Job 32

In the vehemence of his opposition to his friends and in the intensity of his inward struggles Job has been betrayed into expressions which cannot be approved, in which he seems to arraign the equity of the Divine administration. Great consideration is requisite in judging of these expressions and in estimating their real meaning. Allowance must be made for the circumstances in which they were uttered. Words wrung from him in the bitterness of his heart and in the tumult of his feelings, under the terrible pressure of his sorrows and the exasperating treatment of his friends, are not to be regarded as though they had been spoken in calmer moments. But if Job had gone no further astray than this, that in his desperation and intolerable distress he had occasionally let slip what he subsequently regretted, and what did not express his real state of mind, no correction might have been deemed necessary. The fact, however, is that Job was involved in an irreconcilable conflict with himself. His most intimate and ineradicable convictions were seemingly at hopeless variance. On the one side was the consciousness of his own integrity, which was dearer to him than his life, which he could not deny nor part with, and which he was prepared to assert at all hazards. He knew from the testimony of his own conscience that he was not a gross and wicked offender; and he made his confident appeal to the Searcher of hearts for the uprightness of his past life. But how, then, can he maintain his confidence in the justice and rectitude of God in His providential government? A God who lets the wicked triumph and who afflicts the just, how can He be a righteous and a holy God? Job cannot put these two things together, though he holds them both and will not abandon either. And yet, in the honest frankness of his soul, he does not and cannot shut his eyes to the fact that they do seem to him to clash. And, as in the guilelessness of his nature he makes no concealment, what he feels he says. His controversy with God’s providence is not limited, therefore, to a few passionate outbursts, which in moments of reflection he would gladly recall. But it is forced upon him by an inward necessity which he cannot escape. He has justified his own integrity against the suspicions and accusations of his friends. But how is the righteousness of God to be vindicated? This is the problem. His friends can throw no light upon it, and he is as much in the dark as they. He still holds, indeed, with an unslackened grasp his confidence in God’s righteousness, and he will not let it go. In his struggle to retain this great essential truth he had fought his way through to that grand burst of triumphant trust in God, in which he utters his faith in the unseen without a particle of misgiving, though flatly contradictory to outward sense: “I know that my Redeemer liveth,” and that the Divine rectitude now so mysteriously hidden shall yet appear, and though He suffers me to perish in this world, He shall vindicate me in the next. But even this noble utterance leaves the black clouds of the present undispersed. The righteousness of God shall shine forth radiantly hereafter, but why is it so strangely obscured now? This Job cannot answer; and, though his trust abides in God’s ultimate justice, it is, after all, a trust in a God who has hidden Himself. W. H. G.

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 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,

4 and yet had condemned Job. Now Elihu had waited to speak unto Job, because they 5 were elder than he. 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,

I am young, and ye are very old;

Wherefore I held back, and durst not shew 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 judgment.

10. Therefore I said, Hearken to me; I also will shew mine opinion.

11. Behold, I waited for your words, I listened for your reasons, Whilst ye searched out what to say.

12. Yea, I attended unto you, And, behold, there was none that convinced Job, Or that answered his words, among you.

13. Beware lest ye say, We have found wisdom; God may vanquish him, not man:

14. For he hath not directed his words against me;

THE debate between Job and the three friends closed with chap. 27, when Job had completed his response to Bildad’s brief words in chap. 25. After that came (chap. 28) the interjected discourse on wisdom, and then Job’s monologue, in three parts: A reminiscence of his former happy estate (chap. 29); a lament for his present misery (chap. 30); and a protestation, with imprecations, of his own uprightness (chap. 31). Job now ceased to speak, and at this point a new character is introduced. This person was “Elihu the son of Barachel the Buzite, of the kindred of Ram.” It is remarkable that this is the only one of the parties whose genealogy is fully given. We can gather little more from it than that Elihu belonged to a branch of the family of Abraham. His brother Nahor had two sons, Uz and Buz. Job, it would seem, was descended from the former, and Elihu appears to be descended from the latter; and the circumstance of his being of the family of Buz was doubtless thus pointedly mentioned by the sacred writer to draw respectful attention to him, notwithstanding his youth, on account of his relationship to Abraham. He assumes the office of umpire in no unbecoming spirit, and decides the question between the disputants justly and well; the best proof of which is found in the fact, that his tone of argument and his virtual decision are in all essential respects the same which the Voice from the whirlwind afterward declares. He also is exempted from the censures passed upon the arguments of the three friends, nor is

Neither will I answer him with your speeches.

