Elihu’s Discourses, devoted to proving that there can be really no undeserved suffering, that on the contrary the sufferings decreed for those who are apparently righteous are dispensations of divine love, designed to purify and to sanctify them through chastisement: The first half of the positive solution of the problem
INTRODUCTION: ELIHU’S APPEARANCE, AND THE EXORDIUM OF HIS DISCOURSE, GIVING THE REASONS FOR HIS SPEAKING
Job_32:1 to Job_33:7
1. Elihu’s appearance (related in prose)
Job_32:1-6
a
1So these three men ceased to answer Job, because he was righteous in his own eyes. 2Then was kindled the wrath of Elihu the son of Barachel the Buzite, of the kindred of Earn; against Job was his wrath kindled, because he justified himself rather than God. 3Also against his three friends was his wrath kindled, because they had found no answer, and yet had condemned Job 4 Now Elihu had waitedtill Job had spoken, because they were elder than he. 5When Elihu saw that therewas no answer in the mouth of these three men, then his wrath was kindled. 6And Elihu the son of Barachel the Buzite answered and said:
2. An explanation addressed to the previous speakers, showing why he had taken part in their controversy: Job_32:6-10
6b I am young, and ye are very old;
wherefore I was afraid,
and durst not show you mine opinion.
7 I said, Days should speak,
and multitude of years should teach wisdom.
8 But there is a spirit in man;
and the inspiration of the Almighty giveth them understanding.
9 Great men are not always wise;
neither do the aged understand judgment.
10 Therefore I said, Hearken to me;
I also will show mine opinion.
3. Setting forth that he was justified in taking part, because the friends had showed, and still showed themselves unable to refute Job: Job_32:11-22
11 Behold, I waited for your words;
I gave ear to your reasons,
whilst ye searched out what to say.
12 Yea, I attended unto you,
and behold, there was none of you that convinced Job,
or that answered his words.
13 Lest ye should say: “We have found out wisdom:
God thrusteth him down, not man.”
14 Now he hath not directed his words against me;
neither will I answer him with your speeches.
15 They were amazed, they answered no more:
they left off speaking.
16 When I had waited (for they spake not,
but stood still, and answered no more);
17 I said, I will answer also my part,
I also will show mine opinion.
18 For I am full of matter,
the spirit within me constraineth me.
19 Behold, ray belly is as wine which hath no vent,
it is ready to burst like new bottles.
20 I will speak, that I may be refreshed:
I will open my lips and answer.
21 Let me not, I pray you, accept any man’s person,
neither let me give flattering titles unto man.
22 For I know not to give flattering titles:
in so doing my Maker would soon take me away.
4. A special appeal to Job to listen calmly to him [Elihu], as a mild judge of his guilt and weakness: Job_33:1-7
1 Wherefore, Job, I pray thee, hear my speeches,
and hearken to all my words.
2 Behold, now I have opened my mouth,
my tongue hath spoken in my mouth.
3 My words shall be of the uprightness of my heart;
and my lips shall utter knowledge clearly.
4 The Spirit of God hath made me,
and the breath of the Almighty hath given me life.
5 If thou canst answer me,
set thy words in order before me, stand up.
6 Behold, I am according to thy wish in God’s stead:
I also am formed out of the clay.
7 Behold, my terror shall not make thee afraid,
neither shall my hand be heavy upon thee.
FIRST DISCOURSE; OF MAN’S GUILT BEFORE GOD
Job_33:8-33
a. Preparatory: Reproof of Job’s confidence in his entire innocence:Job_33:8-11
8 Surely thou hast spoken in mine hearing,
and I have heard the voice of thy words, saying:
9 I am clean without transgression,
I am innocent, neither is there iniquity in me.
10 Behold, He findeth occasions against me,
He counteth me for His enemy:
11 He putteth my feet in the stocks,
He marketh all my paths.
b. Didactic discussion of the true relation of sinful men to God, who seeks to warn and to save them by manifold dispensations and communications from above; Job_33:12-30
12 Behold, in this thou art not just:
I will answer thee, that God is greater than man.
13 Why dost thou strive against Him?
for He giveth not account of any of His matters.
14 For God speaketh once, yea twice,
yet man perceiveth it not.
15 In a dream, in a vision of the night,
when deep sleep falleth upon men,
in slumberings upon the bed;
16 then He openeth the ears of men,
and sealeth their instruction,
17 that He may withdraw man from his purpose,
and hide pride from man.
18 He keepeth back his soul from the pit,
and his life from perishing by the sword.
19 He is chastened also with pain upon his bed,
and the multitude of his bones with strong pain:
20 so that his life abhorreth bread,
and his soul dainty meat.
21 His flesh is consumed away, that it cannot be seen;
and his bones that were not seen stick out.
22 Yea, his soul draweth near unto the grave,
and his life to the destroyers.
23 If there be a messenger with him,
an interpreter, one among a thousand,
to show unto man his uprightness;
24 then He is gracious unto him, and saith,
Deliver him from going down to the pit:
I have found a ransom.
