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.

Is it fit to say to a king, Thou art wicked? - The sentence is very short, and is thus translated by the Vulgate: Qui dicit regi, Apostata? Qui vocat duces impios? "Who says to a king, Apostate? Who calls leaders impious?" Literally, Who calls a king Belial? Who calls princes wicked? Civil governors should be treated with respect; no man should speak evil of the ruler of the people. This should never be permitted. Even where the man cannot be respected, because his moral conduct is improper, even there the office is sacred, and should be reverenced. He who permits himself to talk against the man, would destroy the office and authority, if he could.

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.

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. It were a crimen laesae, if one reproached a king with being unjust, and therefore thereby denied him the most essential requisite of a ruler; and now even Him (Merc. correctly supplies tanto minus ei) who does not give the preference to the person (נשׂא פּני as Job 13:8; Job 32:21) of princes, and does not (with preference) regard (on נכּר vid., on Job 21:29, also here Piel, and according to the statement of the Masora, Milel, for an acknowledged reason which can be maintained even in remarkable instances, like Deuteronomy 10:5 in ויהיו, Ezekiel 32:26 in מחללי, whereas 1 Samuel 23:7 is Milra) the rich before (לפני in the sense of prae) the poor! therefore the King of kings, who makes no partial distinction, because the king and the beggar are the work of His hands: they stand equally near to Him as being His creatures, and He is exalted above both alike as their Creator, this order and partiality are excluded; - what a nota bene against the doctrine of the decretum absolutum, which makes the love of the Creator a partial love, and turns this love, which in its very nature is perfect love, into caprice! In Job 34:20 Elihu appeals to human history in favour of this impartiality of the Ruler of the world. It may there appear as though God with partiality suffered rulers and peoples in authority in the world to do as they please; but suddenly they die away, and in fact in the middle of the night (here Mercha-mahpach), the individuals of a great people (thus must עם be understood in accordance with the prominently-placed plur. predicate, Ges. 146, 1) tremble and perish; and they remove (ויסירוּ instead of the passive, as Job 4:20 and frequently) the mighty - לא־ביד. It is not the hand of man which does this, but an invisible higher power (which, if it is called yd, only bears this name per anthropomorphismum); comp. Daniel 2:34, לא בידין; Daniel 8:25, בּאפס יד; and also Job 20:26, like the New Testament use of ου ̓ χειροποίητος. The subj. of Job 34:20 are the previously mentioned princes. The division according to the accents may be received with hesitation, since the symmetry of the sticks, which it restores, is not unfrequently wanting in the Elihu section. Job 34:20 refers back to the possessors of power, and in the interval, Job 34:20 describes the fate of those who belong to the people which has become subservient to their lust of conquest, for עם cannot signify "in crowds" (Ew., Hahn); it is therefore, and especially when mentioned as here between princes and rulers, the people, and in fact, in distinction from gwy, the people together forming a state.

Is it fit to say to a king, Thou art {n} wicked? and to princes, Ye are ungodly?

(n) If man by nature fears to speak evil of such as have power, then they should be much more afraid to speak evil of God.

34:18 Wicked - Though a king may be wicked, yet his subjects neither may nor dare call him so.

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.

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.