Verse-by-Verse Bible Commentary
Job 32:2

Clarke's Commentary

Verse Job 32:2. 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, Genesis 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 Jeremiah 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, &c.

Bridgeway Bible Commentary

32:1-37:24

ELIHU’S ARGUMENTS

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

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

Coffman's Commentaries on the Bible

THE INTRODUCTION (IN PROSE) OF ELIHU

“So these three men ceased to answer Job, because he was righteous in his own eyes. Then was kindled the wrath of Elihu the son of Barachel the Buzite, of the family of Ram: against Job was his wrath kindled, because he justified himself rather than God. Also against his three friends was his wrath kindled, because they had found no answer, and yet had condemned Job. Now Elihu had waited to speak unto Job, because they were older than he. And when Elihu saw that there was no answer in the mouth of these three men, his wrath was kindled.”

“Elihu the son of Barachel, the Buzite” “This name Elihu (or Eliab) was fairly common in the times of David, four persons of that name being mentioned, including a brother of David (1 Chronicles 27:8).”The Anchor Bible (Garden City, New York: Doubleday and Company, 1982), Job, p. 212, “The name means, `He is my God’; and Barachel means, `Bless, O God,’ or `God will bless.’ Both names imply that Elihu came of a family of monotheists.”The Pulpit Commentary, op. cit., p. 521. David’s brother was named Eliab, a variant of the name Elihu.

“They had found no answer, and yet had condemned Job” Andersen gave the meaning here as, “They didn’t find an answer, and they didn’t prove Job wrong.”Tyndale Old Testament Commentaries, Vol. 13, p. 246, The same scholar also referred to Elihu’s speech here as, “quite a rigmarole.”Ibid. We do not reject that evaluation of Elihu’s words, because God Himself, when he finally interrupted his long tirade, asked, “Who is this that darkeneth counsel by words without knowledge? (Job 38:2); and, although God was speaking directly to Job, there is no way to avoid the application of his words to the speech of Elihu.

Barnes' Notes on the Whole Bible

Then was kindled the wrath - Wrath or anger is commonly represented as kindled, or as burning.

Of Elihu - The name Elihu (אליהוא 'ĕlı̂yhû') 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 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 Isaiah 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, Genesis 22:20-21. A city of the name Buz is mentioned in Jeremiah 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 Ruth 4:19, and in the genealogical table in Matthew 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 Genesis 22:21. Thus, by aphaeresis the Syrians are called רמים rammı̂ym, 2 Chronicles 22:5, instead of ארמים 'ărammı̂ym, as they are usually denominated; compare 2 Kings 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, ἐναντίον κυρίου enantion kuriou - against the Lord; that is, rather than the Lord. The proper translation of the Hebrew (מאלהים mē'ĕlôhı̂ym) 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.

Smith's Bible Commentary

Chapter 32

So sitting nearby was a young man whose name was Elihu.

So these three men [Bildad, Zophar, and Eliphaz] cease to answer Job, because he was righteous in his own eyes. Then was kindled the wrath of Elihu against Job and his wrath was kindled, because he justified himself rather than God ( Job 32:1-2 ).

Now Job, in all of his complaints, was saying, "I am just in this. I am innocent." And he was justifying himself rather than God. Now, we oftentimes do this. It is important, though, that we justify God. I know that God is good. I know that God is righteous. I know that God is fair. I don't understand why God is doing this. You see, Job did not justify God in the issues by declaring, "Well, God is fair." He was actually saying, "God is unfair. He is unfair to me because I haven't done anything to deserve all of this." So Elihu, standing by, really became angry with Job because he sought to justify himself rather than to justify God. And he was also angry with Job's friends because they could not answer Job. They couldn't really pin anything on him, and yet, they were condemning him without being able to pin anything directly on him.

So he waited until Job had spoken, because they were older than he was. And when he saw that they were not answering, his wrath was kindled. And he said, I am young, and you're very old; wherefore I was afraid, and I dared not to show you my own opinion. I said, Days should speak, and the multitude of years should teach wisdom. But there is a spirit in man: and the inspiration of the Almighty gives them understanding. And great men are not always wise: neither do the aged understand judgment ( Job 32:4-9 ).