25 His flesh shall be fresher than a child’s;
he shall return to the days of his youth:
26 he shall pray unto God, and He will be favorable unto him;
and he shall see His face with joy;
for He will render unto man His righteousness.
27 He looketh upon men, and if any say,
I have sinned, and perverted that which was right,
and it profited me not;
28 He will deliver his soul from going into the pit,
and his life shall see the light.
29 Lo, all these things worketh God
oftentimes with man,
30 to bring back his soul from the pit,
to be enlightened with the light of the living.
c. Conclusion; Calling upon Job to give an attentive hearing to the discourses by which he would further instruct him: Job_33:31-33
31 Mark well, O Job, hearken unto me;
hold thy peace, and I will speak.
32 If thou hast anything to say, answer me:
speak, for I desire to justify thee.
33 If not, hearken unto me:
hold thy peace, and I shall teach thee wisdom.
EXEGETICAL AND CRITICAL
1. On the general subject of the genuineness of Elihu’s discourses, comp. Introd., § 10, as well as below, Doctrinal and Ethical Remarks.—The circumstantiality of the twofold introduction to these discourses—first that of the author in prose, then the self-introduction of Elihu (Job_32:6b—Job_33:7) which latter again consists of three subdivisions—is to be explained by the fact that in Elihu there was to be introduced the representative of a new stand-point, which had not yet received its statement, differing as it did from that of all the former speakers. For neither Job’s one-sided denial of his guilt nor the blunt and rough way in which he had been attacked, satisfies this new speaker. He appears to speak for and against Job, whose “better self” he in some measure represents (comp. Victor Andreä, p. 139); hence the three stages of his self-introduction: (1) the captatio benevolentiæ with which he begins; or the apology for his youth addressed to all the former speakers (Job_32:6b–10); (2) the reprimand administered to the three friends, as having shown themselves incompetent to refute Job (Job_32:11-22);—and (3) the appeal to Job to give a hearing to his instructions (Job_33:1-7) an appeal full of earnest admonition and loving encouragement. The last of these divisions provides a direct transition to the first of Elihu’s discourses proper (Job_33:8-33), in which he sets forth the foundation of Job’s suffering—the universal sinfulness and guilt of men before God, this discourse again occupying three divisions, of which the middle, being the longest (Job_32:12-22), contains the proper didactic exposition of the subject, while the first, by citing the propositions of Job which are to be refuted, prepares the way for the discussion; and the third furnishes, together with a practical conclusion, the transition to the didactic discourse which follows. The most of these divisions are at the same time coincident each with a single strophe, except that the long middle sections (Job_32:11-22 and Job_33:12-30) are subdivided into several strophes, the former into two, the latter into four, together with a short epiphonema of two verses (Job 32:29–30).
2. Introduction in prose (although with poetic accents—comp. above, § 3, p. 264) [the poetic mode of accentuation retained, because a change in the middle of the book, and especially in a piece of such small compass appeared awkward,: Del.] Job_32:1-6 a.—Then the three men ceased to answer Job. This notification occurs first here, not after Job 26. or Job 28., because it was only through the last monologues of Job that the defeat of the three opponents became complete.—Because he was righteous in his own eyes;i. e., because he would not admit that his suffering was in any degree whatever the consequence of his guilt; a statement which refers back in particular to the contents of Job 31.
Job_32:2. Then was kindled the wrath of Elihu, the son of Barachel, etc.
àֱìִéäåּà
, which is written below without the final
à
(Job_32:4; Job_35:1) signifies—“my God is he,” and appears also as an Israelitish name (1Sa_1:1; 1Ch_12:20). The Elihu of our passage is a Nahorite, of the tribe of Buz (
áּåּæ
), who in Gen_22:21 is mentioned as the brother of Uz, and the second son of Nahor, and whose tribe, according to Jer_25:23, like Dedan and Tema, belonged to the inhabitants of the Arabian desert. The “family of Ram” is mentioned only here. The identification of the name
øָí
with
àֲøָí
is inadmissible, for
øָí
is simply the name of a family, not of a people. The Aramaic origin of the Buzites, according to the above description, admits indeed of no doubt, and the same may be said respecting the poet’s purpose in that connection to impart an Aramaic coloring to Elihu’s discourses. Lightfoot and Rosenmüller curiously imagine that under the character of Elihu the poet has concealed himself, and that this explains the particularity with which, in opposition to what is characteristic of the book elsewhere, he describes the origin of the new speaker. This detailed account of Elihu’s genealogy is undoubtedly a little singular, but it may be satisfactorily explained by the poet’s desire to represent him as a kinsman of the same race with Job, or it may be his desire to distinguish between him and some other well-known person of the name. In respect to the question whether Elihu’s position is that of “one not simply near to the Abrahamitic revelation, but of one standing within the pale of it” (as Vilmar thinks, l. c.), nothing definite can be established from the genealogical statement before us.—Respecting the name
áָּøַֽëְàֵì
(instead of which some MSS. write
áַּøַëְàֵì
, with a latent Daghesh). It signifies—“may God-bless!” and is thus distinguished as an imperative formation from the indicative of the specifically Israelitish name
áֶּøֶëְéָá
(“Jehovah blesseth”).—Because he declared himself righteous before God.
