upon declensions of substantives or conjugations of verbs, inspired instinct says, My Father’s house shall be called a house of prayer, and ye have made it a den of pedants. Inspired instinct says, with a warmth that is itself argumentative, It cannot be that God has fixed the eternal destiny of men upon niceties of grammar. Are then such niceties to be despised? Certainly not. Is the letter of no consequence? The letter is of great consequence: it has its place, a large and most useful place; but it is not to that suggestion that inspired instinct makes reply, it is to the suggestion that unless you are a grammarian you cannot be a penitent, unless you can parse a sentence you cannot receive a gospel. Elihu was right in urging this view of the case, and in urging it he did not for a moment dispossess the grammarian of his proper position as a teacher and guide: rather he would say to him, We are obliged to you for what you have done, but the Bible is within the Bible, the truth is within the words of its expression, the thing signified is within the sign, or is beyond the sign, and under all circumstances is greater than the sign. The soul must answer in great vital controversies, in which eternity is involved. Inspired instinct says right boldly, as a mother might say it when her holiest anger is flaming, God cannot have chosen to save a few men, and let the others go to perdition. In vain to quote to inspired instinct chapters and verses, which some grammarians have settled in one way and other grammarians have settled in another way: the soul puts them all aside, and thinks of God, the eternal, the loving, the all-creating; the God who so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son to save it; and when the soul is, wrought up into that fine mood of divinest sympathy, it is simply in vain that you tell it that God has chosen a few men here and a few men there out of whom to make his invisible and triumphant Church, and all the rest are doomed to eternal fire. Inspired men who allow their souls fair play say, Whatever difficulties there may be in the grammar of this matter, there is something deeper than etymology, syntax, and prosody, “there is a spirit in man,” and although that spirit may not be eloquent in the use of theological phrases, yet it says to all such suggestions, That cannot be: God is love: he has no pleasure in the death of the sinner; his perpetual cry is, Turn ye! turn ye! why will ye die? and inspired instinct continues, I know there are hard-looking texts, but you must have misunderstood them: you are trying to open the lock with the wrong key; you are using violence instead of ingenuity; you have forced your theology; you have not grown it like a plant in the garden of God. Inspired instinct cannot maintain all this in words; it has a kind of motherly way of saying, You may beat me in argument, but you are wrong in theory; your words are very ponderous and pompous, but somewhere and somehow I feel you are wrong if you damn a single human creature, and charge the damnation upon the sovereignty of God. So there is a place for the young voice, the impartial voice, the wrathful spirit, the inspired instinct: let us hear them all, and consider well what they have to say. The processes of an argument may themselves be sound, but the result may be a moral error. The syllogism may be absolutely without flaw or fault; men may stand before it and say, Yes, that is logic; the three members hang together, and cannot be dissociated. So they do; but the premises are wrong. Granting the premises, the syllogistic form is right, complete, unanswerable: but the thing assumed is a lie, therefore the conclusion is a blasphemy. Our assault, therefore, must be made not upon a form but upon a false assumption; not upon something that cannot be challenged, but upon that underlying fallacy which the soul alone can detect, in its highest movements, in its sublimest affections and ecstasies.
There is no reason why the listener, the so-called layman, should not have his word, when all the professional preachers, and advisers, and comforters have finished the empty nothing they had to say. We must: have the truth from some quarter. “Behold, I waited for your words; I gave ear to your reasons, whilst ye searched out what to say” (Job 32:11 .) and now I can bear it no longer. Let the pew speak when the pulpit cannot handle the occasion. This truth we must establish, that somebody must tell us really what God means in his communications with the human race. A man does not necessarily know what God means because he happens to stand on an eminent place in the church, as for example, a pulpit, or a platform, or within the shadow of the holy altar. We must know what right he has to be there by the speech he makes. What is it? Does it touch the reality of the case? Is he coming into the holiest places of the heart, and discussing the most solemn questions of life? Does he bring with him burning oil or healing balm? Does he speak in the tone of experience, or in the tone of mere adventure and conjecture? When it is ascertained that he has not given the right answer to a multitude of men gathered around him, somebody ought to stand up and say, The wrong answer has been given; the right answer is this . Then let us hear it, consider it, and form an estimate of its value. Who told the laymen of the Church that they had no right to speak? Who imposed silence upon listeners beyond a given point? Where is the infallibility of official speech? Men who sit in pews and keep up churches, and are yet sure that the right word is not spoken, ought, by speech or by writing, by conversation or by open declaration, to tell us what the mistake is, and to express in unequivocal language what it is that is tearing their souls and beclouding all their prospects. An earnest listener will make an earnest preacher, or the preacher must sit down and let the earnest listener speak out of his soul, however incorrectly as to words, and tell us what human nature feels, and needs, and longs for, with supreme desire.
A time is coming when the old way of putting things must give way to some new method. But if the old are not always wise, the young are not always complete. We live in a time of doctrinal change. There is now an opportunity for an Elihu whose wrath is divinely kindled to make the great progress in attempting the higher education of the soul. Elihu must come; when he does come he will be killed: but another Elihu must take his place, and go forward with the work until the enemy is tired of blood, and lets the last Elihu have a hearing. We may change forms without changing substances. Personally I do not know one grand fact in the evangelical faith that needs to be changed at all, unless it be in the mere method of stating it. I feel more and more that all the evangelical faith is right. Many criticisms are passed upon it; many a rough handling it has to undergo; many an outwork has been taken; many a sentinel has been surprised and shot: but within it is pure as the love of God, large as the pity of heaven, responsive as the bosom of a mother to the cry of a helpless child. Let us allow that new methods of stating old truths are perfectly legitimate. Let us not condemn a man who resorts to novel expressions, if he does not injure the substance of the thing which he intends to reveal.
Take, for example, the doctrine of Prayer. The doctrine of prayer has been mocked, or misunderstood, or imperfectly stated. Every man must state this doctrine for himself. Only the individual man knows what he means by prayer. There is no generic and final definition which can be shut up within the scope of a lexicon. Who can define prayer once for all? Only the Almighty. Every suppliant knows what he means when he prays to his Father in heaven. He must not be overloaded with other men’s definitions; they will only burden his prayer; they will only stifle the music of his supplication. Each soul knows what it means by living, earnest, fervent prayer. What mockery has been poured upon the doctrine of praying to God for help! Suppose we say, Prayer is good in cases of sickness, but it stops short at surgery. What a wonderful thing to say! wonderful because of its emptiness and vanity. Yet how inclined we are to smile when we are told that prayer is exceedingly good in the removal of nervous or imaginary diseases, but prayer always stops short at surgery; prayer never prayed a man’s limb back again to him when he had once lost it As well say, Nursing is very good, but it always stop short at death. So it does; so it must. As well say, Reaping is very good, but reaping always stops short at winter. That is true, and that is right “That which is lacking cannot be numbered.” Law must have some reasonableness, or it ceases to be law: when it loses its reasonableness it loses its dignity and the power of getting hold upon the general judgment and the personal trust of men. Even miracles themselves might be played with, turned into commonplaces, debased into familiarities utterly valueless. Prayer may and does stop short at surgery, but love itself has a point at which it stops short; the living air has a point at which it falls back, so to speak, helplessly; all the ministries of nature stop short at assignable points, saying that without assent and consent and co-operation on the other side no miracle can be done. In all these cases consider reasonableness and law, and the necessity of boundary and fixture in the education and culture of mankind. Then, again, others would deprive prayer of what many have considered to be an essential feature. In order to maintain what doctrine of prayer they may have, they are only too glad to eliminate it of the element of petition. They are not unwilling to have aspiration, a species of poetical communion with the Invisible, but they would complete a great work of eradication in the direction of request, petition, solicitation; they would dismiss the beggar from the altar, and admit only the poetic contemplatist, or the spiritual enthusiast, or the mystic communicant. For this we see no reason. We hold to the old doctrine of “Ask, and ye shall receive: ye have not because ye ask not: if any man lack wisdom, let him ask of God.” That there may be abuses in the direction of solicitation is obvious; but we must never give up the reality because it can be abused. What is there that cannot be abused? Not art, not eloquence, not beauty, not truth itself for even truth may be pressed into unholy alliances, and may sometimes be used as a handle to force the way of a lie. There may, indeed, be a debased use of asking or supplication; it may be so used as to express nothing but spiritual selfishness a kind of miserliness or covetousness of heart: but is it not overlooked that in relation to the Infinite and the Eternal, man’s very position is one of dependence and need? If he never spoke a word the very limit of his life would be the beginning of his prayer. Men are not to ask for trifles; they are not to ask that the laws of the universe may be changed for their personal convenience: they are to remember that they are parts of a stupendous whole, atoms in an infinitely complex economy; and after having asked all they can imagine, they are to conclude the long continued supplication with the sweet, holy words “Nevertheless, not my will, but thine, be done.”
It is asked, Do we continually supplicate those whom we love to give us something? I answer, Yes, we do: the very love is a prayer, and it cannot be other. That this prayer can be made selfish, narrow, little, unworthy, petty, is obvious enough; but because it can be debased it is not therefore non-existent. Two men who love one another cannot walk together without asking something from each other; and they are always getting it: a glow of love creates a reciprocal action as between man and man; there may be no begging for money, for jewellery, or trifles: but there is a deeper desire, a longing for communion, a longing for trust, a longing for assurance that there is no secret kept from the other, but that they stand in a common brotherhood and in a common love. This is only partially analogical; no illustration even can cover the whole scope of the doctrine, but the philosophy of it would seem to be this: that to be finite is to be in necessity; to sustain a conscious relation to the Infinite is by that very relation to be continually asking the Infinite if not in terms of interrogation or demand, yet in spirit to complete the incomplete, and to give what is needful to make life a utility and a joy. Be assured that asking can be debased. Let us not shrink from confessing such to be the fact. God will not be made use of in that way; the heavens will not be turned into mere conveniences for the gratification of our vanity or the satisfaction of our petty necessities, which we ought to bear with fortitude, and confidence in the good government of God. But this is our contention when all that is allowed; there remains the necessary fact that to live is to need, to breathe is to pray, to continue from day to day in activity is to continue to receive grace, energy, succour, from him who is the fountain of energy and the spring of all solace. Whilst, therefore, the doctrine of prayer is open to certain flippant objections and petty criticisms, and whilst those who pray are open to mockery because they ask for little things or self-gratifications, all these faults, many as they may be, and serious as in some cases they are, do not interfere with the fact that we must need because we are finite, and we must ask because we need. If a man once get into his head that he must not ask, and ask minutely and daily and continuously, he blocks himself out from one of the holiest enjoyments possible to religious life. But when he has asked all, he has to repeat the prayer already quoted. I do not see why men should not often ask things that are apparently little and trivial, if they do so in the right spirit. But having urged all their requests they are to say, Father, hear my ignorance, listen to my poor weakness: I have told thee frankly all I want, thou must judge; thy No will be as gracious as thy Yes; thou art good, supremely good; good when thou givest, nor less when thou deniest: not my will, but thine, be done: yet I thought, being a creature of thine, a poor little wanderer in this great universe, I would whisper to thee all I want, I would be frank with thee, and say I want a fine day, I want a special favour, I want to be assisted through a particular difficulty, I want I want I want Now I have emptied my heart at thy throne, not my will, but thine, be done. Inspired instinct will confirm that when criticism and sneering have done their little worst, and are forgotten in the angry contempt and holy solicitude of mankind.
Note
Elihu (“God-Jehovah”), one of Job’s friends, described as “the son of Barachel, a Buzite, of the kindred of Ram” ( Job 32:2 ). This is usually understood to imply that he was descended from Buz, the son of Abraham’s brother Nahor, from whose family the city called Buz ( Jer 25:23 ) also took its name. The Chaldee paraphrase asserts Elihu to have been a relation of Abraham. Elihu’s name does not appear among those friends who came in the first instance to condole with Job, nor is his presence indicated till the debate between the afflicted man and his three friends had been brought to a conclusion. Then, finding there was no answer to Job’s last speech, he comes forward with considerable modesty, which he loses as he proceeds to remark on the debate, and to deliver his own opinion on the points at issue. It appears from the manner in which Elihu introduces himself, that he was by much the youngest of the party; and it is evident that he had been present from the commencement of the discussion, to which he had paid very close attention. This would suggest that the debate between Job and his friends was carried on in the presence of a deeply interested auditory, among which was this Elihu, who could not forbear from interfering when the controversy appeared to have reached an unsatisfactory conclusion. Kitto’s Cyclopdia of Biblical Literature,
Fuente: The People’s Bible by Joseph Parker
(See the Job Book Comments for Introductory content and general conclusions and observations).
