In chapter 32 of the Book of Job, we are introduced to a new character, a new actor in the play, as it were. His name is Elihu, but before we consider him and the reasons for his coming, let’s sum up what we know so far. After Job ended his speech (Job 31:40), the friends also ceased their own replies, and the reason the text offers for their silence is that Job was righteous in his own eyes (Job 32:1). In other words, they considered anymore input on their part to get Job to see his error, as they perceived that to be, was simply a waste of time! They believed Job was acting foolishly, because he refused to accept their rebukes, and, as far as repenting was concerned, Job was simply unreachable (Proverbs 18:2). The friends had exhausted all hope of getting through to Job, so they simply left him to himself, because he was righteous in his own eyes.
Many have presumed that this means Job was a self-righteous man, but, if this is so, how should we understand the fact that the Lord, himself, says Job was “a blameless and upright man, one who fears God and turns away from evil” (Job 1:8)? Moreover, if we should understand that Job was truly self-righteous, why did God conclude of Job, after he permitted his enemy to destroy him: “…there is no one like him on the earth, a pure and upright man, one who fears God and turns away from evil. And he still holds firmly to his integrity, so that you stirred me up to destroy him without reason” (Job 2:3 – emphasis mine). If there wasn’t a flaw in Job’s character, according to God, why should we look for one? If unrighteousness or self-righteousness wasn’t the reason for Job’s calamities, why should we make it so?
We need to listen before we speak or draw conclusions, and listening implies considering what was said, not merely politely giving time for another person to speak before we continue to find fault. Job had stated, and throughout this debate he continued to reiterate, that he was a righteous man. He wasn’t a hypocrite nor was he an adulterer. He never abused his authority over his servants, nor, as a magistrate for his city, did he ever use that authority for personal gain or adjudicate in favor of a man’s person, even when doing so threatened his own wealth and position in the community. Moreover, Job claimed he was generous to the poor and the stranger; he was a father to the fatherless and a husband to the widow, always making certain these folks had what they needed. Finally, Job claimed he didn’t trust in his wealth, but in God who made him wealthy, nor did he rejoice over the destruction of his enemies, or even seek to hide his own sins. In other words, Job’s righteousness was according to a very high standard, which he set for himself in covenant with God (Job 31:1; cp. Proverbs 15:1-5)
Therefore, listening involves something the friends did not do. Listening involves considering what was said and evaluating it in the context in which the argument was presented. Indeed, the friends permitted Job to speak, but afterward they repeatedly condemned him without evaluating or replying directly to his argument, something that was noticed and condemned by Elihu (Job 32:3). All the friends did was allow Job the opportunity to speak, while they thought about what they could say next against the man. In other words, they condemned him without cause. They never once took anything Job claimed in order to prove his argument wrong. They merely reiterated their worldview, presuming it to be correct. In doing so, they were forced to conclude Job was wrong. In other words, their conclusion that Job was wicked was made prior to any effort to prove his position wrong. Their truth incorporated the errors of their own worldview. Therefore, they had to reject out of hand anything Job claimed that challenged that worldview. Thus, they spoke without listening.
Smoodock's Blog 