öִøֵּ÷
instead of the Hiph. which, is elsewhere more common in this signification, occurs again Job_33:32, and often in Jerem. and Ezek.—
îֵàֱìֹäִéí
, not “more than God, at the expense of God” (Ew., Delitz.) [E. V., Con., Nov., Carey, Words., etc.], but “before,”
îִï
accordingly as in Job_4:17. The comparison of the passage in Job_40:8 is scarcely sufficient to confirm the former rendering.
Job_32:3 states how far the conduct of the three friends had caused Elihu’s discontent:—because they found no answer, and still condemned Job. So—taking
åְ
in
åַéַּøְùִׁéòåּ
adversatively—may the words be rendered with the greatest probability (so Hirzel, Ewald) [E. V., Noy., Con., Carey, Rodwell, Elz., Schlottm., Renan]. For the fact that the friends had condemned Job notwithstanding their inability to answer him aggravates the guilt of the three in Eliun’s eyes; and that he really attributed to them double guilt, as compared with Job, is evident from the passage which follows, and which involves more rigid censure of the friends (Job_32:11 seq. ; 15 seq.) than of Job (comp. also Job_32:5). With this interpretation agrees essentially that of Delitzsch and Kamphausen: “because they, from their inability to answer him, condemned him.” [“The fut. consec. describes the condemnation as the result of their inability to hit upon the right answer; it was a miserable expedient to which they had recourse.” Del.]. The language admits still further of the explanation of Hahn and Dillmann (with the influence of the negation extended to the second member): “because they did not find an answer, and (consequently) did not, condemn him [i.e., secure his condemnation, by “stripping him of his self-righteousness”]. The opinion of the Masoretes, that in this passage we have one of the 18Tiqquney Sopherim (comp. on Job_7:20), according to which we should read
àֶúÎäָàֱìֹäִéí
instead of
àֶúÎàִéּåֹá
, is refuted by Job_40:8, where it is not the friends, but Job, who is said to have shown himself to be one who had condemned God.
Job_32:4. But Elihu had waited for Job with words.—
çִëָּä
pluperf., comp. Ewald, § 135, a; i. e., he had waited until Job’s speeches were ended, until he had spoken his last word in the controversy, the reason being:—because they were older than he in days (
ìְéָîִéí
, as in Job_30:1, and below Job_32:6), i. e., because he was the youngest of all,—younger than all the former speakers.
3. First section of Elihu’s introduction: captatio benevolentiæ, addressed to all the former speakers: Job_32:6b–10.—Young am I in days, and ye are hoary (
éְùִׁéùִׁéí
as in Job_12:12; Job_15:10; Job_29:8); therefore I was afraid and feared.
æçì
in Heb. elsewhere “to crawl,” here in the sense of “fearing,” customary in Aramaic, but not met with elsewhere in the O. T. [Carey: “I did slink”]. Also
ãֵּòַ
for
ãֵּòַú
is an expression peculiar to the Aramaizing constructions of Elihu’s language (comp. again Job_32:10; Job_32:17; Job_36:3; Job_37:16), while on the contrary
çִåָּä
“to declare, to communicate,” occurs else-where in our book. [“It becomes manifest even here that the Elihu section has in part a peculiar use of the language.” Del.].
Job_32:7. Respecting the plur.
éåֹãִéòåּ
with
øֹáùָׁðִéí
, comp. Job_21:21.
Job_32:8. Still the spirit it is in mortal man … which gives them understanding.
àָëֵï
verum, only here by Elihu, instead of
àåּìָí
, which is elsewhere customary in this sense. The subjects
øåּçַ åâå×
and
ðִùְׁîַú åâå×
have for their common predicate
äִéà
with
úְּáִéðֵí
at the close of the second member as a relative clause of closer specification. The “spirit in man” is the principle of his life and thought wrought into him by the Spirit of God; here, as also in Job_27:3; Job_33:4; Job_34:14, identical with the “breath of the Almighty,” the Divine creative breath (Gen_2:7); comp. also Ecc_12:7. [Noyes happily quotes the following from Milton, in the preface to his Reason of Church Government, urged against Prelaty: “And if any man think I undertake a task too difficult for my years, I trust, through the supreme enlightening assistance, far otherwise; for my years, be they few or many, what imports it? So they bring reason, let that be looked on”].—
àֱðåֹùׁ
is used collectively, as is evident from the plur. suffix in b referring to it.
Job_32:9. Not the aged are wise; lit. “not the great” (
øַáִּéí
) [grandævi], i. e., great in years, comp. the
ðïëõ÷ñüíéïé
of the LXX., also Gen_25:23; and
öָòִéø
, small = young, above (Job_32:6 b).
