Elihu's Words (VIII)

Elihu next says:

"Elihu further answered and said: “Hear my words, you wise men; Give ear to me, you who have knowledge. For the ear tests words As the palate tastes food. Let us choose justice for ourselves; Let us know among ourselves what is good. “For Job has said, ‘I am righteous, But God has taken away my justice; Should I lie concerning my right? My wound is incurable, though I am without transgression.’ What man is like Job, Who drinks scorn like water, Who goes in company with the workers of iniquity, And walks with wicked men? For he has said, ‘It profits a man nothing That he should delight in God." (34: 1-9)

Elihu's Address to the Three Friends

In the above words of Elihu he speaks directly to the three senior speakers, in the second person. But, he does not speak to Job in the second person, but in the third person, talking to the three elders about Job. 

When he says "you wise men," "you men of knowledge," he spoke sarcastically and condescendingly. It was said in wrath and in pride. Repeat those words orally with a tone of anger, with sarcasm. Elihu speaks scoffingly with contempt. This being so, it becomes obvious that Elihu does not really believe that the three senior friends are wise and well learned men. In other words his words mean "you three seniors who think you are, or pretend to be, wise men of learning." His speeches condemn the three elders for their inability to answer Job or to prove their case against him. His words essentially say "YOU so-called wise ones!" It was a slur, an insult, a sarcasm. 

Several times Elihu addresses the three seniors (Job too) by saying (with emotion) "Listen to me!" Why the need to do so? What is Elihu wanting to accomplish by his constant exhortation? Did he see the three seniors losing interest in his words? Becoming uninterested in what he has been saying? Because he cannot hold the attention of the three? It seems ironic how often the idea of being a good listener comes up in the dialogues of the story. Who is the good listener? Job's three friends? Elihu? Or, Job? Who listens to God and man well? After all, wise and learned men are good listeners, and good students. Good teachers are they who are good listeners. Wise speakers have little difficulty holding the attention of hearers and students. Ignorant teachers and explainers have difficulty holding the attention of their audiences. 

Again, what Elihu said to the three men about their being wise and learned men, was said with emotion (pathos), with anger and hate. It was scorn and contempt. Thus far, in his ranting speech, he has relied upon ethos and pathos to convince those listening to him, and very little on logical argument (logos). 

After scorning the three senior counselors, he then invites them to "choose justice for ourselves." Well, if they are so unwise, so stupid, then why call upon them for judgment about justice and righteousness? He first condemns their inability to detect (by taste) what is just, right, and true and then, ironically, though having no palate for such, he invites them to discern the truth of what he is saying by tasting it. 

Two times he calls for a consensus with the three elders who preceded him, saying "let us choose justice for ourselves" and "let us know among ourselves what is good." He believes that the reasoning of great men can discover what is good and right. Yet, he has already said that the reasoning of his three seniors has not been right. His reason for calling for a consensus on the definitions of what is just and good, true and right, is because they are able to do so by using their reason or by a divine vision or dream. He says "For the ear tests words As the palate tastes food." But, obviously, all men do not have a relish for the truth. Because of an evil bent to their nature, and a bias, they rather sometimes have a taste for falsehood and for lies, such as deceivers and con men possess. We cannot rely upon our subjective taste for truth, especially if we have lost our taste buds. Truth is not relative to taste. Truth is truth whether it pass a creature's taste test.

The Misrepresentation of Elihu

“For Job has said ‘I am righteous'," and has said “God has taken away my justice." Elihu says: “For Job has said 'should I lie concerning my right? My wound is incurable, though I am without transgression.’ "

Did Job say those things? Or, is Elihu again misquoting or misrepresenting him, as many bible commentators have affirmed (as I also do)? Pulpit Commentary says (emphasis mine):

"For Job hath said, I am righteous. Job had maintained his "righteousness" in a certain sense, i.e. his integrity, his honesty, his conviction that God would ultimately acquit him; but he had not maintained his sinlessness (see the comment on Job 33:9). He had not even said, in so many words, "I am righteous." The nearest that he had come to saying it was when (in Job 13:18) he had exclaimed, "I know that I shall be held righteous," or "justified.""

