A verse by verse commentary on Job 32 dealing with THE FIRST OF ELIHU'S SIX-CHAPTER SPEECH,

1. JOB 32 COMME TARY
EDITED BY GLE PEASE
Elihu
1 So these three men stopped answering Job,
because he was righteous in his own eyes.
BAR ES, "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.
CLARKE, "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

2. 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: ∆ια τον αυτον δικαιον
φαινεσθαι επ’ αυτων; Because he appeared more righteous than themselves.
GILL, "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.
HE RY, "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. 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

3. are fools of their own making, Pro_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 (Gen_22:21), and of the kindred of Ram, that is, Aram (so
some), whence the Syrians or Aramites descended and were denominated, Gen_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.
JAMISO ,"Job 32:1-37:24. Speech of Elihu.
Prose (poetry begins with “I am young”).
because, etc. — and because they could not prove to him that he was unrighteous.
K&D 1-3, "The name of the speaker is ‫יהוּא‬ ִ‫ל‬ ֱ‫א‬ (with Mahpach), son of ‫ל‬ ֵ‫א‬ ְ‫כ‬ ַ‫ר‬ ָ (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). Bârach'el (for which the mode of writing ‫ל‬ ֵ‫א‬ ְ‫כ‬ ַ‫ר‬ ַ 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 (ichbâr),
and also into the form of modal (inshâ); the name ‫ֽרכאל‬ ָ‫ב‬ is in this respect distinguished
from the specifically Israelitish name ‫ה‬ָ‫י‬ ְ‫כ‬ ֶ‫ר‬ ֶ (Jehovah blesseth). The accompanying
national name defines the scene; for on the one side ‫וּז‬ and ‫,עוּץ‬ 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,
‫וּז‬ , Jer_25:23, appears as an Arab race, belonging to the ‫ה‬ፎ ֵ‫פ‬ ‫י‬ ֵ‫צוּצ‬ ְ‫ק‬ (comp. Jer_9:25; Jer_
49:32), i.e., to the Arabs proper, who cut the hair of their heads short all round
(περιτρόχαλα, Herodotus iii. 8), because wearing it long was accounted as disgraceful
(vid., Tebrâzi in the Hamâsa, p. 459, l. 10ff.). Within the Buzite race, Elihu sprang from
the family of ‫ם‬ ָ‫.ר‬ Since ‫רם‬ is the name of the family, not the race, it cannot be equivalent
to ‫ם‬ ָ‫ר‬ ֲ‫א‬ (like ‫ים‬ ִ ַ‫,ר‬ 2Ch_22:5, = ‫,)ארמים‬ 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 ᅠλιοሞν τᆵν Βαραξηιᆱλ τᆵν Ζωβίτην (from ‫צובה‬ ‫.)ארם‬ 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

4. 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 (‫ת‬ ַ‫ב‬ ָ‫שׁ‬ of persons, in distinction from ‫,חדל‬ 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 ‫ים‬ ִ‫ּה‬‫ל‬ ֱ‫ֽא‬ ֵ‫,מ‬ 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 ‫,רשׁע‬ 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,
‫ּוב‬ ִ‫ת־א‬ ֶ‫א‬ ‫יעוּ‬ ִ‫שׁ‬ ְ‫ר‬ַ ַ‫ו‬ is one of the eighteen ‫סופרים‬ ‫תקוני‬ (correctiones scribarum), since it should
be ‫את־האלהים‬ ‫.וירשׁיעו‬ But it is not the friends who have been guilty of this sin of ַ‫יע‬ ִ‫שׁ‬ ְ‫ר‬ ַ‫ה‬
against God, but Job, Job_40:8, to whom Elihu opposes the sentence ‫לא־ירשׁיע‬ ‫,אל‬ Job_
34:12. Our judgment of another such tiqqûn, 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.
BE SO , "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.
COFFMA , "ELIHU'S LO G 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,"[1] "a later addition,"[2] and as, "speeches (of Elihu) that violently disturb
the original structure of the book."[3] This writer is unwilling to accept such
interpretations of the speeches of Elihu (Job 32-37) for the following reasons.

