TEXT [Commentary]

  IV.   Response (Elihu): Suffering as a Discipline (32:1–37:24)

A.   Divine Revelation (32:1–33:13)

1.   The voice of youth (32:1-22)

1 Job’s three friends refused to reply further to him because he kept insisting on his innocence.

2 Then Elihu son of Barakel the Buzite, of the clan of Ram, became angry. He was angry because Job refused to admit that he had sinned and that God was right in punishing him. 3 He was also angry with Job’s three friends, for they made God[*] appear to be wrong by their inability to answer Job’s arguments. 4 Elihu had waited for the others to speak to Job because they were older than he. 5 But when he saw that they had no further reply, he spoke out angrily. 6 Elihu son of Barakel the Buzite said,

“I am young and you are old,

so I held back from telling you what I think.

7 I thought, ‘Those who are older should speak,

for wisdom comes with age.’

8 But there is a spirit[*] within people,

the breath of the Almighty within them,

that makes them intelligent.

9 Sometimes the elders are not wise.

Sometimes the aged do not understand justice.

10 So listen to me,

and let me tell you what I think.

11 “I have waited all this time,

listening very carefully to your arguments,

listening to you grope for words.

12 I have listened,

but not one of you has refuted Job

or answered his arguments.

13 And don’t tell me, ‘He is too wise for us.

Only God can convince him.’

14 If Job had been arguing with me,

I would not answer with your kind of logic!

15 You sit there baffled,

with nothing more to say.

16 Should I continue to wait, now that you are silent?

Must I also remain silent?

17 No, I will say my piece.

I will speak my mind.

18 For I am full of pent-up words,

and the spirit within me urges me on.

19 I am like a cask of wine without a vent,

like a new wineskin ready to burst!

20 I must speak to find relief,

so let me give my answers.

21 I won’t play favorites

or try to flatter anyone.

22 For if I tried flattery,

my Creator would soon destroy me.

NOTES

32:1 insisting on his innocence. A few MT mss, the Gr., and the Syriac say Job was innocent in the opinion of the friends. Dhorme (1984:472) considers this to be the original reading, since it indicates the reason for the end of the dialog. Elihu then speaks because he is unable to tolerate this surrender. However, there is nothing to suggest that Job had prevailed over the friends to convince them of his righteousness. They may have been silenced by Job (32:13-16), but that does not mean they were convinced.

32:2 Barakel the Buzite, of the clan of Ram. Unlike the names of the three friends, which may be regarded as more Edomite in their connections, most of Elihu’s elaborate name is Heb. in origin. Ram is one of the ancestors of David (Ruth 4:19; 1 Chr 2:9, 25); Buz is the brother of Uz, a nephew of Abraham (Gen 22:21). Barakel is found in business documents of the Persian period. It is the name of several people from the Murashu family in the reign of Artaxerxes I (Hilprecht 1898:52).

refused to admit that he had sinned. Job had not said he was sinless, but he had said his sins should be forgiven (e.g., 7:20-21). Job declared himself either to be just before God (the expression “before God” is similar in syntax to 4:17, cf. Num 32:22) or that he has been right rather than God (cf. Gen 38:26 where Tamar is in the right rather than Judah).

32:3 for they made God appear to be wrong. The present Heb. text says the three friends had condemned Job (cf. NLT mg). Some translations (NLT, REB, NJB) follow an emendation to the Heb. text defended in rabbinic tradition. The tradition concerns deliberate changes to the text called tiqqune sopherim. In each instance, the change involved a removal of reference to God, presumably because it might be considered irreverent. In this case, the tradition of the rabbis was that the text originally said the three friends had condemned God. Since God ought not to be condemned, this was changed to say the friends condemned Job and so it reads in the present MT.

