Job 37:20 · Bible study
Job 37:20 Commentary: The Peril of Presuming to Speak Before God
Hebrew · 10 what the commentators say
Meaning in one sentence
Elihu's rhetorical question on the awe and danger of addressing the Almighty. What does 'swallowed up' mean, warning or absurdity?
Research Summary
- Meaning: A rhetorical refusal to speak before God, because doing so invites destruction or reveals absurd pride.
- Key words: 'Told' (H5608, Pual), passive, emphasizing God's independent knowledge. 'Speak' (H1696, Piel), to declare, often used of legal argument. 'Swallowed up' (H1104, Pual), engulfed, destroyed.
- Main debate: Whether 'swallowed up' is a literal warning of judgment or a rhetorical question showing the absurdity of contending with God.
- Theological theme: Divine transcendence and human finitude. The proper response to God's majesty is reverent silence, not argument.
- Best use: As a text to humble those who are quick to question God's ways, pointing them to the need for a mediator.
Translation Comparison
BSB Berean Standard Bible 2020
Should He be told that I want to speak? Would a man ask to be swallowed up?
WEB World English Bible 2000
Will it be told him that I would speak? Or should a man wish that he were swallowed up?
KJV King James Version 1769
Shall it be told him that I speak? if a man speak, surely he shall be swallowed up.
ASV American Standard Version 1901
Shall it be told him that I would speak? Or should a man wish that he were swallowed up?
YLT Young's Literal Translation 1898
Is it declared to Him that I speak? If a man hath spoken, surely he is swallowed up.
Darby Darby Bible 1890
Shall it be told him if I would speak? if a man [so] say, surely he shall be swallowed up.
Douay-Rheims Douay-Rheims Bible 1899
Who shall tell him the things I speak? even if a man shall speak, he shall be swallowed up.
Translations in other languages (10 available)
¿ Será preciso contarle cuando yo hablaré? Por más que el hombre razone, quedará como abismado.
Seria contado a ele o que eu haveria de falar? Por acaso alguém falaria para ser devorado?
Lui annoncera-t-on que je parlerai?
Wer wird ihm erzählen, daß ich wolle reden? So jemand redet, der wird verschlungen.
Zal het Hem verteld worden, als ik zo zou spreken? Denkt iemand dat, gewisselijk, hij zal verslonden worden.
Gli si annunzierà forse ch’io voglio parlare? Ma chi mai può bramare d’essere inghiottito?
Wszak teraz nie mogą ludzie patrzyć i na światło, gdy jest jasne na obłokach, gdy wiatr przechodzi, i przeczyszcza je.
Будет ли возвещено Ему, что я говорю? Сказал ли кто, что сказанное доносится Ему?
人豈可說： 我願與他 說話？豈 有人 自願 滅亡嗎？
How may he have knowledge of my desire for talk with him? or did any man ever say, May destruction come on me?
Verse in Context
Original Language (Biblical Hebrew)
Old Testament · Biblical Hebrew · Job 37:20
Source: STEPBible TAGNT/TEHB (CC-BY 4.0). Click or tap a morphology code to see the full parsing.
Scholars' Consensus
Commentators agree that Elihu is expressing profound awe and reverence for God, not a philosophical proposition. The first half of the verse, 'Will it be told him that I would speak?' is a rhetorical refusal: Elihu will not let his words even be reported to the Almighty, because God already knows every word (Psalms 139:4). The second clause is the hinge. Barnes reads the verb yevulla (Pual imperfect, 'he will be swallowed up') as a straightforward warning: anyone who dares to contend with God will be destroyed. The Cambridge Bible and other interpreters take the clause as an ironic question: 'Did a man ever wish to be swallowed up?', meaning no one in their right mind would voluntarily court annihilation. Both readings converge on the same pastoral point: human speech before God is perilous, and only a fool would rush into God's presence unprepared.
How settled is the interpretation?