So far you're batting a thousand, Elihu. He's made some interesting observations. There is a spirit in man and the inspiration of the Almighty gives them understanding. He could see the anointing of God upon a man to give to the man wisdom and understanding. But great men are not always wise. Now you don't have to go very far to illustrate that truth. "And neither do the aged always understand judgment."

Therefore I said, Hearken to me; I'm going to show you my opinion ( Job 32:10 ).

And he spends a lot of time just telling us what he's going to say. He doesn't really say too much, but he spends a lot of time telling you what he's going to say.

"Hearken to my opinion."

Behold, I waited for your words; to give ear to your reasons, while you searched out what to say. Yes, I attended unto you, and, behold, there was none of you that convinced Job, or that answered his words: Lest you should say, We have found out wisdom: God thrust him down, not man. Now he hath not directed his words against me: and neither will I answer him with your speeches. They were amazed, and they answered no more: they left off speaking. When I had waited, (for they spake not, but stood still, and answered no more,) I said, I will answer also my part; I will show you my opinion. For I am full of the matter, the spirit within me is forcing me. Behold, my belly is as wine which has no vent; it is ready to burst like new bottles. I will speak, that I may be refreshed: I will open my lips and answer. Let me not, I pray you, accept any man's person; neither let me give flattering titles unto man. For I know not to give flattering titles; in so doing my Maker would soon take me away ( Job 32:11-22 ).

Oh, I like this. God help me not to give flattering titles unto man. I heard flattering titles for so many years; I'm absolutely sick of flattering titles. "Ladies and gentlemen, let me present unto you, God's man for the hour," you know. And all of these flattering things that we say concerning man. He said, "Hey, I respect you fellows' age, but I don't respect man as such as far as bowing and catering and giving flattering titles and buttering up people, trying to butter them up with flattering titles. If I'm guilty of this then God's going to take me away, take my place away." My heart has been sickened by the way we have sought to elevate men even in the Christian community by flattering titles, declaring the greatness of their works and all. God help us. "

Dr. Constable's Expository Notes

1. The introduction of Elihu 32:1-5

A short prose pericope (Job 32:1-6 a) breaks into the poetic body of the book. Its purpose is to introduce Elihu, as the prose prologue to the whole book (chs. 1-2) introduced the other characters.

Elihu may have been a relative of Abraham, since a man named Buz was a descendant of Nahor, Abraham’s brother (Genesis 22:20-21), and Elihu was a Buzite (cf. Jeremiah 25:23). A man named Ram (Job 32:2) was an ancestor of David (Ruth 4:19-22).

Elihu was angry. The writer mentioned his burning anger four times in these verses (Job 32:2 [twice], 3, 5). He was angry with Job because Job considered himself right and God wrong. This is the meaning of "he justified himself before God" (Job 32:5). Furthermore, he was angry with Job’s three companions because they had failed to prove Job worthy of God’s punishment (Job 32:3). One writer suggested that Elihu served as a covenant mediator between Job and God (cf. Job 9:33; Job 16:19-22; Job 19:21). [Note: H. D. Beeby, "Elihu-Job’s Mediator." South East Asia Journal of Theology 7:2 (October 1965):33-54.]

Gill's Exposition of the Whole Bible

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, Genesis 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 Dedan and Tema,

Jeremiah 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, Ruth 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,

Genesis 22:21; these names being used for one another, either by adding or removing a letter; see Matthew 1:3; compared with Ruth 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.

g T. Hieros. Sotah, fol. 20. 4. Hieron. Quaest. seu Traditiones in Gen. fol. 69. D. so Bolducius. h Jarchi, Bar Tzemach, &c. i T. Hieros. Sotah, fol. 20. 4. k Jarchi, Aben Ezra. Ben Gersom.

Henry's Complete Commentary on the Bible

      1 So these three men ceased to answer Job, because he was righteous in his own eyes.   2 Then was kindled the wrath of Elihu the son of Barachel the Buzite, of the kindred of Ram: against Job was his wrath kindled, because he justified himself rather than God.   3 Also against his three friends was his wrath kindled, because they had found no answer, and yet had condemned Job.   4 Now Elihu had waited till Job had spoken, because they were elder than he.   5 When Elihu saw that there was no answer in the mouth of these three men, then his wrath was kindled.

