Job Chapter 32
Hearing from Elihu
A. Why Elihu Spoke
1. Job 32:1–5, Elihu and His Dissatisfaction with the Answers of Job’s Friends
“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.”
The narrative now shifts. After Job’s extended defense in chapters 28 through 31, the three friends fall silent. The text states plainly that they ceased answering him because he was righteous in his own eyes. This does not mean that Job was self righteous in the absolute theological sense, but that in their estimation he was fixed in his position and would not yield. They were convinced he was wrong, yet they had exhausted their arguments. Their silence is not repentance, but frustration. They believed Job stubborn and unmovable.
From a theological standpoint, the friends had reduced the issue to a false dilemma. Either Job was righteous or God was righteous. Since suffering had come, they reasoned that Job must be wicked. They could not conceive of a righteous man suffering apart from direct retributive justice. Job, on the other hand, maintained his integrity. Yet in defending himself, he sometimes spoke in ways that appeared to question God’s administration. The friends therefore concluded that Job was righteous in his own eyes.
At this point Elihu is introduced. He has been present, listening carefully. The Holy Spirit provides his genealogy, which immediately distinguishes him from the other speakers. He is identified as the son of Barachel the Buzite, of the kindred of Ram. This reference connects him historically. Genesis 22:21 states, “Huz his firstborn, and Buz his brother, and Kemuel the father of Aram.” The mention of Buz suggests a connection to Nahor’s line, Abraham’s extended family. Additionally, Jeremiah 25:23 references Buz among the peoples of the region, “Dedan, and Tema, and Buz, and all that are in the utmost corners.”
The inclusion of genealogy underscores that Elihu is not a fictional insertion but a real historical participant. Scripture often anchors truth in verifiable lineage. His name, Elihu, means “My God is He,” a distinctly Hebrew confession embedded in his identity. That theological meaning will frame his speech, as he consistently emphasizes God’s righteousness and sovereignty.
Elihu’s wrath was kindled. The repetition of this phrase four times in the opening paragraph stresses his emotional state. He is angry at Job because he justified himself rather than God. This accusation must be handled carefully. Job did not deny God’s existence, nor did he formally reject divine justice. However, in defending his integrity he pressed hard against the unexplained nature of his suffering. At times he spoke as though God had wronged him. Elihu interprets this as placing personal vindication above divine vindication.
Yet here lies a critical theological insight. Both Job and God were right. Job was right regarding his integrity, as confirmed in Job 1:8 where the Lord said unto Satan, “Hast thou considered my servant Job, that there is none like him in the earth, a perfect and an upright man, one that feareth God, and escheweth evil?” God Himself affirmed Job’s righteousness. At the same time, God was righteous in allowing the trial. The friends could not reconcile these truths. Their rigid theology forced them into an either or conclusion. Elihu seeks to correct that imbalance.
Elihu is also angry at the three friends. They had found no answer, yet had condemned Job. This is a grave failure. To condemn without evidence or solution is theological malpractice. Proverbs 18:13 warns, “He that answereth a matter before he heareth it, it is folly and shame unto him.” These men spoke extensively, yet they did not truly understand Job’s condition. Their system of retribution could not account for innocent suffering, so they defaulted to accusation.
Elihu, though younger, had remained silent out of respect. Scripture consistently affirms honoring age and experience. Leviticus 19:32 declares, “Thou shalt rise up before the hoary head, and honour the face of the old man, and fear thy God I am the LORD.” Elihu models this principle. He waited while the elders spoke. Only when it became clear that wisdom had not prevailed did he step forward. Youth does not excuse arrogance, but neither does age guarantee accuracy.
The text emphasizes that when Elihu saw there was no answer in their mouths, his wrath was kindled. His anger is not merely emotional volatility, it reflects zeal for God’s honor. There is a form of righteous indignation when God’s character is misrepresented. Psalm 69:9 states, “For the zeal of thine house hath eaten me up.” However, zeal must be tempered with humility. Elihu will soon demonstrate both insight and immaturity.
One notable structural feature is that Job never responds directly to Elihu. After Elihu finishes in chapter 37, the Lord Himself answers out of the whirlwind. This suggests that while Elihu’s speech contains truth, it is preparatory rather than final. God does not rebuke Elihu as He does the three friends in Job 42:7, “And it was so, that after the LORD had spoken these words unto Job, the LORD said to Eliphaz the Temanite, My wrath is kindled against thee, and against thy two friends for ye have not spoken of me the thing that is right, as my servant Job hath.” Elihu is conspicuously absent from that rebuke. This silence implies that his contribution, though imperfect, moved closer to divine perspective than the others.