IX
ELIHU’S SPEECH, GOD’S INTERVENTION AND THE EPILOGUE
Job 32-42
The author’s introduction to Elihu’s speech consists of the prose section (Job 32:1-5 ), the several items of which are as follows:
1. Why the three friends ceased argument, viz: “Because he was righteous in his own eyes” (Job 32:1 ).
2. Elihu’s wrath against Job, viz: “Because he justified himself rather than God” (Job 32:2 ).
3. Elihu’s wrath against Job’s friends, viz: “Because they had found no answer, and yet had condemned Job” (Job 32:3 ; Job 32:5 ).
4. Why Elihu had waited to speak unto Job, viz: “Because they were older than he” (Job 32:4 ).
Elihu’s introduction (Job 32:6-22 ) consists of two sections as follows:
1. Elihu’s address to the three friends.
2. His soliloquy.
Now, an analysis of part one of this introduction consists of Elihu’s address to his three friends, with the following items:
1. He waited because he was young, and considered that days should speak and that years should teach wisdom (Job 32:6-7 ).
2. Yet there is individual intelligence, a spirit in man and the breath of the Almighty which gives understanding (Job 32:8 ).
3. And greatness, and age are not always wise, therefore, I speak (Job 32:9-10 ).
4. He had waited patiently and had listened for their reasonings while they fumbled for words (Job 32:11 ).
5. They had failed to answer Job’s argument, and therefore had failed to convince him (Job 32:12 ).
6. Now beware; do not say that you have found wisdom, for God can attend to his case, but not man (Job 32:13 ).
7. I will not answer him with your speeches (Job 32:14 ). Now let us analyze his soliloquy which is found in Job 32:15-22 and consists of the following items:
1. They are amazed and silent; they have not a word to say (Job 32:15 ).
2. Shall I wait? No; I will speak and show my opinion (Job 32:16-17 ).
3. I am full of words, and must speak or burst, therefore I will speak and be relieved (Job 32:18-20 ).
4. His method was not to respect persons nor give flattering titles, because he did not know how to do so and was afraid of his Maker (Job 32:21-22 ).
Elihu’s address to Job in 33:1-7 is as follows:
1. Hear me for the integrity and sincerity of my speech, since I have already begun and am speaking to you right out of my heart (Job 33:1-3 ).
2. I also am a man, being made as a man and since we are on a common level, answer me or stand aside (Job 33:4-5 ).
3. I will be for God, and being a man, I will not terrify you, for I will not bring great pressure upon you (Job 33:6-7 ).
The point of issue now is a general charge that Job’s heart attitude toward God is not right in view of these afflictions (Job 33:8-12 ). It will be seen that Elihu’s charge is different from that of the three friends, viz: That Job was guilty of past sins.
Elihu charged first that Job had said that God giveth no account of any of his matters (Job 33:13 ).. In his reply Elihu shows that this is untrue.
1. In that God reveals himself many times in dreams and visions in order to turn man from his purpose and to save him from eternal destruction (Job 33:14-18 ).
2. In that in afflictions God also talks to man as he often brings him down into the very jaws of death (Job 33:19-22 ). [Cf. Paul’s thorn in the flesh as a preventive.] None of the speakers before him brought out this thought. This is very much like the New Testament teachings; in fact, this thought is nowhere stated more clearly than here. It shows that afflictions are to the children of God what the storm is to the tree of the forest, its roots run deeper by use of the storm.
3. In that he sends an angel sometimes to interpret the things of God, to show man what is right for him (Job 33:23-28 ).
4. Therefore these things ought to be received graciously, since God’s purpose in it all is benevolent (Job 33:29-33 ). Elihu charged, in the second place, that Job had said that God had taken away his right and that it did not profit to be a righteous man (Job 34:5-9 ; Job 35:1-3 ).
His reply is as follows:
1. The nature of God disproves it; -he is not wicked and therefore will not pervert justice (Job 34:10-15 ).
2. Therefore Job’s accusation is unbecoming, for he is by right possessor of all things and governs the world on the principles of justice and benevolence (Job 34:21-30 ).
3. What Job should have said is altogether different from what he did say because he spoke without knowledge and his words were not wise (Job 34:31-37 ).
4. Whether Job was righteous or sinful did not affect God (Job 35:4-8 ).
Elihu charged, in the third place, that Job had said that he could not get a hearing because he could not see him (Job 35:14 ). His reply was that this was unbecoming and vanity in Job (Job 35:15-16 ).
Elihu’s fourth charge was that Job was angry at his chastisements (Job 36:18 ). He replied that such an attitude was sin; and therefore he defended God (36:1-16).
Elihu’s fifth charge was that Job sought death (Job 36:20 ). He replied that it was iniquity to suggest to God when life should end (Job 36:21-23 ).
Elihu discusses in Job 37 the approaching storm. He introduces it in Job 36:24 and in Job 36:33 he gives Job a gentle rebuke, showing him how God even tells the cows of the coming storm. Then he describes the approaching storm in Job 37 , giving the lesson in Job 36:13 , viz: It may be for correction, or it may be for the benefit of the earth, but “stand still and see.”
Elihu makes a distinct advance over the three friends toward the true meaning of the mystery. They claim to know the cause; he, the purpose. They said that the affliction was punitive; he, beneficent. His error is that he, too, makes sin in Job the occasion at least of his sorrow. His implied counsel to Job approaches the final climax of a practical solution. God’s first arraignment of Job is found in Job 38:1-40:2 . Tanner’s summary is as follows:
It is foolish presumption for the blind, dependent creature to challenge the infinite in the realm of providence. The government of the universe, physical and moral, is one; to question any point is to assume understanding of all. Job, behold some of the lower realms of the divine government and realize the absurdity of your complaint.
Job’s reply follows in Job 40:3-5 . Tanner’s summary: “I see it; I hush.”
God’s second arraignment of Job is recorded in Job 40:6-41:34 . Tanner:
To criticize God’s government of the universe is to claim the ability to do better. Assuming the role of God, suppose Job, you try your hand on two of your fellow creatures the hippopotamus and the crocodile.
Job’s reply is found in Job 42:1-6 , Tanner’s summary of which is: This new view of the nature of God reveals my wicked and disgusting folly in complaining; I repent. Gladly do I embrace his dispensations in loving faith.
There are some strange silences in this arraignment and some people have been disappointed that God did not bring out all the questions of the book at the close, as:
1. He says nothing of the heaven scenes in the Prologue and of Satan.
2. He gives no theoretic solution of the problems of the book.
3. He says nothing directly about future revelation and the Messiah.
The explanation of this is easy, when we consider the following facts:
1. That it was necessary that Job should come to the right heart attitude toward God without any explanation.
2. That to have answered concerning future revelation and the Messiah would have violated God’s plan of making revelation.
3. That bringing Job to an acceptance of God’s providence of whatever form without explanation, furnishes a better demonstration of disinterested righteousness.
This is true of life and the master stroke of the production is that the theoretical solution is withheld from the sufferer, while he is led to the practical solution which is a religious attitude of heart rather than an understanding of the head. A vital, personal, loving faith in God that welcomes from him all things is the noblest exercise of the human soul. The moral triumph came by a more just realization of the nature of God.
Job was right in some things and he was mistaken in other things. He was right in the following points:
1. In the main point of difference between him and the three friends, viz: That his suffering was not the result of justice meted out to him for his sins.
2. That even and exact justice is not meted out here on the earth.
3. In contending for the necessity of a revelation by which he could know what to do.
4. In believing God would ultimately vindicate him in the future.
5. In detecting supernatural intelligence and malice in his affliction.
He was mistaken in the following particulars:
1. In considering his case hopeless and wishing for death.
2. In attributing the malice of these things to God instead of Satan.
3. In questioning the mercy and justice of God’s providence and demanding that the Almighty should give him an explanation.
The literary value of these chapters (Job 38:1-42:6 ) is immense and matchless. The reference in Job 38:3 to “The cluster of the Pleiades” is to the “seven stars” which influence spring and represents youth. “Orion” in the same passage, stood for winter and represents death. The picture of the war horse in Job 39:19-25 has stood the challenge of the ages.
The lesson of this meeting of Job with God is tremendous. Job had said, “Oh, that I could appear before him!” but his appearing here to Job reveals to him his utter unworthiness. The man that claims sinlessness advertises his guilty distance from God. Compare the cases of Isaiah, Peter, and John. The Epilogue (Job 42:7-17 ) consists of three parts, as follows:
1. The vindication of Job and the condemnation of his three friends.
2. Job as a priest makes atonement and intercession for his friends.
3. The blessed latter end of Job: “So Jehovah blessed the latter end of Job more than his beginning.”
The extent and value of the Almighty’s vindication of Job and his condemnation of the three friends are important. In extent it applies to the issues between Job and the three friends and not to Job’s heart attitude toward God. This he had correct-ed in Job by his arraignment of him. In vindicating Job, God justifies his contention that even and exact justice is not meted out on earth and in lime, and condemned the converse which was held by his friends. Out of this contention of Job grows his much felt need of a future judgment, a redeemer, mediator, interpreter, and incarnation, and so forth. Or if this contention is true, then man needs these things just mentioned. If the necessity of these is established, then man needs a revelation explaining all these things.
Its value is seen in God’s confirming these needs as felt by Job, which gives to us, upon whom the end of the ages has come, implicit confidence in the revelation he has given us, pointing out the fact that Job’s need of a redeemer, umpire, interpreter, and so forth has been supplied to the human race with all the needed information upon the other philosophic discussions of the book.
The signification of the Almighty’s “turning the captivity of Job” just at the point “when he prayed for his friends” is seen in the fact that Job reached the point of right heart attitude toward God before the victory came. This was the supreme test of Job’s piety. One of the hardest things for a man to do is to invoke the blessings of heaven on his enemies. This demand that God made of Job is in line with New Testament teaching and light. Jesus said, “Love your enemies and pray for them,” and while dying he himself prayed for his executioners. Paul who was conquered by the prayer of dying Stephen often prayed for his persecutors. This shows that Job was indeed in possession of God’s grace, for without it a man is not able to thus pray. The lesson to us is that we may not expect God to turn our captivity and blessings if we are unable to do as Job did.
The more thoughtful student will see that God does not ex-plain the problem to Job in his later addresses to him, nor in the Epilogue, because to give this would anticipate, out of due time, the order of the development of revelation. Job must be content with the revelation of his day and trust God, who through good and ill will conduct both Job and the world to proper conclusions.
QUESTIONS
1. What is the author’s introduction to Elihu’s speech and what the several items of it?
2. What is Elihu’s introduction (Job 32:6-22 ) and what the two sections?
3. Give an analysis of part one of this introduction.
4. Give an analysis of his soliloquy?
5. Analyze Elihu’s address to Job in Job 33:1-7 .
6. What is the point al issue?
7. What did Elihu charge that Job had said and what Elihu’s reply?
8. What did Elihu charge, in the second place, that Job had said and what Elihu’s reply?
9. What did Elihu charge in the third place, that Job had said, and what Elihu’s answer to it?
10. What was Elihu’s fourth charge and what was Elihu’s answer?
11. What Elihu’s fifth charge and what his reply?
12. What does Elihu discuss in Job 37 ?
13. What the distinct advances made by Elihu and what his error?
14. What God’s first arraignment of Job?
15. What Job’s reply?
16. What God’s second arraignment of Job?
17. What Job’s reply?
18. What the strange silences in this arraignment and what your explanation of them?
19. What the character of the moral solution of the problem as attained by Job?
20. In what things was Job right and in what things was he mistaken?
21. What can you say of the literary value of these chapters (Job 33:1-42:6 )?
22. Explain the beauties of Job 38:31 .
23. What of the picture of the war horse in Job 39:19-25 ?
24. What the lesson of this meeting of Job with God?
25. Give an analysis of the epilogue.
26. What the extent and value of the Almighty’s vindication of Job and his condemnation of the three friends?
27. What the signification of the Almighty’s “turning the captivity of Job” just at the point “when he prayed for his friends”?
28. Does God give Job the explanation of life’s problem, and why?
Fuente: B.H. Carroll’s An Interpretation of the English Bible
Job 32:1 So these three men ceased to answer Job, because he [was] righteous in his own eyes.
Ver. 1. So these three men ceased to answer Job ] They were as quiet as men are on a Sabbath, so the word importeth; they had tired themselves with talking, and now they were resolved to rest them, and the rather, because they judged there was little good to be done by aught that they should say; for Job was set.