15. They are amazed, they answer no more: They have not a word to say.

16. And shall I wait, because they speak not, Because they stand still, and answer no more?

17. I also will answer my part, I also will shew mine opinion.

18. For I am full of words; The spirit within me constraineth me.

19. Behold, my breast is as wine which hath no vent; Like new bottles it is ready to burst.

20. I will speak, that I may be refreshed; I will open my lips and answer.

21. Let me not, I pray you, respect any man’s person; Neither will I give flattering titles unto any man.

22. For I know not to give flattering titles; Else would my Maker soon take me away.

Job required to offer an expiatory offering on his account. These are manifest though tacit tokens of approval upon the reasonings and the decision of the son of Barachel. Kitto

Chaps. 32-37 contain the discourse of Elihu, a new interlocutor. The actual position of the disputants was unsatisfactory. Job had not only maintained his piety and integrity, but had imputed to God unrighteousness in His dealings; his opponents, on the other hand, had first insinuated and then openly declared that his calamities were a necessary and just punishment for wickedness, which they assumed, but were unable to prove. They had broken the law of charity, Job had trenched upon the reverence due to God. One point was common both to Job and his adversaries, they looked upon his afflictions as indications and results of God’s wrath. At this crisis Elihu comes in; he has a different theory to propose. The Divine chastisements have a loving purpose. They are intended to awaken a man’s conscience, and to save him from destruction, they make him feel the want of a mediator, and prepare him for spiritual ministrations, which, if received in humility, give him right views of God’s righteousness, bring him into a state of reconciliation, restore him his righteousness, and save him “from the pit, to be enlightened with the light of the living.” From this general principle Elihu proceeds, in chap. 34, to prove that it is impossible, from the very nature of things, that God, the supreme Almighty Ruler, should be unjust, and that such imputations as those which Job had advanced involve very serious guilt; instead of humility his afflictions had but taught him pride; hence the silence of God; had Job prayed he would have been heard, but he had spoken in vain, and multiplied words without a true knowledge of God’s purposes. Job’s only right course is to listen to God’s teaching and to magnify His work, for His Being is unsearchable, and man’s wisdom is but foolishness in His sight. The general structure of the discourse is thus tolerably clear, but it is exceedingly obscure in details. Cook.

As Oehler so well said, Elihu is indignant with Job, “because he could only justify himself by accusing God; and indignant with the friends, because they could only justify God by accusing Job.” The four discourses are the development of two great thoughts. First, what the friends ought to have said to Job, and what Job ought to have remembered, is that there are pains which, without being a retribution for any actual faults, are fitted for purifying man from the seeds of sin contained in his heart and to save him from falls to which he might be exposed. The second thought is: Even if we do not arrive at understanding the ways of God, He shows Himself too great and too wise in all nature to allow us to entertain a doubt of His perfection. God is not a mere “satrap,” tempted to abuse a power only lent Him for a time. He is the Sovereign; and we may therefore depend upon His justice. To accept suffering as a purifying ordeal or as a preventive warning, in which conscience cannot recognize a punishment, and to submit entirely, looking to God with the docility of faith—even to such as we can in no degree understand either as punishment or as trial—this is the whole wisdom of Elihu. It is slightly commonplace, it may be said; but its originality consists in the contrast between it and the spurious wisdom of the friends and the rash language of Job. It is not the complete explanation of the mystery—Elihu knows nothing of the scene in the prologue—but until the veil is lifted, this is and remains the true wisdom. Accordingly Job does not answer. He does not yet confess himself defeated; but he no longer argues. It is the beginning of his complete submission.

The authenticity of the speeches of Elihu has been strongly attacked. Are they then missing in any manuscripts? No. There is no mention of this fourth friend, it is alleged, either in the prologue or epilogue. His appearance upon the scene and his speeches are, therefore, it is said, a later interpolation. But this argument is weak. Elihu is not a fourth friend. It is expressly said that “his wrath was kindled against Job and against his three friends.” As to the silence on the subject of Elihu in the epilogue, that is natural. He can neither be praised as having solved the problem nor blamed as having spoken wrongly. He has said nothing but the truth, though not the whole truth. Godet.