In summary, Job 32:1–5 marks a pivotal transition. The old guard has failed. Their rigid doctrine of immediate retribution collapses under scrutiny. A younger voice rises, zealous for God’s righteousness, dissatisfied with both Job’s self defense and the friends’ accusations. Elihu’s entrance sets the stage for a deeper theological correction, one that will ultimately culminate not in human reasoning but in divine revelation from the Lord Himself.
2. Job 32:6–9, Why Elihu Overcame His Hesitancy to Speak
“And Elihu the son of Barachel the Buzite answered and said, I am young, and ye are very old; wherefore I was afraid, and durst not shew you mine opinion. I said, Days should speak, and multitude of years should teach wisdom. But there is a spirit in man and the inspiration of the Almighty giveth them understanding. Great men are not always wise neither do the aged understand judgment.”
Elihu begins with humility in form, though not entirely in tone. He openly acknowledges the age difference. He confesses that he was afraid and did not dare declare his opinion. This reflects a proper biblical principle. Wisdom literature consistently esteems age. Proverbs 16:31 declares, “The hoary head is a crown of glory, if it be found in the way of righteousness.” Likewise, Proverbs 20:29 states, “The glory of young men is their strength and the beauty of old men is the grey head.” Elihu recognizes this order. Youth should not rush ahead of experience.
He explains his reasoning. “Days should speak, and multitude of years should teach wisdom.” That expectation is reasonable. Age often produces perspective. Long observation of life refines discernment. Yet Job’s three friends demonstrate that experience alone does not guarantee accuracy. Their theology was inherited and traditional, yet incomplete.
At this point Elihu makes a critical theological statement: “There is a spirit in man and the inspiration of the Almighty giveth them understanding.” Here he grounds wisdom not merely in age but in divine endowment. Man possesses a spirit, a rational soul capable of moral discernment. Genesis 2:7 provides the foundational anthropology: “And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life and man became a living soul.” Humanity’s capacity for understanding ultimately derives from God’s breath.
Elihu is not promoting youthful arrogance but theological realism. If wisdom comes from the inspiration of the Almighty, then it is not monopolized by the elderly. God distributes understanding according to His sovereign will. Daniel 2:21 affirms, “And he changeth the times and the seasons he removeth kings and setteth up kings he giveth wisdom unto the wise and knowledge to them that know understanding.” Wisdom is granted, not merely accumulated.
Elihu’s phrase “inspiration of the Almighty” emphasizes divine illumination. Proverbs 2:6 states, “For the LORD giveth wisdom out of his mouth cometh knowledge and understanding.” Therefore, while age may position a person for wisdom, true understanding is a gift of God. Elihu reasons that since he too possesses a spirit given by God, he is qualified to speak. His argument is theological, not generational.
He then delivers a bold corrective: “Great men are not always wise neither do the aged understand judgment.” This would have landed sharply. The three friends were respected elders. Yet Scripture itself affirms the principle Elihu states. Ecclesiastes 4:13 observes, “Better is a poor and a wise child than an old and foolish king who will no more be admonished.” Age without teachability degenerates into stubbornness.
At the same time, Elihu’s statement reveals both insight and immaturity. He is correct in principle. Age is not an infallible measure of wisdom. There are indeed beardless sages and greyheaded children. Yet youth can overestimate its clarity. Proverbs 19:2 warns, “Also that the soul be without knowledge, it is not good and he that hasteth with his feet sinneth.” Zeal must be governed by restraint.
Elihu’s demeanor differs from Bildad and Zophar. Though angry, he does not descend into personal insult. His frustration is directed toward theological error rather than mere verbal combat. He seeks to restore the balance that has been lost. The older men had condemned without resolution. Job had defended himself vigorously, at times pressing beyond reverence. Elihu believes both sides have missed something essential about God’s dealings with man.
Theologically, Elihu introduces a key idea that will shape his speeches, namely that suffering may serve purposes beyond punishment. This prepares the way for the Lord’s appearance in Job 38. His appeal to divine inspiration anticipates the greater truth that God Himself must speak for final clarity.
In summary, Job 32:6–9 presents Elihu’s justification for breaking his silence. He honored age but recognized its limits. He grounded wisdom not in chronology but in divine inspiration. He affirmed that God grants understanding through the spirit He has placed within man. His entrance marks a transition from exhausted tradition to a renewed appeal to God’s sovereign wisdom.
B. Elihu Introduces His Speech
1. Job 32:10–14, Elihu Criticizes Eliphaz, Bildad, and Zophar as Ineffective
“Therefore I said, Hearken to me; I also will shew mine opinion. Behold, I waited for your words; I gave ear to your reasons, whilst ye searched out what to say. Yea, I attended unto you, and, behold, there was none of you that convinced Job, or that answered his words: Lest ye should say, We have found out wisdom: God thrusteth him down, not man. Now he hath not directed his words against me: neither will I answer him with your speeches.”
