Deeper Commentary

Job 32:1 So these three men ceased to answer Job- The preceding chapter has been Job's clearing of himself, and has similarities to Babylonian legal documents. An accused person could begin their court case by such a statement of detailed denial. The accusers could respond with silence, in which case they dropped their case; or continue. The friends are reduced to silence after this great clearing of himself. Job's righteousness in a legal sense was unassailable. We may consider that their silence after this speech means that Job has 'won'. After his great clearing speech, the audience is expecting his justification. But then we have the interlude with Elihu, and then God appears Himself- and condemns yet saves Job, justifying him by condemning him, in the spirit of Paul's legal arguments in Rom. 1-8.

Because he was righteous in his own eyes- The contrast is with the fact that God doesn't remove His eyes from the righteous (s.w. Job 36:7).

Job 32:2 Then the wrath of Elihu the son of Barachel, the Buzite, of the family of Ram, was kindled against Job. His wrath was kindled because he justified himself rather than God- The role of Elihu is difficult to perceive. He repeats the arguments of the friends in some detail, summing them up, as it were, in his own words. We must remember that Job is poetry, it is a drama, although that doesn't take away from the existence of a historical Job (see on Job 1:1). In terms of the drama, we have here a series of speeches, full of accusations, followed by Job's rebuttals. For an illiterate audience, or any audience hearing / watching rather than reading the drama, by this point we have all rather forgotten the arguments. So simply in terms of the drama, Elihu could function as an appropriate way of summarizing what has been said so far. And many of his arguments against Job are repeated afterwards by God- so his function is also to introduce us to the revelation of God's own perspective which is coming. Job did indeed justify himself, but he did not completely not justify God; although perhaps the sense is that he focused more upon his own rightness ['justification'] rather than God's. The suffering servant of Isaiah is indeed based upon Job, but at times by way of contrast. By His sufferings, He justified "many" (s.w. Is. 53:11), whereas Job at best only justified himself.   

Elihu is the mediator Job wanted, "according to your wish in God's place" (Job 33:6), but he doesn't take Job's side against God in the way Job hoped. Job's hopes for Elihu were that he would somehow get him out of his issues with God, just as people in a blanket way like to imagine "Jesus is the[ir] answer" without any real introspection. Much of what Elihu says about Job and God is repeated by God in His speeches. Elihu's claim to speak on God's behalf is never challenged by God; when the friends are criticized by God, He has nothing to say against Elihu. We note how often Job interrupts the friends but not Elihu; even when Elihu asks Job to respond (Job 33:5,32,33). At the end of Elihu's speech, there seems a natural, smooth transition into God’s own speech (Job 36:22-41), as if God continues where Elihu stopped. Much of what Elihu says is repeated by God in His speeches, both by explicit quotation and also by using the same broad arguments, e.g. from the natural creation. So taking Elihu seriously means that we are led to a very negative view of Job's behaviour during the sufferings. For that is what Elihu takes issue with. He says that Job has served God for his own profit (Job 34:9). The view of the satan was not far wrong. And Elihu accuses Job of being a blasphemer (Job 34:7), speaking like wicked men (Job 34:36), and a rebel against God (Job 34:37). Comparing this with the prologue, Elihu clearly has in view Job's behaviour during the trials and not before.

The friends claim Job's sufferings are because he had sinned before the trials start. Elihu however takes issue with what Job says during the time of his sufferings. In this context, Elihu speaks about suffering at times being intended to correct man (Job 33:13-30). In Job's case, the correction was not of any moral issue, but of his pride and his wrong view of God. That was why the sufferings continued for so long. Initially there was no "cause" for them; but they continued because Job needed to be brought to repentance for what he had so wrongly said about God after they first happened. The friends had wrongly assumed that his sufferings were retribution for sins he had kept hidden in his previous life. Elihu says that Job's sufferings were to teach him and lead him to repentance for his wrong attitudes that were displayed during the sufferings.