5. (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."[4] 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."[5]
(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."[6]
(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."[7]
Job 32:1-5
THE I TRODUCTIO (I 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. ow 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 (1 Chronicles 27:8)."[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."[9] 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."[10] The same scholar also referred to Elihu's speech here as, "quite a
rigmarole."[11] 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

6. speaking directly to Job, there is no way to avoid the application of his words to the
speech of Elihu.
COKE, "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.
ELLICOTT, "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
ahor, Abraham’s brother (Genesis 22:21); and a city of the like name is mentioned
in Jeremiah 25:23. There is a Ram mentioned in Ruth 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 Job’s 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.
PULPIT, "A new personage is now introduced upon the scene, who speaks in a new
style and almost in a new language. o 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,

7. 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 versions—the 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 unconvinced—he remained righteous in his own eyes.
EBC, "POST-EXILIC WISDOM
Job 32:1-22; Job 33:1-33; Job 34:1-37
A PERSO AGE 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 Job’s 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

8. 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 man’s 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.
or could he without disrespect have inserted the criticism after the words of

9. 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 Job’s integrity and the Almighty’s 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
Elihu’s 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.
ot the great in years are wise,
or do the aged understand what is right.

10. Therefore I say: Hearken to me;
I also will show my opinion.
These verses are a defence of the new writer’s 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 Job’s 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. either 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."

11. Here again the second writer’s self defence colours the words put into Elihu’s
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 Job’s
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 Job’s 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,
either 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
Job’s spirit. o 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. o man possessed or could acquire such integrity. And all the attempts
of the earlier dramatist to put arguments and defences into his hero’s 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:

12. 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. o 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 Job’s
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?

13. 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.
ow 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
writer’s 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 God’s 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

14. says, "The priest’s 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 Elihu’s 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 Job’s 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 man’s duty. But would submission and the forgiveness of God bring
results in the physical sphere, health, renewed youth and felicity? o invariable
nexus of cause and effect can be established here from experience of the dealings of
God with men. Elihu’s 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.

15. 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 Job’s 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 Job’s 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. o 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

16. precision? In Job 9:22 these words are put into Job’s 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 one’s 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, God’s 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.

17. "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.
or 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. o
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

18. 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 writer’s 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 God’s 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 God’s 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

19. 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.
PARKER, "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,

20. 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.
GUZIK 1-5, "A. Why Elihu spoke.
1. (Job 32:1-5) Elihu and his dissatisfaction with the answers of Job’s friends.
So these three men ceased answering Job, because he was righteous in his own eyes.

21. Then the wrath of Elihu, the son of Barachel the Buzite, of the family of Ram, was
aroused against Job; his wrath was aroused because he justified himself rather than
God. Also against his three friends his wrath was aroused, because they had found
no answer, and yet had condemned Job. ow because they were years older than he,
Elihu had waited to speak to Job. When Elihu saw that there was no answer in the
mouth of these three men, his wrath was aroused.
a. So these three men ceased answering Job, because he was righteous in his own
eyes: At the end of Job’s persuasive arguments in Job 28:1-28; Job 29:1-25; Job
30:1-31, his friends had nothing more to say. They still thought that Job was
completely wrong, but they felt he was so confirmed in his own opinions (he was
righteous in his own eyes) that it was useless to keep the discussion going.
b. Elihu, the son of Barachel the Buzite, of the family of Ram: This is the first
mention of Elihu in the Book of Job. Because he appears, dominates all discussion
and then abruptly leaves, some modern commentators think that he wasn’t really
part of the story and was inserted into the account later by the author or another
editor.
i. Of all the friends of Job, Elihu is the only one with a genealogy. “The Buzite he is
called, either from his progenitor Buz, the son of ahor, who was the brother of
Abraham, and had by Milchah, Huz, his firstborn (of whom some think Job came),
and Buz, his brother, Genesis 22:21; or else from his country, the city of Buz, a city
of Idumea, Jeremiah 25:23.” (Trapp)
ii. The mention of his genealogy is important, because it reminds us that Elihu was
not a fictional character. “His pedigree is this particularly described, partly for his
honour . . . and principally to evidence the truth of this history, which otherwise
might seem to be but a poetical fiction.” (Poole)
iii. “Elihu, he is called. The name is Hebrew, and its signification, My-God-is-He, is
as clearing Hebrew as that of some names of analogous meaning in our own
language.” (Bradley)
iv. Elihu appears and disappears suddenly; yet he does belong and his speech makes
sense here. “It is true Elihu is not mentioned elsewhere in the book; so his speeches
could be left out. But at the beginning (Job 32:1-22) and at the end (Job 37:1-24),
they are skillfully woven into the fabric of the book and made to play a legitimate
role.” (Smick)
v. “But still the question has been asked, Who was Elihu? I answer, He was ‘the son
of Barachel the Buzite, of the kindred of Ram:’ this is all we know of him. But this
Scriptural answer will not satisfy those who are determined to find out mysteries
where there are none. Some make him a descendant of Judah; Jerome, Bede,
Lyranus, and some of the rabbis, make him Balaam the son of Beor, the magician;
Bishop Warburton makes him Ezra the scribe; and Dr. Hodges makes him the
second person in the glorious Trinity, the Lord Jesus Christ, and supposes that the

