The Pulpit Commentary — Job — Section 510

BOMILETICS. Vera. 1-5.-Th~ intervention of Elihu. I. THE DISCOMFITURE OF THE Jl'RIF:"llns. "So these three meb. ~'-Eliphe.z, Bil<lad, and Zophar-" ceased to answer Job;" i.e. did not respond to the lamentations o.nd protestations which he uttered in his parable. 1. The reason they perhaps assigned for their si?ence. "Because he," i.e. ,Job, "was right- eous in his own eyes." If thh1 we.a scarcely accurate in the strict theological sense of tl,e expression, since Job had more than once 11eknowledged himself a sinner (eh. vii. 20, 21; ix. 2, 3), ~nd even subscribed to the sentiment of Eliphaz and his associates that no mortal man can be just before God (eh. ix. 20; xiv. 3, 4), it is yet difficult to exoner:i.te the patriarch entirely from the charge here preferred against him; for, though righteous to the' extent of being free from flagrant transgression, which his friends aUeged he was not, and sincerely devoted to the ways of holiness, as God himself had tes- tified (eh. i. 1), he nevertheless insisted on his blamelessness of life and uprightness of character with such pertinacity as to overstep the bounds of trne humility, advancing these as a grouiid.or reason why God should have dealt with him differently from what he had done, and thus, as it were, constructing out of them a claim of merit, or self- righteousness before God. 2. The reason they forgot to assign for their si7ence. "Because' ,they had found uo answer," i.e. to Job. For this explanation of their conduct we are indebt0!i to the observation of Elihu, a new interlocutor who appearn upon the scene. Unable· to convince Job of immorality and hypocrisy, they were likewise, in Elihu's jiidgment, incompetent to reply to his arguments and protestations. Doubtless the m'atter did not so preaent itself to the contemplation of the friends. According to their .t)1eology, Job, being a great sufferer, must have been a great sinner; and any cl,~clarations.on "his part to the contrary only proved that he had not been sufficiently humbled 'before God, and was indulging in self-deception. This, however, as Job explained, entirely failed 'in its applicability to him, whose past life of stainless purity, fervent piety, and unwearied philanthropy gave conspicuous demonstration of the falsehood of their allegations, and whose present consciousness reproached him with no dcrelictkm"of duty, but rather loudly proclaimed the steadfast character, untarnished beauty, and ti:iJ.mix~d sincerity of his integrity to Heaven. But, inasmuch as the a"\:>ove-~ited nostrum was the only specific which remained in the pharmacoprnia of the friends, they judiciously abandoned the case a~ beyond their skill. They had spent ev!lryCweapon in their quiver without overthrowing their antagonis.t; and, accordingly, with commendable prudence, observing a discreet reticence as to the secret motive of their behaviour, they retired from the contest. II. THE INTERPOSITION OF ELIHU. "Then was kindled the wrath of Elihu the son of Barachel the Buzite, of the kindred of Ram." 1. The personality nf Elihu. Details such as these-concerning the name (Elihu, equivalent to" He is my God"), parentage (son of Barachel, or "God· blesseth "), couutry (the Buzite, probl"lbly a descendant of Nabor· through .his second son (Gen. xxii. 21), and therefore of Aramrean extraction, though by. birth an Arabian, Duz being mentioned with Dedan and Terna as a city of Id.'u'.mea. in the time of Jeremiah, xxv. 23), kindred (of the family of Ram, otherwise unknown, 'unless connected with Aram, the son of Shem, Gen. x. 23, the brother of BJiz, Ge·n. xxii. 21, or the grandfather of Nahshon, cf. Numb. i. 7 with 1 Chron. ii. 9, lO)~ispose of the patristic conceit that the new interlocutor was Jesus Christ. :E;qualjy, however, ~o t~ey"preclud~ the hypothesis (Cox) that he was simply one of the young men of Jobs city (eh. x;ux. 8). They rather hint that be "belonged to a family which had retained the knowledge of the God of heaven" (Cook); and, indeed, when it is considered that Elihu distinctly claims to speak under Divine impulse (eh. xxxii. 8; xxxiii. 4), proposes himself as a response to Job's oft-repeated demand for a. daysman (eh. xxxiii. 6), and unfolds views of Divine truth concerning the remedial character of affliction and the doctrine of ·atonement (eh. xxxiii. 14-30) that seem like anticipations of gospel discoveries, it is hard to resist the inference that in Elihu we have a young Arabian prophet who had been providentially broucrht upon the scene, as the friends were, and was moved at the appropriate juncture to deliver certain preliminary judgments on the cause then pending: 2. The time of his appearing. We are inclined to thi11k that, as the result of th·e strife of tongues between the patriarch  THE BOOK or JOB. [OR. XXXII. 1-21,