Because he was righteous in his own eyes
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
Job Chapter 32
“So these three men ceased to answer Job, because he was righteous in his own eyes” (Job 32 ). That was their idea, and there was some truth in it. “Then was kindled the wrath of Elihu, the son of Barachel the Buzite, of the kindred of Ram.” He belonged to the family of Nahor, the brother of Abraham. He was not properly one of the chosen family, but he was closely connected, like Laban and others. He belonged to another branch. “Against Job was his wrath kindled, because he justified himself rather than God.” Well, that was true. He did justify himself. The last chapter which we have just read is self-justification from beginning to end. It was quite true, as a matter of fact, but was entirely improper in a question of God’s dealings, and why this great affliction had come upon him. “Also against his three friends was his wrath kindled, because they had found no answer, and yet had condemned Job.” What was it that hindered these three friends from understanding him? The same thing that hindered Job – self. Self was not judged. Self is one of the greatest difficulties in the way of a Christian – in the way of a sinner of old, and now still among Christians.
“Now Elihu had waited till Job had spoken, because they were older than he.” Well, that was very proper. “When Elihu saw that there was no answer in the mouth of these three men, then his wrath was kindled.” Why? It was not for himself at all. He was displeased with them all for God’s sake. “And Elihu, the son of Barachel the Buzite answered and said, I am young, and ye are very old; wherefore I was afraid, and durst not show you my opinion. I said, Days should speak, and multitude of years should teach wisdom” – and so it should be. “But there is a spirit in man” – there is something higher than experience – “there is a spirit in man” – it is the highest part of man’s nature. The body is the outward, vessel, and the soul is that which makes a man to be a man. Every man has his own spirit, but soul is that which may be in common among men. For instance, John the Baptist came in the spirit and power of Elias. He could not come in the soul of Elias. Everybody comes in his own soul; that is the seat of individuality. But spirit is a man’s capacity. You might find half a dozen men with the same capacity; and we say sometimes, “That man spoke like a Luther; that man wrote like a Calvin; that man was as earnest in his work as John Wesley; that man was as diligent in preaching as Charles Spurgeon” – and so on. The spirit of these different men might be similar in other men, but it is that which gives them their particular power (or character). But the soul and spirit go together so closely that no human wit can ever distinguish between them; they are so welded together, being of a spirit nature. When a man dies, his soul goes up and his spirit too; they both go up; they go up together necessarily.
And so then it is that we can understand that there is a spirit in man. Spirit is expressive of spiritual capacity, and that is not to be measured by the question of experience. A man might have much more spiritual capacity who was young. That was the case with Elihu. And he says, “The inspiration of the Almighty giveth them understanding.” It was God that breathed into man the breath of life; and in that breath of life there was not only the soul but the spirit; and that is the reason why man alone has an immortal soul. God never breathed into a horse or a dog, or any other animal on the earth, but only into man; therefore, man’s soul and spirit are immortal. But it may be immortal in hell, or it may be blessedly immortal in heaven! It does not deprive a man of his being a sinner, nor of his bearing the consequences of it; neither, on the other hand, does it deprive him – still less – of receiving eternal life from the Lord Jesus. Then there is another life given to him. “Great men are not always wise: neither do the aged understand judgment.” Far from it. “Therefore I said, Hearken to me; I also will show mine opinion. Behold, I waited for your words; I gave ear to your reasons, whilst ye searched out what to say.” He never ventured to interrupt; he never said one word.
Sometimes people are astonished to find this young man coming forward, after not only the three friends were silent, but Job too. Then he speaks, and he apologises in these words that I now read. That is all that I am noticing tonight. “Behold, I waited for your words; I gave ear to your reasons, whilst ye searched out what to say. Yea, I attended unto you, and, behold, there was none of you that convinced Job, or that answered his words.” And that was perfectly true. “Lest ye should say, We have found out wisdom.” He saw that it was a question of God. They had not really brought in the true God as He is. “God thrusteth him down, not man.” That is what Job had said. So far, Job was far more right than his friends. “Now he hath not directed his words against me.” So he says – I am in a position to be able to speak dispassionately. If he had attacked me because of anything I had said it might seem self-vindication. But here I must speak for God, young as I am. “Neither will I answer him with your speeches.” They were entirely powerless. “They were amazed, they answered no more! they left off speaking” (vers. 1-15). He was full of indignation that they went on still blaming Job, and could not convince him of anything wrong. They had entirely missed their way. “I will speak, that I may be refreshed: I will open my lips and answer. Let me not, I pray you, accept any man’s person, neither let me give flattering titles unto man. For I know not to give flattering titles; in so doing my maker would soon take me away” (vers. 16-22).
And there we may leave it for the present. If the Lord will, we shall have the rest of Elihu’s admirable address, where he touches the real roots of the question for the first time – an interpreter who was one of a thousand, as he says himself, though not referring to himself.
Fuente: William Kelly Major Works (New Testament)
Chapter 32
So sitting nearby was a young man whose name was Elihu.
So these three men [Bildad, Zophar, and Eliphaz] cease to answer Job, because he was righteous in his own eyes. Then was kindled the wrath of Elihu against Job and his wrath was kindled, because he justified himself rather than God ( Job 32:1-2 ).
Now Job, in all of his complaints, was saying, “I am just in this. I am innocent.” And he was justifying himself rather than God. Now, we oftentimes do this. It is important, though, that we justify God. I know that God is good. I know that God is righteous. I know that God is fair. I don’t understand why God is doing this. You see, Job did not justify God in the issues by declaring, “Well, God is fair.” He was actually saying, “God is unfair. He is unfair to me because I haven’t done anything to deserve all of this.” So Elihu, standing by, really became angry with Job because he sought to justify himself rather than to justify God. And he was also angry with Job’s friends because they could not answer Job. They couldn’t really pin anything on him, and yet, they were condemning him without being able to pin anything directly on him.
So he waited until Job had spoken, because they were older than he was. And when he saw that they were not answering, his wrath was kindled. And he said, I am young, and you’re very old; wherefore I was afraid, and I dared not to show you my own opinion. I said, Days should speak, and the multitude of years should teach wisdom. But there is a spirit in man: and the inspiration of the Almighty gives them understanding. And great men are not always wise: neither do the aged understand judgment ( Job 32:4-9 ).
So far you’re batting a thousand, Elihu. He’s made some interesting observations. There is a spirit in man and the inspiration of the Almighty gives them understanding. He could see the anointing of God upon a man to give to the man wisdom and understanding. But great men are not always wise. Now you don’t have to go very far to illustrate that truth. “And neither do the aged always understand judgment.”
Therefore I said, Hearken to me; I’m going to show you my opinion ( Job 32:10 ).
And he spends a lot of time just telling us what he’s going to say. He doesn’t really say too much, but he spends a lot of time telling you what he’s going to say.
“Hearken to my opinion.”
Behold, I waited for your words; to give ear to your reasons, while you searched out what to say. Yes, I attended unto you, and, behold, there was none of you that convinced Job, or that answered his words: Lest you should say, We have found out wisdom: God thrust him down, not man. Now he hath not directed his words against me: and neither will I answer him with your speeches. They were amazed, and they answered no more: they left off speaking. When I had waited, (for they spake not, but stood still, and answered no more,) I said, I will answer also my part; I will show you my opinion. For I am full of the matter, the spirit within me is forcing me. Behold, my belly is as wine which has no vent; it is ready to burst like new bottles. I will speak, that I may be refreshed: I will open my lips and answer. Let me not, I pray you, accept any man’s person; neither let me give flattering titles unto man. For I know not to give flattering titles; in so doing my Maker would soon take me away ( Job 32:11-22 ).
Oh, I like this. God help me not to give flattering titles unto man. I heard flattering titles for so many years; I’m absolutely sick of flattering titles. “Ladies and gentlemen, let me present unto you, God’s man for the hour,” you know. And all of these flattering things that we say concerning man. He said, “Hey, I respect you fellows’ age, but I don’t respect man as such as far as bowing and catering and giving flattering titles and buttering up people, trying to butter them up with flattering titles. If I’m guilty of this then God’s going to take me away, take my place away.” My heart has been sickened by the way we have sought to elevate men even in the Christian community by flattering titles, declaring the greatness of their works and all. God help us. “
Fuente: Through the Bible Commentary
Job 32:1-5
Introduction
Job 32
ELIHU’S LONG DISCOURSE:
THE FIRST OF ELIHU’S SIX-CHAPTER SPEECH
There is a dramatic interruption in the Book of Job at this spot; and, of course, many modern scholars explain Elihu’s speech variously as, “the work of another author,” “a later addition,” and as, “speeches (of Elihu) that violently disturb the original structure of the book.” This writer is unwilling to accept such interpretations of the speeches of Elihu (Job 32-37) for the following reasons.
1.The ancient versions of the Bible contain all of these chapters exactly where they are in our text. “They are found in the Septuagint, the Syriac, the Chaldee, the Arabic, the Ethiopic, the Vulgate, etc.” Unless we are willing for present-day unbelievers to rewrite the Holy Bible, we should retain these chapters exactly where they are.
2.”Many great scholars have argued for the placement of these speeches by Elihu in Job as originally written, including: Budde, Cornill, Kamphausen, Wildeboer, Sellin, Baur, and Peters.”
3.Practically all of the arguments against Elihu’s words being part of the original book are based on modern views of literary structure, etc. “And all such considerations are, in the end, matters of taste; and we must hesitate about imposing standards of taste, especially modern ones, upon the creations of antiquity.”
4.Then, there is the fact that there is no consensus whatever among critical scholars regarding this question. “It is astonishing how divided the scholars are concerning the arguments about this. Opinions are so diverse that they cancel each other out.. We do not have the space to line up the names of the scholars on this side or that side of the question.”
Job 32:1-5
THE INTRODUCTION
(IN PROSE) OF ELIHU)
“So these three men ceased to answer Job, because he was righteous in his own eyes. Then was kindled the wrath of Elihu the son of Barachel the Buzite, of the family of Ram: against Job was his wrath kindled, because he justified himself rather than God. Also against his three friends was his wrath kindled, because they had found no answer, and yet had condemned Job. Now Elihu had waited to speak unto Job, because they were older than he. And when Elihu saw that there was no answer in the mouth of these three men, his wrath was kindled.”
“Elihu the son of Barachel, the Buzite” (Job 32:2). “This name Elihu (or Eliab) was fairly common in the times of David, four persons of that name being mentioned, including a brother of David (1Ch 27:8).” “The name means, `He is my God’; and Barachel means, `Bless, O God,’ or `God will bless.’ Both names imply that Elihu came of a family of monotheists.” David’s brother was named Eliab, a variant of the name Elihu.
“They had found no answer, and yet had condemned Job” (Job 32:3). Andersen gave the meaning here as, “They didn’t find an answer, and they didn’t prove Job wrong.” The same scholar also referred to Elihu’s speech here as, “quite a rigmarole.” We do not reject that evaluation of Elihu’s words, because God Himself, when he finally interrupted his long tirade, asked, “Who is this that darkeneth counsel by words without knowledge? (Job 38:2); and, although God was speaking directly to Job, there is no way to avoid the application of his words to the speech of Elihu.
E.M. Zerr:
Job 32:1. The second clause might be misunderstood unless it is given proper consideration. It makes Job appear in an unfavorable light; making him seem somewhat self-righteous. That is not correct as the whole history of the case has shown. The statement represents the accusation of the three friends and it was false. Job often mentioned his own weaknesses and also admitted that his afflictions were from God. But he denied them as being a special chastisement for his sins. The friends were unable to meet the facts and arguments of Job and therefore ceased talking with him.
Job 32:2-3. Elihu is referred to in some reference works as one of the friends of Job; the Bible does not so classify him. In fact, it puts him in a class alone for in Job 32:3 it is stated that be was angry against his (Job’s) three friends, which indicates he did not represent either side of the controversy as against the other. He had the same erroneous idea of Job the three friends had namely, that he justified himself rather than God. We have already seen that such was not the case. But he was correct in his criticism of the three in that they could not answer Job’s arguments and yet condemned him. The speech of Elihu, like that of the friends, was not inspired in itself but was recorded by inspiration. It also was like theirs in that it took the wrong position as to the reason for Job’s afflictions. I shall comment on the speech of Elihu, but before reading further here I will request the student to read my comments at Job 2:11 and Job 4:1. With the foregoing explanations as a background let us study the speech of Elihu.
Job 32:4. Both Job and the three friends were older than Elihu. Since he will profess to disagree with all of them it was fitting that he wait until Job as well as the three friends had finished talking before he presumed to speak.
Job 32:5. In the preceding verse I said that Elihu would profess to disagree with the three friends. How-ever, we shall see that on the real issue between Job and them, Elihu took the same position as the three friends.
Fuente: Old and New Testaments Restoration Commentary
The last voice in the earthly controversy is now heard. It is a new voice, and opportunity never comes to Job to answer. Moreover, God in the final movements takes no notice other than that of interruption, and in the epilogue Elihu has no place.