We note that Elihu is related to Buz, the nephew of Abraham: "Abraham learned that Milcah had borne eight children to his brother Nahor: Uz the first-born, Buz his brother" (Gen. 22:20,21). "Elihu" is the only character in the book with a Hebrew name ['He is my God']. His father's name is also Hebrew, Barachel, meaning 'God has blessed'. His ancestor Ram could be the same "Ram" listed as one of David’s ancestors (Ruth 4:19,22; 1 Chron. 2:9-15; Mt. 1:3-6). He is presented, surely, as having solid credentials to speak for the God of Israel. A case can be made that Elihu's section divides into three or four speeches, possibly aimed at Job and the three friends.

Job 32:3 Also his wrath was kindled against his three friends, because they had found no answer, and yet had condemned Job-

Elihu is angry with Job because he has spoken so blasphemously about God, and he is angry with the friends because they have not answered Job's blasphemy. They have just fantasized about Job's possible earlier sinfulness. God takes the same perspective; He is angry because the friends didn't speak what was right about Him.

Job feels God's wrath kindled against him (Job 19:11). The innocent Job  experienced the judgments of God's people, against whom God's wrath was kindled (Dt. 11:17; 2 Kings 23:26). Significantly, we find Elihu's wrath kindled against both Job and the friends (Job 32:2,3), but the wrath of God was kindled only against the friends (Job 42:7). OMIT :Elihu is therefore not fully reflecting God's position about Job. I have repeatedly demonstrated that the innocent Job was suffering the judgment for the sins of God's people. In the end, this came to full term in the salvation of the friends on account of Job's intercession. God's wrath was not personally against Job, it was against the friends. But Job suffered God's wrath against him, because he was to be the saviour of the friends by offering sacrifice for them and praying for them. This looks forward to the work of the Lord Jesus, the suffering servant based upon Job; experiencing the judgment for our sins, and through the representative nature of His sacrifice, being able to save us.

Job 32:4 Now Elihu had waited to speak to Job, because they were elder than he-

I suggested above that Elihu is indeed speaking on God's behalf. Wisdom and truth were thought to reside in older people and in the views of those who had gone before. But that wisdom hasn't answered Job's situation. A totally fresh perspective is needed, and Elihu being so much younger than the others provides that. If indeed "Job" was originally a play, a drama, then we imagine Elihu sitting to one side of the friends and Job all through the dialogues.

OMIT:We are invited to imagine Elihu as being one of the "sons of God" of Job 1:6 who had been party to the discussions of the prologue between God and the satan. His comments, however, repeatedly ignore the parameters set in the prologue. Again as noted on :2, Elihu appears to be a literary device summarizing the arguments so far, although taking the side of the friends against Job; and giving a foretaste of the arguments of God which are about to be revealed.

Job 32:5 When Elihu saw that there was no answer in the mouth of these three men, his wrath was kindled- This phrase "his wrath was kindled" is that used of how God's wrath was kindled against the friends (Job 42:7); but significantly not against Job. Elihu is therefore presented as not completely in step with God and is not totally His representative when he talks about Job. This all adds to the intentional enigma of Elihu; he functions also to elicit our response as the audience to the speeches. We are all beginning to form our opinions of the characters, and then Elihu appears and gives his take, and we raise our eyebrows and wonder whether... he is right or wrong, just as we too struggle to come to a correct and just opinion about what we've just heard. But the book of Job is designed to reveal truth only by repeated reading / hearing, and prayerful reflection. Elihu, I suggest, appears at first blush enigmatic. But on reflection we come to see that he was in fact speaking for God, and therefore the negative things he says about Job have to be taken very seriously. As Job finally took them seriously, and repented.

 
Job 32:6 Elihu the son of Barachel the Buzite answered, I am young, and you are very old; therefore I held back, and didn’t dare show you my opinion- "Very old" may be sarcasm, seeing Job lived 140 years after this (Job 42:16) and his father was still alive (Job 15:10), and the friends appeal to the wisdom of men older than them, in which case we immediately begin to doubt whether Elihu is indeed totally God's representative; this enigma of Elihu is intentional, as explained on Job 32:5. As a Buzite, Elihu was from the same geographical area and the same broad ethnic background as the friends (Gen. 22:1; Jer. 25:23).