Various ancient commentaries on books of the Heb. Bible mention a total of eighteen deliberate changes made by copyists (tiqqune sopherim). In this instance, the rabbinic tradition that the text originally read “God” may have been because they could not understand why the friends should have condemned Job. If the three friends had no answer to the claim that Job was righteous, it seems strange to say that they would then condemn Job. Their failure to prove Job wrong would mean they were then condemning God. In the previous verse, Elihu had declared Job to be wrong because he justified himself. It would seem that Elihu would then condemn the friends for declaring God to be wrong since they had been unable to convict Job.

The evidence for the original text is ambiguous (McCarthy 1981:115-120). The earliest translations used a Heb. text different from that of the rabbinic tradition, but none of them read “God” in this verse. The more difficult reading is the name “Job,” which is a good reason to consider it the original wording. In that case, Elihu condemns the friends because they were unable to refute Job and yet declared him to be wrong (cf. KJV, RSV, NIV).

32:4 Elihu had waited for the others to speak. The Heb. includes a reference to Job, but it is phrased awkwardly. The least amount of change is to say Elihu waited with Job while the friends spoke to Job (REB, NJB). A more radical change is to say Elihu waited to speak to Job (RSV, NRSV, NIV), implying Elihu’s intent to correct Job rather than the friends.

32:8 there is a spirit within people. The word “spirit” (ruakh [TH7307, ZH8120]) refers to thoughts (cf. Ezek 11:5, “I know every thought”). Elihu was making the point that the ability to think is a gift of God, but this is not limited to those who possess God’s Spirit in some particular way.

32:14 If Job had been arguing with me. This is the simplest interpretation of the Heb. but requires reading a conditional (lu’) by revocalizing the negative (lo’) of the MT, which says “he has not directed his words against me” (RSV, NRSV, NIV). The MT reading does not flow as well with the next line. Others revise more radically; “I shall not string words together” (REB) is an unwarranted change.

32:15 You sit there baffled. The Heb. has the third person: “they sit there baffled.” Rather than direct address, it seems Elihu was telling them about his thoughts when they fell silent, which continue in the next verse.

32:22 if I tried flattery. The Heb. construction is a condition contrary to fact (cf. the Heb. of Isa 1:9) rather than a negative (cf. NIV; contra RSV, REB, NJB).

COMMENTARY [Text]

Elihu has not been well received by many readers of Job. In the seventh century, Gregory the Great in his Moralia in Iob described Elihu as a haughty presider under the pretense of being a faithful teacher (Adriaen 1985:1146 [23.4]). Martin Luther made no reference to Elihu in his sermons or lectures, but in his Table Talk he made note of him as an “empty gas bag” (Luther 1912:1.68 [¶142]). In recent times Edwin Good, in his Reading of Job with a Translation, describes Elihu as a pompous, intensive bore and an opaque thinker with pretentious language that is often quite unintelligible (1990:321).

Elihu has not fared better in the analysis of literary critics attempting to understand the development and meaning of the composition of Job. They have generally concluded that Elihu’s speeches must be an addition to the book. Elihu makes no appearance in the epilogue, his speeches interrupt the continuity between the dialog and the response of God, and he contributes almost nothing to the content or movement of the book. Many believe these speeches were composed by the same author; and if it was not the same author, it must have been someone not only acquainted with the content of the dialog but steeped in its thought patterns and modes of expression as well. Freedman (1968:55-57) has compiled dozens of parallels, allusions, and correlations. His explanation of Elihu’s speeches is that they were originally separate compositions that the author intended to insert within the dialog of Job with his friends in order to refute or counterbalance Job. The author apparently did not realize the enormity of the task of adding this fourth character to the dialog, or he abandoned it as unsatisfactory, but other copyists preserved his work by inserting the whole speech after the dialog. Such literary observations about the close relationship between the dialog and Elihu are very helpful, but explanations as to how it could have come to its present form remain completely speculative. Wahl provides a helpful review of studies in the “historical-critical” epoch (1993:8-23), but it cannot be said these have led to a better understanding of the book of Job. It has been impossible to establish a more satisfactory arrangement of the book, let alone provide an explanation for how it came into its present form. It is true that ancient copyists sometimes preserved more than one form of a work, as is well known in Jeremiah,[22] but each version is both comprehensible and a literary masterpiece as it was preserved. The same is true for the book of Job in the only version in which we have received it.