I totally agree. God's own testimony was that Job was righteous as none other. Did that mean that Job never had a foolish thought? "The thought of foolishness is sin: and the scorner is an abomination to men." (Prov. 24: 9) Did it mean that he no longer had still a corrupt nature ("the flesh") so that he could not live above sin, contrary to the teaching of the apostle? (Rom. 7: 14-25; Gal. 5: 17) No, it did not mean that. Further, Job never asserted that his claim to be righteous, godly, moral, good, etc. included the idea that he was in every way perfect. He knew that "there is not a just man upon earth, that does good, and sins not." (Eccl. 7: 20) In fact, as we have observed before, Job confessed that he was a sinner, though he affirmed that his sins were not to the same extent as when he was a youth (and unsaved). Job was a man who fought against sin by the help of God and was always on guard against it. 

Job was not self righteous by his denial of the charge of being ungodly, a bad character, unrighteous, etc. After all, many of the most righteous men and women of the bible have been falsely accused of being evil people. Job was being falsely accused by Elihu, as by his supposed three senior friends. Further, he was not fighting against God as accused. Also, he was not speaking evil of God and charging God with foolishness or injustice as accused. He was not proud as accused. He had no great secret sins of the mind (as Job himself testified). Nothing in his conduct and worship was condemned by God. 

Pulpit Commentary on Verse 6 and the words - "Should I lie against my right?" 

"This was an essential portion of Job's argument (see Job 27:4). Against the theory of his secret heinous wickedness put forward by his "comforters," he maintained consistently his freedom from conscious deliberate opposition to the will of God, and refused to make the confessions which they suggested or required, on the ground that they would have been untrue - in making them he would have "lied against his right." In this certainly Job "sinned not." But it was essential to the theory of Elihu, no less than to that of Eliphaz and his friends, that Job was suffering on account of past iniquity, whether he were being punished for it in anger or chastised for it in love (see Job 33:17, 27). My wound (literally, my arrow; comp. Job 6:4) is incurable without transgression; i.e. without my having committed any transgression to account for it. Job 34:6"

Again, think of an innocent person being tortured and who is told to confess to the accusation of being guilty for the torture to stop. That person also must ask himself - "should I lie against my innocence?" Should I confess to that which I am not guilty? 

The Accusations

Job was accused by Elihu of being a "scorner" and a wicked man. Ironically, it was Elihu who scorned Job. A scorner is one who scorns, mocks, scoffs, who expresses contempt in anger against others. In the scriptures they are described as being people who refuse all criticism of themselves. Said Solomon: "Proud and haughty scorner is his name, who deals in proud wrath." (Prov. 21: 24) We have also seen how Elihu's wrath is highlighted by the narrator. Job did not scorn his friends even though he found no comfort and little truth in what they said to him. Solomon connects wrath with scorning.

Pulpit Commentary on Verse 7 says:  

"What man is like Job, who drinketh up scorning like water? This comment is not only unnecessary, but unfair. It was not for Elihu, who professed a desire to "justify" (or completely exonerate) Job, to aggravate his guilt by means of rhetorical comment; and the comment itself was unfair, for Job had not indulged in scorn to any extent, much less "drunk it up like water" (comp. Job 15:16). He had in no respect scorned God; and if he had occasionally poured some scorn upon his "comforters" (Job 6:21; Job 12:2; Job 13:4-13; Job 16:2; Job 21:2-5; Job 26:2-4), must it not be admitted that they had deserved it? It was the duty of Elihu to act as moderator between Job and the "comforters," whereas he here seeks to exasperate them, and lash them up to fury against their afflicted friend. Perhaps Job's impassive attitude has embittered him. Job 34:7"

What Elihu said about the character of Job was character assassination. He, and the three seniors, all condemned Job as being a very wicked man. They were false accusers and show that they were sent by Satan to aggravate Job. 