Nevertheless, the long speech of this man is full of interest, and moves as to insight on a higher plane than that of the men who had spoken. In the first five verses Elihu is introduced by the author of the Book. His three friends were silent, because unable to bring conviction of guilt to Job. In the presence of their inability, Elihu, who evidently had heard the whole argument, was moved to anger. This anger was against Job because he had justified himself rather than God. It was against Job’s friends because they had been unequal to the task to which they set themselves. In the opening of his speech Elihu made his apology. He had been silent because of his youth. While he had been listening he had come to the conclusion that age is not always wisdom. Addressing himself to the friends, he declared that he had waited, and they had failed, and indicated his intention to adopt a new method. The apology ended with a soliloquy in which he considered the failure of the other men, and spoke of his own consciousness of conviction and readiness to speak.
Fuente: An Exposition on the Whole Bible
Elihu Enters
Job 32:1-22
The controversy between Job and his counselors is now at an end. They have failed in making out their case; but before God Himself takes up the argument there is another side of the case to be presented by the fervid life of a younger generation. The name Elihu means, My God is He. He had preserved a respectful silence while his elders were speaking; but he was so conscious of the uprising of the divine that he could refrain no longer.
Elihu was greatly indignant, first with Job for not justifying God, Job 32:2; and then with his friends for their inability to cope with him, Job 32:5. But in addition to these criticisms, he has some positive contribution to make to the debate, and must needs make it. Silence is golden, but there is a time to speak. Be sure in inbreathe the Spirit of God as one long imprisoned in a close chamber inhales the breath of the salt sea. Do not speak, as John Woolman says, beyond the divine openings.
Fuente: F.B. Meyer’s Through the Bible Commentary
Job 32:8
Genius the gift of God.
I. The intellect of man, in all the gradations of its power, and all the variety of its faculties, comes from God. He gave to every orator his eloquence, to every statesman his sagacity, to every philosopher his faculty for speculation, to every artist his eye for beauty, to every poet his genius for song.
II. If God is the Author and Giver of all intellectual life, it is our duty to offer Him grateful praise while we are doing honour to genius. We give Him thanks for a thousand inferior gifts; we ought not to leave the nobler instances of His bounty and goodness unacknowledged. Between the worth to a nation of a great genius and the worth of a good harvest, there are no conditions of comparison. We cannot measure the physical suffering averted by the one against the intellectual benefits conferred by the other; for both it is a duty to thank God.
III. We are responsible to God for our intellectual endowments. They came from Him, and are a trust for which we shall have to give account. (1) Our first and plainest duty is to improve the intellect by wise and faithful culture. There is guilt in permitting such a gift to be wasted. (2) The highest ministry of all in which the intellect can be engaged, to which by its Divine origin it is most urgently and imperatively called, is in direct connection with religion; and it is here that intellectual responsibilities become most solemn and oppressive. (3) It is the duty of the intellect to take its part in direct acts of worship.
R. W. Dale, Discourses on Special Occasions, p. 253.
The word “spirit” means literally breath, and it is applied to the soul, not merely because of its immateriality, but for the additional reason that the Almighty can breathe Himself into it and through it. The word “inspiration” as here used denotes this act of inbreathing. Any one is inspired who is breathed in, visited internally, and so, all infallibility apart, raised in intelligence, guided in choice, convinced of sin, upheld in suffering, empowered to victory. Just as it is the distinction of a crystal that it is transparent, able to let the light into and through its close, flinty body, and be irradiated by it in the whole mass of its substance, so it is the grand distinction of humanity that it is made permeable by the Divine nature, prepared in that manner to receive and entemple the Infinite Spirit, to be energized by Him and filled with His glory, in every faculty, feeling, and power.
I. Consider what and how much it signifies that we are spirit, capable in this manner of the Divine concourse. In this point of view it is that we are raised most distinctly above all other forms of existence known to us. The will or force of God can act omnipotently on all created things as things. He can penetrate all central fires, and dissolve or assimilate every most secret atom of the world, but it cannot be said that these things receive Him; nothing can truly receive Him but spirit.
II. We sometimes dwell on the fact of the moral nature of man, conceiving that in this he is seen to be most of all exalted; but the spiritual is even as much higher than the moral, as the moral is higher than the animal. To be a moral being is to have a sense of duty and a power of choice that supports and justifies responsibility; but to be spirit, or to have a spiritual nature, is to be capable, not of duty only, or of sentiments of duty, but of receiving God, of knowing Him within, of being permeated, filled, ennobled, glorified, by His infinite Spirit.
III. Observe what takes place in the human soul as an inspirable nature when it is practically filled and operated on by the Spirit of God. It has now that higher Spirit witnessing with itself. The man is no longer a simple feather of humanity, driven about by the fickle winds of this world’s changes, but in the new sense he has of a composite life, in which God Himself is a presiding force, he is raised into a glorious equilibrium, above himself, and set in rest upon the rock of God’s eternity.
IV. But we do not really conceive the height of this subject till we bring into view the place it holds in the economy of the heavenly state. All good angels and glorified men are distinguished by the fact that they are now filled with a complete inspiration from the fulness of God. It is their spiritual perfection that they are perfectly inspired, so that their whole action is in the Divine impulse. Inspiration is their heaven; the Lord God giveth them light. Man finds his paradise when he is emparadised in God.
V. An important light is shed by this great truth on many points that meet us in the facts of human life and religious experience. (1) When poets and orators invoke inspiration, it is because they are made to be inspired. They want some deific impulse. A something in their nature lifts them up to this. (2) The doctrine of the Holy Spirit is grounded in the primordial nature of all spiritual beings. It is not some new idea of the Gospel. It is an advance of the Divine love to recover lost ground and bring back guilty souls among men to that which is the original, everlasting bliss and beauty of all the created intelligences of God. (3) We discover in our subject how weak and petty is the pride which looks on spiritual religion as a humiliation, or deems it even a mortification not to be endured.
H. Bushnell, The New Life, p. 26.
References: Job 32:8.-Clergyman’s Magazine, vol. xviii., p. 271; J. E. Vaux, Sermon Notes, 4th series, p. 22; R. Thomas, Christian World Pulpit, vol. vi., p. 314; A. P. Peabody, Ibid., vol. xii., p. 341; H. Martineau, Hours of Thought, vol. ii., p. 138. Job 32-37-A. W. Momerie, Defects of Modern Christianity, p. 165; S. Cox, Commentary on Job, p. 406.
Fuente: The Sermon Bible
CHAPTERS 32–33:7
1. Elihu introduced (Job 32:1-5)
2. I waited, but now must speak (Job 32:6-22)
3. His address to Job (Job 33:1-7)
Job 32:1-5. As Elihu had listened to the different addresses his wrath was stirred up. His name is very suggestive. Elihu means my God is He; Barachel–the Blessed God; the Buzite, the rejected One of Ram, and Ram means exalted. These are names which find their fullest application in the person of our Lord, whom Elihu in his mediatorial work represents. But why was his wrath kindled? Because Job justified himself rather than God and because Jobs friends had found no solution of the problem, yet they condemned Job. This is indeed the result of the whole controversy in a nutshell. From the fourth verse we learn that he was a younger man; he maintained silence because they all were elder than he.
Job 32:6-22. He tells them why he waited and did not speak before. He thought days should speak, and multitude of years should teach wisdom, so he was not a froward, conceited young man. But he acknowledges the spirit and that the inspiration of the Almighty gives understanding. Depending on that he must speak. He tells the three friends in plain words that they did not convince Job, nor did one of them answer his words. With Job, Elihu says he has no controversy and he does not intend to use the speeches of the three men. Verse 15 is a soliloquy in the third person, spoken by Elihu as he looked on the three men. Then he says that he must speak. He is filled with words and the mighty constraint of the spirit within him, makes him like wine which has no vent and is ready to burst like new bottles.
Job 33:1-7. The chapter division here is unfortunate. The opening verses belong properly to the preceding chapter. What a difference between Elihus words in addressing Job and the way the three other men had acted. He is calm, gentle and kind. He assures him that what he is going to say comes from the Almighty. Now, Job, if thou canst answer me, arrange thy words and stand up. Behold, I am according to thy wish in Gods stead. We believe with this Elihu refers to Jobs desire for a daysman. Now in the person of Elihu he has come. He encourages Job not to be afraid, for I am also formed of clay. How beautifully all this may be applied to the true Daysman, our Lord, we leave to the meditation of the reader.
Fuente: Gaebelein’s Annotated Bible (Commentary)
So these three
Despite minor differences, Eliphaz, Bildad, and Zophar have one view of the problem of Job’s afflictions. He is a hypocrite. Outwardly good, he is, they hold, really a bad man. Otherwise, according to their conception of God, Job’s sufferings would be unjust. Job, though himself the sufferer, will not so accuse the justice of God, and his self-defence is complete. Before God he is guilty, helpless, and undone, and there is no daysman (Job 32:9). Later, his faith is rewarded by a revelation of a coming Redeemer, and of the resurrection (Job 32:19). But Eliphaz, Bildad, and Zophar are sinners also as before God, and yet they are not afflicted. Job refutes the theory of the three that he is a secret sinner as against the common moralities, but the real problem, Why are the righteous afflicted remains. It is solved in the last chapter.
Fuente: Scofield Reference Bible Notes
to answer: Heb. from answering
righteous: Job 6:29, Job 10:2, Job 10:7, Job 13:15, Job 23:7, Job 27:4-6, Job 29:11-17, Job 31:1-40, Job 33:9
Reciprocal: Job 9:20 – justify Job 13:5 – General Job 32:3 – because Job 33:5 – If Job 34:5 – I
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
High Altitudes in Elihu’s Answer to Job
Job 32:1-22, Job 33:1-33, Job 34:1-37, Job 35:1-16, Job 36:1-33
INTRODUCTORY WORDS
We now come to that part of the Book of Job which presents a most remarkable message spoken by a young man of spiritual integrity. Elihu had evidently been listening to the words of Job, and of his three friends. His spirit had waxed hot within him as he listened; and yet he did not deign to make a reply until the three men utterly collapsed in their arguments and expletives against Job.
1. Men who speak for God should be taught of God. Elihu said, “Days should speak, and multitude of years should teach wisdom.” However, Elihu understood. “Great men are not always wise: neither do the aged understand judgment.” This is a message that all young people need to ponder. Men of years are not necessarily men who know God. One may be ever so well versed in human knowledge, and ever so brilliant in all things which pertain to psychical understanding, and yet, be altogether ignorant of the things of God. Here is the way Elihu put it: “There is a spirit in man: and the inspiration of the Almighty giveth them understanding” (Job 32:8).
We need this inspiration from on high-this gift of God. Daniel possessed Divine wisdom. How else could he have told the things of God and particularly those things which are being fulfilled in our own day.
2. Men who speak for God should realize that they stand in God’s stead. Elihu approached Job, not with a message of his own; neither did he come in his own name. Mark his words: “Behold, I am according to thy wish in God’s stead: I also am formed out of the clay.”
Job had desired to meet God, and lay his case before the Almighty. Elihu now tells Job that he is there in God’s stead. He feels that he can bring God’s message, because he was taught of God. Elihu’s claim may, at the first, seem like presumption. How can a man stand in God’s stead? We must stop and consider these words. Let us examine a Scripture to be found in 2Co 5:20. “Now then we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God did beseech you by us; we pray you in Christ’s stead, be ye reconciled to God.
The Spirit-sent believer holds a very vital relation to God in his delivery of a God-sent message. The Lord even says of Him, “He that receiveth you receiveth Me, and he that receiveth Me receiveth Him that sent Me.”
The authority of one who preaches the true Word of God is as high Heaven. There is an abiding sense of responsibility in all of this; and it lies with tremendous weight upon every one sent of God. If we are in God’s stead, we must speak the words of God. If we are in God’s stead, we must work the works of God.
3. Men who speak for God should express the compassion of God. Elihu said: “My terror shall not make thee afraid, neither shall my hand be heavy upon thee” (Job 33:7). “For I know not to give flattering titles; in so doing my Maker would soon take me away.”
We have then a twofold obligation: first, we must speak with all love; and yet, secondly, we must speak with all honesty and not with beguiling words, with which we would seek to please men. We may sum up our duty in this: “Speaking the truth in love.”
Job’s three friends had shown anything but the tender compassion of God. They had maligned Job, and criticised him, had continually charged him with wickedness, of which he knew he was not guilty. They expressed no Godlike sympathy, as they should have done.
Christ spoke bitter words of denunciation against the religious hypocrites of His day, but He spoke them with a heart of yearning. The darkest anathemas He ever uttered are recorded in Matthew twenty-three. Mark, therefore, how He closed His solemn series of terrific “woes.” Here are His closing words: “O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, * * how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, but ye would not!” Let us speak the truth in love.