Job 32:7 I said, ‘Days should speak, and multitude of years should teach wisdom’- On this point Elihu agrees with Job, that traditional wisdom and religion has failed and was not being taught by the friends (Job 26:3). The old men were not teaching wisdom.

Job 32:8 But there is a spirit in man, and the breath of the Almighty gives them understanding- I suggest the idea is not that every man is inspired, but that just as God breathes the physical breath of life into man, so He can choose to inspire some men; and this is the source of teaching, as we have it today in the inspired writings known as the Bible; rather than through appealing to sages and tradition, as the friends were doing. But see on Job 33:4. GNB "But it is the spirit of Almighty God that comes to us and gives us wisdom". This could be a seen as a rejoinder to Job's claim in Job 28 that wisdom is not accessible to man, with the implication that man is left adrift in the cosmos with no moral compass apart from to try to obey God.

 
Job 32:9 It is not the great who are wise, nor the aged who understand justice- This idea that age and position were effectively the basis for inspired wisdom was well entrenched. Even the disciples marvelled that the great men of Jewish society would not be saved (Mt. 19:23-25). The dialogues have been based around the assumption that traditional wisdom must be right, and the older a person is and the older the tradition, the more likely they are to be correct. Elihu turns this on its head by saying that he is younger than all of them. His words can read arrogantly, but if indeed he was inspired of God in order to overthrow the traditional idea of received wisdom, then his words make perfect sense and need not be read as arrogance.

Job 32:10 Therefore I said, ‘Listen to me; I also will show my opinion’- By implication, Elihu considers himself to be inspired by God (see on :8). "Opinion" really means "knowledge", and the Hebrew word is used only by Elihu (Job 32:6,10,17). He claims his knowledge comes from "afar", from God (Job 36:3), but he also recognizes that God alone has totality of "knowledge" (Job 37:16). So we are again left with Elihu as an enigma, not totally reflecting God's knowledge, although considering that his view is in line with God's. This enigma of Elihu is purposeful; as explained on Job 32:5, his function is to elicit our opinions; we too who like to think our view is in line with God's, and yet admitting we lack His total knowledge.

 
Job 32:11 Behold, I waited for your words, and I listened for your reasoning, while you searched out what to say- The friends claimed they had "searched out" their response (s.w. Job 5:27). One theme of the book is that God alone searches man and searches out final truth in judgment (Job 28:3,27). The exiles were comforted that no matter how they were judged by human judgment, God alone searches out man (Ps. 139:1,23; Jer. 17:10). The exiles were to search themselves not others (Lam. 3:40 s.w.). God's final appearance is evidence enough that He alone can search out His own creation, including humans. OMIT:Elihu yet again is presented as not completely in line with God's position, for by implication he considers he can search out this matter where the friends have failed to.

Job 32:12 Yes, I gave you my full attention, but there was no one who convinced Job, or who answered his words, among you- As often noted on expounding the speeches, the friends tend not to engage with Job's actual words but rather attack their straw man image of him which they have created. They tend to respond to Job in terms of vague generalities, whereas Job more specifically engages with their actual words. The whole dialogue, on one level, is an example of human dialogue and personal relationship gone wrong. We are left with the impression that Job needs to be convicted, but he hasn't been convicted by the friends. Their legal case has failed. And this sets the scene for God's final conviction of Job.

"Convinced" is the same word translated "umpire" when Job fantasizes about having an "umpire between us, that might lay his hand on us both" (Job 9:33). Elihu is clearly aware of this, and understands himself as the mediator figure that Job had fantasized about having. So we can render "There is no arbiter for Job, none among you to answer his charges". And therefore, Elihu was stepping up as that umpire figure.

Job 32:13 Beware lest you say, ‘We have found wisdom, God may refute him, not man’- GNB "How can you claim you have discovered wisdom? God must answer Job, for you have failed". Their failure was in that they had not convicted Job is sin. Only God can do that, and indeed that is what happens at the end. This is one of those points at which the audience has to nod in agreement with Elihu. Or we can read with LXX "lest ye should say, We have found that we have added wisdom to the Lord". They were acting as greater than God, assuming their wisdom was above His.