Interpretive difficulty: Medium
Main views:
- Warning of destruction: The Pual verb 'yevulla' ('he will be swallowed up') is used elsewhere for divine judgment (Numbers 16:32-34). Barnes and Wesley take this reading: anyone who speaks presumptuously against God will be destroyed.
- Rhetorical absurdity: The syntax can be read as a question: 'Did a man ever say that he will be swallowed up?' The Cambridge Bible and Gill argue this: no one voluntarily asks to be consumed, so it is absurd to think one could debate God safely.
- Combined reading: Both meanings converge: the warning is real, but it is delivered as a rhetorical question to expose the folly of human pride. The verse functions as a double-edged rebuke.
What is clear: Elihu is expressing that human presumption before God is dangerous and foolish; the proper response to God's majesty is awe, not argument.
What Scholars Agree and Debate
| Topic | Agreed | Debated |
|---|---|---|
| Meaning of 'swallowed up' | All commentators read it as a description of the dire consequences of approaching God presumptuously. | Some (Barnes, Wesley) see it as a literal warning: God will destroy anyone who contends with Him. Others (Cambridge, Gill) read it as a rhetorical question: no one would voluntarily choose annihilation, so why would anyone insist on a debate with God? |
| Elihu's role in the book | Elihu is a younger speaker who prepares Job for God's theophany. His speech emphasizes God's justice and majesty. | Some traditions (Reformed, via Calvin) view Elihu as a true sage whose words correct Job's friends. Others see him as a well-meaning but limited theologian whose arguments are superseded by God's own speech. The text does not explicitly endorse Elihu's viewpoint. |
| Can humans speak to God directly? | Elihu implies that approaching God without a mediator is dangerous. This is consistent with Old Testament warnings. | Christians agree that through Christ believers have direct access (Hebrews 10:19-22). However, traditions differ on whether this access abolishes the sense of awe or transforms it. Some emphasize boldness in prayer; others emphasize reverence and confession before speaking. |
| The verse's connection to Job's earlier wish to debate God | Elihu is responding to Job's repeated demand for a hearing before God (Job 13:3, 23:3-5). | Job himself later retracts his words (Job 42:6), suggesting he agreed with Elihu's point. However, some readers argue that Job was right to cry out for justice, and Elihu misinterprets his lament as rebellion. |
Historical & Cultural Context
Job 37:20 sits in Elihu's final discourse, a bridge between Job’s complaints and God’s whirlwind reply. Elihu, the youngest speaker, has been defending God’s justice against Job’s accusations. In chapters 36, 37, he shifts to a stunning description of God’s power in nature: clouds, lightning, thunder, rain. This is not merely poetry, it is a theological argument. Elihu is pressing Job to see that human beings cannot comprehend the workings of the natural world, let alone the moral governance of the Almighty.
The verse reflects an ancient Near Eastern court metaphor. To 'speak before God' meant to present a legal case, as Job had repeatedly demanded (Job 13:3, 13:18-22). The verb for 'swallowed up' (bala) often describes Sheol devouring the wicked (Numbers 16:30-34; Psalm 124:3). Elihu takes the image further: to insist on arguing with the Creator is like asking to be consumed by the very ground beneath your feet. The storm that follows (Job 38, 41) shows that God does indeed answer, but not as a legal equal, He appears in majesty that overwhelms all speech. Elihu’s role is to prepare Job for that moment, to quiet his words so he can hear God’s.
The verse also echoes the wisdom tradition's insistence on human limitation. Proverbs 30:4 asks, 'Who has ascended into heaven and descended?' Job 11:7-8 asks whether anyone can 'fathom the mystery of God.' Elihu stands in that stream, using rhetorical questions to humble the wise.
Textual Notes
The supplied sources note no significant textual variants for Job 37:20. The Hebrew text is stable across manuscripts. The main interpretive difficulty is syntactic, not textual: whether the second clause is a statement or a rhetorical question, and whether 'swallowed up' carries the Pual passive sense of being consumed by judgment.