I. HOW GOD REVEALS HIMSELF (Job 33:14-17)
1. God speaks in dreams. Not for a moment would Elihu suggest that all dreams are from God. However, it is often true that in the daytime God has but little opportunity to get in a word with those to whom He would give some warning. Thus, in the hours of the night, God does speak in “a dream, in a vision of the night, when deep sleep faileth upon men, in slumberings upon the bed.”
Where is the individual who has not felt that he had, at some time in his life, some real message from God as he lay sleeping? And yet, we would give a warning that Elihu did not give. We believe that we need to be so in touch with the Lord, and in such fellowship with the Spirit that we will seek by day, and not when asleep at night, the will of God, and His message for our souls.
We need, moreover, to be so filled with His Word that we will receive many revelations from God in the Scriptures that come to our remembrances in special hours of need. If we will walk with God in full yieldedness to Him, it will not be difficult to find out what He has to say to us.
2. God’s purpose in speaking to us. This is the way Elihu put it:
(1) “That He may withdraw man from his purpose, and hide pride from man.” Alas, alas, so many men are rushing headlong on their way, without ever stopping to seek, much less to know, the will of God in their lives! God has said, “It is not in a man to order his steps”; and yet, few men, comparatively, ever ask God for guidance.
Why do we get into so many labyrinths of difficulty? It is because we sought to turn every one to his own way. The very essence of sin is “my way,” “my thought.” What is the finale of salvation? It is to turn men back to God, as Lord and Master. It is to save us from our transgression-going across the will of God.
The supreme call of God to the redeemed soul, is this: “Yield yourselves unto God, as those that are alive from the dead, and your members as instruments of righteousness unto God” (Rom 6:13).
(2) That He may keep “back his soul from the pit, and his life from perishing by the sword.” God does not want any of us to rush heedlessly on to our doom. He wants to bless us with all spiritual blessings. He wants to fill our lives with His good things. He has no pleasure that any man should perish. Let us, then, seek His face, and learn to trust His will.
II. GOD’S PURPOSE IN PAIN (Job 33:19-22)
Some one has said, “Sweet are the uses of adversity.” God has said, “No chastening for the present seemeth to be joyous, but * * afterward it yieldeth the peaceable fruit of righteousness unto them which are exercised thereby.” Back of all affliction, is the God of all grace.
1. Then He is gracious unto him. Elihu taught that all of the chastening of God led to a manifestation of God’s mercy. Man is chastened with pain upon his bed: his life abhorreth bread, and his soul dainty meat; his flesh is consumed away; his bones stick out, and his soul draweth near to the grave: then God is gracious unto him.
Elihu is right. God does use every bitter cup that we drink, every pain that we suffer, that He may perfect, strengthen, establish, and settle us. In all of our trials, God is seeking our good. In our anguish, He is leading us to His joy; in our poverty, He is leading us into His riches; in our shame, He is leading us into His glory.
What then should we do when afflictions befall us? We should drop our tired head over upon His arm and wait for His deliverance. He will be gracious unto us.
2. The basis of God’s graciousness. Here is a little expression found in the last clause of Job 33:24, which is well worth weighing. The clause reads: “I have found a Ransom.”
We do not doubt but Elihu is seeking to convey the basis upon which God’s grace operates. How can God be gracious unto the one who has sinned, and whom He has chastened? How can God deliver any soul from going down into the pit? All have sinned; and the wages of sin is death.
God’s deliverance is given on the basis of a Ransom. That Ransom is made in none other way than by the Lord Jesus Christ. He is the One who died, the Just for the unjust. He is the One who suffered for us. How truly grateful we should be because God found a basis upon which He could be just, and yet justify the ungodly!
There are some who feel that this Scripture in Job carries a wonderful message on God’s physical deliverances. This is no doubt true, particularly when sickness, with its contingent pain and bitterness, is due to sin. In such a case, the sin must be disposed of before the remedy can be applied.
Elihu, in Job 33:26, emphasizes the place of prayer, and confession, as a basis on which God’s grace, by way of His Ransom, operates. Elihu said, “He shall pray unto God, and He will be favourable unto him: and he shall see His face with joy.”
Elihu is pleading with Job to accept God’s graciousness by the way of His Ransom, and by means of the prayer of confession. Where can we find a better scriptural statement than this?
III. GOD’S RIGHTEOUS DEALINGS (Job 34:10-12)
During Job’s sickness and pain Elihu observed that Job was justifying himself. In this, Elihu contended that Job, of necessity, was condemning God. Elihu was right. To be sure, Job had been nagged on by the condemnatory words of his false friends; and besides, Job was righteous, so far as he knew. He was not guilty, as his friends asserted. However, Job should not have found fault with God. Here are the words of Elihu: “Far be it from God, that He should do wickedness; and from the Almighty, that He should commit iniquity.”
Elihu further contended that the Almighty will not pervert judgment. As the result of Elihu’s contention, he made two statements in the form of two questions.
1. “Wilt thou condemn Him that is most just?” It is not fit for a subject to say to the King, “Thou art wicked.” Nor, for the plebian to say to the prince, “Ye are ungodly.” Then said Elihu, “How much less to Him that accepteth not the persons of princes, nor regardeth the rich more than the poor?” Shall the created condemn the Creator? Shall the clay condemn the potter?
Abraham, when he prayed to God concerning Sodom, said, “Shall not the Judge of all the earth do right?” Men may not always understand God’s dealings, but men should always bend the knee and acknowledge God’s righteousness.
All of Job’s complaints against Jehovah were due to Job’s ignorance. If he had only been able to have pierced the veil, and to have heard Satan’s challenge; or, if he had heard God’s marvelous commendation of his righteousness, he would have felt differently about it. The trouble with Job was that he argued in the dark.
2. Wilt thou condemn Him who is omniscient? Elihu presented before Job the fact that God knew all things. Here are Elihu’s words: “For His eyes are upon the ways of man, and He seeth all his goings. There is no darkness, nor shadow of death, where the workers of iniquity may hide themselves.”
Man may not understand God, but God knows what is in man. God may hide Himself from the wicked, but they can never hide from Him. There is nothing that is not naked and open unto the eyes of Him with whom we have to do.
Since God knows the way we take, He also knows what is good for us. Elihu said, “He will not lay upon man more than right.” What then shall we do? We will trust and not be afraid. If we do not know the way, we know our Guide; if we do not know the why of our sorrows and our pains, we do know that God leads the way.
IV. GOD’S GREAT AND BENEFICENT HAND (Job 35:10-11)
We now come to one of the most beautiful verses of the whole Bible. They are words spoken by Elihu. “But none saith, Where is God my Maker, who giveth songs in the night” (Job 35:10). Elihu is intimating that Job should have been singing, instead of sighing. Some may now desire to take Job’s part. They may feel that if God sends tribulation, it is right and proper for saints to tribulate. With this, Elihu would not agree.
It was just here that Job, as a type of Christ, broke down. We have shown in a former study how the cries of Job, in the hour of his anguish, paralleled those of Christ as He went to the Cross. We have also shown how the treatment which Job received paralleled the treatment which Christ received. We now wish to observe, not the parallelism, but the contrast.
As Job faced his suffering, and drank the bitterness of his cup, he caught every now and then, through faith, a vision of ultimate victory; yet, Job continually bewailed his estate. Job wished to die. Job even condemned God, and continually bemoaned his lot.
Jesus Christ, on the contrary, as He faced the hour of His travail, faced it with joy. On the night of His betrayal, Christ uttered such words as these: “Peace I leave with you, My peace I give unto you.” “These things have I spoken unto you, that My joy might remain in you, and that your joy might be full.”
In the Garden of Gethsemane, as the bitter cup was pressed to the lips of the Master, Christ said, “If it be possible, let this cup pass from Me: nevertheless not as I will, but as Thou wilt.”
There never was a moment that the Lord Jesus complained; there was never a moment that He doubted. Our Lord was a nightingale, singing in the midnight hour of His travail. We read that after He had taken the bread and had broken it, saying, “This is My body”; and that after He had taken the cup, and had poured it forth, saying, “This is My blood of the new testament, which is shed for many”; that afterward, “when they had SUNG AN HYMN, they went out.”
Thus, the Lord sang songs in the night. Is it possible for us to sing, as He sang? It was possible for Paul and Silas, for they sang at Philippi with their feet in the stocks, as they lay in the Roman jail.
V. ELIHU’S SOLEMN WARNING (Job 36:18)
We must bring this message shortly to a close, but we cannot do so until we emphasize Elihu’s three solemn warnings which he gave to Job.
1. “Beware lest.” “Beware lest He take thee away with His stroke: then a great ransom cannot deliver thee.” Elihu longed for Job to get into the place of victory, before God might take him away, Elihu taught that after death God’s great Ransom could not deliver. He who repents must repent in life, and never after death. The work of the Cross is effective by faith only among men who are yet in the flesh.
Let every one, therefore, beware lest God speak the word, “Cut him down: why cumbereth he the ground?”
2. “Remember that.” This is Elihu’s second warning. He said, “Remember that thou magnify His work, which men behold.” How marvelously did Elihu give glory to God! This is the whole duty of man.
There is a little verse in the New Testament that says: “Remember Jesus Christ.” People today are in danger of forgetting God, and of forgetting His Son our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. The world needs a renewed vision of God, and a new love for and trust in God.
3. “Behold, God.” The verse in full reads: “Behold, God is great, and we know Him not, neither can the number of His years be searched out.” The balance of Elihu’s speech, finishing the thirty-sixth and through the thirty-seventh chapter, is given to glorifying God, and to magnifying His greatness.
AN ILLUSTRATION
Let us know, with the faith of Elihu, that we have a Ransom. Let us not trust “Rotten Ships.”
Much has been said and written about rotten ships, and what a sad piece of iniquity it is for any, just for the sake of present gain, to attempt to trifle with human life, in sending men in ships that ought to have been broken up long years ago. Old unseaworthy hulks patched up and painted, then freighted with precious life, all sacrificed for the cupidity and covetousness of the owners, how the world reprobates such conduct, and cries out against it.
Would that all equally condemned the attempts to sail to Heaven in the rotten hulks of man’s providing.
When we try to gain everlasting life by anything that we do, say, or promise, ignoring the new and living way, what is it but sailing in a rotten ship that must founder. When we boast ourselves of our morality, sincerity, good deeds and intentions, ignoring the work and Person of Jesus the Saviour, what is it but a fair coat of bright paint that covers a worm-eaten, rotten ship, that will not stand one breath of God’s judgment. When we weary ourselves with the performance of outward forms and ceremonies of religion, and try to satisfy the conscience with acts of devotion and contrition, rejecting the work of Christ, who hath “by Himself purged our sins,” what is it but building again what God has destroyed, and embarking in that which will never reach the shore.
God condemned all these ways four thousand years ago, providing an “Ark,” even Christ Jesus, for the saving of the soul-the sinner’s refuge and way of escape. And what He said unto Noah, He says to you, “Come thou, and all thy house, into the Ark.”-Unknown.
Fuente: Neighbour’s Wells of Living Water
WORDS OF ELIHU; WORDS OF GOD
Elihu now comes forward with apparent modesty, and yet great pretensions. Young and inexperienced, he is nevertheless indignant at the manner in which the friends of Job have sought to reply to him. Professing that his views have been revealed from above, he undertakes to clear up all the difficulties in the case. Afflictions are for the good of the sufferer is his dictum, a thought which he exhibits in various lights.
He, too, reflects upon Job for his rashness and presumption, leaning rather to the side of his friends.
Chapter 32 is introductory, but in the following chapter he fully enters upon his argument. If Job had wished to bring his cause before God, let him now present it to him, i.e., Elihu, who assumed to take Gods place. Job could not be correct in the claims he made for himself because God must be more righteous than man. Gods speaks to man in various ways to withdraw him from his purpose and save him from sin.
Job is not disposed to reply, although Elihu gives him an opportunity, and therefore the latter continues in chapter 34 to examine his case more particularly. Job had shown a spirit of irreverence which is rebuked. Gods government is administered on principles of equity, and therefore Job must be a wicked man who is called upon to confess that his chastisement was just and to resolve to offend no more. In chapter 35, assuming that Job claimed to be more righteous than God, he examines the position, demonstrating its impossibility.
Having undertaken thus to vindicate the divine character, he proceeds in chapters 36-37 to state some of the principles of the divine government, illustrating his views and showing the necessity of mans submission to God by a sublime description of the greatness of the latter, especially as manifested in the storm. There is in this description every indication that a storm is rising and a tempest gathering. In the midst of this tempest the address of Elihu is broken off and the Almighty appears and closes the debate.