Job_32:10. Therefore I say: Hearken to me!—The Imperfect singular,
ùִׁîְòָäÎìּé
, is used distributively, applying to each individual of those who are summoned to hear, (not referring specially to Job, to whom Elihu does not address himself until below in Job_33:1 seq.). The ancient versions, except the Targ., as well as some MSS. read
ùִׁîְòåּ
—an emendation to relieve the difficulty [arising from El.’s addressing the friends in the plur. in the next verse]. I also will declare my knowledge (comp. Job_32:6, b). [Rather, more modestly—“I will declare my knowledge, even I.” Words.]. Respecting the appearance of vain self-praise, of which Elihu is guilty in consequence of these and the preceding expressions, comp. below Doctrinal and Ethical Remarks, No. 2.
4. Second section of Elihu’s introduction: Showing his claims to speak, in contrast with the friends, as the feeble and incompetent opponents of Job: Job_32:11-22.—a. Address to the friends touching their lack of skill in refuting Job. Behold, I waited for your words; or for words from you.”
ãִּáְøֵéëֶí
are not the words actually uttered by them (Stick., Hahn, Schlott.), but those for which Elihu had waited in vain, expecting that they would produce them, more particularly explained in b as being their words of intelligence, speeches full of wisdom (
úְּáåּðåֹú
). The construction of
àָæִéï
, contracted form for
àַàֲæִéï
) with
òַã
shows clearly enough that the object of the hearkening or listening was wholly in expectation. Until ye might find out replies.
îִìִּéï
, a second parallel term to
ãáøéí
, can denote here only words from the friends, suited to refute Job, such words as they had shown themselves unable to “search out,” or “to think out.” (
ç÷ø
).
Job_32:12. And unto you I gave heed.—
òָֽãֵéëֵí
means here
àֵìֶéëֶí
; or it may mean giving heed until they should produce a real confutation of Job. [Carey translates
òַã
the three times it occurs in Job_32:10-11 “to the utmost of”—perhaps a little too artificially. It does however express more emphatically than the simple
ìְ
the act of close attention.—E.].
Job_32:13. That ye may not say; or “since ye do not say, etc.”—Respecting the dissuasive particle
ôֶּï
“that not,” comp. Ew., § 337, b. We found wisdom (i. e., with Job): God can smite him, not man.—That is, we have come upon such superior wisdom in Job that only God can drive him out of the field (
ðãó
discutere, dispellere, used elsewhere of the chasing of chaff, straw, smoke—comp. Psa_1:4; Psa_68:3 [2]) [“chosen here with great propriety, because after every answer from the three Job showed himself again in the arena.” Dillm.]. Only this explanation, adopted by most moderns, gives a meaning that is intelligent, and suited to the context, not that of the ancient commentators (also more recently of Rosenmüller, Arnheim, Welte, etc.): “Only do not say we have brought up against him true wisdom, to wit: that God Himself contends against, and routs him out of the-field (by the severe sufferings which He has decreed for him” [and so substantially Lee, Bernard. According to another explanation the second member is spoken by Elihu, not the friends, the general meaning being: Ye have been silenced, lest ye should become proud and boast of your wisdom, and that his defeat may come visibly from God and not from men. So Good, Wordsworth, Carey, Wemyss, Rodwell, Barnes, most of whom make the first member dependent on the second; e. g. Rodwell: “Lest ye should say—‘We hare found out wisdom,’—El, not man, shall vanquish him.”—Schlottmann explains: “Say not: We have found wisdom, i. e. we for our part have not erred, we have hit the exact truth, but God must smite him, not man, i. e. Job is so obstinate that the most exhaustive proofs of our doctrine fail to affect him, wherefore God only can convict him of his error.”]
Job_32:14. For he bath not arrayed words against me;i. e. he has produced no argument which actually convinces me of his innocence,
òָøַêְ
sensu forensi as in Job_13:18; Job_23:4, The whole verse introduced by
åְìà
with a fin. verb following, forms a clause subordinate to that which precedes, like Job_13:3 (comp. Ewald, § 341, a).
b. A declaration respecting the unavoidable necessity of his taking part in the colloquy, the friends although still referred to being spoken of in the third person.
Job_32:15. They are confounded, they answer no more, or “without answering again” (comp. Ewald, § 849, a), words are fled away from them, i.e. have deserted them;
äòúé÷
here accordingly intransitive; “to depart, to wander away,” like Gen_12:8; Gen_26:22, not transitive, as in Job_9:5 (against Hirzel).
Job_32:16. And should I (still) await, because they speak not?—This interrogative rendering of the Perf. consec.
åְäåֹçַìְúִּé
is the only one that yields a suitable meaning, not the affirmative, which used to be the prevalent one, “and I waited, because,” etc., by which the verse would express a quite unendurable tautology with Job_32:11-12.
