Job 34 18

Job 34:18 kjv

Is it fit to say to a king, Thou art wicked? and to princes, Ye are ungodly?

Job 34:18 nkjv

Is it fitting to say to a king, 'You are worthless,' And to nobles, 'You are wicked'?

Job 34:18 niv

Is he not the One who says to kings, 'You are worthless,' and to nobles, 'You are wicked,'

Job 34:18 esv

who says to a king, 'Worthless one,' and to nobles, 'Wicked man,'

Job 34:18 nlt

For he says to kings, 'You are wicked,'
and to nobles, 'You are unjust.'

Job 34 verses

Job 34 18 Meaning

Job 34:18 is a rhetorical question posed by Elihu, who argues against Job's implicit questioning of God's justice. Elihu states that it is universally recognized as unfitting to declare an earthly king worthless or his princes wicked. This forms a lower-to-higher argument, implying that if even fallible human rulers are to be afforded respect and not to be openly insulted with such vile terms, then it is infinitely more inappropriate and even blasphemous to harbor or express such thoughts towards God, the perfectly righteous and sovereign Ruler of the universe. Elihu uses this example to prepare his audience for his subsequent pronouncements on God's just and unchallengeable governance.

Job 34 18 Context

Job chapter 34 continues Elihu’s lengthy discourse, the fourth friend of Job to speak. Elihu positions himself as a younger man, speaking only after the three elder friends have exhausted their arguments and failed to convince Job. Elihu, unlike the others, doesn't directly accuse Job of specific sins, but he refutes Job's assertions that God is unjust or has unfairly afflicted him. Elihu firmly upholds God’s absolute righteousness, power, and sovereign control over creation. He argues that God, being omniscient and omnipotent, acts always with perfect justice, and that for a mere mortal like Job to accuse God of unrighteousness is not only misguided but arrogant. This specific verse, 34:18, serves as a crucial rhetorical bridge. It lays down a universally accepted human convention—the impropriety of disrespecting earthly authority—to then elevate the argument to the divine realm, asserting that criticizing God is a far graver offense.

Job 34 18 Word analysis

• Is it fit / הֲלֵאמֹר (ha-le'mor): The initial הֲ (ha-) is an interrogative particle, turning the statement into a question. לֵאמֹר (le'mor) means "to say" or "to speak." The rhetorical question structure "Is it fitting to say...?" strongly implies a negative answer: it is utterly unfitting. It appeals to common sense and societal norms, preparing for the leap to divine propriety.
• to a king / לְמֶ֣לֶךְ (le'melech): Refers to a human sovereign. Kings, though often flawed and unrighteous, were typically held in high regard in ancient Near Eastern cultures dued to their absolute authority, seen as God's designated rulers or instruments. Even an evil king demanded a certain level of respect due to his office, a concept reflected in biblical law and narratives (e.g., David respecting Saul as "the Lord's anointed").
• 'You are worthless' / בְּלִיַּעַל֮ אַ֭תָּה (beliyya'al attah):
  • בְּלִיַּעַל (beliyya'al): A compound Hebrew word, often translated "worthless," "base," "villainous," "good-for-nothing." It literally means "without profit" or "without usefulness," often implying extreme wickedness, depravity, or rebellion. This term is used elsewhere to describe individuals of notorious evil, "sons of Belial" (e.g., 1 Sam 2:12; 25:17, 25; Deut 13:13). Elihu uses this strongest possible negative epithet for a human to emphasize the outrage of applying such a term.
  • אַתָּה (attah): "You" (masculine singular). The direct address makes the insult particularly poignant and offensive.
• or to princes, / וְלִנְדִיבִ֥ים (velin'divim):
  • וְ (ve): "And" or "or," connecting the two parts of the rhetorical question.
  • לִנְדִיבִים (lin'divim): Refers to nobles, freewill givers, or officials, often those associated with integrity or generosity in leadership. These are respected figures in the ruling class. The term is also used in a positive sense elsewhere (e.g., Psa 118:9, Psa 47:9), highlighting the incongruity of accusing them of wickedness.
• 'You are wicked'? / רָשָֽׁע (rasha'):
  • רָשָׁע (rasha'): "Wicked," "guilty," "unrighteous." This term describes moral evil, actions contrary to God's law or established justice. While "worthless" (beliyya'al) can describe inherent depravity, "wicked" (rasha') specifically implies deviation from righteousness, often carrying the connotation of being guilty before a divine or legal standard. The accusation against a prince of being rasha' implies they are unfit to rule or have abused their power fundamentally.

Words-group by words-group analysis:

• "Is it fit to say...": This opening rhetorical question immediately engages the listener, demanding an obvious "no" in response, setting the stage for Elihu's larger point about divine propriety.
• "to a king, 'You are worthless,' or to princes, 'You are wicked'?": This forms a powerful parallelism, employing a descending social order (king to princes) and corresponding severe accusations (beliyya'al to rasha'). Both insults challenge the very foundation of their authority and moral legitimacy. The absurdity of openly making such pronouncements to earthly rulers serves as the anchor for Elihu’s impending theological point. It reflects a social convention deeply rooted in the concept of authority and order.

Job 34 18 Bonus section

The concept of beliyya'al is deeply significant within the Old Testament. It denotes individuals of utmost depravity, often associated with rebellion against God and social order. By using this term in connection with "a king," Elihu evokes the idea that even the most deserving recipient of such a harsh label (a human who is truly wicked and worthless) is still owed a basic societal decorum due to their position of authority. This stark contrast underscores the unthinkable nature of questioning the Almighty's worth or righteousness. Furthermore, the argument highlights an often-overlooked aspect of divine authority: its unique position beyond human judgment. While humans can discern and even depose earthly rulers for unrighteousness (as exemplified by prophetic denunciations of wicked kings), to extend such judgment to the infinitely righteous and sovereign God is not only arrogant but demonstrates a profound misunderstanding of God's nature and character. Elihu is subtly guiding Job (and the reader) to the theological reality that divine governance operates on principles entirely above human comprehension and critique, except by God's own self-revelation. Elihu also establishes himself as an exegete of traditional wisdom, echoing common sentiments regarding the proper deference owed to established powers, thereby gaining credibility before escalating to his divine argument.

Job 34 18 Commentary

Elihu's question in Job 34:18 functions as a potent a fortiori argument (from the lesser to the greater). He challenges the deeply ingrained human reverence for earthly authority figures – kings and princes – which often includes forbearance even in the face of their imperfections. To label such a ruler "worthless" or "wicked" would be an act of public insolence, inviting severe repercussions and undermining social order. Elihu is not affirming that these earthly rulers aren't sometimes worthless or wicked, but rather highlighting the impropriety of making such direct, public accusations against their esteemed positions. By establishing this foundational premise, he meticulously constructs his case against Job. If this is true for fallible human leaders, how much more unfathomable and blasphemous would it be to level similar accusations, even implicitly, against the perfectly just and righteous God? Job had verged on accusing God of injustice by claiming to be innocent and yet suffering without cause. Elihu's point is clear: Job’s complaining goes beyond seeking understanding; it begins to impute wickedness or injustice to the Almighty, an act far more egregious than insulting a human king. It highlights the vast qualitative difference between earthly power, which is flawed, and divine power, which is flawless.

• Example: A citizen might disagree with a governor's policy, but rarely would one openly call the governor "worthless" to his face without expecting serious repercussions or societal condemnation. Elihu argues that even this extreme impropriety with human authority pales in comparison to implying God is unjust.