A further error with the book of Job is to read it as if it were constructed as a theodicy to answer an intellectual problem. Abraham Ibn Esra in his Hiobkommentar in the twelfth century attempted to provide a positive assessment of the Elihu speeches. He interpreted the Elihu speeches as a basic solution to the great question of Job concerning the compatibility of divine justice and the suffering of the righteous. The Elihu speeches develop a theology of the purpose of suffering; suffering can be a punishment for sin and become a means to prevent further offense, or it can secure a blessed future in the life to come. The great medieval exegete was correct in his observations, which were developed extensively in subsequent times, but this still does not resolve the question of the present structure of the book. In the end, Elihu does not provide a solution to the suffering of Job, and the author could not have intended it to be the solution to the mystery of human suffering generally.

Appreciating great literature is somewhat like appreciating great music. The progression of the piece is determined by certain patterns familiar to the people of the time of the composition. Music history is an important aspect of enjoying music because without it a great masterpiece in music may seem redundant, pretentious, and tedious. In the times of Gregory the Great and Martin Luther, there was little recognition of the original literary milieu of ancient composers, so to them Elihu seemed to be a “windbag” (cf. 15:2). The author of Job had shaped his profound and compelling poetry around the structure of a dialog with elements of a dispute or legal case. Job had demanded a hearing (9:3), he longed for an arbiter (9:32-34), and he wanted a chance to defend himself directly before God (13:13-15). The dispute could not be complete without an arbiter, one who presided over the case and recommended a resolution for the problem. At the beginning of his speech, Elihu points out that there has been no arbiter for Job (32:12) who can answer for the charges he has made against God. This seems to be the role Elihu fills. His task is unlike that of any other dispute, since no arbiter could be more qualified than the disputants in this case. Though a resolution may be impossible, there must be a viewpoint outside that of the litigants themselves.

There are two disputes in the dialog, one between Job and his friends and the other between Job and God. Both of these are set against the dispute in the councils of heaven between God and the Accuser. In all of this, Job had been denied a fair hearing; false charges were laid against him, most specifically by Eliphaz (22:5-9), and he had been condemned. It was up to Elihu to be sure Job received an impartial trial against the charges that he had lived as a tyrant in a position of power. Such arbitration naturally follows the code of honor (ch 31) that Job maintains has been the rule of his life. As an arbiter for Job, Elihu must also deal with his charges against God, which is what the friends had failed to do. It would seem presumptuous that anyone should speak for God against the wise who also represent God. As observed by Habel (1984:88-92), the poet subtly portrays this arbiter as a brilliant young fool. Eliphaz protested that a wise man does not answer with empty talk (15:2), yet that is exactly what Elihu intended to do (32:17-20); he uncorked himself and let his words gush forth. This pretentious modesty is a reminder that there is no intellectual solution to the problem of Job, which began in the councils of heaven, or to the problem of human suffering in this world.

In this opening section of Elihu’s speech, Elihu is introduced with an elaborate Hebrew family pedigree. The meaning of the names is of particular significance. Barakel means either “bless God” or “God has blessed.” Ram means “highly exalted” and Buz means “scorn” or “contempt.” This is an excellent description of the intruder, who is scornful of his elders and conscious of his noble role as the defender of God. The name Elihu is of the greatest significance. It is the same name as the prophet Elijah; the difference in pronunciation of ’eliyahu [TH452/452A, ZH488/489] (Elijah) for ’elihu [TH453/453A, ZH490/491] (Elihu) first appears in the medieval ages in the Masoretic Text.[23] The name means “Yah is my God”; Yah is the abbreviated form of the name Yahweh, as in the Hebrew word “hallelujah.” This name is most appropriate, since Elihu was the defender of God, just as Elijah was in the prophetic story in 1 Kings 17–18.

