Thomas Aquinas Commentary Job 32:1-22

"So these three men ceased to answer Job, because he was righteous in his own eyes. Then was kindled the wrath of Elihu the son of Barachel the Buzite, of the family of Ram: against Job was his wrath kindled, because he justified himself rather than God. Also against his three friends was his wrath kindled, because they had found no answer, and yet had condemned Job. Now Elihu had waited to speak unto Job, because they were elder than he. And when Elihu saw that there was no answer in the mouth of these three men, his wrath was kindled. And Elihu the son of Barachel the Buzite answered and said, I am young, and ye are very old; Wherefore I held back, and durst not show you mine opinion. I said, Days should speak, And multitude of years should teach wisdom. But there is a spirit in man, And the breath of the Almighty giveth them understanding. It is not the great that are wise, Nor the aged that understand justice. Therefore I said, Hearken to me; I also will show mine opinion. Behold, I waited for your words, I listened for your reasonings, Whilst ye searched out what to say. Yea, I attended unto you, And, behold, there was none that convinced Job, Or that answered his words, among you. Beware lest ye say, We have found wisdom; God may vanquish him, not man: For he hath not directed his words against me; Neither will I answer him with your speeches. They are amazed, they answer no more: They have not a word to say. And shall I wait, because they speak not, Because they stand still, and answer no more? I also will answer my part, I also will show mine opinion. For I am full of words; The spirit within me constraineth me. Behold, my breast is as wine which hath no vent; Like new wine-skins it is ready to burst. I will speak, that I may be refreshed; I will open my lips and answer. Let me not, I pray you, respect any man`s person; Neither will I give flattering titles unto any man. For I know not to give flattering titles; [Else] would my Maker soon take me away." — Job 32:1-22 (ASV)

After the dispute between Job and his friends had ended, the argument of Elihu against Job is introduced. He uses more penetrating arguments against Job than the previous speeches and approaches nearer to the truth. Therefore, Job does not answer him, although Elihu still deviates a little from the truth and interprets Job's words incorrectly, as we shall clearly see.

He begins by stating that the reason that moved him to speak was indignation against Job and his friends. The text first establishes the premise of the friends' silence, saying, So these three men... gave up answering Job. It is noteworthy here that the text would not call them "men" if this were not an actual event but only a fabricated parable. The text next indicates the cause of their silence, saying, because he seemed righteous to them.

For Job had said many things to demonstrate his own righteousness, which these men could not contradict. For both of these reasons—the silence of his friends and the fact that Job seemed righteous to them—Elihu, who was standing by, was stirred to anger. So the text continues, describing him: But angry (in heart) and indignant (in showing outward signs of anger), there was Elihu (his name), the son of Barachiel (his lineage), the Buzite (his homeland), and of the family of Ram (his tribe). This whole description serves to show that this was an actual event.

The text first explains the cause of his anger against Job, saying, He was angry against Job because he said he was just before God. This refers especially to what Job said: He knows my way, and later, My feet followed in his steps (Job 23:10). Regarding his friends, the text continues, Further, he was indignant against his three friends because they had not found a reasonable answer, but they merely condemned Job, saying that he was evil.

The text shows why Elihu had not previously answered Job, saying, Therefore Elihu waited for Job to speak without contradicting him, because those who spoke were his elders. He deferred to them as if they were wiser men, as their old age required. But since it did not seem to him that reverence for a person should compromise the truth, he, though younger, began to answer the three elders angrily. So the text continues, Since he had seen that the three could not answer Job's arguments, he was violently angry, because he thought that the truth would perish through their laziness. He therefore wanted to defend the truth as he understood it in their place. The text continues, and Elihu, the son of Barachiel, the Buzite, answered, responding to the discourses and arguments of Job.

In his anger, he first excuses his former silence, citing his youth (And he said, ‘I am younger in years’) and the age of the others (and you are older). Young men ought to defer in reverence to their elders, and so he says, on that account I lowered my head, as a sign of reverence and humility, and I was reluctant to express my opinion to you, so as not to seem presumptuous by interrupting the words of wiser men with my own.

It seems probable that older men speak more wisely for two reasons. First, young men, from the fervor of their souls, frequently propose many things without any order, whereas older men, because of the gravity of their age, speak more maturely. So he says, For I was hoping that a greater length of years would speak with more seriousness and greater effect. Second, older men, through the experience of a long lifetime, have witnessed many things and can consequently speak with more wisdom. So the text continues, and a great number of years—through which one can acquire experience—would teach wisdom, which is received from that experience.

Consequently, he excuses the fact that he is now going to speak by explaining that he has learned that age is not the sufficient cause of wisdom, but rather divine inspiration is. So he says, But as I see, the spirit is in men, inasmuch as He operates in them. This is why he adds, and the inspiration of the Almighty—by which He breathes the Holy Spirit into men, who is the spirit of wisdom and understanding (Isaiah 11:2)—gives understanding of the truth, which is the beginning of wisdom in those who are inspired.