Job_32:17. So then I also will answer my part, i.e. what comes to my part (comp. Job_15:2; Pro_18:23); I will in like manner throw the weight of my opinion into the scales. [“Elihu speaks more in the scholastic tone of controversy than the three.” Delitzsch. The
àַóÎàֲðִé
twice repeated is far from implying conceit or arrogance on the part of the speaker. It is possible indeed to explain it, with Barnes, “even I,” notwithstanding my youth and inexperience, in the tone of modest self-depreciation. More probably however it indicates rather the independent, individual position of the speaker, differing as it did from the rest, as we should say—“on my part.” In any case, as Schultens remarks: jucunda et decora formula; scire meum—quantum mihi quidem sciere, et percipere datum. Frustra sunt, qui hæc ad arrogantiam detorquent.” E.] The Fut. Hiph.,
àַòֲðֶä
, expresses as e. g.Eccles. v. 19 (see on the passage); Hos_2:23, etc., the strengthened sense of Kal: “to make answer, to put in a reply.” Ewald renders quite too artificially: “so then I also plough my field” (
àòðä
Hiph. from the other root
òðä
, “to be sunk”), which would be proverbial for—“I also begin my speech.”
Job_32:18 seq. describe the powerful inward impulse to speak, which Elihu discovers is himself, and which makes it impossible for him to be silent. The spirit (Job_32:8) constraineth me in my inward part; lit. “the spirit of my inward part, of my belly” (
áִèְðִé
), comp. Job_15:2; Job_15:35. Respecting the scriptio defectiva
îָìֵúִé
, in a, comp. on Job_1:21.
Job_32:19. Behold, my interior is like wine which is not opened, i. e. to which there is no vent, so that it threatens to burst its vessel. It is of course new, fresh wine that is intended, as in the parallel New Testament passages, which refer to this place, Mat_9:17; Luk_5:39, which show moreover that the “new bottles” in b can be none other than such as are “filled with new wine,” so that the attribute “new” denotes not the firmness of the material of the bottles, but rather the age and the quality of their contents. Furthermore,
éִáָּ÷ֵòַ
is neither a relative clause to
àֹáåֹú
(Hirzel) [Ges., Con.], nor an adverbial subordinate clause—“when it will burst,”—but the direct predicate of
áִּèְðִé
, which indeed is feminine, but here with the passive, is treated as the grammatical object; comp. Job_22:9. The LXX. read
çֲøָùִׁéí
, and rendered the preceding
àֹáåֹú
in the sense of “bellows:”
ὤóðåñ öõóçôὴñ ÷áëêÝùò
. The figure thus arising is not unsuitable; still, according to the preceding explanation, there is no sufficient ground for departing from the Masoretic reading. On Job_32:21 comp. Job_13:8. [The distinction between
àַì
and
ìֹà
is not to be overlooked; the former expressing the subjective wish, or purpose; the latter the objective fact. E.].
Job_32:22 gives the reason for that which is declared in Job_32:21, b:For I know not how to flatter.
àֲëַðֶּä
is logically subordinate to the preceding
ìֹà éָãַòְúִּé
, and is used accordingly for the Inf.
ëַðּåֹú
, or for
ìְëַðּåֹú
; comp. Ewald, § 285, c—Otherwise my Maker would speedily snatch me away; lit. “lift me up;”
éִùָּׂàֵðִé
[which “seems designedly to harmonize with
òùֵֹׁðִé
” Delitzsch, and perhaps involves a play on
àֶùָּà
, Job_32:21; Dillmann], an expression derived from a stormy wind; comp, Job_27:21; 2Ki_2:16. The Imperf. here with a modal force [= would, or might]; comp. Ewald, § 136, f.
5. Third section of Elihu’s Introduction: Calling on Job to listen calmly to the discourses of instruction and admonition which follow: Job_33:1-7.
Job_33:1. Nevertheless hear now, O Job, my discourses.
åְàåּìָí
interruptive, and introducing to something new, like verumtamen; com. Job_1:11; Job_11:5; Job_12:7; Job_14:18 and often. The particular address to Job by name, which it is true occurs only in the mouth of Elihu (besides here again in Job_33:31 and Job_37:14), has nothing in it that is especially surprising, seeing that in every case it serves as a special summons to Job, in distinction from the three friends.
Job_33:2. The circumstantiality with which Elihu announces here the beginning of his discourse is by no means without significance. It is designed to call attention to the importance of that which he has to say to him, and it may be compared in this respect with introductory formulas of the New Testament, such as Mat_5:2; Act_10:34; and especially 2Co_6:11. [“My tongue hath begun to speak,” lit. my tongue hath spoken in my palate (the latter word a synecdoche). The Pret.
ãáøä
denotes here the present, but as an act reaching over into the present out of the past. This, we have judged, called for the free translation which we have given.” Schlottm.]
Job_33:3. My words are the uprightness of my heart; they are the honest open expression of the thought of my heart, precisely that therefore which Job had so painfully missed in the three friends (see Job_6:25).—And the knowledge of my lips—they declare it purely.—The “knowledge of my lips” is either prefixed as casus absolutus, “and as touching the knowledge of my lips—they speak it purely;” or as the object: “and what my lips know, that,” etc.—
áָּøåּø
can be a predicate accusative [“and knowledge that is pure my lips declare”], referring to
ãַּòַú
, which is elsewhere also used in the masculine (e. g.Pro_2:10; Pro_14:6); but it can just as well be taken adverbially (comp. Ewald, § 279, a).