Reception History
The verse has been used throughout church history to underscore human limitation before God. Early church fathers like Chrysostom cited it to warn against idle speech about divine mysteries. In the Reformation, commentators like Calvin and Luther drew on Elihu's words to argue that human reason cannot judge God's ways. Matthew Henry's commentary applies the verse pastorally, urging believers to 'stand still and consider' rather than rush into debate with the Almighty. In more recent centuries, the verse has been less prominent in preaching but remains a touchstone for those wrestling with the problem of suffering, reminding readers that the creature does not set the terms for the Creator.
Preaching This Verse
Three-point outline
- Reverent silence before omniscience. 'Will it be told him that I speak?' Elihu’s first point is that God already knows every word before it is spoken (Psalm 139:4). Human speech cannot inform or impress the Almighty; it only reveals the speaker’s heart.
- The absurdity of demanding an audience with God. 'Or should a man wish that he were swallowed up?' No sane person would ask to be destroyed. Yet when we insist on arguing with our Maker, we are essentially asking for the same fate. Our pride blinds us to the danger.
- The need for a mediator. Barnes notes that this verse unconsciously points to humanity’s need for a go-between. If direct speech with God is so perilous, then how can we approach Him? The New Testament answers: through Jesus Christ, the one Mediator (1 Timothy 2:5).
Five-point outline
- God does not need our reports, He is omniscient.
- Our complaints against His providence are more dangerous than we think.
- Impatience in suffering can tempt us to demand answers from God on our terms.
- Elihu models the proper posture: awe, not argument.
- The storm that follows shows that God does speak, but in His own time and way.
Illustration hooks
- The court of public opinion vs. the divine court. In a human court, a defendant can speak freely and present evidence. But in God’s courtroom, we are not equals; we are creatures addressing the Judge of all the earth. Imagine demanding a hearing before a king while wearing a prisoner’s chains.
- The swimmer in the riptide. A person caught in a strong current who fights against it exhausts himself and drowns. The wise swimmer floats and lets the current pass. Elihu is telling Job to stop thrashing against God’s sovereignty.
Questions your congregation is asking
- Is it wrong to question God when I am suffering? The verse does not forbid prayer or lament, Job himself laments throughout the book. But it warns against demanding answers as if God owes us an explanation.
- What does it mean to be 'swallowed up' by God? It is not annihilation but being overwhelmed by His majesty and holiness. For those who trust in Christ, this awe becomes worship, not terror.
- How can I approach God without fear if I am not perfect? The verse drives us to the gospel. Christ took the 'swallowing up' of judgment on the cross. Now believers can approach the throne of grace with confidence (Hebrews 4:16).
Leading a Discussion
This verse catches Elihu at the peak of his speech. He has been describing God’s power in creation, and now he applies it directly to Job. The group should sit with the tension between the two possible readings of 'swallowed up', as a warning or as a rhetorical absurdity. Both point to the same truth: we cannot stand before God on our own terms. But the verse also invites us to ask what it means to speak to God rightly.
Discussion questions
- What does Elihu mean by 'Will it be told him that I would speak?' Why would he hesitate to have his words even reported to God?
- The second clause is ambiguous in Hebrew. As you read the different translations, do you see it as a statement ('if a man speaks he will be swallowed up') or a rhetorical question ('should a man wish to be swallowed up?')? How does your interpretation change the meaning?
- Where else in Scripture do we see people afraid to speak before God? (see Isaiah 6:5, Exodus 20:18-19) What does this fear reveal about God’s holiness?
- In what situations are we most tempted to 'speak before God' with complaints or demands? How does Elihu’s attitude challenge us?
- How does the coming of Jesus change the way we approach God? Does the New Testament soften the warning of this verse, or does it fulfill it?
- If God already knows every word before we speak it (Psalm 139:4), what is the point of prayer? How can we pray with both honesty and reverence?
