What a great argument in Job 34! Elihu summarizes Job's claim: Job has said, "I am in the right, and God has taken away my right"; in spite of being right he is counted a liar, and his wound is incurable though he is without transgression (a paraphrase of Job 34:5–6). Elihu asks what man is like Job, who "drinks up scoffing like water," keeps company with evildoers, and says it profits a man nothing to delight in God (a paraphrase of Job 34:7–9).

Elihu goes on: who gave God charge over the earth, or laid the whole world on Him? If God should set His heart to it and gather His spirit and breath to Himself, all flesh would perish together, and man would return to dust (a paraphrase of Job 34:13–15). He wishes that Job would be tried to the end, because he answers like the wicked, adding rebellion to his sin, clapping his hands among them and multiplying words against God (a paraphrase of Job 34:36–37).

Job argues that he is being mistreated and comes close to blaspheming God — yet he stops short of actually saying anything blasphemous, while implying much. Elihu points this out: "Job speaks without knowledge; his words are without insight" (Job 34:35). Granted, Elihu is "quoting" what others would say of Job, but he reinforces it in chapter 35: Job opens his mouth in empty talk and multiplies words without knowledge (cf. Job 35:16).

Sinfully, Job does not trust God wholly. He does not utter anything blasphemous or even heretical — Job's words are not grounds for judgment — but his attitude carries a subtle message: I doubt You are as good as You say, or that You know it all as You claim — the sin of doubt.

God's response is to raise an impassable mountain before Job, leaving Job to say that he had heard of God by the hearing of the ear, but now his eye sees Him; therefore he despises himself and repents in dust and ashes (cf. Job 42:5–6).

Job reaches a sublime state. Elihu makes a wonderful point: if you sin, how does that affect God? And if you are righteous, what do you give Him? Your wickedness and your righteousness affect only people like yourself (a paraphrase of Job 35:6–8).

Your good deeds are nothing to God — they are like filthy rags (cf. Isaiah 64:6); they are for the people around you. The sublime state Job reaches is expressed by David in Psalm 51: he knows his transgressions and his sin is ever before him; God does not delight in sacrifice or burnt offering; the sacrifice God desires is a broken spirit, and a broken and contrite heart He will not despise (a paraphrase of Psalm 51:3, 16–17).

AI-Expanded Reflection

Elihu is one of the most debated figures in Job. He appears suddenly in chapter 32, speaks for six chapters without interruption, and then disappears — God rebukes the three friends at the end (42:7) but says nothing about Elihu. Some interpreters see him as a young man who repeats the friends' errors with more confidence; others see him as preparing the way for God's speeches, since he shifts the focus from Job's presumed sin to God's greatness and the purposes of suffering (33:14–30; 36:15, "He delivers the afflicted by their affliction"). The comment's reading, which takes Elihu's diagnosis of Job's attitude seriously, belongs to the second group, and it has good support: God's opening words to Job, "Who is this that darkens counsel by words without knowledge?" (38:2), echo Elihu's charge.

It is also worth holding onto God's final verdict: of the four speakers, only Job had spoken "what is right" about God (42:7–8). His protest, however flawed, was addressed honestly to God, while the friends spoke about God in ways that misrepresented Him. Job's repentance in 42:6 is not a confession that he deserved his suffering, but that he had spoken of things "too wonderful for me, which I did not know" (42:3). The comment's link to Psalm 51's broken and contrite heart captures that humility well.

Job 32

So these three men ceased to answer Job, because he was righteous in his own eyes (Job 32:1).

Normally “righteous in his own eyes” is a bad thing. Proverbs points to this kind of folly. It is folly since you cannot penetrate past this pride. They are closed off. But to hold too tightly to this is as good as saying ‘all discrimination is bad’ or ‘all prejudices are bad.’ – it is not.

We are to separate good from evil and shake out the chaff from the wheat, we are to be discerning, we are to discriminate.

We are to be filled with the knowledge of God, deciding today who your house will serve, zealously turning away any other offers – or offers to offer- we are to be holy, we are to be prejudiced.

Similarly, Job refused to allow an external idea to be introduced. “I am righteous,” and the Lord agrees with him. It is difficult and often futile to speak to someone and they are ‘arrogant’ or full of pride so that you cannot counsel them, but they are arrogant or prideful, only if they are wrong.

The Biblical judicial system requires proof, witnesses and strong argument before you can judge. Here Job’s friends used the best knowledge of God they had to counsel Job, but he was righteous in his own eyes – they saw it as evil and wrong but the Eternal Judge would soon overturn their judgment.

