ChristadelphianBooksOnline
David Baird
The Education of Job

Chapter 32 - Elihu's Monologues - Elihu is Introduced

32:1-5

Elihu is Introduced

Elihu Introduces Himself

	32:6-10	Though young, I will express my opinions
	32:11-14	Job is unanswered
	32:15-22	I have no choice, I must speak

32:1-5 Elihu is Introduced

Elihu is introduced by a paragraph of narrative prose. This paragraph does not represent the opinions of Elihu but is an inspired appraisal of the current situation. What are revealed are the reasons for the silence of the friends and the intervention of Elihu.

The three said no more to Job "because he was righteous (tzadak) in his own eyes" (32:1). While justified in his own sight he was not justified before God. This is declared by the LORD to Job in 40:8 - "Wilt thou condemn me, that thou mayest be righteous" (tzadak)? If anything, this indicated Job's failing as well as the inability of the friends to address it. Their blinkered logic was defeated and they were incapable of dealing with this obvious issue. This infuriated Elihu.

Job thought he was right rather than God (32:2) and the three had no answer. Therefore, they had condemned God (32:3). The Authorised Version, among others, reads "condemned Job." However, other works such as the Jerusalem Bible, Rotherham, the New English Bible and the Companion Bible follow what is considered to be the most ancient reading of "condemned God." The Sopherim (see notes on 1:5) had emended "God" to "Job" out of a misplaced reverence. What this change is saying is that the one who is doubted by the debating parties was God. Job's self-righteousness and his antagonists' ineptitude led to the conclusion that God had made a mistake. Job's character was exceptional but that did not justify him before Elohim. Eliphaz, Bildad and Zophar, while they condemned Job, in retiring from the argument were implying that God was unjust in his dealings with Job.

These were the factors that outraged Elihu "the son of Barachel the Buzite, of the kindred of Ram." Elihu is the only character in the Book of Job who attracts such a detailed identification. The names are eminently noble: Elihu means "God is he" or "He is God" or "God himself" while Barachel equates to "Blessed of God" or "God blesses." There is no clear reason why such detail is supplied but it does seem that Elihu was related, through Nahor, to Abraham (Gen 22:21). Regardless of his ancestry, anger is attached to him four times in this brief introduction. His youthful frustration boils over into the outburst that follows.

Does this mean that Elihu was a disrespectful young upstart? No. His respect for his elders is acknowledged by the inspired narrator (32:4). He only spoke when everybody else had run out of things to say. He had waited and waited for their profound intellects to decipher the riddle of Job's suffering. Instead they had all failed. While we cannot condone Elihu's rage, we can easily understand the reasons behind it.

Elihu Introduces Himself

As a result of his anger, Elihu's self-introduction is not much more than a repetitive rave. He is intent on letting his hearers know that he needs to speak out and spends more time than what appears necessary to explain why.

32:6-10 Though young, I will express my opinions

Elihu had, out of respect, given the aged men the first say. He calls them yashish - a word that is only found in the Book of Job. Its only other usages capture Elihu's dilemma:

1)	12:12:	Job affirms that wisdom is with the aged;
2)	15:10:	Eliphaz asserts that his age gives him superiority over Job; and
3)	29:8:	Job marvels how that in his former life even the aged gave him honour.

It was this overwhelming attitude of his era that resulted in Elihu being afraid to intervene. He had been trained to hold back. Yes, he was reluctant, but now he will tell them what he knows. He was not, as the Authorised Version infers, merely venturing an opinion. Rather he was going to declare his knowledge (32:6).

Elihu is almost apologetic for interfering because it had always been his standard that "Old age should speak, advancing years should utter wisdom" (32:7 JB). But now he realises that the aged do not have a monopoly on knowledge and that anybody who is a living, breathing being can develop sound judgment (32:8). The expression "inspiration (neshama) of the Almighty" is simply a reference to "breath" (see 33:4). It relates to the breath received by men and women from the Almighty. Elihu is not, I believe, claiming divine inspiration.

It is Elihu's realisation that age does not automatically bestow wisdom that emboldens him to ask for a hearing from his senior companions.

32:11-14 Job is unanswered

Elihu begins to repeat himself. His venturing of his viewpoint was not the cultural norm of his day. His role was to remain silent and learn from those who are much older than him. He is reversing tradition and in doing so is in danger of sounding pompous and patronising. His youthfulness is on display and his speech, with its repetition and forthrightness, merely highlights it. But he has good reason to speak. Their words had been disappointing. He genuinely yearned to be educated by them but they had failed him. This frustration had been reinforced by their inability to effectively respond to Job's words.

A number of variations exist for verse 13. Literal versions (e.g. Roth, Green) convey the sense that Elihu feels the three smugly considered, even though they could not defeat Job, that they surely possessed wisdom and God would eventually vindicate them (see also RSV, NKJV). Elihu sees no need to adopt a similar attitude towards Job, especially as Job had not directly spoken to him. Therefore, his reply will be couched in different terms (32:14).

32:15-22 I have no choice, I must speak

This section adds nothing tangible to the debate. Many a reader is irritated rather than educated by Elihu's bombast. He states that he is "full of words" (32:18 RSV) and nobody questions that comment. He seems more focussed on his rage rather than on addressing Job's situation. While this may appear superfluous to the overall message, it does give us an insight into Elihu. His discourse will follow but we are presented here with a younger man who is frustrated, disappointed and bursting with words. His inner nature compels him and he feels like he is choking on the rush of words that are trying to force their way out.

He must speak. He likens himself to a wineskin that has no vent (32:19). After the initial stage of fermentation, wine was transferred to wineskins that were normally made from whole goat hides, the neck and feet being tied. An opening was usually left to allow for the escape of gases formed by the on-going fermentation. Without that opening the wineskins would absorb enormous pressure and occasionally burst. That was why it was ill-advised to place new fermenting wine into an old pre-stretched wineskin (Matt 9:17). Elihu had to gain relief by uttering his knowledge.

He contrasts vividly with the others who "have been nonplussed, baffled for an answer, words have failed them ... they are silent and have abandoned all efforts to reply" (32:15-16 JB). While there is no doubt he is labouring the point, he is correct in declaring that more has to be said. The discussion has definitely not ended. Elihu's contribution, despite his wordy introduction, will play an important part.

Furthermore, Elihu states that he is going to be totally impartial (32:21). He will not show partiality to any "man" (ish - a common word for man but usually as a great man) nor will he give flattering titles to "man" (adam - mankind in general). This undiplomatic outburst (is Elihu accusing the others of such conduct?) was not in keeping with his times nor does it seem to be justified. However, his desire to be impartial before God confirms the sentiments expressed by Job in 31:13-15.

His introduction is concluded. Now he must make a contribution or withdraw.