Job_33:4. The Spirit of God hath made me, etc.—The object of this appeal to the derivation of Elihu’s spirit from God’s Spirit must be essentially the same with that of the similar utterance in Job_32:8. It is not a special, nor an altogether wonderful, prophetic inspiration that Elihu here asserts for himself; he simply claims that it is a universal human wisdom residing in his spirit by virtue of his innate dignity as a man, on the basis of which he here applies himself to instruct Job. It is, so to speak, the humanistic, the genuine original and unperverted human character of his knowledge and experimental wisdom, to which Elihu appeals, when, as a young man, he presents himself to the more aged Job as his instructor. It is to this genuinely human character of his wisdom that he calls attention, both in this passage, where he emphasizes the divine origin of his spiritual life (Job_33:4-5), and in the following, where he sets forth his participation in the material part of man’s nature, in his earthly human corporeity (Job_33:6 seq.). The older Church exegesis readily availed itself of this verse as an argument for the divine trinity, on the ground that it mentions (1) Deus omnipotens: (2) Spiritus Dei (= Sapientia s. Filius); and (3) Spiraculum Dei (= Sp. Sanctus). So e. g. Cocceius on the passage; approximately also Starke.
Job_33:5. If thou canst, then answer me (
äùׁéá
as in Job_32:14), draw up against me (
òֶøְëָä
scil.
îִìִּéï
, see Job_32:14;
ìְôָðַé
, lit. “before me,” here “against me”), take thy stand, viz. for the controversy, take thy post; the same expression used 1Sa_17:16 of Goliath’s putting himself in a military attitude, and challenging the Israelites to combat.—[“The very ring of the words in Heb. has in them the tone of haughty defiance.” Schlottmann.]
Job_33:6. Behold, I am God’s, as thou art;i. e., I stand no nearer to him; I am, like thee, His creature. [The
ìְ
here may be either the
ìְ
of possession, dependence, according to the explanation just given (comp.
ìåֹ
, Job_12:16); or the
ìְ
of relation: “I am like thee in relation to God.” In our relation to Him we are both equal. The rendering of E. V., Bernard, Barnes: “Behold, I am according to thy wish in God’s stead,” is much less suitable to the connection, and less in harmony with Elihu’s claims.—E.]—Out of clay was I also formed: lit. “out of clay was I also cut off, nipped off” (Del.). The verb
÷øõ
(lit. to nip, to pinch), which forcibly and onomatopoetically describes the action of the potter in forming his vessels, is found in Pual only here. Comp. Job_10:9, and the parallel passages there cited.
Job_33:7. Behold, my terror will not affright thee:i. e. in view of this my genuinely human and earthly character, thou needest not fear an unequal contest with me, as would be the case against God, whom thou didst pray, that “His majesty might not terrify thee.” The passage contains an unmistakable allusion to Job_9:34; Job_13:21,—to the latter passage also by means of the hapax legom.
àֶáֶó
, “pressure, weight,” which appears here in place of the like-sounding
ëַó
, which is there used. The LXX. (
ἡ ÷åßñ ìïõ
) [E. V. “my hand”] read
ëַּôִé
also in the present passage, but disregard in so doing the Hebrew usage, which is wont everywhere else to connect the verb
ëָּáֵã
with
éָã
, not
ëַּó
.
6. The first speech of Elihu.—a. Reference to Job’s objectionable language, in which he maintains his entire innocence in opposition to God, his hostile persecutor: Job_33:8-11.—Surely, thou hast said in mine hearing, etc.—The restrictive rendering of
àַêְ
= “only” [not otherwise than] (Ewald, Hahn, Dillmann, etc.) is less suitable here than the affirmative: “verily, surely” (Rosenm., Hirzel, Umbreit, Delitzsch—in general most of the moderns) [and so E. V.: “To say anything
áְּàָæְðֵé
of another is in Hebrew equivalent to saying it not secretly, and so as to be liable to misconstruction, but aloud and distinctly.” Del.].
Job_33:9-11. A collection of several objectionable utterances by Job, which are cited in part literally, in part according to the sense, and with the refutation of which ail that follows to the close of these discourses is occupied, so that these three verses contain to some extent the common theme of all the four discourses of Elihu (comp. below on Job_35:1).—Pure am I, without (
áְּìִé
as in Job_31:39) wickedness. Comp. Job_9:21; Job_10:7; Job_16:17; Job_23:10; Job_27:5 seq. The word
çַó
(lit. tersus, lotus, rubbed down smooth, grown fine) used here in b as a synonym of
æַêְ
, was not used by Job, and occurs only here. The same may be said of
úְּðåּàåú
, “oppositions, hostilities, alienations” (comp. Num_14:34) in Job_33:10 a, with which are to be compared utterances of Job like those in Job_10:13 seq.; Job_19:11; Job_30:21. In regard to Job_33:10 b comp. Job_13:24; and with Job_33:11 comp. Job_13:27, which passage Elihu quotes with literal accuracy, doubtless because he had taken particular offense at this accusation of God as Job’s jailer and most crafty watcher.