THE ADDRESS OF THE ALMIGHTY
The address of the Almighty covers chapters 38-41, and is represented as from the midst of the tempest. Its principle object appears to be to assert Gods greatness and majesty and the duty of profound submission to the dispensations of his government. He appeals to His works, showing that man could explain little, and that, therefore, it was to be expected that in His moral government there would be much also above human capacity to understand.
Job is subdued and awed, and confesses his vileness in chapter 40:3-5. To produce, however, a more overpowering impression, and secure a deeper prostration before Him, the Almighty described two of the most remarkable animals He had made, with which description His sublime address concludes.
We agree with Barnes and other commentators that the general impression sought by this address is that of awe, reverence and submission. That God has a right to do, and that it is presumptuous in man to sit in judgment upon His doings. It is remarkable that God does not refer to the main point in the controversy at all. He does not seek to vindicate His government from the charges brought against it of inequality, nor does He refer to the future state as a place where all these apparent inequalities will be adjusted.
Job is humbled and penitent, chapter 42. His confession is accepted, and his general course approved. His three friends are reprimanded for the severity of their judgment upon him, while he is directed to intercede for them. His calamities are ended and he is restored to double his former prosperity.
Thus God shows Himself the friend of the righteous, and the object of the trial is secured by showing that there is true virtue which is not based on selfishness, and real piety that will bear up under any trial. It shows that God is able to keep the feet of His saints, and that His grace is sufficient for them who put their trust in Him. We speak of Job as triumphant, but the more vital truth is that God is triumphant in the lives of His saints above the power of the evil one.
QUESTIONS
1. Illustrate Elihus modesty.
2. Do the same for his pretensions.
3. Show his indignation at the other friends.
4. What is his dictum?
5. How does he reflect on Job?
6. What principles of the divine government does he state?
7. How does he close his speech?
8. What is the chief object of the words of God?
9. How is Job affected by them?
10. For what omissions is Gods address remarkable?
11. How is the matter concluded as to Job?
12. How about his friends?
Fuente: James Gray’s Concise Bible Commentary
Job 32:1. So these three men ceased to answer Job Finding that he persevered in asserting that he was not guilty of any of the heinous crimes which they laid to his charge, they left off disputing with him; because he was righteous in his own eyes So they said; but the fact was they could not answer him.
Fuente: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
Job 32:2. Elihu. The Greek copies read Elihuz, the same as they write Elijah. The critics refer us for his genealogy to Huz the son of Nahor; for Ram is thought to be Abraham; but a similarity of name does not prove affinity.His wrath was kindled. In proof of this he charges Job, through misconstruction, with saying several things which Job never did say. He was angry also with Jobs three friends, because he saw they were vanquished. His speech contains little more than the old arguments new modified.
Job 32:8. A spirit in man. ruach hi, the Spirit himself is in poor frail man. The spirit of prophecy, as the Chaldaic reads. To this text St. Paul evidently alludes in Rom 8:16, The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit. It is this holy afflatus which is the true light that lighteth every man that cometh into the world. It is this endowment of divine grace which enables man to hear and see the gospel light, and which is the principle of regeneration in the heart.
Job 32:18. I am full of matter, as Psa 45:1; or the pythonesses, as illustrated in Isa 41:23.
Job 32:19. New bottles. See note on Jos 9:4. The LXX join the adjective, new, to wine; a liberty which does not disturb the sense. Some think Elihu refers to conjurors and ventriloquists, who seem to speak from their belly.
Job 32:22. My Maker would soon take me away. Hear this, oh christian minister, when the proud, when the blasphemer, when the seducer, and the avaricious are before you. If you flatter them, you destroy them, and God will soon take you away. Think how Paul reasoned before Felix.
REFLECTIONS.
We are here taught that modesty and humility are great ornaments to young people. It is their duty to be learners, to hear patiently, and attend to the sentiments of the old and wise; to be diffident of themselves, and shun every thing which has the appearance of vanity and conceit; especially when it appears proper that they should deliver their opinion, let them do it with all deference to the aged, and all the marks of a modest spirit. Age gives men great advantage for improvement in knowledge, and being useful by their advice and instructions. It is naturally expected that their faculties should be strengthened, their stock of ideas enlarged, by reading, reflection, and experience. Therefore the aged should be teachers of good things, and endeavour to instruct the rising generation, in what may be useful to them, and conducive to their true happiness.
Let us consider that our fellow creatures are rational beings as well as ourselves. There is a spirit in man, and the inspiration of the Almighty giveth him understanding. All the ordinary exercises of reason are here ascribed to the inspiration of the Almighty. Let us be thankful for this gift of God; and pray to him to strengthen our rational faculties, and enable us to judge and speak aright. This consideration should preserve the aged from a supercilious treatment of the young, that they have reason, as well as their fathers; and some are wiser at twenty than others at sixty. Every man has a right to judge for himself, and ought to be allowed a liberty of speech. Those who pretend to dictate to the world, and would have every one be as they are, and believe just as they believe, should consider that others are rational creatures as well as themselves, and have equal access to the oracles of divine wisdom. Let us therefore learn to hear with candour, judge with temper, and never deny to others those rights and privileges which we claim to ourselves.
The fear of God should also engage us to deal plainly with men, in all matters of importance, particularly in those where religion and happiness are concerned. Excess of compliment is an utter enemy to truth and wisdom. It is especially a lesson to ministers, not to prophesy smooth things for fear of giving offence, but to address mens consciences with all plainness and affection united; remembering their Maker, who has declared that he will take away all flattering lips, and every deceitful tongue. In the mean time it will be found, as Solomon observes, that he who reproveth a man, afterwards shall find more favour than he that flattereth with the tongue.
Fuente: Sutcliffe’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
Job 32:1-5. Prose introduction, explaining the intervention of Elihu. Observe that whereas Job and his friends are introduced without genealogy it is not so with Elihu. His name means He is my God, that of Barachel his father God blesses. Buz is a Nahorite clan, according to Gen 22:21. Uz and Buz were brothers.
Fuente: Peake’s Commentary on the Bible
Since his three friends have been silenced by Job’s strong declaration of self-righteousness, our attention is drawn to a young man who has been a silent observer of this interesting drama. There appears to, be no doubt that Elihu is a type of Christ intervening as a mediator rather than as an accuser of Job, nor as a justifier of Job. His name means “My God is Jehovah,” and he is the son of Barachel, which means “Blessed of God.” Thus he has a strong relationship to God, and what he speaks is manifestly for God.
His anger was aroused both against Job and against his friends (vv.2-3), since Job had justified himself rather than God, and his friends had no answer as to Job’s arguments, yet condemned Job. Elihu knew their accusations against Job were unjust, but since he was younger than they, he had waited to allow them time to say all they had to say before he would speak. Thus, the Lord Jesus did not come on the scene until late in the world’s history, after men had been given time to declare all their opinions as to the reason for God’s allowing suffering even on the part of those who were not guilty of wrongdoing. Questions as to God’s dealings had been raised by many, including philosophers, and though discussed from many angles, they were left without any answer. Now the true Mediator between God and men has come, and every question is found resolved in Him, the Lord Jesus Christ.
REASONS FOR ELIHU’S SILENCE
(vv.6-10)
Elihu speaks of his being young in contrast to his four hearers, who were “very old” (v.6). For this reason he had not spoken before, thinking he would be thought of as an immature upstart if he dared to speak. For it is perfectly right that “age should speak, and multitude of years should teach wisdom” (v.7). However, after full opportunity had been given, none of these aged men had found the answer. Must the question therefore remain unanswered?
No! For “there is a spirit in man, and the breath (or Spirit) of the Almighty gives him understanding” (v.8). Eliphaz had appealed to his own observation (ch.4:8). Bildad had appealed to tradition (ch.8:8-9). Zophar was still more ignorant in appealing to his own intuition (ch.11:5,6). These are referred to in 1Co 2:9 : “Eye has not seen (observation), nor ear heard (tradition), nor have entered into the heart of man (intuition) the things which God has prepared for those who love Him.” Then it is added, “But God has revealed them to us through His Spirit” (v.10). Elihu recognised this, that God Himself must reveal the truth by His Spirit if man is to know it; and as Elihu said, “there is a spirit in man.” God has given man a spirit, and God’s Spirit is able to communicate with man’s spirit, if only man’s spirit is subject to God.
“Great men are not always wise, nor do the aged always understand justice” (v.9). A man may attain greatness in the world, and yet be ignorant of his Creator, or one may have years of experience in the world and still be without the knowledge of God. “The flesh profits nothing.” If God is to be understood, this can only be by God revealing Himself (1Co 2:12-14). With this in mind, Elihu can confidently ask his hearers, ‘Therefore, I say, listen to me, I also will declare my opinion.”
THE FAILURE OF THE THREE FRIENDS
(vv.11-13)
Elihu had waited patiently while Eliphaz, Bildad and Zophar had engaged in their reasonings, paying close attention to all they said, and he would not speak at all until the three friends were silenced and Job too had said his words were ended. Clearly it was true that not one of the three could convince Job or answer the problems he had raised (vv.11-12).
Why had they been silenced? “Lest you say, We have found wisdom” (v.13). God would humble them because of their own pride in thinking they had the answer that escaped Job. They could not vanquish Job, for Elihu says, “God will vanquish him, not man.” Elihu knew that Job needed to be vanquished, but not by man, whether the three friends or himself. Whether we realise it or not, we all need to have God gain the victory over us. Only when we allow God this place of absolute authority will our own hearts find true joy and rejoicing.
ELIHU COMPELLED TO SPEAK
(vv.14-22)
Elihu reminds them that Job had not directed his words against him, as they had been against his three friends (v.14); and he would not use their arguments against Job. He could see that they were dismayed to the point of having nothing more to say, so that it was perfectly becoming that the younger man could speak now, after waiting until all others were out of words.
Now he will speak, not because he thinks himself wiser than they, but because, being full of words, the spirit within him compelled him to express himself (vv.17-18). If one is led by the Spirit of God to speak, God will give him the words by which others will be affected. He will not need to grope for words, for his inward parts will be so full that he will feel ready to burst (v.19). When one is persuaded he has the message of God, the power of the Spirit of God will fully enable him to give that message.
When Jeremiah was mocked and derided by his people for declaring the word of the Lord, it so affected him that “Then I said, I will not make mention of Him, nor speak any more in His name. But his word was in my heart like a burning fire shut up in my bones: I was weary of holding it back, and I could not” (Jer 20:9). Thus it is clear too that Elihu, being given a message from God, was not allowed to hold it back. He would find relief only by speaking (v.20).
A vital matter is involved in this: he must not show partiality to anyone, and, if he flattered anyone he considered that this would be cause for his Maker taking him away (vv.21-22). He must give the truth simply and clearly as from God, who is no respecter of persons.
Fuente: Grant’s Commentary on the Bible
F. Elihu’s Speeches chs. 32-37
Some critical scholars believe that a later editor inserted chapters 32-37 in the text of Job. [Note: See William Ewart Staples, The Speeches of Elihu: A Study of Job XXXII-XXXVII, pp. 12-24, and David Noel Freedman, "The Elihu Speeches in the Book of Job," Harvard Theological Review 61:1 (January 1968):51-59, for support of this view. See John Peter Lange, ed., Commentary on the Holy Scriptures, vol. 4. Chronicles-Job, pp. 268-73, for a summary of the arguments with rebuttals. See also Larry J. Waters, "The Authenticity of the Elihu Speeches in Job 32-37," Bibliotheca Sacra 156:621 (January-March 1999):28-41.] Many conservatives believe there is ample external and internal evidence indicating that this section of chapters fits into the argument of the book.
". . . the Elihu speeches (chaps. 32-37), which seemingly interrupt the argument of the book, actually set the stage for the Yahweh speeches. Elihu appears as a type of mediator (an impartial witness) who speaks on behalf of God (Job 36:2) by rebuking the three friends (cf. Job 32:3; Job 32:6-14; Job 34:2-15; cf. Job 35:4) and by suggesting that Job needed to repent of his pride which developed because of his suffering (cf. Job 33:17; Job 35:12-16). He recommended that Job should exalt God’s works which are evident in nature (Job 36:24 to Job 37:18) and fear Him who comes in golden splendor out of the north (Job 37:22-24). These basic ideas of Elihu are either assumed or developed by the Lord in His speeches." [Note: Parsons, p. 141.]
Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)
1. The introduction of Elihu 32:1-5
A short prose pericope (Job 32:1-6 a) breaks into the poetic body of the book. Its purpose is to introduce Elihu, as the prose prologue to the whole book (chs. 1-2) introduced the other characters.