      Usually young men are the disputants and old men the moderators; but here, when old men were the disputants, as a rebuke to them for their unbecoming heat, a young man is raised up to be the moderator. Divers of Job's friends were present, that came to visit him and to receive instruction. Now here we have,

      I. The reason why his three friends were now silent. They ceased to answer him, and let him have his saying, because he was righteous in his own eyes. This was the reason they gave why they said no more, because it was to no purpose to argue with a man that was so opinionative, Job 32:1; Job 32:1. Those that are self-conceited are indeed hard to be wrought upon; there is more hope of a fool (a fool of God's making) than of those who are fools of their own making, Proverbs 26:12. But they did not judge fairly concerning Job: he was really righteous before God, and not righteous in his own eyes only; so that it was only to save their own credit that they made this the reason of their silence, as peevish disputants commonly do when they find themselves run a-ground and are not willing to own themselves unable to make their part good.

      II. The reasons why Elihu, the fourth, now spoke. His name Elihu signifies My God is he. They had all tried in vain to convince Job, but my God is he that can and will do it, and did it at last: he only can open the understanding. He is said to be a Buzite, from Buz, Nahor's second son (Genesis 22:21), and of the kindred of Ram, that is, Aram (so some), whence the Syrians or Aramites descended and were denominated, Genesis 22:21. Of the kindred of Abram; so the Chaldee-paraphrase, supposing him to be first called Ram--high, then Abram--a high father, and lastly Abraham--the high father of a multitude. Elihu was not so well known as the rest, and therefore is more particularly described thus.

      1. Elihu spoke because he was angry and thought he had good cause to be so. When he had made his observations upon the dispute he did not go away and calumniate the disputants, striking them secretly with a malicious censorious tongue, but what he had to say he would say before their faces, that they might vindicate themselves if they could. (1.) He was angry at Job, because he thought he did not speak so reverently of God as he ought to have done; and that was too true (Job 32:2; Job 32:2): He justified himself more than God, that is, took more care and pains to clear himself from the imputation of unrighteousness in being thus afflicted than to clear God from the imputation of unrighteousness in afflicting him, as if he were more concerned for his own honour than for God's; whereas he should, in the first place, have justified God and cleared his glory, and then he might well enough have left his own reputation to shift for itself. Note, A gracious heart is jealous for the honour of God, and cannot but be angry when that is neglected or postponed, or when any injury is done it. Nor is it any breach of the law of meekness to be angry at our friends when they are offensive to God. Get thee behind me, Satan, says Christ to Simon. Elihu owned Job to be a good man, and yet would not say as he said when he thought he said amiss: it is too great a compliment to our friends not to tell them of their faults. (2.) He was angry at his friends because he thought they had not conducted themselves so charitably towards Job as they ought to have done (Job 32:3; Job 32:3): They had found no answer, and yet had condemned Job. They had adjudged him to be a hypocrite, a wicked man, and would not recede from that sentence concerning him; and yet they could not prove him so, nor disprove the evidences he produced of his integrity. They could not make good the premises, and yet held fast the conclusion. They had no reply to make to his arguments, and yet they would not yield, but, right or wrong, would run him down; and this was not fair. Seldom is a quarrel begun, and more seldom is a quarrel carried on to the length that this was, in which there is not a fault on both sides. Elihu, as became a moderator, took part with neither, but was equally displeased with the mistakes and mismanagement of both. Those that in good earnest seek for truth must thus be impartial in their judgments concerning the contenders, and not reject what is true and good on either side for the sake of what is amiss, nor approve or defend what is amiss for the sake of what is true and good, but must learn to separate between the precious and the vile.

      2. Elihu spoke because he thought that it was time to speak, and that now, at length, it had come to his turn, Job 32:4; Job 32:5. (1.) He had waited on Job's speeches, had patiently heard him out, until the words of Job were ended. (2.) He had waited on his friends' silence, so that, as he would not interrupt him, so he would not prevent them, not because they were wiser than he, but because they were older than he, and therefore it was expected by the company that they should speak first; and Elihu was very modest, and would by no means offer to abridge them of their privilege. Some certain rules of precedency must be observed, for the keeping of order. Though inward real honour will attend true wisdom and worth, yet, since every man will think himself or his friend the wisest and worthiest, this can afford no certain rule for the outward ceremonial honour, which therefore must attend seniority either of age or office; and this respect the seniors may the better require because they paid it when they were juniors, and the juniors may the better pay because they shall have it when they come to be seniors.