7. Continuation.—b. Didactic exhibition of the true relation of sinful men to God, who seeks to turn them to Himself by manifold dispensations and communications, to wit: a. By the voice of conscience in dreams;Job_33:12-18.—Behold, in this thou art not right, I answer thee (not: “I will answer thee,” Hirzel [E. V.], etc.).
æֹàú
, accus. of nearer definition to
ìàÎöã÷ú
refers to the citations from Job’s speeches in Job_33:9-11. Respecting
öã÷
in the signification “to be right,” comp. Job_11:2. The second member gives the reason for this assertion that Job, with his suspicions of God’s greatness and love, was in the wrong: for Eloah is greater than mortal man, will not therefore after the manner of man, play the part of a hateful or vindictive persecutor of feeble creatures. [Del. explains: “God is too exalted to enter into a defence of Himself against such vain-glorying interwoven with accusations against Him. And for this reason Elihu will enter the lists for God.” But a deeper and more satisfactory meaning is obtained by the explanation in the Commentary. God is too great to be actuated by the petty malignities which Job had imputed to Him. Job was wrong; God is just, because He is great.” E. V. and several commentators connect
àֶòֱðֶêָּ
with what follows, either rendering
ëִּé
“that,” or “for” with Delitzsch’s explanation. But the Masoretic accentuation connects it with what precedes, and this harmonizes better with the poetic rhythm of the verse, and with the weight of thought in b.—E.]
Job_33:13. Why hast thou contended (
øִéáåֹúָ
instead of
øַáְúָּ
, Gesenius, § 73 [§ 72], 1) against Him?—Such striving or murmuring against God on the part of Job had found expression, e. g., in Job_7:20; Job_10:18; Job_13:24 seq.—The second member declares the ground or contents of this contention against God to be: that [for] He gives account of none of His doings; lit. “that He answers not (
òðä
as in Job_32:12; Job_40:2; Job_9:3) all His words (or matters,
ãְּáָøָéå
). So correctly Gesenius, Umbreit, Vaih., Delitzsch [E. V., Con., Words., Rod., Elz., Bar., Renan], etc., while the explanations of other moderns vary widely, e. g. “to all his (man’s) words giveth He no answer” (Hirzel, Heiligst., Hahn) [Carey on the contrary: “since to none of His words doth man answer,” i. e. man is deaf when God speaks]; or “that all his words to Him (suffix in
ãáøéå
referring to the object) He easily answers” (Stickel, and similarly Welte): or “with not a single word does He answer” (Schlottmann, Kamph.); or “that He makes no answer to all thy words” (Dillmann, changing
ãáøéå
to
ãֶּáָøֻéêָ
), etc.
Job_33:14. For (on the other hand) God speaketh once and twice;i. e. many times, often, repeatedly; comp. Job_40:5; also Job_5:19. Those commentators who explain: “in many ways” (Arnh., Hirz., Stick., Del., etc.) make too much of the simple form of enumeration used; it is only the
ðïëõìåñῶò
of the divine revelation, and not of also its
ðïëõôñüðùò
, which is here spoken of. Respecting the
áְּ
before
àçú
and
ùúéí
, comp. besides Job_40:5, also Psa_62:12 [11]. The subj. of the follg.
ìàֹ éְùׁåּøֶðָּä
, which the Masoretic accentuation also separates from what goes before, cannot be “God” again, but only man, used indefinitely; hence “one perceiveth it not” (
ùׁåּø
with a neut. suffix, in the general meaning of observing, perceiving, precisely as in Job_35:13). This short clause stands accordingly in a limitative, or an adversative relation to the preceding thought: “only man observes it not,” or “yet man,” etc. [E. V.]. It is possible also to render it as a circumstantial clause: “without any one observing it” (Schlottm.). [“God’s speech is unnoticed, not recognized by the senses, understood only by the susceptible feelings.” Schlottmann.] The explanation of this verse by Schultens, Ewald and Vaihinger is peculiar (comp. the Vulg. and Pesh.): “for God speaks once—He does not glance at it a second time” [i. e. to reconsider or change what He has once said]. Against this is (1) the Masoretic accentuation; (2) the connection with Job_33:15 seq., which would there stand quite torn apart; (3) the fact that
ùׁåּø
cannot signify revidere (it would in that case have to be changed into
ùׁåּá
).
Job_33:15 seq. now mention—if not several kinds (Hirzel, Schlottm., Del.)—at least several examples of impressive communications from God to men, or, according to the language used in Job_33:14, of “speeches” by God. The first instance mentioned is that of revelation by dreams, Job_33:15-18, which Elihu describes in language which is a close, and in part a literal copy of that of Eliphaz (Job_4:12-16). The statement prefixed of time and circumstance (Job_33:15) is almost literally the same as Job_4:13 (see on the passage).