22. chief scope of this part of the book was to convict Job of self-righteousness, and to
show the necessity of the doctrine of justification by faith! When these points are
proved, they should be credited.” (Clarke)
c. Then the wrath of Elihu . . . was aroused against Job: Apparently, Elihu was a
silent listener at the whole dialogue up this point. He was angry against Job because
he felt that Job justified himself rather than God. Elihu felt that Job was more
concerned about being right himself than God being right.
i. We can easily understand how Elihu felt this. Yet what he did not understand was
the both Job and God were right. The friends had forced themselves and Job into a
false dilemma: either Job is right or God is right. They could not see or understand
how both were right.
ii. “Four times in the Hebrew text we are told that he was angry. First at Job for
justifying himself rather than God and then at the friends because of their inability
to refute Job.” (Smick)
iv. Elihu will speak, but Job will not answer him. “Job never had opportunity to
answer him. God took no notice of him except to interrupt him.” (Morgan)
d. Also against his three friends his wrath was aroused: Elihu was also angry at
Eliphaz, Bildad, and Zophar because they had failed to solve the controversy (they
had found no answer) while at the same time they were (in Elihu’s opinion) too
harsh against Job (and yet had condemned Job).
i. “Elihu is angry with everybody. He is the classic angry young man, and from the
outset what we need to notice about this kind of anger is that it puts him in a class
by himself. The fact that he is angry at both sides of the debate separates him from
Job, on the one hand, but also from the other three friends.” (Mason)
e. Because they were years older than he, Elihu had waited to speak to Job: Out of
respect for those older than he, Elihu held back for as long as he felt he could. ow,
he felt that he simply had to speak.
i. “How young he was, or how old they were, we cannot tell; but there was no doubt
a great disparity in their ages.” (Clarke)
BI 1-7, "Then was kindled the wrath of Elihu.
Analysis of Elihu’s 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

23. 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 man’s 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

24. on the subject of Divine discipline, it is needless to go in justifying Elihu’s 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 God’s
dealings, and against the complaints set up by Job assailing the inequality of
providence. He shows that there is an end and object in God’s 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 God’s 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 Job’s 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

25. 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 God’s visitations and dealings with
men. Elihu expresses some surprise that Job should not more easily and heartily
acquiesce in the justice of God’s dealings, without inquiring and searching so deeply
into God’s actions and motives. So many men of Elihu’s 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 God’s 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. Elihu’s 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 men’s opinions.”
II. Indignation towards men springing from zeal to God. “Then was kindled the wrath of

26. 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.)
2 But Elihu son of Barakel the Buzite, of the
family of Ram, became very angry with Job for
justifying himself rather than God.
BAR ES, "Then was kindled the wrath - Wrath or anger is commonly
represented as kindled, or as burning.
Of Elihu - The name Elihu (‫אליהוא‬ 'ĕlıyhû') means, “God is he;” or, since the word He
(‫הוא‬ hû') is often used by way of eminence to denote the true God or Yahweh, the name is
equivalent to saying, “God is my God,” or “my God is Yahweh.” On what account this

