Verse-by-Verse Bible Commentary
Job 32:1

Clarke's Commentary

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 Job 32:1. 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 בעיניו beeinaiv, in His eyes, has בעיניהם 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: Δια τον αυτον δικαιον φαινεσθαι επ' αυτων; Because he appeared more righteous than themselves.

Bridgeway Bible Commentary

32:1-37:24

ELIHU’S ARGUMENTS

Reasons why Elihu must speak (32:1-22)

People came for various reasons to see Job. Many were merely curious, wanting to see the former leading judge, honoured citizen and respected wise man who was now decaying at the city garbage dump. Some came to mock, others to listen to the debate. Among this latter group was an intelligent young man named Elihu.
As the debate progressed, Elihu grew restless and angry. He was angry at Job for his self-righteous assertions, and angry at the three friends for their failure to prove Job wrong. He had remained silent while the more learned men spoke, but now that he sees they are either unable or unwilling to argue with Job further, he can keep quiet no longer (32:1-5).
Elihu begins by explaining that he has kept quiet out of respect for the three older men; but, he quickly adds, God gives wisdom to young men as well (6-10). He then rebukes the three friends. He has listened carefully to their speeches and has found that none has answered Job satisfactorily. He warns them against giving up the debate by thinking that further argument with Job is useless. If they think that only God can answer Job, then Elihu is the one through whom God will speak! But Elihu will answer Job with arguments different from theirs (11-14).
The friends may have been silenced, but Elihu feels that he must speak. He is like a wine bottle ready to burst (15-20). He will speak fairly and flatter no one (21-22).

Coffman's Commentaries on the Bible

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” “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 (1 Chronicles 27:8).”The Anchor Bible (Garden City, New York: Doubleday and Company, 1982), Job, p. 212, “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.”The Pulpit Commentary, op. cit., p. 521. David’s brother was named Eliab, a variant of the name Elihu.

“They had found no answer, and yet had condemned Job” Andersen gave the meaning here as, “They didn’t find an answer, and they didn’t prove Job wrong.”Tyndale Old Testament Commentaries, Vol. 13, p. 246, The same scholar also referred to Elihu’s speech here as, “quite a rigmarole.”Ibid. 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.

Barnes' Notes on the Whole Bible

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.

Smith's Bible Commentary

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. "

Dr. Constable's Expository Notes

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 (Genesis 22:20-21), and Elihu was a Buzite (cf. Jeremiah 25:23). A man named Ram (Job 32:2) was an ancestor of David (Ruth 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.]

Gill's Exposition of 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 Isaiah 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 כי חוא צדיק "quod ille (tantum) justus in oculis suis", Schmidt.

Henry's Complete Commentary on the Bible

      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, Job 32:1; Job 32:1. 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, Proverbs 26:12. 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 (Genesis 22:21), and of the kindred of Ram, that is, Aram (so some), whence the Syrians or Aramites descended and were denominated, Genesis 22:21. 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 (Job 32:2; Job 32:2): 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 (Job 32:3; Job 32:3): 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.