Job 34:18

34:16-30 Elihu appeals directly to Job himself. Could he suppose that God was like those earthly princes, who hate right, who are unfit to rule, and prove the scourges of mankind? It is daring presumption to condemn God's proceedings, as Job had done by his discontents. Elihu suggests divers considerations to Job, to produce in him high thoughts of God, and so to persuade him to submit. Job had often wished to plead his cause before God. Elihu asks, To what purpose? All is well that God does, and will be found so. What can make those uneasy, whose souls dwell at ease in God? The smiles of all the world cannot quiet those on whom God frowns.

Is it fit to say to a king, thou art wicked?.... Not even to a bad king; for though he may be reproved for his sins, yet not by any or everyone, but by a fit and proper person: and generally speaking, if not always, the Scriptural instances of reproving such kings are of men that were prophets, and sent in the name of the Lord to do it; and when done by them, was done with decency: and much less should this be said to a good king; as to say to him, Belial, the word here used; or thou art Belial; or a son of Belial, as Shimei said to David, 2 Samuel 16:7 ; a name given to the worst of men, and is the devil himself; and signifies either one without a yoke, or lawless, which a king is not; or unprofitable, whereas a king is a minister of God for good; is for the punishment of evildoers, and for a praise to them that do well; and to princes, ye are ungodly? Who have their name from being generous, munificent, and liberal, and therefore should not be treated in such a manner; who are the sons of kings, or subordinate magistrates to them, and execute their will and pleasure, laws and precepts.

And if now such language is not to be used to earthly kings and princes, then surely not to the King of kings and Lord of lords; so Jarchi interprets it of God the King of the world; and some Christian interpreters, as Schmidt, understand by "princes" the three Persons in the Godhead; which can hardly be made to bear: though, could the whole be understood of God in the three Persons of the Deity, the connection with Job 34:19 would run more smoothly without the supplement that is made; so Broughton, "to the King, the King of nobles, that accepteth not,'' &c.

Job 34:18-19 . Is it fit to say to a king, Thou art wicked? — Hebrew, Belial, or a son of Belial. Though a king may be wicked, yet his subjects neither may nor dare call him so, Exodus 22:28 . And therefore if any evil thought did arise in thee, thou oughtest to have been afraid to utter it, and bring forth such unworthy expressions against God. That accepteth not the persons of any — Who respecteth not the greatest princes, so as to do any unjust thing to gain their favour, or avoid their displeasure, and to whom princes and peasants are equally subject, and infinitely inferior; who, therefore, is free from all temptation to injustice, which commonly proceeds from respect of persons; and to whom therefore thou didst owe more reverence than thy words have expressed. For they all are the work of his hands — And therefore of equal worth and price with him, and equally subject to his power and pleasure.

18 . The verse reads, Is it fit to say to a king, Thou wicked! Or to princes, Ye ungodly! The word “wicked” means worthless , Heb. belial . No doubt many kings, whether in the past or the present, might be justly enough addressed as “wicked,” and princes in abundance as “ungodly,” but the speaker is thinking here less of persons than of the offices which they fill as rulers. If earthly rule implies righteousness, how much more the rule of the Supreme ( Job 34:19 ).

Verse 18. - Is it fit to say to a king, Thou art wicked? and to princes, Ye are ungodly? Would any subject of an earthly king deem it fitting to accuse his sovereign of wicked and unjust conduct? Would he even tax those who stood next to the king - the princes and great officers of the court - with ungodliness? If a sense of what is becoming and seemly would restrain a man from the use of language of this sort towards his earthly ruler, can it be right that he should allow himself in such liberty or speech towards his heavenly King, his absolute Lord and Master? Job had not really used such language of God, though the complaints which he had made with respect to God's treatment of him might not unreasonably be held to imply some such accusation. Job 34:18

18. Literally, (Is it fit) to be said to a king? It would be a gross outrage to reproach thus an earthly monarch, much more the King of kings (Ex 22:28). But Maurer with the Septuagint and Vulgate reads, (It is not fit to accuse of injustice Him) who says to a king, Thou art wicked; to princes, Ye are ungodly; that is, who punishes impartially the great, as the small. This accords with Job 34:19.

Thou art wicked; or, Thou art Belial, or a son of Belial. Though a king may really be unjust and wicked, yet their subjects neither may nor dare presume to call them so, Exodus 22:28 . And therefore if some evil thought did arise in thee, yet how wast thou not afraid to utter such unworthy and almost blasphemous expressions against God?

Is it fit to say to a king, Thou art wicked? - The argument here is this: "There would be gross impropriety in arraigning the conduct of an earthly monarch, and using language severely condemning what he does. Respect is due to those of elevated rank. Their plans are often concealed. It is difficult to judge of them until they are fully developed. To condemn those plans, and to use the language of complaint, would not be tolerated, and would be grossly improper. How much more so when that language relates to the Great, the Infinite God, and to his eternal plans!" It may be added here, in accordance with the sentiment of Elihu, that people often indulge in thoughts and language about God which they would not tolerate respecting an earthly monarch.

The interrogative ה is joined to the inf., not, however, as Job 40:2 (num litigare cum Deo castigator, scil. vult), with the inf. absol., but with the inf. constr.; the form אמר for אמר occurs also in Proverbs 25:7 , and is also otherwise not rare, especially in combination with particles, e.g., בּאכל, Numbers 26:10 , Olsh. 160, b. (Note: Ezekiel 25:8 is also to be read אמר according to the Masora and old editions (as אבד Deuteronomy 7:20, אכל Deuteronomy 12:23, אחז 1 Kings 6:6), for distinction from the imperatives, which have Chateph-Segol.) It is unnecessary to suppose that the inf. constr., which sometimes, although rarely, does occur (Ges. 131, rem. 2), is used here instead of the inf. absol.; it is thus, as after טּוב, e.g., Judges 9:2 (המשׁל), Proverbs 24:7; Psalm 133:1, and Psalm 40:6 after אין, used as n. actionis, since ha in a pregnant sense is equivalent to num licet (הטוב), if one does not prefer, with Olsh., to suppose an aposiopesis: "(dare one be so bold as) to say to a king: Thou worthless one! Thou evil-doer! to princes?" The reading האמר is an unnecessary lightening of the difficulty.