Jesus suffered such a thing before the supreme court of his day. The Sanhedrin ruled him to be evil, apparently judging his claim to equality with God to be blasphemous. But, like Job, even their best was not able to discern appropriately, and God overturned their judgment, raising him from the dead, and giving the Sanhedrin the door to salvation which it appears at least some took.

Elihu was the only one who was able to rebuke Job and not be scorned by God. While Job was correct in his own assessment, he was not in his manner. He was righteous and, being righteous in his own eyes, duly rebuffed the three. But:

But Elihu son of Barakel the Buzite, of the family of Ram, became very angry with Job for justifying himself rather than God (Job 32:2).

He did not perform perfectly. The righteous are so by faith not their own actions, Job justified himself rather than being justified by God.

Job 34

‘Job speaks without knowledge; his words lack insight.’ Oh, that Job might be tested to the utmost for answering like a wicked man! (Job 34:35–36).

In contrast to Job, Jesus essentially said “you will see my Father justify me:”

Mark 14

Yet even about this their testimony did not agree. And the high priest stood up in the midst and asked Jesus, “Have you no answer to make? What is it that these men testify against you?”g But he remained silent and made no answer. Again the high priest asked him, “Are you the Christ, the Son of the Blessed?” And Jesus said, “I am, and you will see the Son of Man seated at the right hand of Power, and coming with the clouds of heaven” (Mark 14:59–62).

AI-Expanded Reflection

The friends’ failure in Job is not simply that they distinguish right from wrong. They apply a moral scheme with such confidence that Job’s suffering becomes, in their reasoning, sufficient proof of hidden wickedness. Their conclusion outruns their knowledge of his actual conduct. The reader knows from the opening chapters that this explanation is inadequate. Job’s resistance therefore contains an important demand for truthful judgment: a person should not confess an invented offense merely because others find that confession necessary to preserve their theory of how the world works.

Fernando’s concern for evidence is consequently well placed. Biblical requirements for witnesses and fair judgment oppose accusations built on appearance or convenience. Nevertheless, discernment and prejudice should not be treated as interchangeable virtues. Discernment seeks to judge accurately; prejudice reaches a conclusion without adequate attention to the person or evidence. A settled commitment to God can guide inquiry without making inquiry unnecessary. We can be firm about moral principles while remaining corrigible about whether a particular person has violated them.

The distinction also qualifies the claim that a person is proud only if wrong. Someone can hold a correct conclusion arrogantly, or reach an incorrect conclusion humbly and be willing to learn. Job’s case itself requires more than a simple choice between total vindication and total condemnation. God declares that the friends have not spoken rightly as Job has (42:7), yet also challenges Job’s limited knowledge and his temptation to justify himself by condemning God (38:2; 40:8). The narrative permits Job’s central protest against the friends to be justified while still exposing limits in the way he argues his case.

Elihu’s role should be handled with similar care. He is not included in the explicit rebuke of the three friends at the conclusion, but that silence does not amount to a statement that every claim in his speeches is correct. His anger and accusations remain speeches spoken by a character within the debate. In particular, a harsh wish that Job be tested further should not be treated automatically as God’s own pastoral instruction. Readers must consider the whole book rather than awarding unquestionable authority to a speaker on the basis of an omission.

The comparison with Jesus is illuminating where it concerns unjust accusation and divine vindication. Mark emphasizes the failure of testimony to agree, Jesus’ silence before some accusations, and his direct answer about his identity (14:55–62). His appeal to the Son of Man and the right hand of Power draws the hearer toward divine authority, not merely toward the claim that he will eventually win a human argument. His resurrection vindicates the one condemned. At the same time, Jesus’ unique identity and sinlessness should not be transferred without qualification to Job or to ourselves whenever we feel misunderstood.

The practical lesson is a disciplined combination of conviction and teachability. We should refuse false confessions, investigate accusations fairly, and avoid explaining another person’s suffering by inventing guilt. We should also examine the spirit in which we defend a true claim. The desire to be vindicated can become so consuming that we stop hearing correction or lose compassion for others. Job teaches us to bring the longing for justice before God without pretending that we possess his complete knowledge. Faithful judgment is neither moral indifference nor uncorrectable certainty; it is a serious commitment to truth under the authority of the Judge who sees what we do not.

Job 32:4 Now Elihu had waited to speak to Job because they were older than he.

There is always a respect for your elders that the righteous should have. Even in delaying to correct the elders; delaying long enough that another elder can step in, as if the trickle of responsibility to give reproach ultimately lands on youth.