For myself, I become angered when I read the speeches of Elihu, seeing him as the very emissary of Satan. It amazes me that some commentators see him as the only one who spoke and acted right. It is obvious to me that Elihu is not speaking by inspiration of God, but by inspiration of Satan.

"For he has said, ‘It profits a man nothing That he should delight in God."

On this accusation of Elihu against Job, Pulpit Commentary says:

"Again it must be remarked that Job had not said this. The nearest approach to it is to be found in Job 9:22, where this passage occurs: "It is all one; therefore I say, He destroyeth the perfect and the wicked" (Revised Version). Elsewhere Job speaks, not generally, but of his own individual case, remarking that his righteousness has not saved him from calamity (Job 9:17, 18; Job 10:15; Job 17:9-17, etc.). And the fact is one that causes him the deepest perplexity. Job 34:9"

Of course Job believed that there was profit, yea, eternal life, in being a servant of God. However, he did not believe that the profit was in regard to material well being in this world. The repentance and salvation of the thief on the cross with Christ did not save him from being crucified. It did guarantee his entrance in the afterlife into Paradise.

Elihu's Words (VII)

Christians are to expect afflictions and sufferings, even above what is "common to man." (I Cor. 10: 13) All men, because of the curse pronounced upon our race, through Adam's disobedience, are "born unto trouble as the sparks fly upward." (Job 5: 7) Job also said that "man that is born of a woman is of few days, and full of trouble." (Job 14: 1) Jesus said "sufficient for the day is the evil (trouble) thereof" (Matt. 6: 34). But, in addition to these common human troubles the believer has the added troubles that are peculiar to believers. Of these the apostle refers to when he says that believers are appointed to afflictions. He also said: "Yea, and all that will live godly in Christ Jesus shall suffer persecution." (II Tim. 3: 12) Many of the apostolic epistles describe these awful afflictions. 

Righteous Suffering

Let us notice two lengthy passages that speak of the sufferings of believers. The first is from Hebrews chapter eleven, that great chapter containing a kind of "hall of fame" for believers, enumerating many godly believers from under the old testament who did many great things by faith.

"And what shall I more say? for the time would fail me to tell of Gedeon, and of Barak, and of Samson, and of Jephthae; of David also, and Samuel, and of the prophets:  Who through faith subdued kingdoms, wrought righteousness, obtained promises, stopped the mouths of lions. Quenched the violence of fire, escaped the edge of the sword, out of weakness were made strong, waxed valiant in fight, turned to flight the armies of the aliens.  Women received their dead raised to life again: and others were tortured, not accepting deliverance; that they might obtain a better resurrection: And others had trial of cruel mockings and scourgings, yea, moreover of bonds and imprisonment: They were stoned, they were sawn asunder, were tempted, were slain with the sword: they wandered about in sheepskins and goatskins; being destitute, afflicted, tormented; (Of whom the world was not worthy:) they wandered in deserts, and in mountains, and in dens and caves of the earth. And these all, having obtained a good report through faith, received not the promise: God having provided some better thing for us, that they without us should not be made perfect." (Heb. 11: 32-40)

In the passage above two classes of believers are referred to. This is evident from the words "and others." The first class of believers were they who through faith did many marvelous things, experiencing great deliverance of several kinds. The second class, the "others," are they that had no deliverance from persecution or adversity, for they had severe trials, were tortured, were jailed, and murdered. They suffered, like Paul, "the loss of all things" (Phil. 3: 8), did not escape poverty and did not live a long life. This fact shows that the theology of Elihu and Job's three friends was not correct. 

