Job 32:3

Job 32:3 Also against his three friends was his wrath kindled, because they had found no answer, and [yet] had condemned Job.

Ver. 3. Also against his three friends was his wrath kindled] True zeal is of a most masculine, disengaged, courageous nature; like fire, it catcheth on every side, and is impartial. Elihu was a man made all of fire, walking among stubble, as Chrysostom saith of Peter. And, surely, he that is not angry against sin, whether in himself or others, it is because either he knows it not or hates it not as he ought. He also kept within the bounds of modesty and moderation, and expressed himself without bitterness. We read of Idacius, that he would needs be doing with Salvianus and Instantius, both Priscillianists. But by his passionate and intemperate language he not only did not convert them, but made them worse (Sulp. Sever. l. ii., p. 171).

Because they had found no answer] They were gravelled and nonplussed, as the Popish doctors were oft by the martyrs, Philpot, Ridley, &c., yea, by those of the weaker sort, as Anne Askew, Alice Driver, &c. The prolocutor in convocation, A. D. 1553, confessed that those dejected ministers (afterwards martyrs) had the word on their side, but the prelates in place the possession of the sword, and that was their best answer to the others’ arguments.

And yet had condemned Job] Condemned him for a wicked man, as the word signifieth. So the Popish doctors did innocent Cranmer of adultery, heresy, and treason; Philpot, of parricide, heresy, &c. To accuse was easy, but how shamefully failed they in the proof! These three, after they had also interested God himself in their rash accusation of Job, were forced to give him over.

John Trapp, A Commentary or Exposition upon All the Books of the Old and New Testament (1647–1656) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Though silenced in argument, they held their opinion still.

Jamieson, Fausset & Brown — Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible (1871) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

Verse 3. They had found no answer] They had condemned Job; and yet could not answer his arguments on the general subject, and in vindication of himself.

Adam Clarke's Commentary on the Bible (1810–1826) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

(3) They had found no answer.—They could not reply unto Job, nor deny that he had been in conduct such as he said he had been, and yet they concluded that he must be wicked because God had smitten him.

A Bible Commentary for English Readers, edited by Charles John Ellicott (1878–1897) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

3. had found no answer, and yet had condemned] Rather, had not found an answer and condemned, i. e. found no answer wherewith to condemn Job. Elihu’s anger was kindled against the three friends because they had not found such an answer as effectively to put Job in the wrong in his charges against God; comp. Job_32:5; Job_32:12. Elihu is more deeply pained and offended by Job’s charges against God than even the three friends were (ch. Job_34:7 seq., Job_34:35 seq.); he is far from blaming them for condemning Job; neither does he hold the balance between Job and them and blame them for condemning him without good reasons; he blames them for not finding such good reasons as effectively to condemn him, as he deserves. Coverdale: because they had found no reasonable answer to overcome him.

The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges (gen. ed. J. J. S. Perowne; Cambridge University Press, 1878–1918) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Also against his three friends was his wrath kindled,.... He did not take part with either side, but blamed both, and took upon him to be a moderator between them, and deal impartially with them: what highly displeased him, and raised his spirit against the three friends of Job, was,

because they had found no answer; they were at a loss for one, for a sufficient one; they had all of them been answering him in their turns again and again, but with nothing to the purpose, not with anything conclusive and convincing; and particularly they could find and give no answer to Job's last vindication of himself:

and yet had condemned Job; as a very wicked man, and an hypocrite, for no other reason but because he was afflicted; and they still persisted in their sentiment, though Job had so fully cleared himself, and put them to entire silence; this exasperated Elihu, to observe these men to retain so unreasonable a sentiment, to pronounce such a rash sentence, and yet could make no reply to Job's defence of himself. Jarchi says, this place is one of the corrections of the Scribes, it having been formerly written "God" instead of "Job"; as if the sense was, that Elihu was provoked with them, because by their silence they had condemned the Lord, not vindicating his honour and glory as became them; but Aben Ezra declares his ignorance of that correction, and observes, that they that say so knew what was hid from him.

