Job 32 3

Job 32:3 kjv

Also against his three friends was his wrath kindled, because they had found no answer, and yet had condemned Job.

Job 32:3 nkjv

Also against his three friends his wrath was aroused, because they had found no answer, and yet had condemned Job.

Job 32:3 niv

He was also angry with the three friends, because they had found no way to refute Job, and yet had condemned him.

Job 32:3 esv

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.

Job 32:3 nlt

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.

Job 32 verses

Job 32 3 Meaning

Job 32:3 describes the rising indignation of Elihu towards Job's three friends – Eliphaz, Bildad, and Zophar. His anger was provoked because they had exhausted their arguments and found no compelling answer or theological breakthrough to counter Job's defense, yet they persisted in condemning Job. This verse highlights Elihu's perception of their intellectual and moral failure, as they resorted to accusation without providing a true resolution or explanation for Job's suffering.

Job 32 3 Context

Job 32 marks a significant turning point in the book of Job, introducing a new speaker, Elihu. After three rounds of extensive dialogue between Job and his three friends, Eliphaz, Bildad, and Zophar, they fall silent, unable to counter Job's persistent declarations of innocence (Job 32:1). Elihu, a younger observer who has listened to the entire debate, now steps forward, asserting his right to speak because he believes both Job and his friends have erred. Verse 3 specifically details Elihu's profound displeasure with Job's friends. He perceives their inability to answer Job's arguments, combined with their unwavering condemnation of him, as a grave failure, rooted in inadequate wisdom and unjust assumptions.

Job 32 3 Word analysis

• Also against: This phrase highlights Elihu's double frustration. He was angry with Job (as stated in Job 32:2) and also angry with his friends, indicating a balanced critique of all parties involved in the preceding dialogue. It introduces his impartial stance.
• his three friends: Refers to Eliphaz the Temanite, Bildad the Shuhite, and Zophar the Naamathite. These individuals represented the prevailing traditional wisdom, which linked suffering directly to sin.
• was his wrath kindled:
  • wrath: Hebrew, אַף (aph), literally "nose," often used metaphorically for anger or wrath due to visible signs like flared nostrils. This is a strong expression of anger. In a biblical context, wrath can be righteous, directed at injustice or folly (e.g., God's wrath against sin).
  • kindled: Hebrew, חָרָה (charah), means "to glow," "burn," or "be angry." It suggests an internal heat or passionate indignation that has reached a boiling point after long observation. Elihu had been restraining himself.
  • This indicates Elihu's strong emotional response, a righteous indignation not mere human petulance. His anger stemmed from witnessing intellectual stalemate and theological misjudgment.
• because they had found no answer:
  • found no answer: Hebrew, לֹא מָצְאוּ מַעֲנֶה (lo' matsu ma'aneh). This implies their failure to provide a satisfying or conclusive retort to Job's arguments. Job maintained his innocence despite their accusations, leaving them speechless and intellectually defeated in the debate. They lacked the true insight needed to address Job's dilemma.
  • This highlights their intellectual bankruptcy and the limitations of their traditional, rigid theology which could not account for righteous suffering.
• and yet had condemned Job:
  • condemned: Hebrew, הִרְשִׁיעוּ (hirshiau), to declare guilty, to pronounce wicked, to treat as unrighteous. This is the core of Elihu's grievance. Despite their inability to prove Job's sin or logically answer his claims of innocence, they still declared him guilty. Their theological premise (suffering=sin) forced them to condemn him, even without logical victory.
  • This phrase emphasizes the friends' theological dogma overcoming rational engagement and compassion. They had already pre-judged Job based on their rigid framework.
• "found no answer, and yet had condemned Job": This phrase-group reveals the fundamental flaw in the friends' approach. Their intellectual failure to rebut Job did not deter their judgmental attitude. It portrays a justice system, of sorts, where a verdict (guilty) is pronounced despite a lack of compelling evidence or counter-argument. Their condemnation was baseless in Elihu's eyes, fueled by their flawed assumptions about God's ways.

Job 32 3 Bonus section

Elihu's specific grievance with the friends' "condemnation" without an "answer" subtly sets him apart as a more discerning voice. Unlike the friends who were trapped in a binary framework of guilt or innocence, Elihu seeks to elevate the discussion towards understanding God's broader purposes beyond strict retribution. His anger suggests a belief in a more profound, multifaceted divine justice than what the friends represented. His presence and critique also serve a literary function: to explain why God Himself needed to intervene. The friends, despite their seniority and traditional wisdom, proved incapable of grappling with Job's complex case, necessitating a higher revelation.

Job 32 3 Commentary

Elihu's sudden emergence and expressed wrath in Job 32:3 signals a shift in the book's discourse, introducing a perspective intended to prepare the ground for God's eventual appearance. Elihu's indignation towards the friends is profound. Their failure was not merely one of verbal inadequacy, but a deeper spiritual and intellectual one: they could not genuinely address Job's cry of innocence (they "found no answer"), yet they persisted in applying their conventional theology to condemn him ("and yet had condemned Job"). Their rigid adherence to the retribution principle—that suffering automatically implies sin—rendered them incapable of discerning Job's unique situation. This led them to a circular argument, concluding Job was guilty simply because he suffered, without being able to refute his self-justification. Elihu identifies this as a critical error, highlighting the inadequacy of their wisdom in providing true understanding or counsel in Job's dire circumstances. It underscores a crucial biblical lesson: it is wrong to condemn another, especially when one lacks full understanding or genuine solutions to their plight. This section emphasizes the distinction between traditional, human wisdom, often dogmatic and judgmental, and true divine understanding, which Elihu is about to present.