Albert Barnes Commentary Job 32

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.

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 with special prominence to denote the true God or Yahweh, the name is equivalent to saying, “God is my God,” or “my God is Yahweh.” Why this name was given to him is now unknown. The names given in ancient times, 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 by his parents.

The son of Barachel – The name Barachel (ברכאל bârak'êl) means “God blesses,” and was also probably given as an expression of his parents’ piety, and as providing a valuable motto in the name itself which the child would remember. Nothing more is known of him than the name; and the only justification for 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 Elihu’s ancestors.

The Buzite – Buz was the second son of Nahor, the brother of Abraham (Genesis 22:20–21). A city by the name of 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 from 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 – Nothing is certainly known of Ram. 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, as 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 apheresis, the Syrians are called רמים rammı̂ym (2 Chronicles 22:5), instead of ארמים 'ărammı̂ym, as they are usually called (Compare to 2 Kings 8:29). But nothing certain is known about the Ram mentioned here.

It is noteworthy that the author of the book of Job has given Elihu’s genealogy in much greater detail than he has for Job or his three friends. Indeed, he has not attempted to trace their genealogy at all. He does not even mention Job’s father’s name; for his three friends, he merely mentions the place where they lived. Rosenmuller infers from this circumstance that Elihu himself is the author of the book, since, he says, it is the custom of the Turks and Persians, in their poems, to weave in the author’s name in an artificial manner near the end of the poem. The same view is taken by Lightfoot, Chronica temporum et ord. Text. V. T. However, a circumstance of this kind is too slight an argument to determine the authorship of the book.

It may be that Elihu was less known than the other speakers, and therefore, it was appropriate to mention his family in more detail. Indeed, this is almost certain, because he is not mentioned as Job’s “friend,” as the others are.

Because he justified himself – Margin, his soul. So the Hebrew; the word נפשׁ nephesh – soul, is often used to denote oneself.

Rather than God – Professor Lee renders this, “justified himself with God”; as do Umbreit, Good, and some others. The Vulgate also 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 undoubtedly the idea Elihu intended to convey. He understood Job as vindicating himself rather than God, as being more willing for aspersions to be cast on God’s character and government than to confess his own sin.

Because they had found no answer, and yet had condemned Job - They held Job to be guilty, and yet they were unable to present 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.

Now Elihu had waited - Margin, as in Hebrew, "expected Job in words." The meaning is plain, that he had waited until all who were older than himself had spoken.

Because they were older than he - Margin, as in Hebrew, "older for days." It appears that they were all older than he was. We have no means of determining their respective ages, though it would seem probable that Eliphaz was the oldest of the three friends, as he uniformly spoke first.

And Elihu said, I am young (the margin notes “few of days”). The Hebrew is, I am small of days (צעיר tsâ‛ı̂yr); that is, I am inexperienced. We have no means of ascertaining his exact age, though it is evident that there was a considerable disparity between them and him.

And you are very old — ישׁישׁים yâshı̂yshiym. The word used here is probably derived from the obsolete root שוש, meaning “to be white, hoary,” and therefore, to be hoary-headed, or aged (compare to 2 Chronicles 36:17). The entire discourses of Job’s friends seem to imply that they were aged men. They laid claim to great experience and professed to have had opportunities for long observation. It is probable that they were regarded as sages, who, by observing events over a long time, had acquired a reputation for great wisdom.

Therefore I was afraid — He was timid, bashful, and diffident.

And dared not show you my opinion — (the margin notes “feared”). He had that diffidence to which modesty prompts in the presence of the aged. He had formed his opinion as the argument proceeded. However, he did not deem it proper for one so young to interfere, even when he thought he perceived that others were wrong.