'Because one came first' is enough to require respect, since this is reflective of honoring God who was before all. This follows to men over women (cf. 1 Timothy 2:13 For Adam was formed first, then Eve), elder to younger (cf. 1 Timothy 5:1–2 Do not rebuke an older man but encourage him as you would a father, older women as mothers)

This does not say 'do not correct them' but rather gives a method to do this. One translation expresses the approach through Exhorting, another Appealing, or by Entreating; and all as if to your loving parent.

Elihu, the only one omitted from God's rebuke, further expresses the authority to reproach to Truth:

Job 32:8–9: But it is the spirit in man, the breath of the Almighty, that makes him understand. It is not the old who are wise, nor the aged who understand what is right.

Specifically, 'what is right' there is great value in the knowledge of those 'of days' (the elders).

AI-Expanded Reflection

Elihu's delay acknowledges the social weight of age and experience. He listens before speaking and explains that he expected wisdom from those with more years. Yet Job 32:8–9 refuses to make age an infallible source of understanding. God gives insight, and a younger person may perceive what established speakers have missed. The passage therefore holds respect and discernment together. Waiting can honor others without surrendering the responsibility to speak when the discussion has become fruitless or false.

First Timothy 5:1–2 gives the original's application a particularly concrete form. Timothy is to appeal to an older man as a father and to treat others according to familial patterns of respect and purity. The prohibition concerns harsh rebuke; it does not remove older believers from accountability. The same chapter provides procedures for addressing accusations against elders and dealing with established sin (1 Timothy 5:19–21). Respect governs the manner and fairness of correction rather than guaranteeing immunity from it.

The comparison with creation order in 1 Timothy 2:13 requires a narrower inference than the original suggests. Paul appeals to Adam's formation before Eve in a particular argument about teaching and authority, whose application Christians interpret differently. That appeal does not establish a universal principle that anyone or anything created earlier necessarily possesses authority over everything created later. Such a rule would create conclusions the text itself does not draw. Likewise, God's authority rests on his identity as Creator and Lord, not merely on being older than creation. A sound application should follow the specific reasoning of each passage rather than use chronological priority as an all-purpose hierarchy.

The silence about Elihu in God's final rebuke also needs to remain an observation, not a complete certification of his speech. His contribution must still be assessed in the whole book's argument. This is consistent with his own central point: wisdom does not become unquestionable because of the speaker's position, whether old or young.

Practically, a younger believer can ask permission to raise a concern, state the evidence accurately, distinguish a question from an accusation, and listen to the response. An older believer can welcome correction without interpreting every disagreement as disrespect. Both can acknowledge experience as a gift while recognizing that no accumulation of years eliminates the need for God's instruction. Such a relationship makes truth a shared responsibility rather than a contest over who is entitled to have the final word.

But Elihu son of Barakel the Buzite, of the family of Ram, became very angry with Job for justifying himself rather than God. He was also angry with the three friends, because they had found no way to refute Job, and yet had condemned him (Job 32:2–3).

We should consider Elihu's words because he is neither rebuked by God nor answered by Job, his words immediately precede God's response, and his response in many ways parallels God's response.

He is just a youth by his own admission, but his words seem wiser than those of any of the older friends and perhaps even that of Job. He assesses the situation perfectly. He sees the three friends at fault because they condemned Job without a valid reason. He also sees Job at fault because he seemed more concerned with justifying himself rather than God.

What these friends and Job failed to fully appreciate was that God is the Potter and they are the clay. As Elihu also says of himself: "I am the same as you in God's sight; I too am a piece of clay" (Job 33:6). But he would explore the implications of this.

He reminds Job that God is not bound to answer him in the way he wants, for "God is greater than any mortal" (Job 33:12).

Elihu answers Job's claim that God has denied him justice by pointing out that God is not like an appointed official (Job 34:12–13), such that He has to answer. He is answerable to no one. He is the essence of all life, so that all life would perish by the simple intention of his will (Job 34:14–15).

Elihu challenges Job's claim against God's justice by pointing out that God is not merely a just and mighty ruler, but He epitomizes justice and might (Job 34:18–20), such that kings are worthless and nobles are wicked, the poor and rich are the same, and all the mighty are as nothing to Him (Job 34:17–20). God defines what is just and right, such that people are just when they follow Him and unjust when they don't (Job 34:27). If then God's justice is in His very nature, for Job to contest God's justice would be to challenge God's very nature.

