^32:1So these three men refused to answer¹ Job further, because he was righteous in his² own eyes. ^32:2Then Elihu son of Barakel the Buzite, of the family of Ram, became very angry.³ He was angry⁴ with Job for justifying⁵ himself rather than God.⁶^32:3With Job’s⁷ three friends he was also angry, because they could not find⁸ an answer, and so declared Job guilty.⁹^32:4Now Elihu had waited before speaking¹⁰ to Job, because the others¹¹ were older than he was. ^32:5But when Elihu saw¹² that the three men had no further reply,¹³ he became very angry.

Read in Logos

Footnotes

79 There are now four speeches from another friend of Job, Elihu. But Job does not reply to any of these, nor does the Lord. The speeches show a knowledge of the debate that has gone on, but they take a different approach entirely. Elihu’s approach is that suffering is a discipline from God, to teach his people. In other words, Job was suffering to vindicate God’s confidence in him. His speeches are an interesting part of the book, but they too are irrelevant to Job’s actual case. In the first speech, there is a short introduction (32:1–5), and then the speech proper with these sections: Elihu will speak because his youth is wiser (32:6–14), and his friends arguments failed (32:15–22); he calls for Job’s attention (33:1–7), claims Job’s case is wrong (33:8–13), and Job’s argument that God does not answer is false (33:14–28), and then makes an appeal to Job (33:29–33). It becomes evident that Elihu correctly identified Job’s determination to maintain his integrity at God’s expense as the primary problem in at least the latter stages of the dialogues (32:1–3; 34:37; 35:16; cf. 38:2; 40:8; 42:3). Elihu was respectful of his elders (32:4), but remained uninfected by their error (32:14). He sought to maintain impartiality (32:21–22) and to offer true wisdom (33:33), believed like Job that a mediator existed (33:23–24), and desired Job’s vindication (33:32). In addition, Elihu focused on vindicating God’s actions (34:12; 35:10–11; 36:2–3, 22–26) and announced the coming theophany (37:1–5, 22). It appears that he was not included in the divine condemnation of Job’s friends (42:7–9) and was excluded from Job’s prayer of intercession (42:8–10)—both perhaps implying divine approval of his behavior and words.
1 The form is the infinitive construct (“answer”) functioning as the object of the preposition; the phrase forms the complement of the verb “they ceased to answer” (= “they refused to answer further”).
2 The , , and Symmachus have “in their eyes.” This is adopted by some commentators, but it does not fit the argument.
3 The verse begins with וַיִּחַר אַף (vayyikhar ’af, “and the anger became hot”), meaning Elihu became very angry.
4 The second comment about Elihu’s anger comes right before the statement of its cause. Now the perfect verb is used: “he was angry.”
5 The explanation is the causal clause עַל־צַדְּקוֹ נַפְשׁוֹ (’al-tsaddéqo nafsho, “because he justified himself”). It is the preposition with the Piel infinitive construct with a suffixed subjective genitive.
6 The and Latin versions soften the expression slightly by saying “before God.”
7 Heb “his”; the referent (Job) has been specified in the translation to indicate whose friends they were.
8 The perfect verb should be given the category of potential perfect here.
9 This is one of the eighteen “corrections of the scribes” (tiqqune sopherim); it originally read, “and they declared God [in the wrong].” The thought was that in abandoning the debate they had conceded Job’s point.
10 This reading requires repointing the word בִּדְבָרִים (bidbarim, “with words”) to בְּדָבְּרָם (bédabbéram, “while they spoke [with Job]”). If the is retained, it would mean “he waited for Job with words,” which while understandable is awkward.
11 Heb “they”; the referent (the other friends) has been specified in the translation for clarity.
12 The first clause beginning with a vav (ו) consecutive and the preterite can be subordinated to the next similar verb as a temporal clause.
13 Heb “that there was no reply in the mouth of the three men.”

In other versions

ESVEnglish Standard Version

So these three men ceased to answer Job, because he was righteous in his own eyes. Then Elihu the son of Barachel the Buzite, of the family of Ram, burned with anger. He burned with anger at Job because he justified himself rather than God. He burned with anger also at Job’s three friends because they had found no answer, although they had declared Job to be in the wrong. Now Elihu had waited to speak to Job because they were older than he. And when Elihu saw that there was no answer in the mouth of these three men, he burned with anger.

NIVNew International Version (2011)

So these three men stopped answering Job, because he was righteous in his own eyes. 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. Now Elihu had waited before speaking to Job because they were older than he. But when he saw that the three men had nothing more to say, his anger was aroused.

CSBChristian Standard Bible

So these three men quit answering Job, because he was righteous in his own eyes. Then Elihu son of Barachel the Buzite from the family of Ram became angry. He was angry at Job because he had justified himself rather than God. He was also angry at Job’s three friends because they had failed to refute him and yet had condemned him.

Now Elihu had waited to speak to Job because they were all older than he. But when he saw that the three men could not answer Job, he became angry.

NLTNew Living Translation

Job’s three friends refused to reply further to him because he kept insisting on his innocence.

Then Elihu son of Barakel the Buzite, of the clan of Ram, became angry. He was angry because Job refused to admit that he had sinned and that God was right in punishing him. He was also angry with Job’s three friends, for they made God appear to be wrong by their inability to answer Job’s arguments. Elihu had waited for the others to speak to Job because they were older than he. But when he saw that they had no further reply, he spoke out angrily.

LEBThe Lexham English Bible

Then these three men ceased from answering Job because he was righteous in his own eyes. So Elihu the son of Barakel the Buzite, from the clan of Ram, became angry. He became angry at Job because he justified himself rather than God, and he became angry at his three friends because they had not found an answer, and they had declared Job guilty. Thus Elihu had waited for Job to speak because they were older than he. When Elihu saw that there was no answer in the mouth of the three men, he became angry.

KJV 1900King James Version

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 kindred 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 till Job had spoken, because they were elder than he. When Elihu saw that there was no answer in the mouth of these three men, then his wrath was kindled.

Public Domain

Job 32:1–5

English

Arabic

Czech

French

German

Hebrew

Hungarian

Italian

Korean

Latin

Portuguese

Russian

Simplified Chinese

Spanish

Traditional Chinese

Elihu’s First Speech79