Job 32:15

They were amazed, they answered no more: they left off speaking.

EXPOSITORY (ENGLISH BIBLE)

Ellicott's Commentary for English Readers

(15) They were amazed.—The force is given better by substituting the present tense, “They are amazed, they answer no more: they have not a word to say.”

Benson Commentary

Job 32:15-16. They were amazed — Job’s three friends stood mute, like persons amazed, not knowing what to reply to his arguments, and wondering at his bold and confident assertions concerning his integrity, and his interest in the favour of God, under such terrible and manifest tokens, as they thought them, of God’s just displeasure against him. They answered no more — Although Job gave them just occasion to confute and reprove him for his intemperate speeches, and his presumptuous and irreverent expressions concerning God. When I had waited they spake not, &c. — Which he repeats as a strange and unreasonable thing, that they should be silent when they had such obligations to speak for the vindication both of God’s justice, and of their own truth and reputation.

Matthew Henry's Concise Commentary

32:15-22 If we are sure that the Spirit of God suggested what we are about to say, still we ought to refrain, till it comes to our turn to speak. God is the God of order, not of confusion. It is great refreshment to a good man, to speak for the glory of the Lord, and to edify others. And the more we consider the majesty of God, as our Maker, and the more we dread his wrath and justice, the less shall we sinfully fear or flatter men. Could we set the wrath Lord always before us, in his mercies and his terrors, we should not be moved from doing our duty in whatever we are called to do.

Barnes' Notes on the Bible

They were amazed - There also are the words of Elihu, and are designed to express his astonishment that the three friends of Job did not answer him. He says that they were completely silenced, and he repeats this to call attention to the remarkable fact that men who began so confidently, and who still held on to their opinion, had not one word more to say. There is some reason to suppose, from the change of person here from the second to the third, that Elihu turned from them to those who were present, and called their attention to the fact that the friends of Job were completely silenced. This supposition, however, is not absolutely necessary, for it is not uncommon in Hebrew poetry to change from the second person to the third, especially where there is any censure or rebuke implied; compare Job 18:4.

They left off speaking - Margin, "removed speeches from themselves." The marginal reading accords with the Hebrew. The sense is the same as in the common version, though the Hebrew is more poetic. It is not merely that they ceased to speak, but that they put words at a great distance from them. They could say absolutely nothing. This fact, that they were wholly silent, furnished an ample apology for Elihu to take up the subject.

Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary

15. Here Elihu turns from the friends to Job: and so passes from the second person to the third; a transition frequent in a rebuke (Job 18:3, 4).

they left off—Words were taken from them.

Matthew Poole's Commentary

They, i.e. Job’s three friends, of whom he speaks some times, in the second, and here in the third person, directing his speech to Job and the auditors of this disputation.

Were amazed; they stood mute, like persons amazed, not knowing what to reply to Job’s arguments, and wondering at his bold and confident assertions of his integrity, and of his interest in God, under such sad and manifest tokens of God’s just displeasure against him.

They answered no more, although Job gave them just occasion to reprove and confute him for his intemperate speeches and presumptuous and irreverent expressions concerning God.

Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible

They were amazed,.... They were like persons thunderstruck, quite surprised and astonished to hear a young man talk after this manner:

they answered no more; as they had ceased to answer Job, they did not undertake to answer Elihu, who had plainly told them their arguments were not convincing, their answers were no answers, and that they had done a wrong thing in condemning Job without proof; and that which they thought their greatest wisdom, and strongest argument, had no wisdom nor strength in it; namely, which was taken from his sore afflictions by the hand of God:

they left off speaking; or words departed from them, as Jarchi; their speech left them, they seemed deprived of it: Mr. Broughton renders the whole,

"they shrink away, do speak no more, speeches be departed from them.''

Geneva Study Bible

They were amazed, they answered no more: they left off speaking.

EXEGETICAL (ORIGINAL LANGUAGES)

Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges

15. they left off speaking] lit. words have removed, or, are gone from them (Genesis 12:8)—they are reduced to silence.

15–22. Turning from the three friends Elihu seems to speak in soliloquy and present to his own mind the singular situation: the three friends are discomfited before Job and reduced to silence; this should not be; therefore he will express his convictions. His breast is filled with thoughts and emotions that will not be repressed: he must speak, that he may find relief. And he will speak fearlessly and in sincerity, not regarding the person of any man.

Pulpit Commentary

Verse 15.- They were amazed, they answered no more. A change from the second to the third person, possibly as seeming less disrespectful. Or perhaps Elihu turns from the three friends at this point, as Professor Lee supposes, and addrJob 32:15

Keil and Delitzsch Biblical Commentary on the Old Testament

15 They are amazed, they answer no more,

Words have fled from them.

16 And I waited, for they spake not,

For they stand still, they answer no more.

17 Therefore I also will answer for my part,

I will declare my knowledge, even I.

In order to give a more rapid movement and an emotional force to the speech, the figure asyndeton is introduced in Job 32:15, as perhaps in Jeremiah 15:7, Ew. 349, a. Most expositors render העתּיקוּ passively, according to the sense: they have removed from them, i.e., are removed from them; but why may העתיק not signify, like Genesis 12:8; Genesis 26:22, to move away, viz., the tent equals to wander on (Schlottm.)? The figure: words are moved away (as it were according to an encampment broken up) from them, i.e., as we say: they have left them, is quite in accordance with the figurative style of this section. It is unnecessary to take והוחלתּי, Job 32:16, with Ew. (342, c) 2 and Hirz. as perf. consec. and interrogative: and should I wait, because they speak no more? Certainly the interrog. part. sometimes disappears after the Waw of consequence, e.g., Ezekiel 18:13, Ezekiel 18:24 (and will he live?); but by what would והוחלתי be distinguished as perf. consec. here? Hahn's interpretation: I have waited, until they do not speak, for they stand ... , also does not commend itself; the poet would have expressed this by עד לא ידברו, while the two כי, especially with the poet's predilection for repetition, appear to be co-ordinate. Elihu means to say that he has waited a long time, surprised that the three did not speak further, and that they stand still without speaking again. Therefore he thinks the time is come for him also to answer Job. אענה cannot be fut. Kal, since where the 1 fut. Kal and Hiph. cannot be distinguished by the vowel within the word (as in the Ayin Awa and double Ayin verbs), the former has an inalienable Segol; it is therefore 1 fut. Hiph., but not as in Ecclesiastes 5:19 in the signification to employ labour upon anything (lxx περισπᾶν), but in an intensive Kal signification (as הזעיק for זעק, Job 35:9, comp. on Job 31:18): to answer, to give any one an answer when called upon. Ewald's supposedly proverbial: I also plough my field! (192, c, Anm. 2) does unnecessary violence to the usage of the language, which is unacquainted with this הענה, to plough. It is perfectly consistent with Elihu's diction, that חלקי beside אני as permutative signifies, "I, my part," although it might also be an acc. of closer definition (as pro parte mea, for my part), or even - which is, however, less probable - acc. of the obj. (my part). Elihu speaks more in the scholastic tone of controversy than the three.