27. name was given to him, is now unknown. The names which were anciently given,
however, were commonly significant, and it was not unusual to incorporate the name of
God in those given to human beings. See the notes at Isa_1:1. This name was probably
given as an expression of piety on the part of his parents.
The son of Barachel - The name Barachel ‫ברכאל‬ bârak'êl means “God blesses,” and
was also probably given as expressive of the piety of his parents, and as furnishing in the
name itself a valuable motto which the child would remember. Nothing more is known
of him than the name; and the only propriety of remarking on the philology of the names
arises from the fact that they seem to indicate the existence of piety, or of the knowledge
of God, on the part of the ancestors of Elihu.
The Buzite - Buz was the second son of Nahor, the brother of Abraham, Gen_22:20-
21. A city of the name Buz is mentioned in Jer_25:23, in connection with Dedan and
Tema, cities of Arabia, and it is probable that Barachel, the father of Elihu, was of that
city. If this name was given to the place after the son of Nahor, it will follow that Elihu,
and consequently Job, must have lived after the time of Abraham.
Of the kindred of Ram - Of Ram nothing is certainly known. The Chaldee renders
this ‫גניסת‬ ‫מן‬ ‫,אברחם‬ of the race of Abraham. Some have supposed that the Ram mentioned
here is the same as the ancestor of David mentioned in Rth_4:19, and in the genealogical
table in Mat_1:3-4, under the name of Aram. Others suppose that he was of the family of
Nahor, and that the name is the same as ‫ארם‬ 'ărâm mentioned in Gen_22:21. Thus, by
aphaeresis the Syrians are called ‫רמים‬ rammıym, 2Ch_22:5, instead of ‫ארמים‬ 'ărammıym,
as they are usually denominated; compare 2Ki_8:29. But nothing certain is known of
him who is mentioned here. It is worthy of observation that the author of the book of
Job has given the genealogy of Elihu with much greater particularity than he has that of
either Job or his three friends. Indeed, he has not attempted to trace their genealogy at
all. Of Job he does not even mention the name of his father; of his three friends he
mentions merely the place where they dwelt. Rosenmuller infers, from this
circumstance, that Elihu is himself the author of the book, since, says he, it is the custom
of the Turks and Persians, in their poems, to weave in, near the end of the poem, the
name of the author in an artificial manner. The same view is taken by Lightfoot,
Chronica temporum et ord. Text. V. T. A circumstance of this kind, however, is too slight
an argument to determine the question of the authorship of the book. It may have been
that Elihu was less known than either of the other speakers, and hence, there was a
propriety in mentioning more particularly his family. Indeed, this fact is morally certain,
for he is not mentioned, as the others are, as the “friend” of Job.
Because he justified himself - Margin, his soul. So the Hebrew; the word ‫נפשׁ‬
nephesh, soul, being often used to denote oneself.
Rather than God - Prof. Lee renders this, “justified himself with God;” and so also
Umbreit, Good, and some others. And so the Vulgate renders it: - coram Deo. The
Septuagint renders it, ᅚναντίον κυρίου enantion kuriou - against the Lord; that is, rather
than the Lord. The proper translation of the Hebrew (‫מאלהים‬ mē'ĕlôhıym) is undoubtedly
more than God: and this was doubtless the idea which Elihu intended to convey. He
understood Job as vindicating himself rather than God; as being more willing that
aspersions should be cast on the character and government of God, than to confess his
own sin.

28. CLARKE, "Then was kindled the wrath - This means no more than that Elihu
was greatly excited, and felt a strong and zealous desire to vindicate the justice and
providence of God, against the aspersions of Job and his friends.
Elihu the son of Barachel the Buzite - Buz was the second son of Nahor, the
brother of Abram, Gen_22:21.
Of the kindred of Ram - Kemuel was the third son of Nahor; and is called in
Genesis (see above) the father of Aram, which is the same as Ram. A city of the name of
Buz is found in Jer_25:23, which probably had its name from this family; and, as it is
mentioned with Dedan and Tema, we know it must have been a city in Idumea, as the
others were in that district. Instead of the kindred of Ram, the Chaldee has of the
kindred of Abraham. But still the question has been asked, Who was Elihu? I answer, He
was “the son of Barachel the Buzite, of the kindred of Ram:” this is all we know of him.
But this Scriptural answer will not satisfy those who are determined to find out
mysteries where there are none. Some make him a descendant of Judah; St. Jerome,
Bede, Lyranus, and some of the rabbins, make him Balaam the son of Beor, the
magician; Bishop Warburton makes him Ezra the scribe; and Dr. Hodges makes him the
second person in the glorious Trinity, the Lord Jesus Christ, and supposes that the chief
scope of this part of the book was to convict Job of self-righteousness, and to show the
necessity of the doctrine of justification by faith! When these points are proved, they
should be credited.
Because he justified himself rather than God - Literally, he justified his soul,
‫נפשו‬ naphhso, before God. He defended, not only the whole of his conduct, but also his
motives, thoughts, etc.
GILL, "Then was kindled the wrath of Elihu the son of Barachel the
Buzite,.... Both against Job and his three friends, for reasons after given; who this
person was is not easy to say; they debase him too much, who make him to be Balaam
the soothsayer, according to the tradition of the Jews (g); for neither the time he lived in,
nor his character, will agree with him; this man living before the times of Balaam; and
being also a holy good man, which all his discourses show: and they too much exalt him
who make him to be Christ; for though some phrases, being strained, may seem to agree
with him, and some things in the signification of his name, and the names of his
ancestors, may be thought to answer to him; Elihu signifying, "my God is he"; the son of
Barachel, "the son of the blessed God"; of the kindred of Ram, of the high and holy line;
the Buzite, one "despised" and reproached; yet there are other things that cannot be said
of him, as particularly in Job_32:22; besides, the Messiah seems to be spoken of by him
as another person, Job_33:23; it is very probable that he was one of Job's relations that
was come to visit him in his melancholy circumstances, had been a bystander, and an
hearer of the whole dispute between Job and his friends, with the management of which
he was not a little displeased; he is described by his descent, when Job's other three
friends are not, because he was a young man, and not known as they were: and this
serves to show the truth of this history, that it is not a mere apologue, or moral fable, but
a real fact; though who his father Barachel the Buzite was cannot easily be determined; it
is probable he was a descendant of Buz, the son of Nahor, Abraham's brother, Gen_
22:20; of this opinion are Aben Ezra and Ben Gersom; unless it can be thought he was so
called from the city Buz, of which he might be an inhabitant, mentioned along with