Next, notice these words of the apostle Paul:

"Are they servants of Christ?—I speak as if insane—I more so; in far more labors, in far more imprisonments, beaten times without number, often in danger of death. Five times I received from the Jews thirty-nine lashes. Three times I was beaten with rods, once I was stoned, three times I was shipwrecked, a night and a day I have spent in the deep. I have been on frequent journeys, in dangers from rivers, dangers from robbers, dangers from my countrymen, dangers from the Gentiles, dangers in the city, dangers in the wilderness, dangers on the sea, dangers among false brethren; I have been in labor and hardship, through many sleepless nights, in hunger and thirst, often without food, in cold and exposure." (II Cor. 11:23-28) 

The life of the apostle Paul, like the "others" mentioned in Hebrews, and like Lazarus the beggar, was not a life free from suffering, from hard trial, from severe adversities. Paul was righteous and yet he suffered greatly. Again, this disproves the theology and theodicy of Elihu and Job's friends.

However, in light of this fact, how could Solomon write these words - "No harm happens to the righteous, But the wicked are filled with trouble" (Prov. 12: 21)? What Solomon says seems to agree with Elihu and the three friends of Job. If Job were righteous, he would have had no harm. But, since he is full of trouble, he must be wicked. Further, "harm" did come to many of the old testament men and women of faith and to the apostle Paul. Also, many wicked men have lived lives of little suffering and want. So, how do we understand the words of Solomon?

First, none of the evils of the believer are strictly punitive. All the believer's sins have been atoned for, Christ having died as a substitute and having punitively suffered all the penalty and sufferings that the law of God appointed for transgressors. This being true, none of the believer's sufferings are punitive, but disciplinary, such as parents use in correction. 

Second, Solomon is giving a general rule. Law abiding people, righteous living people, especially if they are brought to know God in youth, suffer fewer evils that result from sin, because they sin less. A sexually moral person, for instance, who only has intercourse with a spouse, will not suffer from sexually transmitted diseases. Being law abiding, whether that be God's law or the laws of human government, will save a person a lot of suffering. "The way of transgressors is hard" said Solomon. (Prov. 13: 15)

Further, the words of Solomon are mostly applicable to the life which is to come and not to the present life. This is clear from several biblical passages. First, notice these words of our Lord:

"So He said to them, “Assuredly, I say to you, there is no one who has left house or parents or brothers or wife or children, for the sake of the kingdom of God, “who shall not receive many times more in this present time, and in the age to come eternal life.” (Luke 18: 29-30)

In these words of Christ, he affirms that a believer will, in following Christ and the word of God, "receive many times more in this present time (life)." But, how can this be if the believer has added troubles that the unbeliever does not have? It seems like being converted does not improve a convert's life. Yet, the Lord says conversion will change a believer's life for the better. How is a man better off by being faithful to God? 

Conversion does not bring instant material gain, does not heal all bodily ailments, does not remove all evils and adversities. So, then, how is he better? It is because the good the believer begins to receive from the Lord far outweighs all sufferings. It is also because the good the believer receives is more internal than external, dealing with the psychology and state of the mind. Such things as peace, joy, contentment, security, freedom, communion with God, etc., are of greater value than material well being.

But, notice how our Lord adds "and in the age to come eternal life." The greater "good things" are to be received in the age to come, in the life that follows this present life. What the believer will receive in the life to come is greater than what he receives in his earthly life. So our Lord said to his suffering people:

“And you will be blessed, because they cannot repay you; for you shall be repaid at the resurrection of the just.” (Luke 14: 14)

Notice that being "repaid" or restored is not so much in this life, but in the next, in that eternal life that will follow the resurrection of the body. It is in the next life, in entering into eternal life, that the believer enjoys abundant life without any adversities. 

Also, the sufferings and trials of the righteous serve a higher purpose, being the means of increasing their future glories in the life to come. Wrote the apostle Paul:

"For our light affliction, which is but for a moment, is working for us a far more exceeding and eternal weight of glory, while we do not look at the things which are seen, but at the things which are not seen. For the things which are seen are temporary, but the things which are not seen are eternal." (II Cor. 4: 17-18)

As stated, the ills of the righteous are temporary, not lasting or permanent. Though many believers live a life of suffering as Lazarus, yet when they die and go to heaven, they then "enjoy their good things," something that did not characterize their lives on earth. The idea of the apostle is embodied in the words of a famous Christian hymn where the song begins with these words (in regard to the prodigal son):

"Afflictions though they seem severe, In mercy oft are sent, They stopp’d the prodigal’s career, And caus’d him to repent." 

