Job 35:4
I will answer thee, and thy companions with thee.
Original Language Analysis
אֲשִֽׁיבְךָ֣
I will answer
H7725
אֲשִֽׁיבְךָ֣
I will answer
Strong's:
H7725
Word #:
2 of 6
to turn back (hence, away) transitively or intransitively, literally or figuratively (not necessarily with the idea of return to the starting point);
מִלִּ֑ין
H4405
וְֽאֶת
H853
וְֽאֶת
Strong's:
H853
Word #:
4 of 6
properly, self (but generally used to point out more definitely the object of a verb or preposition, even or namely)
Historical Context
In ancient Near Eastern wisdom dialogues, younger speakers typically deferred to elders. Elihu's assertiveness (32:6-10) breaks convention, claiming inspiration beyond aged wisdom. His mediating position—criticizing both Job's self-justification and the friends' false accusations—attempts synthesis of opposing views, a common wisdom literature technique.
Questions for Reflection
- How do we balance theological correctness with relational sensitivity when counseling the afflicted?
- What does Elihu's confidence in answering what stumped his elders teach about humility and presumption in theological discourse?
- When is emphasizing God's transcendence helpful, and when does it inappropriately distance God from human suffering?
Analysis & Commentary
I will answer thee, and thy companions with thee—Elihu directly addresses Job and indirectly the three friends (Eliphaz, Bildad, Zophar). The verb shiv (שִׁיב), 'to answer' or 'to respond,' indicates Elihu's confidence in providing what the others couldn't—satisfying explanation of Job's suffering. The phrase reeka (רֵעֶיךָ), 'your companions,' acknowledges the failed counselors.
Elihu's youthful boldness claims ability to answer what confounded his elders. This represents either admirable courage or presumptuous pride—the text's ambiguity forces readers to judge. His subsequent argument (verses 5-8) emphasizes God's transcendence: human sin cannot harm God, nor human righteousness benefit Him. Therefore, Job's claim to deserve better treatment misconstrues the divine-human relationship.
Elihu's answer contains truth—God's aseity (self-existence) means He needs nothing from creatures. Yet this truth incompletely addresses Job's situation. God's transcendence doesn't negate His covenant faithfulness or diminish the problem of innocent suffering. Later, God will vindicate Job's protest over the friends' false accusations (42:7), suggesting Elihu's answer, while theologically accurate regarding divine transcendence, misses the relational dimension of covenantal suffering.