Elihu confronts Job not with a particular sin but Job's very approach. He challenges Job for trying to get an answer from God on his terms: "Should God then reward you on your terms, when you refuse to repent?" (Job 34:33). Rather than humbling himself, Job is coming to God almost as to challenge Him. This is why Elihu gives this strong rebuke:

Job speaks without knowledge; his words lack insight; Oh, that Job might be tested to the utmost for answering like a wicked man! To his sin he adds rebellion; scornfully he claps his hands among us and multiplies his words against God (Job 34:35–37).

Even though Job is an upright man, he is answering "like a wicked man," because he is challenging God's right to do as He pleases. Thus, we might even say that righteousness is not simply following God's rules, as we understand them, but it is ultimately following God Himself.

I can think of no human justification for what God put Job through. Even though we could say that Job probably grew in his understanding and appreciation of God, the intense suffering and shame he endured, as well as the irretrievable loss of his original family, do not agree with any "enlightened" justice system in our modern world. But let us understand that the message of Job is not about our trying to fit what God did into our worldview but rather that we should acknowledge that God is indeed God, who does just as He pleases.

What if a master had a servant, and the master took everything away from him and had his children murdered, and then sent an evil henchman to torture the servant with the full force of his skills short of death? What if he also allowed his friends to come to him and taunt him? And what if he did this to show this evil henchman that the servant would remain true to him no matter what. Who among us would say that this is just? Wouldn't we all say that this is barbaric? Even if everything was restored in the end, would our opinion change? There is no human justification for God's actions in Job, even with the curtains of heaven pulled aside for the reader.

However, if we can understand Job, we will understand God's command to Saul concerning the Amalekite men, women, children and animals in 1 Samuel 15. If we can understand Job, we will understand God's raising up of Pharaoh only to destroy him with a mighty hand, and we will understand God's raising up of Judas Iscariot so that he might betray Jesus and become the "son of perdition". If we can understand Job, we will understand how God will forever condemn in eternal torment every person not chosen for eternal life through faith in Jesus Christ.

Yet, since God is God, and there is no other, we must not try to mold him into a figure that is more acceptable to us. So we embrace the hard truths about God as well as the wonderful and delightful. And in a spirit of humble repentance we come to Him with unceasing gratitude for His grace toward us, to whom He has promised eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

AI-Expanded Reflection

Elihu enters the debate dissatisfied with both Job and the three friends. He objects to the friends' inability to answer Job and to Job's tendency to justify himself at God's expense. His youth does not automatically disqualify him; Job 32 emphasizes that wisdom ultimately depends on God's gift rather than age alone. His speech can therefore challenge a stalled discussion in which respected older participants have become increasingly certain and increasingly unhelpful.

The absence of an explicit rebuke of Elihu in the closing chapter is significant, but it does not amount to an explicit endorsement of every sentence he speaks. Readers differ over whether his speeches prepare directly for God's answer, introduce a partly corrective perspective, or themselves require evaluation. Some of his emphases anticipate the divine speeches, while his sharp accusation that Job adds rebellion can sound close to the friends' severity. The text should be allowed to preserve this interpretive question rather than having silence resolve it automatically.

Elihu does state an essential principle: God does not pervert justice (Job 34:12). His argument about God's impartiality and the dependence of all life upon him should not be reduced to “might makes right.” He emphasizes that wealth and rank do not purchase favorable treatment, because all are God's workmanship. This challenges human injustice by appeal to divine character. It would lose its force if “justice” meant nothing more than whatever the stronger party elects to do.

The original's analogy of a master ordering a servant's children murdered expresses the emotional difficulty of Job with unusual candor. Yet analogies between divine permission and a human criminal commission have limits. The book differentiates the adversary's hostile purpose, the violence of human raiders, and God's sovereign permission. It does not authorize earthly rulers to imitate God's unique prerogatives or provide a simple moral formula by which every tragedy becomes understandable. The loss of Job's children also remains real; later blessing does not turn persons into interchangeable property.

The further biblical examples need their own contexts. The command against Amalek is given to Saul in 1 Samuel 15, rather than to Joshua during the conquest of Canaan. Pharaoh and Judas raise questions of responsibility within divine purpose, but neither can be adequately explained by importing one shorthand account of Job. The Christian response can acknowledge these difficult texts without supplying more certainty than they disclose. Trust rests on God's revealed righteousness and his saving action in Christ, while humble interpretation continues to distinguish his sovereignty from the destructive uses of power that Scripture condemns in human hands.