Also against his three friends was his wrath aroused, because they had found no answer, and yet had condemned Job.
Read Chapter 32
George Leo Haydock
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, ethento) that he was a wretch. "This was not true: (Haydock) but they had also done 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, are silent on this head, and Abenezra allows that the change is very doubtful. (Calmet)
10. It must be carefully observed, that he blames blessed Job for professing himself just before God, but his friends because in condemning him they gave no reasonable reply. For it is plainly inferred, from these marks, that in him are characterized the lovers of vain glory. For he convicts Job of presuming on his righteousness, his friends of making a foolish answer. For all lovers of vain glory, while they prefer themselves to all other, accuse some of folly, others of obtaining what they do not deserve: that is, they consider some to be ignorant, others to be evil livers. And though they may justly accuse of heresy all who are external to the Church, yet they despise those who are within for the meanness of their life, and pride themselves against the one from high notions of their sound faith, against the others as if from the merits of their good living. But Eliu is well said to reprove at one time blessed Job, and at another time his friends: because the lovers of vain glory, li...
Elihu is inflamed not because [Job] declared himself to be righteous but because he did that before the Lord, as he invoked him as his witness; or because he thought that [Job] brought an action against God. In fact, to justify oneself has no great importance in itself, but to do that with the intention of bringing an action against God is absolutely inopportune.… Now, if this is true, what an extreme act of impiety on the part of Job if he believed himself to be more righteous than God [and to be authorized to bring action against him]. What really happened? This was not Job’s thought at all. It is Elihu who believed so. Job did not speak with the idea that he was more righteous than God but with the idea that God was responsible for his afflictions. Therefore he did not reproach God for any injustice: it is Elihu who understood it so. - "Commentary on Job 32.2–3"