Elihu may have been a relative of Abraham, since a man named Buz was a descendant of Nahor, Abraham’s brother (Gen 22:20-21), and Elihu was a Buzite (cf. Jer 25:23). A man named Ram (Job 32:2) was an ancestor of David (Rth 4:19-22).
Elihu was angry. The writer mentioned his burning anger four times in these verses (Job 32:2 [twice], 3, 5). He was angry with Job because Job considered himself right and God wrong. This is the meaning of "he justified himself before God" (Job 32:5). Furthermore, he was angry with Job’s three companions because they had failed to prove Job worthy of God’s punishment (Job 32:3). One writer suggested that Elihu served as a covenant mediator between Job and God (cf. Job 9:33; Job 16:19-22; Job 19:21). [Note: H. D. Beeby, "Elihu-Job’s Mediator." South East Asia Journal of Theology 7:2 (October 1965):33-54.]
Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)
XXV.
POST-EXILIC WISDOM
Job 32:1-22; Job 33:1-33; Job 34:1-37
A PERSONAGE hitherto unnamed in the course of the drama now assumes the place of critic and judge between Job and his friends. Elihu, son of Barachel the Buzite, of the family of Ram, appears suddenly and as suddenly disappears. The implication is that he has been present during the whole of the colloquies, and that, having patiently waited his time, he expresses the judgment he has slowly formed on arguments to which he has given close attention.
It is significant that both Elihu and his representations are ignored in the winding up of the action. The address of the Almighty from the storm does not take him into account and seems to follow directly on the close of Jobs defence. It is a very obvious criticism, therefore, that the long discourse of Elihu may be an interpolation or an afterthought-a fresh attempt by the author or by some later writer to correct errors into which Job and his friends are supposed to have fallen and to throw new light on the matter of discussion. The textual indications are all in favour of this view. The style of the language appears to belong to a later time than the other parts of the book. But to reject the address as unworthy of a place in the poem would be too summary. Elihu indeed assumes the air of the superior person from the first, so that one is not engaged in his favour. Yet there is an honest, reverent, and thoughtful contribution to the subject. In some points this speaker comes nearer the truth than Job or any of his friends, although the address as a whole is beneath the rest of the book in respect of matter and argument, and still more in poetical feeling and expression.
It is suggested by M. Renan that the original author, taking up his work again after a long interval, at a period in his life when he had lost his verve and his style, may have added this fragment with the idea of completing the poem. There are strong reasons against such an explanation. For one thing there seems to be a misconception where, at the outset, Elihu is made to assume that Job and his friends are very old. The earlier part of the poem by no means affirms this. Job, though we call him a patriarch, was not necessarily far advanced in life, and Zophar appears considerably younger. Again the contention in the eighth verse (Job 32:8) -“There is a spirit in man, and the breath of the Almighty giveth them understanding”-seems to be the justification a later writer would think it needful to introduce. He acknowledges the Divine gift of the original poet and adding his criticism claims for Elihu, that is, for himself, the lucidity God bestows on every calm and reverent student of His ways. This is considerably different from anything we find in the addresses of the other speakers. It seems to show that the question of inspiration had arisen and passed through some discussion. But the rest of the book is written without any consciousness, or at all events any admission of such a question.
Elihu appears to represent the new “wisdom” which came to Hebrew thinkers in the period of the exile; and there are certain opinions embodied in his address which must have been formed during an exile that brought many Jews to honour. The reading of affliction given is one following the discovery that the general sinfulness of a nation may entail chastisement on men who have not personally been guilty of great sin, yet are sharers in the common neglect of religion and pride of heart, and further that this chastisement may be the means of great profit to those who suffer. It would be harsh to say the tone is that of a mind which has caught the trick of “voluntary humility,” of pietistic self-abasement. Yet there are traces of such a tendency, the beginning of a religious strain opposed to legal self-righteousness, running, however, very readily to excess and formalism. Elihu, accordingly, appears to stand on the verge of a descent from the robust moral vigour of the original author towards that low ground in which false views of mans nature hinder the free activity of faith.
The note struck by the Book of Job had stirred eager thought in the time of the exile. Just as in the Middle Ages of European history the Divine Comedy of Dante was made a special study, and chairs were founded in universities for its exposition, so less formally the drama of Job was made the subject of inquiry and speculation. We suppose then that among the many who wrote on the poem, one acting for a circle of thinkers incorporated their views in the text. He could not do so otherwise than by bringing a new speaker on the stage. To add anything to what Eliphaz or Bildad or Job had said would have prevented the free expression of new opinion. Nor could he without disrespect have inserted the criticism after the words of Jehovah. Selecting as the only proper point of interpolation the close of the debate between Job and the friends, the scribe introduced the Elihu portion as a review of the whole scope of the book, and may indeed have subtly intended to assail as entirely heterodox the presupposition of Jobs integrity and the Almightys approval of His servant. That being his purpose, he had to veil it in order to keep the discourse of Elihu in line with the place assigned to him in the dramatic movement. The contents of the prologue and epilogue and the utterance of the Almighty from the storm affect, throughout, the added discourse. But to secure the unity of the poem the writer makes Elihu speak like one occupying the same ground as Eliphaz and the others, that of a thinker ignorant of the original motive of the drama; and this is accomplished with no small skill. The assumption is that reverent thought may throw new light, far more light than the original author possessed, on the case as it stood during the colloquies. Elihu avoids assailing the conception of the prologue that Job is a perfect and upright man approved by God. He takes the state of the sufferer as he finds it, and inquires how and why it is, what is the remedy. There are pedantries and obscurities in the discourse, yet the author must not be denied the merit of a careful and successful attempt to adapt his character to the place he occupies in the drama. Beyond this, and the admission that something additional is said on the subject of Divine discipline, it is needless to go in justifying Elihus appearance. One can only remark with wonder, in passing, that Elihu should ever have been declared the Angel Jehovah, or a personification of the Son of God.
The narrative verses which introduce the new speaker state that his wrath was kindled against Job because he justified himself rather than God, and against the three friends because they had condemned Job and yet found no answer to his arguments. The mood is that of a critic rather hot, somewhat too confident that he knows, beginning a task that requires much penetration and wisdom. But the opening sentences of the speech of Elihu betray the need the writer felt to justify himself in making his bold venture.
I am young and ye are very old;
Wherefore I held back and durst not show my knowledge.
I thought, Days should speak,
And the multitude of years teach wisdom.
Still, there is a spirit in man,
And the breath of the Almighty giveth them understanding.
Not the great in years are wise,
Nor do the aged understand what is right.
Therefore I say: Hearken to me;
I also will show my opinion.
These verses are a defence of the new writers boldness in adding to a poem that has come down from a previous age. He is confident in his judgment, yet realises the necessity of commending it to the hearers. He claims that inspiration which belongs to every reverent conscientious inquirer. On this footing he affirms a right to express his opinion, and the right cannot be denied.
Elihu has been disappointed with the speeches of Jobs friends. He has listened for their reasons, observed how they cast about for arguments and theories; but no one said anything convincing. It is an offence to this speaker that men who had so good a case against their friend made so little of it. The intelligence of Elihu is therefore from the first committed to the hypothesis that Job is in the wrong. Obviously the writer places his spokesman in a position which the epilogue condemns; and if we assume this to have been deliberately done a subtle verdict against the scope of the poem must have been intended. May it not be surmised that this implied comment or criticism gave the interpolated discourse value in the eyes of many? Originally the poem appeared somewhat dangerous, out of the line of orthodoxy. It may have become more acceptable to Hebrew thought when this caveat against bold assumptions of human perfectibility and the right of man in presence of his Maker had been incorporated with the text.
Elihu tells the friends that they are not to say we have found wisdom in Job, unexpected wisdom which the Almighty alone is able to vanquish. They are not to excuse themselves nor exaggerate the difficulties of the situation by entertaining such an opinion, Elihu is confident that he can overcome Job in reasoning. As if speaking to himself he describes the perplexity of the friends and states his intention.
“They were amazed, they answered no more;
They had not a word to say.
And shall I wait because they speak not,
Because they stand still and answer no more?
I also will answer my part,
I also will show my opinion.”
His convictions become stronger and more urgent. He must open his lips and answer. And he will use no flattery. Neither the age nor the greatness of the men he is addressing shall keep him from speaking his mind. If he were insincere he would bring on himself the judgment of God. “My Maker would soon take me away.” Here again the second writers self defence colours the words put into Elihus mouth. Reverence for the genius of the poet whose work he is supplementing does not prevent a greater reverence for his own views.
The general exordium closes with the thirty-second chapter, and in the thirty-third Elihu, addressing Job by name, enters on a new vindication of his right to intervene. His claim is still that of straightforwardness, sincerity. He is to express what he knows without any other motive than to throw light on the matter in hand. He feels himself, moreover, to be guided by the Divine Spirit. The breath of the Almighty has given him life; and on this ground he considers himself entitled to enter the discussion and ask of Job what answer he can give. This is done with dramatic feeling. The life he enjoys is not only physical vigour as contrasted with Jobs diseased and infirm state, but also intellectual strength, the power of God-given reason. Yet, as if he might seem to claim too much, he hastens to explain that he is quite on Jobs level nevertheless.
“Behold. I am before God even as thou art;
I also am formed out of the clay.
Lo, my terror shall not make thee afraid,
Neither shall my pressure be heavy upon thee.”
Elihu is no great personage, no heaven-sent prophet whose oracles must be received without question. He is not terrible like God, but a man formed out of the clay. The dramatising appears overdone at this point, and can only be explained by the desire of the writer to keep on good terms with those who already reverenced the original poet and regarded his work as sacred. What is now to be said to Job is spoken with knowledge and conviction, yet without pretension to more than the wisdom of the holy. There is, however, a covert attack on the original author as having made too much of the terror of the Almighty, the constant pain and anxiety that bore down Jobs spirit. No excuse of the kind is to be allowed for the failure of Job to justify himself. He did not because he could not. The fact was, according to this critic, that Job had no right of self defence as perfect and upright, without fault before the Most High. No man possessed or could acquire such integrity. And all the attempts of the earlier dramatist to put arguments and defences into his heros mouth had of necessity failed. The new writer comprehends very well the purpose of his predecessor and intends to subvert it.
The formal indictment opens thus:-
Surely thou hast spoken in my hearing
And I have heard thy words:-
I am clean without transgression:
I am innocent, neither is there iniquity in me.
Behold. He findeth occasions against me,
He counteth me for His enemy;
He putteth me in the stocks
He marketh all my paths.
The claim of righteousness, the explanation of his troubles given by Job that God made occasions against him and without cause treated him as an enemy, are the errors on which Elihu fastens. They are the errors of the original writer. No one endeavouring to represent the feelings and language of a servant of God should have placed him in the position of making so false a claim, so base a charge against Eloah. Such criticism is not to be set aside as either incompetent or over bold. But the critic has to justify his opinion, and, like many others, when he comes to give reasons his weakness discloses itself. He is certainly hampered by the necessity of keeping within dramatic lines. Elihu must appear and speak as one who stood beside Job with the same veil between him and the Divine throne. And perhaps for this reason the effort of the dramatist comes short of the occasion.
It is to be noted that attention is fixed on isolated expressions which fell from Jobs lips, that there is no endeavour to set forth fully the attitude of the sufferer towards the Almighty. Eliphaz, Bildad, and Zophar had made Job an offender for a word and Elihu follows them. We anticipate that his criticism, however telling it may be, will miss the true point, the heart of the question. He will possibly establish some things against Job, but they will not prove him to have failed as a brave seeker after truth and God.
Opposing the claim and complaint he has quoted, Elihu advances in the first instance a proposition which has the air of a truism-“God is greater than man.” He does not try to prove that even though a man has appeared to himself righteous he may really be sinful in the sight of the Almighty, or that God has the right to afflict an innocent person in order to bring about some great and holy design. The contention is that a man should suffer and be silent. God is not to be questioned; His providence is not to be challenged. A man, however he may have lived, is not to doubt that there is good reason for his misery if he is miserable. He is to let stroke after stroke fall and utter no complaint. And yet Job had erred in saying, “God giveth not account of any of His matters.” It is not true, says Elihu, that the Divine King holds Himself entirely aloof from the inquiries and prayers of His subjects. He discloses in more than one way bath His purposes and His grace.
“Why dost thou contend against God
That He giveth not account of any of His matters?
For God speaketh once, yea twice,
Yet man perceiveth it not.”
The first way in which, according to Elihu, God speaks to men is by a dream, a vision of the night; and the second way is by the chastisement of pain.