Elihu is not spoken of in the beginning of the book, when the arrival of the three friends is mentioned, because there was no occasion for speaking of him then. He only engages in the dispute because the three friends have failed to find a satisfactory answer to Job; and to refer to him in the outset would have been to anticipate their incapacity to deal with the subject before they had made the attempt. Job does not make answer to Elihu as he had done to the friends, because he is convinced of the truth of what he says, and he has therefore nothing to reply. The Lord makes no allusion to Elihu, when He subsequently expresses His approval of Job and passes censure on his friends, because he was not one of the parties to the strife which was to be adjusted. W. H. G.

The Elihu section theologically enriches the Old Testament with a monument of a truly Christian consciousness of sin. It expresses in Old Testament language the great truth announced by Paul, “When we are judged we are chastened of the Lord, that we should not be condemned with the world” (1 Cor. 11:32). Cheyne.

Chapter 32 contains three parts: First (v. 1). The reason why Job’s three friends refrained from speaking further—they failed to make any impression on Job: he was right in his own eyes. Second (vs. 2-5). The Author in his own words introduces Elihu, stating the reasons which constrained this speaker to take part in the dispute. The anger of Elihu was kindled, first, against Job because he justified himself as against God, held himself in the right at the expense of God’s righteousness; and second, against the three friends because they failed to bring forward such arguments as effectively to condemn Job—that is, show him to be in the wrong in his complaints of God. In other words, the sole point which Elihu has in view is justification of God, and toward this point all his reasoning is directed. Job is guilty of wrong against God, and the three friends are to blame because they have not been able to bring this wrong home to Job. Third (vs. 6-22). Elihu is then introduced speaking in his own person; stating the reasons which hitherto have kept him from speaking and those which induce him now to take part in the controversy. He would have spoken sooner had he not been a youth in the midst of aged and presumably wise men. But he reflects, and indeed present events show it, that wisdom is not the prerogative of mere age; it is a gift of God, and therefore he will advance his opinion. It is intolerable to him (v. 19) that a man like Job, who utters such perverse and godless sentiments (34:7), should not be put to silence; and he is conscious of ability (vs. 8, 18) to answer him and all his class. A. B. D.

2. He justified himself rather than God. That is, Job 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 honor than for God’s. H.—The greatness of his sufferings was in some measure the cause of his misconception, by exciting his feelings and preventing him from calmly considering his case. He had also received much provocation from his friends; and from these concurrent excitements he is tempted into harsh assertions, the subsequent endeavor to soften which repeatedly leads him into apparent and indeed real contradictions; such as must needs occur in the thoughts if not in the utterances of all who have been greatly tempted. But he is loud in acknowledging the wisdom of God, and at times allows himself to indulge in cheering hopes for the future. All this much excuses him, but cannot justify him; and it is, therefore, greatly to his praise that when the true state of the case is set before him by Elihu, he remains silent, and ultimately acknowledges his fundamental error of justifying himself rather than God. Kitto.

3. He was angry at the friends because they had not been candid to Job. 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. H.

6. Show you mine opinion, or, to utter what I know in your presence. The tone of the original is not boastful, but confident. Elihu does not speak of his opinion, but of what he knows, an inward conviction which it is his duty to utter. Cook.

7,8. I said, Days should speak. I said, Those who had the experience of many years should be most able to teach wisdom to such as are younger; but I see that all is not in age; there is a Spirit of God which, breathing where it listeth, maketh a difference in men. Bishop H.

8. The verse may be rendered, Truly it is the Spirit in man, and the breath of God, which giveth him (i.e., man collectively) understanding. Elihu doubts not that the inward impulse which moves him to speak comes direct from God. Cook.—This understanding spirit is in every man; it is the light that lighteth every man (John 1:9). It is the inspiration of the Almighty that gives us this understanding spirit; for He is the Father of spirits, and Fountain of understanding. H.

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. 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. To be spirit, or to have a spiritual nature, is to be capable, not of duty only, but of receiving God, of being permeated, filled, ennobled by His Infinite Spirit. Bushnell.

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. 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. 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. It is the duty of the intellect to take its part in direct acts of worship. R. W. Dale.—Men have the faculty, but God gives the light. It is spiritual idolatry to lean to our own understanding. True wisdom is a Divine ray, and an emanation from God. Men never obtain it but in the way of an humble trust. When we

see our insufficiency, and God’s all-sufficiency, then the Lord undertakes for us to direct us and guide us. When men think to relieve their souls by their own thoughts and care, they do but perplex themselves the more. God will be acknowledged—that is, consulted with, in all our undertakings or conflicts, or else we miscarry. T. M.