He shows that this inspiration is the unique cause of wisdom based on the fact that age does not perfectly produce it. So he says, It is not the old that are wise (regarding the knowledge of divine truth), nor the aged that understand what is right (regarding the ordering of human acts). Because although he was not old, he was nevertheless confident that he was inspired by God. Therefore, he dared to speak, and so he says, Therefore, I will speak.

In his speech, he first urges them to listen on the authority of God, by whose inspiration he was speaking. So he says, Listen to me, so that they would not interrupt his discourse. To those listening, he promises doctrines of knowledge, and so he then says, and I will show you, even I—though I am young—my learning, from which I will answer Job's arguments.

It was only right that they listen to him, because he had listened to them. He continues, For I have waited for your discourses, which you pronounced against Job. Since he thought he could discern what had been said well from what had not, he then says, I have heard your practical arguments, as if to say: In listening, I judged what in your words pertained to prudence. He had waited not for a short time, but for a long time. He defines the end of his waiting by two things. First, by their own decision, saying, as long as you debated in your arguments—that is, as long as it pleased you to argue against Job. Second, he defines the limit by the hope he had in their wise teaching, saying, and as long as I thought that you would say something I waited for you to speak. There is no need to listen any longer to someone on a subject when one does not expect them to say anything useful.

He saw that the words they used against Job were not effective. First, because they were not able to convince him, so he says, But as I see it, there is no one who can argue with Job and convince him with arguments. Second, because they could not counter his arguments, so he then says, and answer sufficiently among you (from your own understanding). Or this can mean there is no one among you—that is, of your number—to answer his arguments, the arguments he uses against you.

Their principal arguments against Job were founded on his adversities, which they attributed to a divine judgment that cannot err. He consequently shows that this answer is not sufficient, saying, Lest perhaps you should say, ‘We have found wisdom,’ God (who cannot err) threw him down, and not man, who can deceive and be deceived. He intended to answer more effectively, and so he then says, He has spoken nothing to me—for he wants to show that he is not speaking because he has been provoked—and I will not answer him according to your discourses, because I will not follow your ways in answering him, but will find another, more effective way to respond.

He intends to excuse his forthcoming answer not only in their eyes but also in the eyes of others. Therefore, he turns his discourse to the onlookers, saying, They have been terrified to speak further, lest they be more clearly defeated, and they did not answer further to Job's arguments. He shows that this silence was the result of their laziness and not the effectiveness of Job's arguments, saying, and abstained from speaking by their own will, for they kept silent out of negligence. For when someone is defeated by an effective argument, he does not stop speaking by his own will but is instead silenced by another. Since they had failed, therefore, he says that he wants to make up for their deficiency. So he says, Therefore, as I waited (for a long time, deferring to them) and as they did not speak in answer to Job's discourses, I will answer for my part. He does this because the defense of the truth is everyone’s task, and each person should contribute what he can, as if it were his own part.

However, he was moved not only by a zeal to defend the truth but also by vainglory, and so he says, and I will also show my knowledge. In fact, someone who desires vainglory wants to show off his excellence clearly if he has it. Therefore, he shows that he has the greatest ability to answer when he says, For I am full of words, as if to say: Abundant answers occur to me. Since the ability to act is not enough unless a person is also stirred to do so, he says, and the spirit of my womb constrains me. The womb is the place of conception, so here "womb" metaphorically means the intellect conceiving various intelligible ideas. Therefore, the "spirit of the womb" is the will, impelling a person to express the conceptions of his heart through speech.

It is vexing for a person not to express what he desires, and so he shows the anxiety he suffered in silence with a comparison, saying, Behold my womb (my mind) is like new wine that ferments, and without a vent breaks new wineskins. For unless the gas caused by fermenting new wine escapes through an opening, the pressure increases so much inside that it sometimes breaks the wineskins. He also compares himself to new wine because of his youth. Therefore, from his great desire to speak, he thinks there is a threatening danger unless he can express himself. So he says, I will speak and I will get relief, as if to say: In speaking, I will release the internal ferment so that I can calm the anxiety of my desire.

He now shows what he intends to say, continuing, I will open my lips and I will answer Job's words. He shows the standard he will observe in his answer when he says, I will not show respect of persons to any man. For one shows partiality when, in answering someone, he abandons the truth to defer to that person. He shows, therefore, that he does not want to do this, saying, and I will not equate God with man. For the present dispute seemed to him to be of such a character that if he were to defer to man, he would fail to guard the reverence due to divine excellence. He shows the reason he fears to do this, saying, Truly I do not know for how long I will live, in this mortal life, to be able to promise myself a long period of time for penance, and if my maker will take me away after a little while—that is, if He will take me by death to judgment. From this it is clear that Elihu agreed with Job that the retribution for sins occurs after death. Otherwise, it would seem pointless to fear offending God because of the nearness of death.