- Elihu’s speech ends abruptly, and God appears. Are you ever afraid that God might 'answer' your questions in a way that overwhelms you? How does that thought change your posture toward Him?
Word Study
The key original-language words in this verse. Select any word for its full lexicon entry — meaning, every occurrence in Scripture, and related words.
Cross-References
Source: Treasury of Scripture Knowledge (TSK, public domain)
| Job 6:3 | For now it would be heavier than the sand of the seas, therefore my words have been rash. |
| Job 11:7 | “Can you fathom the mystery of God? Or can you probe the limits of the Almighty? |
| Job 11:8 | They are high as heaven. What can you do? They are deeper than Sheol. What can you know? |
| Psalms 139:4 | For there is not a word on my tongue, but behold, Yahweh, you know it altogether. |
| Matthew 12:36 | I tell you that every idle word that men speak, they will give account of it in the day of judgment. |
| Matthew 12:37 | For by your words you will be justified, and by your words you will be condemned.” |
Interlinear and lexical data from STEPBible (CC BY 4.0). Cross-reference data from OpenBible.info (CC BY 4.0). Commentaries are public domain.
For personal reflection
Read the devotional page — prayer, application, and "for families"
What the Commentators Say
10 public-domain commentaries, condensed into plain language.
Adam Clarke's Commentary Methodist/Wesleyan 1826
Clarke notes that the speaker fears speaking about God because he is overwhelmed by God’s greatness. He believes the person who criticizes God’s ways will be destroyed by that same glory.
Barnes' Notes on the Bible Protestant 1832
Barnes highlights the overwhelming danger of any mortal presuming to argue with God as Job had done. Elihu’s language reflects terror that even mentioning such speech to God would bring swift destruction. For Barnes, this scene exposes humanity’s deep natural instinct that only a Mediator can bridge the terrifying gap between the creature and the Almighty.
Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges Anglican 1880
Elihu believes anyone who tries to argue with God is choosing destruction on their own. He thinks no one would ever willingly want to be destroyed by refusing to obey God.
Geneva Bible Notes Reformed 1599
The Geneva note warns that no one can presume to inform God of anything, nor should a person speak as if he will escape destruction. The point is human frailty and ignorance before God's majesty: we are not in a position to instruct the Almighty.
Gill's Exposition of the Bible Baptist 1748
Gill emphasizes the sheer futility of any creature presuming to speak for or against God before God himself. If a man opens his mouth about the divine being, perfections, or works, he is immediately swallowed up by what he cannot comprehend. To plead a case with the Almighty is to engage in a lost cause that will only undo the speaker.
Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Commentary Protestant 1871
Some read this as meaning a person who speaks to God in complaint without reason will be destroyed. Others understand it as pointing to deeper spiritual realities.
Keil & Delitzsch OT Commentary Protestant 1876
Keil-Delitzsch read the Hebrew word for "whose" as "that" rather than "how," so they connect verse 17 directly with verse 18. This creates a pointed contrast: a human whose clothes grow hot in sultry weather dares to ask whether he has helped God stretch out the sky, a firm, molten mirror. The darkness that prevents Job from arranging words before God is the darkness of human understanding, not physical night.
Lange's Commentary Reformed 1857
Lange argues that Elihu's final discourse shifts from moral reasoning to a direct focus on God's majesty in the natural world, serving as the immediate prelude to God's own appearance. He contends that the vivid storm description is not a general example but a specific, ongoing thunderstorm that provides Elihu with his material and heightens the dramatic transition.
Matthew Henry's Commentary Reformed/Presbyterian 1710
Henry notes that God’s knowledge is perfect (omniscient) because he knows everything truly and immediately without relying on reports or partial information. This truth helps people accept God’s overall plan for creation.
Wesley's Explanatory Notes Methodist/Wesleyan 1754
Wesley notes that speaking to God means daring to argue with him about his actions. He says such a person is swallowed up by awareness of God’s infinite greatness.