John Gill's Exposition of the Whole Bible (1746–1763) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

Because they had found no answer, and yet had condemned Job - They held Job to be guilty, and yet they were unable to adduce the proof of it, and to reply to what he had said. They still maintained their opinion, though silenced in the argument. They were in that state of mind, not uncommon, in which they obstinately held on to an opinion which they could not vindicate, and believed another to be guilty, though they could not prove it.

Albert Barnes' Notes on the Bible (1834–1885) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

Found. Hebrew, "produced an answer, but had still condemned Job;" (Haydock) or, "had made Job wicked," by giving him occasion to blaspheme, in order to defend his own righteousness. (Calmet) --- Septuagint, "they took it for granted (or laid it down as a fact, Greek: ethento) that he was a wretch." This was not true: (Haydock) but they had also doe their best to prove it. (Calmet) --- Job. Almost all the Rabbins assert that the original copies read Jehova, "the Lord;" (Haydock) and that the Masorets changed it, to avoid the apparent blasphemy; as if the three friends had rendered themselves guilty by not answering Job. But the Chaldean, &c., are silent on this head, and Abenezra allows that the change is very doubtful. (Calmet)

George Leo Haydock (1774–1849), Haydock's Catholic Family Bible and Commentary, 1859 edition — public domain. Excludes Psalms (Douay-Rheims chapter numbering differs from Protestant) and Deuterocanonical books (Catholic canon only).

They had found no answer to Job’s allegations and arguments, as to the main cause.

Had condemned Job as a hypocrite or ungodly, man.

Matthew Poole's English Annotations on the Holy Bible (1683–1685) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

3. Condemned Job — The only way they could justify God’s ways was to condemn Job.

Daniel D. Whedon (gen. ed.), Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1874–1909) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Also against his three friends was his wrath kindled, because they had found no answer. Elihu thought that Job"s reasonings and complaints admitted of being satisfactorily answered, and was vexed that the three "friends" had not made the right replied It is the main object of his speech to supply them. And yet had condemned Job. They had condemned him on wrong grounds and of sins that he had not committed. (Job_22:6-9) Elihu condemns him as much, (Job_33:9-12 Job_34:7-9, etc.) but for entirely different reasons.

The Pulpit Commentary (1880–1919), ed. H.D.M. Spence-Jones & Joseph S. Exell — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

No answer - To Job's arguments as to the main cause. Condemned - As a bad man.

John Wesley, Explanatory Notes Upon the Whole Bible (1754–1765) — public domain. Text via the GEBible commentary corpus.

Elihu's anger was also kindled against his three friends

This compares Elihu's anger to someone starting a fire. This can be stated in active form. AT: "Elihu also became very angry with his three friends" (See: Metaphor and Active or Passive)

Now

This word is used here to mark a break in the main story line. This tells background information about Elihu. (See: Background Information)

that there was no answer in the mouths of these three men

This means that the men were done speaking to Job. This speaks of the men possibly having an answer as if the answer were an object that would be in their mouths. AT: "that these three men had nothing else to say" or "that these three men had no more answers to give Job" (See: Metaphor)

his anger was kindled

This compares Elihu's anger to someone starting a fire. This can be stated in active form. AT: "he became very angry" (See: Metaphor and Active or Passive)

translationWords

condemn

unfoldingWord translationNotes — © Distant Shores Media and the Door43 World Missions Community, licensed CC BY-SA 4.0. Source: git.door43.org/Door43/en_tn.

and condemned Job This is one of the verses wherein the Scribes rectified the language of the Scripture. “And they condemned,” as directed against the Omnipresent, by remaining silent, should have been written, but Scripture euphemized. Similarly (Num. 11:15), “and do not let me see my misfortune.” It should have been written: “and do not let me see their misfortune,” but Scripture euphemized, and so many [other] instances, in Sifrei (ad loc.) and in the Great Masorah.

Rashi on the Tanakh — English translations: “The Judaica Press complete Tanach with Rashi, translated by A. J. Rosenberg” (CC BY 4.0); “Pentateuch with Rashi's commentary by M. Rosenbaum and A.M. Silbermann, 1929-1934” (public domain); “The Metsudah Tanach series, Lakewood, N.J” (CC BY 4.0); and “The Book of Joshua, Metsudah Publications, 1997” (CC BY 4.0). Text via Sefaria.