Albert Barnes Commentary Job 33:23

"If there be with him an angel, An interpreter, one among a thousand, To show unto man what is right for him;" — Job 33:23 (ASV)

If there is a messenger with him - This part of the speech of Elihu has given rise to scarcely less diversity of opinion, and to scarcely less discussion, than the celebrated passage in (Job 19:25–27). Almost every interpreter has had a special view of its meaning, and of course it is very difficult, if not impossible, to determine its true sense. Before the opinions which have been entertained are specified, and an attempt made to determine the true sense of the passage, it may be of interest to see how it is presented in the ancient versions, and what light they throw on it.

The Vulgate renders it, “If there is for him an angel speaking, one of thousands, that he may announce the righteousness of the man; he will pity him, and say, Deliver him that he descends not into corruption: I have found him in whom I will be propitious to him” - inveni in quo ei propitier. The Septuagint translators render it, “If there are a thousand angels of death (ἄγγελοι θανατηφόροι angeloi thanatēforoi), not one of them can mortally wound him (τρώσῃ αὐτόν trōsē auton). If he determines in his heart to turn to the Lord, when he has shown man his charge against him, and shown his folly, he will support him so that he may not fall to death, and renew his body, like plastering on a wall (ὥσπερ ἀλοιφὴν ἐπὶ τοίχου hōsper aloiphēn epi toichou), and will fill his bones with marrow, and make his flesh soft like an infant.” The Chaldee renders it, “If there is merit זכותא z-k-w-t-' in him, an angel is prepared, a comforter (פרקליטא, Paraclete, Gr. παρύκλητος paraklētos), one among a thousand accusers (קטיגוריא, Gr. κατήγορος katēgoros), that he may announce to man his rectitude.

And he spares him, and says, Redeem him, that he may not descend to corruption; I have found a ransom.” Schultens has divided the opinions which have been entertained of the passage into three classes. They are:

1. The opinions of those who suppose that the messenger, or angel, here, refers to a man. Of those who hold this opinion, he enumerates no less than seven classes. They are such as these:
   1. Those who hold that the man referred to is some distinguished instructor sent to the sick to teach them the will of God, an opinion held by Munster and Isidorus.
   2. Those who refer it to a prophet, as Junius et Tremillius.
   3. Codurcus supposes that it refers to the case of Abimelech, who was made sick on account of Sarah, and that the man referred to was a prophet, who announced to him that God was righteous (Genesis 20:0).
   4. The fourth and fifth cases slightly vary from these specified.
   5. Those who hold that Elihu referred to himself as being the angel, or messenger, that God had sent to make known to Job the truth regarding the divine government, and the reason why He afflicts people. Of this opinion was Gusset, and we may add that this is the opinion of Umbreit.
   6. Those who suppose that some faithful servant of God is intended, without specifying who, who comes to the sick and afflicted, and announces to them the reason of the divine dispensations.
2. The second class of opinions is, that an angel is referred to here, and that the meaning is, that God employs angelic beings to communicate His will to people, and especially to the afflicted—to make known to them the reason why they are afflicted, and the assurance that He is willing to show mercy to them if they will repent. Of those who hold this, Schultens mentions:
   1. The Septuagint which renders it, “the angels of death”;
   2. The Chaldee paraphrasist, who understands it as “the comforting angel”—the Paraclete;
   3. The opinion of Mercer, who supposes it to refer to a good angel, who, though there are a thousand of a contrary description, if he announces the will of God, and shows the true reason why He afflicts people, may be the means of reclaiming them;
   4. The opinion of Clerc, who regards it as a mere hypothesis of Elihu, saying that supposing an angel would thus visit people, they might be reclaimed;
   5. The opinion of Grotius, who supposes it refers to angels regarded as mediators, who perform their office of mediation in two ways—by admonishing people, and by praying for them. This was also the opinion of Maimonides;
   6. The opinion of Jerome, who supposes that it refers to the angel standing in the presence of God, and who is employed by Him in admonishing and correcting mankind.
3. The third class of opinions consists of those who refer it to the Messiah. Of those who have held this opinion, the following may be mentioned: Cocceius—of course; Calovius, Schmidius, and Augustine.