Such sufferings become the means of salvation, and of further renewal into the full image and likeness of Christ. This is affirmed in several passages, such as in this passage:

"I will go and return to my place, till they acknowledge their offence, and seek my face: in their affliction they will seek me early." (Hosea 5: 15)

Afflictions may be sanctified by God so that they produce repentance, and greater conformity to Christ. The promise that no harm will happen to the righteous is similar to these words of the apostle Paul:

"And we know that all things work together for good to those who love God, to those who are the called according to His purpose." (Rom. 8: 28)

If all things, including sufferings and adversities, work together for the good of those who love God, then no lasting evil, no permanent harm, will come to them. 

Having spent a good bit of space introducing this chapter, it is now a good time to look closely at the words of Elihu (picking up where we left off in the previous posting/chapter).

Proposition of Elihu & The 4 Seniors

All good and evil in life are a proportionate result of either righteousness or unrighteousness, affirms Job's advisors. In other words, the amount of good a man receives in life is directly related to his personal righteousness, to his obedience to law and right, or his morality. The amount of evil a man receives in life is directly related to his personal unrighteousness, and vise versa. 

Thus, we may say that the "prosperity gospel" that is promulgated in our times by many "Pentecostal" groups was previously taught by Job's three friends, and by Elihu (but was denied by Job and by God himself to be true). It is not a new doctrine. They affirmed that repentance, or being right with God, will bring prosperity in this life, will bring healing of bodily sicknesses, will bring earthly riches, and will bring freedom from adversities. But, as we have already noticed, this is not the teaching of the bible.

The prophet Jeremiah asked directly, “Why does the way of the wicked succeed?” (Jeremiah 12:1). That the wicked "succeed," that they "live long and prosper" (as Job said), is a self evident fact. It is what we see occurring every day. But, if all rewards and punishments are distributed in this life, then God's providence would see to it that only the bad die young, that only the wicked get sick and suffer inordinately, but this is not what we see. Ergo, a man's spiritual condition cannot be discerned by his physical well being.

Habakkuk also asked God, “Why do You remain silent when the wicked devours one more righteous than he?” (Habakkuk 1:13). 

Was Habakkuk being unrighteous by asking God such a question (being similar to Job's queries to God)? Was he calling God to give an accounting for allowing the wicked to do the righteous harm? No, he was not. He was simply asking God for an understanding of his providence and government.

King David also lamented, 

“Behold, such are the wicked; they are always at ease and they increase their riches. Surely in vain have I cleansed my heart and washed my hands in innocence because all day long I have been plagued and I am chastised every morning” (Psalms 73:12-14). 

There are many other such verses.

Repentance to Salvation Brings Instant Restoration

Elihu says:

“If there is a messenger for him, A mediator, one among a thousand, To show man His uprightness, Then He is gracious to him, and says, ‘Deliver him from going down to the Pit; I have found a ransom’; His flesh shall be young like a child’s, He shall return to the days of his youth. He shall pray to God, and He will delight in him, He shall see His face with joy, For He restores to man His righteousness. Then he looks at men and says, ‘I have sinned, and perverted what was right, And it did not profit me.’ He will redeem his soul from going down to the Pit, And his life shall see the light. “Behold, God works all these things, Twice, in fact, three times with a man, To bring back his soul from the Pit, That he may be enlightened with the light of life." (Job 33: 23-30)

For a man to be saved from his ills in life, Elihu argues, he must be helped by "a messenger," or an angel, someone who could be a "mediator" and "deliverer" (redeemer) by providing a "ransom" to God on his behalf. Now, all that is of course true. Further, Elihu is not saying anything that Job himself has not already affirmed. Secondly, who does Elihu think is that divine messenger, that mediator, that redeemer? Why, he thinks he is! Job, however, had already confessed his faith in Christ, the Redeemer he believed would "stand in the latter day upon the earth" and would deliver him. Elihu had previously said to Job: "Truly I am as your spokesman before God" (33: 6). In this he is arrogant and presumptuous. 

