Job 32 2

Job 32:2 kjv

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.

Job 32:2 nkjv

Then the wrath of Elihu, the son of Barachel the Buzite, of the family of Ram, was aroused against Job; his wrath was aroused because he justified himself rather than God.

Job 32:2 niv

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 esv

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.

Job 32:2 nlt

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.

Job 32 verses

Job 32 2 Meaning

Job 32:2 describes the emergence of a new character, Elihu, and explains the reason for his anger. His wrath was "kindled" against Job specifically because Elihu perceived that Job was justifying his own righteousness at the expense of impugning God's justice or integrity. This accusation by Elihu frames a central theme of the book of Job concerning human suffering and God's sovereignty.

Job 32 2 Context

This verse marks a turning point in the Book of Job. After Job's three friends (Eliphaz, Bildad, and Zophar) have spoken extensively, attempting to explain Job's suffering through their conventional retribution theology, and Job has responded to each, defending his innocence and even challenging God's justice, a period of silence ensues. The preceding verse (Job 32:1) states that Job's three friends stopped answering him "because he was righteous in his own eyes." Into this theological stalemate steps Elihu, a younger man who has apparently been listening intently to the entire debate. Job 32:2 introduces Elihu, identifies his lineage, and crucially explains the spiritual indignation that provokes him to speak after a prolonged silence. Historically and culturally, such public discourse would typically be dominated by elders. Elihu, as a younger man, speaking without invitation is unusual and signals his conviction that profound error has been uttered by both Job and his friends. This context sets Elihu as a bridging figure between the flawed human arguments and God's eventual, direct revelation.

Job 32 2 Word analysis

• Then kindled was: The Hebrew verb is charah (חָרָה), often translated as "burn," "glow," or "be angry." When used for wrath, it evokes the image of a burning, consuming fire, reflecting intense emotion. This strong imagery implies a deep, inner spiritual conviction driving Elihu's response, not just casual irritation. It often describes the Lord's anger (e.g., Ex 32:10), suggesting a parallel intensity or even a divinely inspired indignation in Elihu.

• the wrath of Elihu: The Hebrew word for wrath is ʾap (אַף), which literally means "nose" or "nostril," and metaphorically refers to "anger" because of the physical manifestation of anger (e.g., flaring nostrils). Elihu (אֱלִיהוּא) means "He is my God" or "My God is He," underscoring his theocentric perspective. His anger is explicitly tied to a perceived theological misalignment. While human anger is often condemned (Jas 1:20), there is a concept of righteous indignation against spiritual error, which this "kindled wrath" might represent for Elihu.

• the son of Barachel the Buzite, of the family of Ram: These genealogical details (בֶּן־בָּרָכְאֵל הַבּוּזִי מִמִּשְׁפַּחַת רָם) serve to firmly identify Elihu and distinguish him from the three friends, none of whom receive such specific lineage. "Barachel" means "God has blessed." The "Buzite" connection is intriguing; Buz was the second son of Nahor, Abraham's brother (Gen 22:21). This potentially places Elihu within a lineage closely related to Abraham, possibly sharing a common ancestral faith in the one God, though separated from Israel. This may explain why he shares some common theological ground with the Job-narrative. His "family of Ram" could further pinpoint his tribal or clan affiliation within the Buzite branch. These details lend him authenticity and perhaps implied authority, contrasting with the generic identifications of Job's friends.

• against Job was his wrath kindled, because he justified himself: Elihu's core grievance with Job is precisely this self-justification (hitstaddēq - הִצְטַדֵּק, "to make oneself righteous" or "declare oneself innocent"). Job, throughout his dialogues, steadfastly maintained his blamelessness before God (e.g., Job 27:6, 29:14), denying that his suffering was due to specific sin, which was the friends' position. This self-justification, from Elihu's perspective, crossed a boundary.

• rather than God: The Hebrew here is mēʾĕlōah (מֵאֱלֹוַהּ), indicating a comparison or preference. Job's assertion of his own righteousness, in Elihu's eyes, necessarily implied a fault in God's administration of justice. If Job was truly innocent and yet suffered greatly, then God, the ultimate dispenser of justice, appeared unjust. This polemic targets the unspoken theological implication of Job's repeated declarations: that by proclaiming his innocence so vehemently, Job was inadvertently or implicitly casting God as unjust, uncaring, or arbitrary in His dealings. This is the central reason for Elihu's fervent intervention.

Job 32 2 Bonus section

Elihu is the only speaker in the book of Job who is not explicitly rebuked by God at the end, suggesting his arguments, while human, contained elements of truth closer to God's own perspective than those of the three friends. His theological position bridges the gap between the narrow retribution theology of Job's friends and God's expansive display of divine wisdom and power. Elihu introduces concepts not fully explored before, such as suffering as a form of divine discipline or a call to repentance, rather than merely punishment for sin, which helps explain innocent suffering without indicting God. His wrath against Job for "justifying himself rather than God" underscores the danger of human reason, however well-intentioned, becoming an unwitting antagonist to divine truth. This foundational error – putting one's own perception of righteousness above God's absolute righteousness and wisdom – is the target of Elihu's passionate intervention and forms a core challenge to the human ego within the larger biblical narrative.

Job 32 2 Commentary

Job 32:2 introduces Elihu, a pivotal character, explaining the source of his intense spiritual displeasure. His wrath is not merely human frustration but a profound indignation rooted in his perception of a critical theological error committed by Job. Job's insistent self-justification, born from his conviction of blamelessness, unintentionally led him to question God's divine righteousness and governance of the world. Elihu views Job's repeated declaration of innocence as functionally accusing God of injustice. Elihu's outburst, though seemingly youthful and impulsive, reflects a conviction that theological truth needs to be defended, even if it means confronting esteemed elders or suffering friends. The detail of his lineage underscores his independent and perhaps divinely-inspired role. This verse sets the stage for Elihu's comprehensive theological discourse, which aims to provide a more nuanced understanding of God's ways than that offered by either Job or his friends, ultimately preparing the ground for God's direct intervention in later chapters. Elihu's emphasis on God's sovereignty and the inscrutability of His ways serves as a corrective to both the superficial explanations of suffering and the dangerous path of self-righteousness.

Examples:

• Like the Pharisees who "trusted in themselves that they were righteous" (Lk 18:9), Job was clinging to his perceived innocence as a shield, but Elihu saw this as implicitly diminishing God's justice.
• Similar to how a zealous prophet might express anger against idol worship (e.g., Elijah against Baal prophets), Elihu's "kindled wrath" reflects a righteous concern for God's honor and truth, albeit applied to a doctrinal dispute.