Amidst this diversity of sentiment, it is difficult, if not impossible, to determine the real meaning of the passage. The general sentiment is indeed plain. It is, that God visits people with affliction in order to restrain them from sin, and to correct them when they have erred. It is not from hostility to them; not from mere justice; not because He delights in their sufferings; and not because He wishes to cut them off.

They may suffer much and long, as Job had done, without knowing the true reason why it was done. They may form erroneous views of the design of the divine administration, and suppose that God is severe and harsh.

But if a messenger comes in such circumstances, who explains the reason of the divine dealings, and shows the sufferer on what principles God inflicts pain; and if the sufferer hears the message, and acquiesces in the divine dealings, then God would be willing to be merciful. He would say that He was satisfied; the object of the affliction was accomplished, and He would restore the afflicted to health, and bestow upon him the most satisfactory evidences of His own favor.

An examination of the particular words and phrases occurring in the passage may elucidate more clearly this general idea and lead us to its true interpretation. The word translated “messenger” (מלאך mal'âk) is that which is usually employed to denote an angel. It means, properly, one who is sent, from לאך (to send), and is applied:

• To one sent, or a messenger (Job 1:14; compare 1 Samuel 16:19);
• To a messenger sent from God, as, for example:
  • To angels, since angels were employed on messages of mercy or judgment to mankind (Exodus 23:20; 2 Samuel 24:16);
  • To a prophet as sent from God (Haggai 1:13; Malachi 3:1);
  • To a priest (Ecclesiastes 5:6; Malachi 2:7). It is rendered here by Jerome, angel, and by the Septuagint, angels bringing death.

So far as the word is concerned, it may apply to any messenger sent from God—whether an angel, a prophet, or the Messiah; anyone who should be commissioned to explain to man the reason why afflictions were sent, and to communicate the assurance that God was ready to pardon.

An interpreter - That is, an angel-interpreter, or a messenger who should be an interpreter. The word (מליץ mēliyts) is from (לוץ lûts)—to stammer, to speak in a foreign tongue; and then in the Hiphil, to cause to understand a foreign language, or to explain, to interpret. Hence, it means one who explains or interprets that which was obscure. It may mean here one who explains to the sufferer the true principles of the divine administration, or who interprets the design of the divine dealings.

In 2 Chronicles 32:31, it is rendered “ambassadors”—referring to the ambassadors that came from Babylon to Hezekiah—rendered in the margin, interpreters. In Isaiah 43:27, it is rendered “teachers,” in the margin “interpreters,” referring to the religious teachers of the Jews, or those who were appointed to explain the law of God. Gesenius supposes that it means here the same as intercessor, or internuncius, and that the phrase denotes an interceding angel, or one interceding with God for people.

But there is no instance in which the word (מליץ mēliyts) is so employed, and such an interpretation is not demanded by the connection here. The idea involved in the word here is immediately explained by Elihu himself. The word denotes one who would “show to man his uprightness”; that is, who would be able to vindicate the righteousness of God, and explain His dealings. This word, also, may therefore be applicable to a prophet, a sage, an angel, or the Messiah—to anyone who would be able to explain and interpret the divine dealings. So far as the language is concerned, there is no reason why it should not be applied to Elihu himself.

One among a thousand - Such a one as you would scarcely hope to find among a thousand; that is, one who was endowed with a knowledge of the ways of God, and who was qualified for this work in a much more eminent manner than the mass of people. We have now a similar phrase to denote a man eminent for wisdom, learning, skill, or moral worth.

This language would most properly apply to a human messenger. One would hardly think of making such distinctions among angelic beings, or of implying that any one of them might not be qualified to bear a message to man, or that it was necessary to make such a selection as is implied by the phrase here to explain the dealings of God.

To show to man His uprightness - This is the office which the interpreting-messenger was to perform. The “uprightness” referred to here, I suppose, is that of God, and means the rectitude of His doings; or, in a more general sense, the justness of His character, the equity of His administration. So explained, it would mean that the messenger would come to show that God is worthy of confidence; that He is not harsh, stern, severe, and cruel.

