Job 32:5
When Elihu saw that there was no answer in the mouth of these three men, then his wrath was kindled.
Original Language Analysis
וַיַּ֤רְא
saw
H7200
וַיַּ֤רְא
saw
Strong's:
H7200
Word #:
1 of 10
to see, literally or figuratively (in numerous applications, direct and implied, transitive, intransitive and causative)
אֱלִיה֗וּא
When Elihu
H453
אֱלִיה֗וּא
When Elihu
Strong's:
H453
Word #:
2 of 10
elihu, the name of one of job's friends, and of three israelites
כִּ֘י
H3588
כִּ֘י
Strong's:
H3588
Word #:
3 of 10
(by implication) very widely used as a relative conjunction or adverb (as below); often largely modified by other particles annexed
מַעֲנֶ֗ה
that there was no answer
H4617
מַעֲנֶ֗ה
that there was no answer
Strong's:
H4617
Word #:
5 of 10
a reply (favorable or contradictory)
בְּ֭פִי
in the mouth
H6310
בְּ֭פִי
in the mouth
Strong's:
H6310
Word #:
6 of 10
the mouth (as the means of blowing), whether literal or figurative (particularly speech); specifically edge, portion or side; adverbially (with prepos
שְׁלֹ֥שֶׁת
of these three
H7969
שְׁלֹ֥שֶׁת
of these three
Strong's:
H7969
Word #:
7 of 10
three; occasionally (ordinal) third, or (multiple) thrice
הָאֲנָשִׁ֗ים
H376
הָאֲנָשִׁ֗ים
Strong's:
H376
Word #:
8 of 10
a man as an individual or a male person; often used as an adjunct to a more definite term (and in such cases frequently not expressed in translation)
Historical Context
After three rounds of debate (chapters 3-31), Job's friends have been reduced to silence. Their theology of exact temporal retribution—good people prosper, bad people suffer—cannot explain Job's situation. Elihu witnesses this theological bankruptcy and prepares to offer a different perspective: God uses suffering to discipline and refine even the righteous (33:19-30). This anticipates the New Testament's teaching on sanctifying affliction (Hebrews 12:5-11, James 1:2-4).
Questions for Reflection
- When have you witnessed bad theology cause more harm than help in someone's suffering?
- What is the difference between righteous anger at theological error and sinful argumentativeness?
- How can we respond to others' suffering without falling into simplistic explanations that Job's friends represent?
Related Resources
Explore related topics, people, and study resources to deepen your understanding of this passage.
Analysis & Commentary
When Elihu saw that there was no answer in the mouth of these three men (וַיַּרְא כִּי אֵין מַעֲנֶה בְּפִי שְׁלֹשֶׁת הָאֲנָשִׁים, vayyar ki 'en ma'aneh befi sheloshet ha'anashim)—the verb ra'ah (saw, perceived) indicates Elihu's discernment; ma'aneh means answer or response. The three friends—Eliphaz, Bildad, Zophar—have exhausted their arguments and fallen silent. Then his wrath was kindled (וַיִּחַר אַפּוֹ, vayyichar 'appo)—charah means to burn, be kindled; 'af literally means nose or nostrils, idiomatically anger (as nostrils flare).
Elihu's anger is righteous indignation at theological failure. The three friends couldn't refute Job's claims of innocence yet still insisted he must have sinned grievously. Their retributive theology—suffering always indicates sin—has collapsed under Job's integrity. Elihu's wrath burns at their inability to defend God's justice properly. Righteous anger at bad theology appears throughout Scripture (Mark 3:5, Jesus angered at hard hearts; Galatians 1:9, Paul's anathemas against false gospels). Elihu will attempt what the three friends couldn't: vindicating God's justice while acknowledging Job's integrity.