Job_33:16. Then opens He the ear of men;i. e. He opens their understanding for His confidential communications; the same phrase in Job_36:10; Job_36:15; 1Sa_9:15, and often—And presses a seal upon their instruction (
îֹñָø
, an alternate form of
îåּñָø
, found only here); i. e. He impresses upon them all the more deeply the earnest admonitions and warnings which He administers to them by all the various experiences of life (not particularly by painful diseases as Ewald, Hahn, and Dillmann explain, on the strength of Job_33:19 seq.); He assures them by such dreams and visions that they are to recognize such serious dispensations of life as coming from Him, as rules of His divine agency in educating men; comp. Job_36:10. Note how according to this Elihu regards every man as being continually subject to the operations of a divine discipline. As to
çúí
with
áְּ
(different from
çúí
with
áְּòַã
, Job_9:7), comp. Job_37:7. Several of the ancient versions (LXX., Aqu., Pesh.) and Luther translate as though they had read
éְçִúֵּí
, “He terrifies them.”
Job_33:17-18. The aim of this nocturnal opening of the ear, and sealing of the divine instruction.—In order to withdraw man from transgression.—So according to the improved reading
îִîַּòֲùֶׂä
(Hirz., Del., Dillm., etc.), which is sufficiently attested by the
ἀðïóôñÝøáé ἅíèñùðïí ἀðὸ ἀäéêßáò áὐôïῦ
[of the LXX.]. According to the common reading
îַòֲùֶׂä
, man must be regarded as subj. of
ìְçָñִéø
: “that he may put away evil-doing.” In respect to
îòùׂä
, facinus, comp. e. g.1Sa_20:19.—And to hide pride from man; so that he does not see it, and so remains preserved from it (Hirzel, etc.), or: “so that he becomes unaccustomed to it” (Del.). Concerning the syncopated form
ðֵּåָä
, see on Job_22:29. It is unnecessary to amend the verb
éְëַñֶּä
to
éְëַìֶּä
“to cause to disappear” (Dillmann), or to
éְðַùֶּׂä
, “to set aside, to remove” (Böttcher).
Job_33:18. To keep back his soul from the grave, i.e. to preserve him from death; comp. Psa_16:10; Psa_30:4 [3], 10 [9].—And his life (
çַéָּä
always with Elihu, equivalent to
çַéִּéí
elsewhere; comp. Job_33:20; Job_33:22; Job_33:28) from perishing by the dart.—So (with Dillmann) [E. V. “by the sword,” but
ùׁìç
rather means “missile”] are we to understand the phrase
òָëַø áַּùֶּׁìַç
, which occurs only here and Job_36:12 (comp.
òáø
in Job_34:20). The common explanation: “to precipitate one’s self into [or upon] the dart” (iruere in telum) is not so natural, and is not confirmed by the expression
òָáַø áַּùַּׂçַú
in Job_33:28, which, although of similar sound, is essentially different in signification (against Hirzel, Delitzsch, etc.). [“Here everything in thought and expression is peculiar.” Del.]
8. Continuation. The second instance of the divine visitation;
â
. By grievous painful disease:Job_33:19-22. Ewald, Hahn, Dillmann, groundlessly endeavor to treat this new instance as only a special expansion of that which precedes, because that already in Job_33:16 reference is made to severe suffering on the part of him to whom God addresses His dream-revelation—an inadmissible forcing of the meaning of
îֹñָø
in that passage, and at the same time disproved by the
åְ
at the beginning of the present verse, which is a connective, introducing a new thought, not an explicative particle, referring back to
îֹñָø
, from which it is much too far removed.—He is chastised also with pains on his bed, while the strife in his bones goes on continually.—So according to the K’thibh
øִéá
= “strife, contest” [admirably describing disease as a disturbance of the equilibrium of the powers: Del.], and in accordance with the correct rendering of
àֵúָï
(
=
àֵéúï
, comp. Job_32:18) as predicate, not as the attribute of
øִéá
(“and by the continual conflict,” etc.), for the latter rendering (Hirzel, Vaih., Del.) is forbidden by the absence of the article before
àֵúָï
, Following the K’ri,
øåֹá
, which is supported by the ancient versions, and several MSS., we should have to explain (with Ewald, Dillmann, etc.): “while the multitude of his limbs is still vigorous throughout” (comp. Job_12:19; Job_20:11). [E. V.: “and the multitude of his bones with strong (or unceasing) pain.” So Aben-Ezra, Junius, Tremellius, Arn. (Vulg.: et omnia ossa ejus marcescere facit), but the construction of
àúï
is unnatural.]
Job_33:20. And his life makes bread a loathing.—
æִäֵí
causative Piel of the verb
æָäַí
, not found elsewhere in the Hebrew, which, according to the Arabic, signifies “to stink;” hence to cause to stink, to excite loathing (not as intensive of Kal, “to be disgusted,” as Rosenm., Umbr., Vaih., Hahn, etc., explain it).
çַéָä
again is here not = craving, hunger, any more than the parallel
ðֶôֶùׁ
in b, but as always with Elihu: “life, vital energy.” Schlottmann truly remarks: “It expresses very vividly the thought that the proper vital power, the proper
øõ÷Þ
, when it is consumed by disease, gives one a loathing for that which it otherwise likes as being a necessary condition of its own existence.”
Job_33:21. So that his flesh consumes away (
éִëֶì
abbreviated for
åַéִּëֶ