29. Dedan and Tema, Jer_25:23, places in Edom or Idumea, where or near to which Job
lived:
of the kindred of Ram; according to the Targum, of the kindred of Abraham, in which
it is followed by other Jewish writers (h); and some even take him to be Isaac, the son of
Abraham (i); Aben Ezra thinks he is the same with Ram the father of Amminadab, Rth_
4:19; but he is abundantly too late for this man to be of his kindred; others take him to
be the same with Aram, the son of Kemuel, a brother of Buz, Gen_22:21; these names
being used for one another, either by adding or removing a letter; see Mat_1:3;
compared with Rth_4:19;
against Job was his wrath kindled, because he justified himself rather than
God; not that he made himself more just than God, he could never think or say so, see
Job_4:17; nor that he was just before him or by him; for he was so in an evangelic,
though not in a legal sense; and Elihu would not have been displeased with him for
asserting that; he did not deny that Job was a righteous man in the sight of God; nor that
he was righteous, and in the right in the sight of God, with respect to the controversy
between him and his friends; nor did he blame him for justifying himself from their
charges; but that he justified himself "more" than God; so the Jewish writers (k)
generally render it: he spent more time, and insisted longer on his own justification than
upon the justification of God in the dealings of his providence with him; he was more
careful of his own character and reputation than he was of the honour of God, and the
glory of his justice; he said more for himself than he did for God; and this displeased
Elihu; it gave this good man some concern, that, though Job did not directly charge God
with unrighteousness in his dealings with him, yet by consequence; and he expressed
himself in such language that would bear such a construction, whether it was his real
sense or not; and to hear him complain so heavily of God, and at the same time enlarge
so much on his own innocence, and to importune in so bold and daring a manner to have
a hearing of his cause; these things being observed by Elihu, raised his choler and
indignation.
HE RY 2-3, "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): 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): They had found no answer, and yet had condemned Job. They