Elihu now formally steps forward. His repeated call, “Hearken to me,” reveals both confidence and urgency. The elders have failed to bring resolution, and he believes he must fill the void. One can reasonably assume that the older men did not welcome this interruption. Yet Elihu presses forward, convinced that silence at this point would be negligence.
He establishes his credibility by recounting his patience. He waited. He listened carefully while they searched out what to say. He attended unto them. This is not the rash intrusion of an impulsive youth. He claims deliberate restraint. Proverbs 18:13 warns, “He that answereth a matter before he heareth it, it is folly and shame unto him.” Elihu insists he has not fallen into that error. He has heard the case in full.
His indictment is direct. “There was none of you that convinced Job.” After many chapters of argument, not one of them successfully refuted Job’s central claim of integrity. Their theology of strict retribution collapsed under scrutiny. They accused, but they did not demonstrate. They condemned, but they did not persuade.
Elihu also warns them against self congratulation. “Lest ye should say, We have found out wisdom: God thrusteth him down, not man.” He does not want them to retreat into a fatalistic answer that bypasses the issue. Simply asserting that God has judged Job does not prove Job’s guilt. The friends leaned heavily on assumed divine punishment without evidence. Elihu rejects that simplistic conclusion.
Notably, Elihu distinguishes himself from the previous speakers. “He hath not directed his words against me.” Job’s sharpest rebukes were aimed at the three friends. Elihu believes he stands in a different position. He will not repeat their arguments. This is important. He sees himself not as a fourth repetition, but as a corrective voice.
Theologically, this moment marks a shift. The debate is moving away from rigid tradition and toward a broader understanding of God’s dealings with man. Elihu’s speech will emphasize that suffering may serve purposes other than punishment. In that sense, he moves closer to the divine perspective that will soon be revealed.
2. Job 32:15–22, Elihu’s Inner Compulsion to Speak
“They were amazed, they answered no more: they left off speaking. When I had waited, for they spake not, but stood still, and answered no more; I said, I will answer also my part, I also will shew mine opinion. For I am full of matter, the spirit within me constraineth me. Behold, my belly is as wine which hath no vent; it is ready to burst like new bottles. I will speak, that I may be refreshed: I will open my lips and answer. Let me not, I pray you, accept any man's person, neither let me give flattering titles unto man. For I know not to give flattering titles; in so doing my maker would soon take me away.”
Elihu observes that the three friends are dismayed. They have nothing further to say. Words have failed them. Their system has reached its limits. In their silence, Elihu perceives opportunity and obligation.
He describes an inner compulsion. “I am full of matter, the spirit within me constraineth me.” This language portrays internal pressure, not mere eagerness. He feels driven. The imagery intensifies: his belly is like wine with no vent, ready to burst like new bottles. The metaphor conveys force and urgency. Jeremiah used similar language when describing prophetic compulsion in Jeremiah 20:9, “But his word was in mine heart as a burning fire shut up in my bones, and I was weary with forbearing, and I could not stay.” While Elihu is not a prophet in the formal sense, he feels a comparable inward necessity.
However, this intensity reveals both strength and weakness. Zeal for truth is commendable. Romans 12:11 exhorts believers to be, “Not slothful in business; fervent in spirit; serving the Lord.” Yet fervency must be governed by wisdom and brevity. Elihu will speak at length, far longer than any other individual in the book. His introduction alone spans an entire chapter. This wordiness reflects youthful enthusiasm that has not yet learned economy of speech. Ecclesiastes 5:2 cautions, “Be not rash with thy mouth, and let not thine heart be hasty to utter any thing before God: for God is in heaven, and thou upon earth: therefore let thy words be few.”
Elihu closes his introduction with a declaration of impartiality. He will not accept any man’s person. He will not flatter. Partiality corrupts judgment. Deuteronomy 1:17 commands, “Ye shall not respect persons in judgment; but ye shall hear the small as well as the great; ye shall not be afraid of the face of man; for the judgment is God's.” Elihu claims he will adhere to this standard.
His reason is sobering. “In so doing my maker would soon take me away.” He recognizes accountability before God. Flattery is not merely social weakness, it is moral compromise. Proverbs 29:5 warns, “A man that flattereth his neighbour spreadeth a net for his feet.” Elihu presents himself as one who fears divine judgment more than human disapproval.
Yet there is irony here. In declaring that he does not flatter, he has already elevated himself above the others. He portrays himself as more impartial, more courageous, and more spiritually perceptive. This tension defines Elihu’s character. He possesses genuine theological insight, yet he lacks the seasoned restraint that tempers mature wisdom.
In summary, Job 32:10–22 presents Elihu’s formal entrance. He rebukes the friends for failure, distinguishes himself from their arguments, and describes an internal compulsion that will not allow silence. He claims impartiality and accountability before his Maker. The stage is now fully set for his extended discourse, which will prepare the way for the Lord’s direct revelation in the chapters to follow.
