Elihu's Words

The speech of Elihu takes in six chapters, 32-37. His words deserve our attention. So many bible teachers disagree over the character and words of Elihu. Is he friend or foe? Spokesman for God or for Satan? Teller of truth or "forger of lies"? 

I believe, along with many, that Elihu does not speak correctly, and so I put him into the same category as Job's three senior friends, who the Lord indicts by saying that they had not spoken of him correctly. 

What Elihu said to Job did not help Job, but increased his troubles, in much the same way as the three seniors who spoke before him to Job, who were judged by Job to be "physicians of no value." There was no healing balm for Job in the words of all four, the kind of comfort that "friends" should give. Further, the words of Elihu seemed to hurt and cut Job more than the other three, to do more damage to Job. He violates one of the first principles of doctoring, which is "do the patient no harm." They seemed more concerned with being able to make a proper diagnosis than healing Job. They saw Job and his circumstances more as a riddle to be solved than an individual who needed help and counsel. 

Elihu thinks, like the three seniors, that the only way to justify God, in the matter of Job, is to condemn Job; And, the only way to justify Job is to condemn God. It never occurs to any of the four that both God and Job may be justified. Further, it is obvious that the four seek to justify themselves, and their judgment of the matter of Job's sufferings. Only they can "solve the riddle" that Job's sufferings create for each of their theological paradigms. Each thinks that he has the solution to Job's problem, to his questions about God's providential dealings with him, to the problem of evil, to the question of why bad things happen to good people. 

Said one writer on Elihu (here):

"Confusion regarding the presence of Elihu in the midst of Job abounds. Some commentators have viewed him as the mouthpiece of Satan while others see him as a Christological figure providing the mediation that Job had long desired. With such a wide spectrum of opinions, how then are we to understand Elihu’s overall contribution to the book and more importantly, how are we to rightly interpret his speeches? To arrive at these answers and others yet to be asked, we need to examine Elihu in order to discern whether he is helpful or hurtful, friend or foe."

The only way to discern the character and correctness of Elihu is to read his words and properly interpret them. We must also consider what God says, or does not say, about Elihu in the prologue. This is what we will do in this short series on Elihu. I have already spoken of the reason for God saying nothing about him, about why Job made no reply to Elihu, about why Job was not told to offer sacrifices or to pray for Elihu, etc. Perhaps we will have more to say on this at the end. 

The same writer said:

"The speeches of Elihu span from chapter 32 to chapter 37 and are often filled with verbosity." 

This is a fact that I have already called attention to; Elihu loved to hear himself talk, to have the floor, to be the speaker rather than the listener. He rambled, he ranted and raved, he gave vent to whatever popped into his mind (for the thought he was under influence of the Spirit and so just uttered forth truth spontaneously). He was verbose, wordy, saying more than he needed to say. He knew little about brevity, an evidence of wisdom. God, and those who speak for him, say much in so little, but uninspired men say little in much. This is the case with Elihu. He could remove about 75% of what he said, condensing his thoughts, and given a much better persuasive speech. But, "brevity is the soul of wit." This was something the foolish Elihu clearly did not perceive. 

The same writer said:

"There are at least four key themes that may be gleaned from Elihu’s speeches, and probably more, but for our general examination here we will limit them to:  

A rebuke of Job for being right in his own eyes 

Pride 

The majesty of God 

The purposes of God in affliction."

In reply to all these supposed moral deficiencies in the prophet Job I affirm that Job was "right," both in his own eyes and in the eyes of the Lord. His counselors wanted to force a confession of sin from Job, much like the primitive inquisitors who tortured accused people to force them into a confession. Oftentimes the people confessed to sin even though they were not guilty in order to save themselves from torture and death. Job would not do so. He would rather die than make a false confession, one he did not believe. Was he willing to confess his sins? Did he? Yes, for he was a godly man. But, was he going to confess to sins that he knew he was not guilty? Of sins so great that merited his cruel sufferings? No, he would hold fast to his righteousness, to his godly living. 

Pride? Who showed more pride than Job's accusers? Who showed more pride than Elihu? This in spite of the fact that he tried to cloak his pride with fake humility. Also, who showed more humility than Job? As previously stated, I plan to write on the humility of Job and will demonstrate how false is the charge that he was proud, arrogant, high minded, etc. 

The majesty of God? His sovereignty? Who best understood it? Job's three senior friends? Elihu? Or Job? Surely Job understood more of it than they all put together. Yet, as we will see, he himself will come to understand even more about God's sovereignty when God speaks to him.

