Apparently, Zophar did interrupt Job, or at least this is implied in the beginning of Job’s discourse at this point in the debate. Although this was Zophar’s right, according to Paul (cp. 1Corinthians 14:29-30), and Job allowed Zophar to interrupt, the right can be and often is abused. To speak, and to give an account of one’s defense before one’s accusers is a man’s right, and, if denied, he is judged without fairness and that without redress. In one sense of the word, Job was judged unfairly despite his ability to speak, because his words were meaningless to the friends. They clung so tightly to their traditional understanding of justice, that they couldn’t admit error at any cost. They would not listen to reason, vis-à-vis they couldn’t or wouldn’t consider an opposing point of view, no matter how logical it was or how that point of view made their own position appear illogical. Many, today, take a similar point of view when proclaiming or defending their position on a matter, especially in religion and politics. In a world where reason and logic have no place, injustice and tyranny reign.
Job asks the friends to “listen carefully” or diligently to what he has to say (Job 21:1-2). In other words, Job requests that the friends take a measure of accountability for what they hear. To listen but hear nothing is to blindly reject what is said by another, which defeats the purpose of both listening and offering a defense. To be accountable for what one hears is to deliberate honestly, as a jury is expected to do, when all the facts pertaining to a matter are laid out for consideration. This is all Job asks of his friends, and, if they would do this one thing, he would consider it their appropriate comfort, which they had come to extend to him in the beginning (Job 21:2; cp. 2:11).
Job requests that the friends permit him to speak freely, without interruption, as, apparently Zohar had done (Job 21:3; cp. 20:1-3), and afterwards they may speak as they please, even to mock and insult him, as they had been doing, if that were the case. To speak, therefore, and utter his defense was of utmost importance to Job, even if what he had to say fell upon deaf ears.
Nevertheless, why should Job request that the friends listen diligently? Is it because Job has a complaint against them? Obviously, he had been hurt by their replies, but he wasn’t so troubled with them, as he was over what God had done to him (Job 21:4). It was what God had done that was so troubling to Job, and this is what he wished the friends to understand and consider.
Yet, they cast all this aside in order to defend their theology. They took offense with Job’s words, as though he were challenging what they believed. The fact that Job’s words challenged their theology was of secondary importance, however. He wasn’t purposefully doing so. Job’s complaint troubled him, as much as it was troubling to the friends. Yet, it was Job who was willing to reconsider his worldview of man’s relationship with God, while the friends wanted only to defend their theology by condemning Job. They were not as amazed as Job was over what had occurred, and they refused to hold their peace long enough to really consider the matter (Job 21:5). The fact is, Job claimed that, when he thought of all that had happened to him, he was stunned, astonished, and he trembled in fear of God (Job 21:6).
Smoodock's Blog 