30. 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.
JAMISO ,"Elihu — meaning “God is Jehovah.” In his name and character as
messenger between God and Job, he foreshadows Jesus Christ (Job_33:23-26).
Barachel — meaning “God blesses.” Both names indicate the piety of the family and
their separation from idolaters.
Buzite — Buz was son of Nahor, brother of Abraham. Hence was named a region in
Arabia-Deserta (Jer_25:23).
Ram — Aram, nephew of Buz. Job was probably of an older generation than Elihu.
However, the identity of names does not necessarily prove the identity of persons. The
particularity with which Elihu’s descent is given, as contrasted with the others, led
Lightfoot to infer Elihu was the author of the book. But the reason for particularity was,
probably, that Elihu was less known than the three called “friends” of Job; and that it
was right for the poet to mark especially him who was mainly to solve the problem of the
book.
rather than God — that is, was more eager to vindicate himself than God. In Job_
4:17, Job denies that man can be more just than God. Umbreit translates, “Before (in
the presence of) God.”
BE SO , "Job 32:2-4. Then was kindled the wrath of Elihu — Elihu, a new
personage, here makes his appearance. Attentive, all the while, to the debate
between Job and his friends, he utters not a word till both sides have done speaking;
and then shows, that a stander-by may sometimes see further into a dispute than
they who are eagerly engaged therein, and who, by having their passions raised to
an undue height, are very apt to carry things to an extreme. The son of Barachel the
Buzite — Of the posterity of Buz, ahor’s son, Genesis 22:21; of the kindred of Ram
— Or, Aram; for the names Ram and Aram are used promiscuously in the Hebrew,
as the learned reader may see, by comparing 2 Kings 8:28, and 2 Chronicles 22:5.
The land of Buz was doubtless somewhere in the neighbourhood of Job, as the
posterity of ahor settled in this country. His pedigree is thus particularly
described, partly for his honour, as being both a wise and a good man, and
principally to evidence the truth of this history. Because he (Job) justified himself
rather than God — He justified himself not without reflection upon God, as dealing
severely with him. He took more care to maintain his own innocence than God’s
glory. The word Elihu signifies, My God is he. They had all tried in vain to convince
Job, but My God is he, who both can and will convince him. Elihu was not a little
provoked at the behaviour of Job for attempting so to vindicate himself as to leave

31. an imputation of injustice on God’s providence. Also against his three friends was
his wrath kindled — For charging Job with such atrocious crimes, and falling so
miserably short, when they should have come to the proof, as not to be able to
convict him of one of them. ow Elihu had waited — With patience and
expectation, as the word ‫,חכה‬ chiccha, here used, means; till Job had spoken — And
his three friends; because they were elder than he — Old age in those days was so
highly honoured, that a young man scarcely dared to open his mouth before his
elders. Elihu therefore begins with a very modest apology for his engaging in the
dispute at all, drawn from his youth. He tells them he had waited a long while to
hear what they would offer; but, finding they did not design to reply, he desired
their leave to speak his opinion; a liberty, however, which he would not indulge
himself in, if they were willing to make an answer, or could any way convict Job of
what they had laid to his charge. He intimates that his intention was to attack him in
a quite different manner from what they had done, for which reason he should not
think himself at all obliged to answer the same arguments he had urged against
them. But, at the same time, he declares it was not his intention to speak partially in
his favour, since the acceptance of persons was a crime which he was sensible would
be severely punished by the Almighty.
COKE, "Job 32:2. Elihu, the son of Barachel, &c.— Elihu, a new personage, here
makes his appearance. Attentive all the time to the debate between Job and his
friends, he utters not a word till both sides have done speaking; and then shews, that
a stander-by, though of less abilities and penetration, may sometimes see farther
into a dispute than those who are eagerly engaged therein; and who, by having their
passions raised to an undue height, are very apt to carry things to an extreme. This
useful moral presents itself to us, in the strongest light, from the description here
given of Elihu, a young man, of little knowledge and experience in comparison of the
other speakers, who were famous for wisdom, and venerable for their years. Elihu is
said to be the son of Barachel the Buzite, but of the family of Ram: he also was
descended from ahor, (see the note on chap. Job 2:11.) and, taking up his
habitation in the country of the Buzites, had thence his denomination; but he is very
carefully distinguished by the author from the posterity of Buz; being described as a
descendant from Ram, or Aram, who was the grandson of ahor, by his son
Kemuel. The land of Buz was, doubtless, somewhere in the neighbourhood of Job,
as the posterity of ahor settled in this country. It is mentioned in Jeremiah 25:23
and joined with Dedan and Temah; and therefore, like them, was most probably a
city of Edom. Elihu was provoked at the behaviour of Job, as well as that of the
three friends: at Job, for attempting so to vindicate himself, as to leave an
imputation of injustice on God's providence; at the three friends, for charging Job
with such atrocious crimes, and falling so miserably short when they should have
come to the proof, as not to be able to convict him of one of them. Elihu therefore,
having waited awhile for the reply of the friends, and finding that they had no
intention of making any, begins with a modest apology, drawn from his youth, for
his engaging in the dispute at all;—for old age in those days was so highly honoured,
that a young man scarcely dared to open his mouth before his elders: Job 32:6-10.
He tells them, that he has waited a long time to hear what they would offer; but,