The purposes of God in affliction? The three friends affirmed that Job's afflictions resulted from God's purpose to punish him for his sins, and since his punishments are severe, yea, even cruel, his sins must therefore be great. They did acknowledge another purpose other than strict reckoning, i.e. that such punishments may also succeed in bringing Job back to righteous living, or to save him. 

Elihu also says that Job is being punished, and also sees the punishment as intended to correct Job, to save him. So, the question is - were Job's sufferings the result of God's purpose to save him? 

God often has more than one reason for doing things (just like we do). So, we may ask, whether any benefit Job may have obtained as a result of his sufferings was the foremost reason for God allowing them? That it was a secondary purpose, I do not deny. God's primary purpose was to demonstrate, to publicly prove, that Job was a true servant, and no hypocrite, and to show that his sole reason for serving God was because he loved God. 

Job therefore would be "tested," which test will decide whether God be right or Satan be right. One predicted that Job would not fail the test, would not turn his back on God and curse him, and the other predicted that he would surely fail the test, would turn on God when evil came. 

Further, since all the many "tests" that God in his providence gives to his people (and even to lost sinners) are intended to produce a good in them, the testing of Job did produce further good and greater holiness, greater perception of God's sovereignty. So the apostle Paul said that "we also glory in tribulations, knowing that tribulation produces perseverance; and perseverance, character; and character, hope." (Rom. 5: 3-4)

There can be no doubt that Job's sufferings, his tribulation, both showed and further produced his patience and perseverance, and shaped his character even more into the image of his Redeemer. He already had a good character before his trials began, but his sufferings became the means of even further sanctification.

All four speakers do what they condemn Job for doing. In this they are hypocrites, not Job, as they had accused him of such. 

They say that Job deserves his sufferings because he is evil in his thinking and conduct. However, by this logic they must affirm their own superior righteousness for they were not suffering as he. (Yet, in their consciences, I am sure, they knew that he was more righteous than they) So, the bigger question is, why are they not suffering the same evils as Job? Is their inference correct, that it shows that they are righteous? Notice these words of our Lord:

"There were present at that season some that told him of the Galilaeans, whose blood Pilate had mingled with their sacrifices. And Jesus answering said unto them, Suppose ye that these Galilaeans were sinners above all the Galilaeans, because they suffered such things? I tell you, Nay: but, except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish. Or those eighteen, upon whom the tower in Siloam fell, and slew them, think ye that they were sinners above all men that dwelt in Jerusalem? I tell you, Nay..." (Luke 13: 1-5)

In these words our Lord overthrows the reasoning of the four men who counseled Job. All of them would have said that the Galilaeans and those in Siloam were greater sinners, and had they not been such they would then not have suffered such calamities. Christ denies that answer. Notice this text:

"Now as Jesus passed by, He saw a man who was blind from birth. And His disciples asked Him, saying, “Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?” Jesus answered, “Neither this man nor his parents sinned, but that the works of God should be revealed in him." (John 9: 1-3)

The thinking of Job's three friends and of Elihu was prevalent still in the time of Christ. The "disciples" asked Jesus whose sin it was that was the cause of the man being born blind. They assume that being born blind is the result of a particular sin. It is true that all evils are the result of sin being imputed to all men as a result of the sin of Adam, the head of the human race. But, that is not the question being asked. All men are not born blind, so we cannot say that it is due solely to the imputation of Adam's sin. But the disciples above are asking what particular sin brought the evil of blindness. Jesus says the blindness was not because of some evil of the blind person in question, for his blindness was the result of God's intention to glorify himself in his healing. There is much to chew on in this answer of the Lord, but we will forbear. It is at least another instance where the thesis of the four counselors is false. Bad things do happen to good people. Bad people often do not suffer much in comparison to good people.

Ironically, they also are in the position of justifying themselves, the very thing in which they accuse Job doing. They say that Job, in justifying himself, condemns God when in fact they were all guilty of this very thing. More irony and hypocrisy. They justify God only to the extent in which they justify themselves. In fact, a careful reader of the speeches of the four quickly sees how they all have high opinions of themselves and that Job has the low opinion of himself. 

They charge Job with saying things about God that were not true, when the fact is that it was they who did not speak right about God as God himself testifies. (Job 42: 7-8) More hypocrisy. More contradiction. They say that lack of suffering is evidence of God's favor. They say prosperity and wealth are evidences of being judged by God as righteous. The poor and the suffering are such because they are not as righteous as the rich and happy. This is part of their bad theology. It is sad that such bad theology is still adhered to by religious people, even among those who profess to be Christians. We can find the characters of Job's four counselors in our own day. 

In the next posting we will begin to examine the speeches of Elihu.