Elihu introduces himself in a reluctant manner (32:6-22), saying almost nothing at all and finding it necessary to repeat it several times. In spite of the caricature created in this “seemingly windy chapter about windy words” (Skehan 1969:380), a formal structure is evident in the repetition of particular words. The phrase “tell you what I think” is repeated three times with the same Hebrew words (32:6, 10, 17). The whole poem, accordingly, is divisible into three stanzas, each of which begin and end with the same words. Elihu thought age should speak, but now he must speak, and the aged friends must listen. Elihu waited for them to give an answer, and then waited when they fell silent. Elihu decided that he must answer so that he might receive relief. The three stanzas are introduced with the announcement that Elihu will speak his mind, and Elihu concludes this first speech by saying that he will not flatter anyone. The poem is a formal rhetorical exercise introducing a reticent individual who has something he must say in spite of his age and inadequacy.

There is a progression in the introduction of Elihu. The prose section presents the compelling reasons why this speech is necessary. The friends had utterly failed to bring a resolution to the dispute. As the silence fell, Job had been vindicated and God was condemned. Job was still demanding that God answer him; he maintained he was right rather than God. The friends had failed to answer Job and yet they condemned him (according to the MT), or else the friends had condemned God by not refuting Job (according to rabbinic tradition’s proposed emmendation; see note on 32:3). Either way, it is evident that God was in need of defense more than ever as silence descended on this scene. The argument came to a halt and appeared to end with God as wicked and Job as righteous. Such a conclusion was an outrage to Elihu; it demanded intervention to set the record straight.

As an arbiter in such a situation, Elihu had to consider his role and his limitations carefully, and he had to proceed with utmost caution. He dare not speak before those who were the most qualified and whose status granted them the privilege of being heard. At the same time, he dare not let his fears silence him completely. God granted the gift of intellectual ability to all humans regardless of age. The aged are not always wise and there comes a time when they must listen to a bit of wisdom. On this basis, Elihu insisted he must speak and they must give him a hearing.

Elihu had dutifully, and perhaps with difficulty, waited until those in the dispute had utterly exhausted everything they might have to say. They had shown beyond doubt that they could not refute Job, which means they had been unable to pass fair judgment in the dispute. Elihu used a technical legal term for one who corrects the injustice of a situation. The term is found frequently outside the Scriptures to describe the procedure of arriving at an impartial decision (Wahl 1993:49-50). An Akkadian hymn to the sun god describes him as the prince of his palace who acts as an advocate of the weak, refuses bribes, and makes fair decisions. Job did not have such a mediator. The friends failed in their accusations against Job, which means they had not judged him correctly. Now they dare not say that no one else could. Should he continue to wait now that they have nothing more to say? Could he be the kind of judge needed in this situation?

Elihu could contain himself no longer; he was like a balloon ready to burst. He may have been unwitting in describing himself as pent up with wind ready to explode (Habel 1985:444), or perhaps he was preempting the friends by saying what they were thinking before they could ridicule him. Foolish as he may appear, his words had to be heard. Elihu intended to avoid favoritism and to be an impartial arbiter, but in the end his speech offered more than his introduction promised.

He took up three major contentions Job had made (Gordis 1965:105) and refuted them in reverse order. Job had said he was innocent (33:8, 9), that God’s persecution was an act of base power and injustice (33:10-11), and that God had ignored his suffering by refusing to answer him (33:12-13). Elihu, the defender of God, began by explaining that God had spoken and was speaking (33:14-26) in various ways. Elihu contended that God as the creator plays no favorites (ch 34) and that he does not pervert justice. Finally, he said it was foolish to think that somehow our actions affect God for good or ill (ch 35). The problem with humans is that they suffer from their own base perversity.