Now as to the first of these, the dream or vision, Elihu had, of course, the testimony of almost universal belief, and also of some cases that passed ordinary experience. Scriptural examples, such as the dreams of Jacob, of Joseph, of Pharaoh, and the prophetic visions already recognised by all pious Hebrews, were no doubt in the writers mind. Yet if it is implied that Job might have learned the will of God from dreams, or that this was a method of Divine communication for which any man might look, the rule laid down was at least perilous. Visions are not always from God. A dream may come “by the multitude of business.” It is true, as Elihu says, that one who is bent on some proud and dangerous course may be more himself in a dream than in his waking hours. He may see a picture of the future which scares him, and, so he may be deterred from his purpose. Yet the waking thoughts of a man, if he is sincere and conscientious, are far more fitted to guide him, as a rule, than his dreams.
Passing to the second method of Divine communication, Elihu appears to be on safer ground. He describes the case of an afflicted man brought to extremity by disease, whose soul draweth near to the grave and his life to the destroyers or death angels. Such suffering and weakness do not of themselves insure knowledge of Gods will, but they prepare the sufferer to be instructed. And for his deliverance an interpreter is required.
“If there be with him an angel,
An interpreter, one among a thousand,
To show unto man what is his duty;
Then He is gracious unto him and saith,
Deliver him from going down to the pit,
I have found a ransom.”
Elihu cannot say that such an angel or interpreter will certainly appear. He may: and if he does and points the way of uprightness, and that way is followed, then the result is redemption, deliverance, renewed prosperity. But who is this angel? “One of the ministering spirits sent forth to do service on behalf of the heirs of salvation”? The explanation is somewhat farfetched. The ministering angels were not restricted in number. Each Hebrew was supposed to have two such guardians. Then Malachi says, “The priests lips should keep knowledge, and they should seek the law at his mouth; for he is the angel (messenger) of Jehovah Sabaoth.” Here the priest appears as an angel interpreter, and the passage seems to throw light on Elihus meaning. As no explicit mention is made of a priest or any priestly function in our text, it may at least be hinted that interpreters of the law, scribes or incipient rabbis, are intended, of whom Elihu claims to be one. In this case the ransom would remain without explanation. But if we take that as a sacrificial offering, the name “angel interpreter” covers a reference to the properly accredited priest: The passage is so obscure that little can be based upon it; yet assuming the Elihu discourses to be of late origin and intended to bring the poem into line with orthodox Hebrew thought, the introduction of either priest or scribe would be in harmony with such a purpose. Mediation at all events is declared to be necessary as between the sufferer and God; and it would be strange indeed if Elihu, professing to explain matters, really made Divine grace to be consequent on the intervention of an angel whose presence and instruction could in no way be verified. Elihu is realistic and would not rest his case at any point on what might be declared purely imaginary.
The promise he virtually makes to Job is like those of Eliphaz and the others, -renewed health, restored youth, the sense of Divine favour. Enjoying these, the forgiven penitent sings before men, acknowledging his fault and praising God for his redemption. The assurance of deliverance was probably made in view of the epilogue, with Jobs confession and the prosperity restored to him. But the writer misunderstands the confession, and promises too glibly. It is good to receive after great affliction the guidance of a wise interpreter; and to seek God again in humility is certainly a mans duty. But would submission and the forgiveness of God bring results in the physical sphere, health, renewed youth and felicity? No invariable nexus of cause and effect can be established here from experience of the dealings of God with men. Elihus account of the way in which the Almighty communicates with His creatures must be declared a failure. It is in some respects careful and ingenious, yet it has no sufficient ground of evidence. When he says-
“Lo, all these things worketh God
Oftentimes with man,
To bring back his soul from the pit”-
the design is pious, but the great question of the book is not touched. The righteous suffer like the wicked from disease, bereavement, disappointment, anxiety. Even when their integrity is vindicated the lost years and early vigour are not restored. It is useless to deal in the way of pure fancy with the troubles of existence. We say to Elihu and all his school, Let us be at the truth, let us know the absolute reality. There are valleys of human sorrow, suffering, and trial in which the shadows grow deeper as the traveller presses on, where the best are often most afflicted. We need another interpreter than Elihu, one who suffers like us and is made perfect by suffering, through it entering into His glory.
An invocation addressed by Elihu to the bystanders begins chapter 34. Again he emphatically asserts his right to speak, his claim to be a guide of those who think on the ways of God. He appeals to sound reason and he takes his auditors into counsel-“Let us choose to ourselves judgment; let us know among ourselves what is good.” The proposal is that there shall be conference on the subject of Jobs claim. But Elihu alone speaks. It is he who selects “what is good.”
Certain words that fell from the lips of Job are again his text. Job hath said, I am righteous, I am in the right; and, God hath taken away my judgment or vindication. When those words were used the meaning of Job was that the circumstances in which he had been placed, the troubles appointed by God seemed to prove him a transgressor. But was he to rest under a charge he knew to be untrue? Stricken with an incurable wound though he had not transgressed, was he to lie against his right by remaining silent? This, says Elihu, is Jobs unfounded impious indictment of the Almighty; and he asks:-
“What man is like Job,
Who drinketh up impiety like water,
Who goeth in company with the workers of iniquity,
And walketh with wicked men?”
Job had spoken of his right which God had taken away. What was his right? Was he, as he affirmed, without transgression? On the contrary, his principles were irreligious. There was infidelity beneath his apparent piety. Elihu will prove that so far from being clear of blame he has been imbibing wrong opinions and joining the company of the wicked. This attack shows the temper of the writer. No doubt certain expressions put into the mouth of Job by the original dramatist might be taken as impeaching the goodness or the justice of God. But to assert that even the most unguarded passages of the book made for impiety was a great mistake. Faith in God is to be traced not obscurely but as a shaft of light through all the speeches put into the mouth of his hero by the poet. One whose mind is bound by certain pious forms of thought may fail to see the light, but it shines nevertheless.
The attempt made by Elihu to establish his charge has an appearance of success. Job, he says, is one who drinks up impiety like water and walks with wicked men, –
“For he hath said,
It profiteth a man nothing
That he should delight himself with God.”
If this were true, Job would indeed be proved irreligious. Such a statement strikes at the root of faith and obedience. But is Elihu representing the text with anything like precision? In Job 9:22 these words are put into Jobs mouth:-
“It is all one, therefore I say,
He destroyeth the perfect and the wicked.”
God is strong and is breaking him with a tempest. Job finds it useless to defend himself and maintain that he is perfect. In the midst of the storm he is so tossed that he despises his life; and in perplexity he cries, -It is all one whether I am righteous or not, God destroys the good and the vile alike. Again we find him saying, “Wherefore do the wicked live, become old, yea, are mighty in power?” And in another passage he inquires why the Almighty does not appoint days of judgment. These are the expressions on which Elihu founds his charge, but the precise words attributed to Job were never used by him, and in many places he both said and implied that the favour of God was his greatest joy. The second author is either misapprehending or perverting the language of his predecessor. His argument accordingly does not succeed.
Passing at present from the charge of impiety, Elihu takes up the suggestion that Divine providence is unjust and sets himself to show that, whether men delight themselves in the Almighty or not, He is certainly All-righteous. And in this contention, so long as he keeps to generalities and does not take special account of the case which has roused the whole controversy, he speaks with some power. His argument comes properly to this, If you ascribe injustice or partiality to Him whom you call God, you cannot be thinking of the Divine King. From His very nature and from His position as Lord of all, God cannot be unjust. As Maker and Preserver of life He must be faithful.
“Far be from God a wickedness,
From the Almighty an injustice!
For every ones work He requiteth him,
And causeth each to find according to his ways.
Surely, too, God doth not wickedness.
The Almighty perverteth not justice.”
Has God any motive for being unjust? Can any one urge Him to what is against His nature? The thing is impossible. So far Elihu has all with him, for all alike believe in the sovereignty of God. The Most High, responsible to Himself, must be conceived of as perfectly just. But would He be so if He were to destroy the whole of His creatures? Elihu says, Gods sovereignty over all gives Him the right to act according to His will; and His will determines not only what is, but what is right in every case.
“Who hath given Him a charge over the earth?
Or who hath disposed the whole world?
Were He to set His mind upon Himself,
To gather to Himself His spirit and His breath,
Then all flesh would die together,
Man would return to his dust.”
The life of all creatures, implies that the mind of the Creator goes forth to His universe, to rule it, to supply the needs of all living beings. He is not wrapped up in Himself, but having given life He provides for its maintenance.
Another personal appeal in Job 34:16 is meant to secure attention to what follows, in which the idea is carried out that the Creator must rule His creatures by a law of justice.
“Shall one that hateth right be able to control?
Or wilt thou condemn the Just, the Mighty One?
Is it fit to say to a king, Thou wicked?
Or to princes. Ye ungodly?
How much less to Him who accepts not the persons of princes.
Nor regardeth the rich more than the poor?”
Here the principle is good, the argument of illustration inconclusive. There is a strong foundation in the thought that God, who could if He desired withdraw all life, but on the other hand sustains it, must rule according to a law of perfect righteousness. If this principle were kept in the front and followed up we should have a fruitful argument. But the philosophy of it is beyond this thinker, and he weakens his case by pointing to human rulers and arguing from the duty of subjects to abide by their decision and at least attribute to them the virtue of justice. No doubt society must be held together by a head either hereditary or chosen by the people, and, so long as his rule is necessary to the well being of the realm, what he commands must be obeyed and what he does must be approved as if it were right. But the writer either had an exceptionally favourable experience of kings, as one, let us suppose, honoured like Daniel in the Babylonian exile, or his faith in the Divine right of princes blinded him to much injustice. It is a mark of his defective logic that he rests his case for the perfect righteousness of God upon a sentiment or what may be called an accident.
And when Elihu proceeds, it is with some rambling sentences in which the suddenness of death, the insecurity of human things, and the trouble and distress coming now on whole nations, now on workers of iniquity, are all thrown together for the demonstration of Divine justice. We hear in these verses (Job 34:20-28) the echoes of disaster and exile, of the fall of thrones and empires. Because the afflicted tribes of Judah were preserved in captivity and restored to their own land, the history of the period which is before the writers mind appears to him to supply a conclusive proof of the righteousness of the Almighty. But we fail to see it. Eliphaz and Bildad might have spoken in the same terms as Elihu uses here. Everything is assumed that Job by force of circumstance has been compelled to doubt. The whole is a homily on Gods irresponsible power and penetrating wisdom which, it is taken for granted, must be exercised in righteousness. Where proof is needed nothing but assertion is offered. It is easy to say that when a man is struck down in the open sight of others it is because he has been cruel to the poor and the Almighty has been moved by the cry of the afflicted. But here is Job struck down in the open sight of others; and is it for harshness to the poor? If Elihu does not mean that, what does he mean? The conclusion is the same as that reached by the three friends; and this speaker poses, like the rest, as a generous man declaring that the iniquity God is always sure to punish is tyrannical treatment of the orphan and the widow.
Leaving this unfortunate attempt at reasoning we enter at Job 34:31 on a passage in which the circumstances of Job are directly dealt with.
For hath any one spoken thus unto God,
I have suffered though I offend not:
That which I see not teach Thou;
If I have done iniquity I will do it no more?
Shall Gods recompense be according to thy mind
That thou dost reject it?
For thou must choose, and not I:
Therefore speak what thou knowest.
Here the argument seems to be that a man like Job, assuming himself to be innocent, if he bows down before the sovereign Judge, confesses ignorance, and even goes so far as to acknowledge that he may have sinned unwittingly and promises amendment, such a one has no right to dictate to God or to complain if suffering and trouble continue. God may afflict as long as He pleases without showing why He afflicts. And if the sufferer dares to complain he does so at his own peril. Elihu would not be the man to complain in such a case. He would suffer on silently. But the choice is for Job to make; and he has need to consider well before he comes to a decision. Elihu implies that as yet Job is in the wrong mind, and he closes this part of his address in a sort of brutal triumph over the sufferer because he had complained of his sufferings. He puts the condemnation into the mouth of “men of understanding”; but it is his own.
Men of understanding will say to me,
And the wise who hears me will say:-
Job speaks without intelligence,
And his words are without wisdom:
Would that Job were tried unto the end
For his answers after the manner of wicked men.
For he addeth rebellion to his sin;
He clappeth his hands amongst us
And multiplieth his words against God.
The ideas of Elihu are few and fixed. When his attempts to convince betray his weakness in argument, he falls back on the vulgar expedient of brow beating the defendant. He is a type of many would be interpreters of Divine providence, forcing a theory of religion which admirably fits those who reckon themselves favourites of heaven, but does nothing for the many lives that are all along under a cloud of trouble and grief. The religious creed which alone can satisfy is one throwing light adown the darkest ravines human beings have to thread, in ignorance of God which they cannot help, in pain of body and feebleness of mind not caused by their own sin but by the sins of others, in slavery or something worse than slavery.