Job 32:14 for he has not directed his words against me; neither will I answer him with your speeches- The idea may be that even if Job had been answering Elihu, he wouldn't have spoken as they had.

Job 32:15 They were amazed. They answered no more. They didn’t have a word to say- It could be that this is the narrator's description of how the friends were unable to answer Elihu. Or it could be that this is Elihu commenting upon how they had been closed down by Job's reasoning, looking forward to how at the end, men feared to ask the Lord any more questions or seek to answer Him back. Mt. 22:46 appears to allude here, confirming Job as a type of the Lord Jesus: "No man was able to answer Him a word, neither dared any man from that day onwards ask Him any more questions". Some see in :15,16 the implication that Elihu actually wrote the book of Job. He was therefore the fulfilment of Job's desire that someone would sympathetically write his grief and record his mental agonies (Job 19:23).

Job 32:16 Shall I wait, because they don’t speak, because they stand still, and answer no more?- The drama in performance likely included a significant silence after Job finishes his last speech, and the silence of the friends leads us to wonder whether for all Job's self righteousness in his final speech, they have been trounced. But then Elihu speaks.

 
Job 32:17 I also will answer my part, and I also will show my opinion- Whether Elihu is directly from God or not is an open question. It is purposefully ambiguous- initially. But I suggest that repeated reflection leaves us with no option to accept that he is speaking for God. The audience 'hear' the lengthy silence after Job finishes, and the friends are unable to continue arguing with him. His righteousness appears genuine, if arrogantly presented and recounted. And we are left to ponder how much of what he says is just the views of an angry young man, and how much is really of God. The enigma of Elihu is therefore to give us the audience a chance to ponder whether we accept or reject Job's argument and legal case. We wonder whether Elihu speaks for us, in places, or completely, or not at all.

Job 32:18 For I am full of words. The spirit within me constrains me- Elihu sounds exactly like Zophar, who says the same (Job 20:2,3) as well as Job, who likewise feels he just has to speak (Job 13:13,19). The book ends with Job, Elihu and the friends all in humbled silence. We feel that our earlier impression has been confirmed- that it would've been better had they remained in silence as they were at the start of the drama. The book opens and closes with Job and the friends sitting in silence. The implication is that all the words were inappropriate. And this impression initially applies to Elihu too. Again we are purposefully presented with Elihu as an enigmatic figure.

 

Job 32:19 Behold, my breast is as wine which has no vent; like new wineskins it is ready to burst- Elihu's description of being filled with the Spirit and Word of God is similar to that of Jeremiah, who spoke of "a burning fire shut up in my bones, and I am weary with forbearing, and I can’t" (Jer. 20:9). This connection leads us away from any sense that Elihu is just a pompous windbag. He acts and speaks as a young man would who has just been inspired by God. But we could argue that the implication is that he has old wine in new wineskins, and this is an image used negatively by the Lord (Mt. 9:17). This would place Elihu in a somewhat negative light. He could also be read as a literary device to summarize the friends' arguments, reminding us of Job's weaker moments in his self-righteousness, and giving a foretaste of God's argument which is yet to come.

Job 32:20 I will speak, that I may be refreshed. I will open my lips and answer- Job opened his mouth at the beginning (Job 3:1), just as Elihu now does, and we have the impression that he would have been better to be as the Lord Jesus, and remain silent through His trials. OMIT:Elihu spoke for his own benefit- "that I may be refreshed". And this was what they all did.

Job 32:21 Please don’t let me respect any man’s person, neither will I give flattering titles to any man- As noted on :9, Elihu is correct in realizing that titles and human respect are no basis for truth. 'To give flattering titles' is s.w. "surname himself" in Is. 44:5, where the exiles are to surname themselves by Yahweh and not by man.

Job 32:22 For I don’t know how to give flattering titles; or else my Maker would soon take me away- This is confirming Job's similar condemnation of flattery in Job 17:5. If we accept God is our maker, then other human beings are likewise made by Him. This means we should respect them, but not make them more than human by giving them flattering titles.