The afflicted person is supposed to have no clear views on this point, but to regard God as severe and unmerciful. Elihu, in this, undoubtedly had Job in his eye, as entertaining views of God which were far from correct. What was necessary, he said, was that someone would come who could show the sufferer that God is worthy of confidence, and that His character is wholly upright.

Prof. Lee interprets this as referring wholly to the Messiah, and as denoting the “righteousness which this Mediator is empowered to give or impute to those who duly seek it; and thus, as a Mediator, between God and man, to make it out as their due, by means of the ransom so found, offered, and accepted.”

Noyes explains it as meaning “his duty”; that is, “what reason and religion require of a man in his situation: repentance, submission, and prayer to God for pardon.” But it seems to me more natural to refer it to the great principles of the divine government, as being worthy of confidence. It was desirable that those principles should be so explained as to inspire such confidence, and particularly this was what Elihu supposed was needed by Job.

On the whole, then, it seems probable that Elihu, in this passage, in mentioning the messenger, referred to someone who should perform the office which he himself purposed to perform—some man well acquainted with the principles of the divine administration, who could explain the reasons why people suffer, who could present such considerations as should lead the sufferer to true repentance, and who could assure him of the divine mercy. The reasons for this interpretation may be summed up in few words. They are:

1. That this is all that is fairly and necessarily implied in the language; such an interpretation meets the obvious import of all the expressions and leaves nothing unexplained.
2. It accords with what Elihu supposed to be the views of Job. Elihu regarded him as having improper apprehensions of the government of God, and of the reasons why afflictions were sent upon him. He had patiently listened to all that Job had to say, had heard him give utterance to much that seemed to be in the spirit of complaint and murmuring. It was manifest to Elihu that Job had not had right apprehensions of the design of trials, and that they had not produced the proper effect on his mind. He still needed someone—an interpreter sent from God—to explain all this, and to present such views as should lead him to put confidence in God as a God of mercy and equity.
3. It accords with the character which Elihu had assumed, and which he all along maintained. He professed to come from God (Job 32:8). He was in the place of God (Job 33:6). He came to explain the whole matter which had excited so long and so warm a debate—a debate to which he had attentively listened, and where neither Job nor his friends had stated the true principles of the divine administration. To represent himself now as having a clue to the reason why God afflicts people in this manner, and as being qualified to explain the perplexing subject, was in accordance with the character which he maintained.
4. It accords with the effect which he wished to produce on the mind of Job. He wished to bring him to confide in God; to show him that all these mysterious dealings were designed to bring him back to His Creator, and to restore peace and confidence to his agitated and troubled bosom.

While Elihu, therefore, advances a general proposition, I do not doubt that he meant to represent himself as such a messenger sent from God. Though in the whole of his speech he manifested almost the extreme of modesty, yet he regarded himself as qualified to unravel the mystery. That it refers to the Messiah cannot be demonstrated, and is improbable for the following reasons:

1. It is nowhere applied to Him in the New Testament—a consideration not indeed decisive, but of some force, since it is not very safe to apply passages to Him from the Old Testament without such authority. At least, the general rule is to be repudiated and rejected, that every passage is to be supposed to have such a reference which can be possibly made to apply to Him, or where the language can be made to describe His person and offices.
2. The work of the “interpreter,” the “angel,” or “messenger,” referred to here, is not that of the Messiah. The effect which Elihu says would be produced would be that the life of the sufferer would be spared, his disease would be removed, and his flesh would be restored with infantile freshness. But this is not the work which the Redeemer came to perform, and is not that which He actually does.
3. The subject here discussed is not such as is applicable to the work of the Messiah. It is here a question solely about the design of affliction. That was the point to be explained; and explanation was what was needed, and what was proposed to be done. But this is not the special work of the Messiah. His was a much larger, wider office; and even if this had been His whole work, how would the reference to that have met the point under discussion?

I am inclined, therefore, to the opinion that Elihu had himself particularly in view, and that he meant to represent himself as at that time sustaining the character of a messenger sent from God to explain important principles of His administration.