Job 32:1-5 - Homiletics

The intervention of Elihu.

I. THE DISCOMFITURE OF THE FRIENDS . "So these three men"—Eliphaz, Bildad, and Zophar—"ceased to answer Job;" i.e. did not respond to the lamentations and protestations which he uttered in his parable.

1 . The reason they perhaps assigned for their silence. "Because he," i.e. Job, "was righteous in his own eyes." If this was scarcely accurate in the strict theological sense of the expression, since Job had more than once acknowledged himself a sinner ( Job 7:20 , 24; Job 9:2 , Job 9:3 ), and even subscribed to the sentiment of Eliphaz and his associates that no mortal man can be just before God ( Job 9:20 ; Job 14:3 , Job 14:4 ), it is yet difficult to exonerate the patriarch entirely from the charge here preferred against him; for, though righteous to the extent of being free from flagrant transgression, which his friends alleged he was not, and sincerely devoted to the ways of holiness, as God himself had testified ( Job 1:1 ), he nevertheless insisted on his blamelessness of life and uprightness of character with such pertinacity as to overstep the bounds of true humility, advancing these as a ground or reason why God should have dealt with him differently from what he had done, and thus, as it were, constructing out of them a claim of merit, or self-righteousness before God .

2 . The reason they forgot to assign for their silence. "Because they had found no answer," i.e. to Job. For this explanation of their conduct we are indebted to the observation of Elihu, a new interlocutor who appears upon the scene. Unable to convince Job of immorality and hypocrisy, they were likewise, in Elihu's judgment, incompetent to reply to his arguments and protestations. Doubtless the matter did not so present itself to the contemplation of the friends. According to their theology, Job, being a great sufferer, must have been a great sinner; and any declarations on his part to the contrary only proved that he had not been sufficiently humbled before God, and was indulging in self-deception. This, however, as Job explained, entirely failed in its applicability to him, whose past life of stainless purity, fervent piety, and unwearied philanthropy gave conspicuous demonstration of the falsehood of their allegations, and whose present consciousness reproached him with no dereliction of duty, but rather loudly proclaimed the steadfast character, untarnished beauty, and unmixed sincerity of his integrity to Heaven. But, inasmuch as the above-cited nostrum was the only specific which remained in the pharmacopoeia of the friends, they judiciously abandoned the case as beyond their skill. They had spent every weapon in their quiver without overthrowing their antagonist; and, accordingly, with commendable prudence, observing a discreet reticence as to the secret motive of their behaviour, they retired from the contest.

II. THE INTERPOSITION OF ELIHU . "Then was kindled the wrath of Elihu the son of Barachel the Buzite, of the kindred of Ram."

1 . The personality of Elihu. Details such as these—concerning the name (Elihu, equivalent to "He is my God"), parentage (son of Barachel, or "God blesseth"), country (the Buzite, probably a descendant of Nahor through his second son ( Genesis 22:21 ), and therefore of Aramsean extraction, though by birth an Arabian, Buz being mentioned with Dedan and Tema as a city of Idumea in the time of Jeremiah, Jeremiah 25:23 ), kindred (of the family of Ram, otherwise unknown, unless connected with Aram, the son of Shem, Genesis 10:23 , the brother of Buz, Genesis 22:21 , or the grandfather of Nahshon, cf. Numbers 1:7 with 1 Chronicles 2:9 , 1 Chronicles 2:10 )—dispose of the patristic conceit that the new interlocutor was Jesus Christ. Equally, however, do they preclude the hypothesis (Cox) that he was simply one of the young men of Job's city ( Job 29:8 ). They rather hint that be "belonged to a family which had retained the knowledge of the God of heaven" (Cook); and, indeed, when it is considered that Elihu distinctly claims to speak under Divine impulse ( Job 32:8 ; Job 33:4 ), proposes himself as a response to Job's oft-repeated demand for a daysman ( Job 33:6 ), and unfolds views of Divine truth concerning the remedial character of affliction and the doctrine of atonement ( Job 33:14-30 ) that seem like anticipations of gospel discoveries, it is hard to resist the inference that in Elihu we have a young Arabian prophet who had been providentially brought upon the scene, as the friends were, and was moved at the appropriate juncture to deliver certain preliminary judgments on the cause then pending.

2 . The time of his appearing. We are inclined to think that, as the result of the strife of tongues between the patriarch and his friends, to which also we can suppose that Elihu had listened, the citadel of Job's integrity, if not in danger of being captured, was at any rate rudely shaken, and that victory, in the grand fundamental debate or controversy of the poem, was inclining to the side of the devil But as God never leaves his people in their hour of need, so neither was Job suffered to be taken captive by the craft of Satan. And accordingly Elihu is at this point introduced upon the stage.

3 . The purpose of his introduction.

4 . The spirit of his intervention.

Learn:

1 . It is one mark of true wisdom to know when to be silent.

2 . It is specially becoming in young men to be deferential towards their elders.

3 . It is quite possible for good men to be righteous in their own eyes.

4 . It is commonly the case that of two controversialists both are wrong.

5 . It is not unseemly fur even young men to be jealous of the Divine honour.

6 . It is no sin for young men who know the truth to instruct old men who know it not.

7 . It is right in those who speak for God to be raised above the fear of man.

8 . It is certain that God never suffers saints to be tempted without reinforcing them by Divine grace and teaching.

9 . It is observable that heavenly succour mostly comes to men when human resources are exhausted.