32. finding that they do not design to reply, he desires their leave to speak his opinion; a
liberty, however, in which he would not indulge himself if they were willing to make
answer, or could any way convict Job of what they had laid to his charge: he adds,
that his intention was, to attack him in a manner quite different from what they had
done; for which reason he should not think himself at all obliged to answer the
arguments that he had urged against them: Job 32:11-14. But at the same time he
declares that it was not his intention to speak partially in his favour; since the
acceptance of persons was a crime which, he was sensible, would be severely
punished by the Almighty: Job 32:21-22. He therefore addresses Job, and gives him
to understand, that the manner in which he had urged his defence, and the
representation that he had made of the treatment which he had received at the
hands of the Almighty, were very unbecoming: chap. Job 33:1-9. He had
represented himself as perfectly innocent, and God as inflicting punishment upon
him without a cause; but he ought to consider that he was a man, and consequently
liable to many infirmities, and therefore should readily acknowledge the justice of
God's providence, Job 33:9-13. That God had, by revelation, declared the manner of
behaviour which was acceptable to him; which was, to put away the evil of his
doings, and to cast off all pride; hinting, that this last was, at the bottom, the real
motive to his stubborn behaviour: Job 33:14-19. That, if he would conform himself
to this rule, he might expect, though he was even at death's door, that God would
restore him to his health and vigour; more especially if he had a prophet near him
(intimating that he himself was such a one) who would represent his past
righteousness in his behalf before God; in which case, he would have an opportunity
in the face of all his people: Job 33:20-22. This, however, must be attended with a
confession of his faults, a public acknowledgement of God's justice, and a sincere
purpose of amendment. If he had any objection to make to this, he desires him to
make it; if not, to have patience with him, while he shewed him the course which, he
was persuaded, it was his wisest method to pursue, Job 33:29 to the end. See Peters
and Heath. But we shall not be just to the argument, if we omit to mention here, that
Dr. Hodges, in a work intitled Elihu, has advanced a very peculiar opinion
respecting that personage, and with regard to the principal scope and design of the
Book of Job. He supposes Elihu to have been no other than the second person in the
Divine Trinity, the Son of the blessed God, who assumes the office of mediator, and
speaks the same language with Jehovah: see the 38th and following chapters. And
he conceives, that the chief scope of the book, and the principal intention of Elihu,
was, to convict Job of self-righteousness; and to instruct him, and all mankind, in
the great doctrine of justification by faith: see Romans 3:21; Romans 3:31. We refer
such of our readers as are desirous of knowing more respecting this opinion, to the
work which is written in support of it. See also the Reflections.
ELLICOTT, "(2) Because he justified himself rather than God.—See Job 19:6. Job
maintained his innocence, and could not understand how his affliction could be
reconciled with the justice of God. Yet, at the same time, he declared that God was
his salvation (Job 13:16), and that it was impossible for man to be absolutely just
with God (Job 9:2; Job 9:28), though at the same time he might hope in His
righteousness (Job 23:3 seqq.).

33. PULPIT, "Then was kindled the wrath of Elihu. The name "Elihu" was not
uncommon among the Israelites. It is found among the ancestors of Samuel (1
Samuel 1:1), among the Korhite Levites of the time of David (1 Chronicles 26:7),
and as a variant for Eliab, one of David's brothers (1 Chronicles 27:8) The meaning
of the word was, "He is my God" ( ‫אליהוא‬ ). The son of Barachel. Barachel is also a
significant name. It means, "Bless, O God," or "God blesses" ( ‫אל‬ ‫.)ברך‬ Both names
imply that the new interlocutor belonged to a family of monotheists. The Buzite.
"Huz" and "Buz" were brothers, the sons of ahor, Abraham's brother, by
Maleah, the daughter of Haran (Genesis 11:29; Genesis 22:20, Genesis 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).
3 He was also angry with the three friends,
because they had found no way to refute Job, and
yet had condemned him.[a]
BAR ES, "Because they had found no answer, and yet had condemned
Job - They held Job to be guilty, and yet they were unable to adduce the proof of it, and
to reply to what he had said. They still maintained their opinion, though silenced in the
argument. They were in that state of mind, not uncommon, in which they obstinately
held on to an opinion which they could not vindicate, and believed another to be guilty,
though they could not prove it.
CLARKE, "They had found no answer - They had condemned Job; and yet could
not answer his arguments on the general subject, and in vindication of himself.