Notice how Elihu argues that repentance will bring temporal salvation, and restoration of material fortunes, saying that salvation will make a man's flesh like a child's once again. But, this is a grievous error. Repentance and salvation do not restore a man his youth. He does not "restore" any losses he has experienced prior to his turning to God. 

In order to bring a person to repentance, argues Elihu, God must torment him with various ills. And, if the tormented soul repents and turns away from his sin, then God will restore what his chastisement brought to him. Again, this is not the teaching of the bible. Elihu believes that getting right with God will "profit" a man, that his earthly life will be improved to the point of being free from want, adversity, and bodily ills. Yes, there is profit in serving God, though it will not profit so as to cause a man to live his life without sufferings. 

Do some sins bring sickness and death? Do some sins bring evil in one's life? Yes, and yes. The bible affirms this in many places. Ananias and Sapphira lied to the Holy Spirit, to God, and were struck dead. (Acts 5: 1-11) Notice these words from James:

"Is anyone among you suffering? Let him pray. Is anyone cheerful? Let him sing psalms. Is anyone among you sick? Let him call for the elders of the church, and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord. And the prayer of faith will save the sick, and the Lord will raise him up. And if he has committed sins, he will be forgiven. Confess your trespasses to one another, and pray for one another, that you may be healed." (James 5: 13-16) 

This verse indicates that some suffering, and some sickness, and some death, may be the result of some sin against the Lord committed by a believer. Prayer for that person by elders, and confession of sin by that person, is said to bring forgiveness, healing, and restoration. But, this being so, we cannot infer that all suffering and sickness is due to sin. Concerning Epaphroditus, a fellow laborer with Paul, Paul wrote: "For indeed he was sick almost unto death; but God had mercy on him, and not only on him but on me also, lest I should have sorrow upon sorrow." (Phil. 2: 27)

Here Paul speaks of a sickness that resulted from Epaphroditus working himself to death for the Lord, a sickness that the Lord healed. Paul also wrote: "Erastus stayed in Corinth, but Trophimus I have left in Miletus sick." (II Tim. 4: 20) Both Epaphroditus and Trophimus both were sick but neither was sick because of sin. One God healed and the other was not (at least not at the time Paul is writing of him).

Notice these words of Paul:

"For bodily exercise profits a little, but godliness is profitable for all things, having promise of the life that now is and of that which is to come." (I Tim. 4: 8)

This is similar to the words of Christ who spoke of receiving abundantly more in this present life, resulting from conversion, and of the fullness that will come in the life to come. The promise of the life that now is does not mean that a believer is saved from all suffering. It does mean that he will be given something that is far more valuable than earthly prosperity. 

In concluding this chapter on Elihu's words, I want to give some good comments on the above words of Elihu from the commentaries. 

"Elihu then repeats, and in some ways expands, what the other three have already said. He starts by asserting that God punishes the sinner with disease and suffering (19-21). Then, when the person is almost dead, God sends a messenger to show him his sin and lead him to repentance (22-23. Perhaps Elihu sees himself as this messenger). The person is then saved from death, his body is healed and good health returns (24-25). He rejoices in fellowship with God again, and confesses to all that though he was justly punished for his sin, God has mercifully saved him (26-28)." (Bridgeway Commentary)

Coffman's Commentary has these excellent comments (emphasis mine).

"The only original thing we have been able to find in Elihu's words is the viewpoint expressed in this paragraph that God's purpose in punishing Job was designed for Job's benefit, a divine chastening, to prevent his utter ruin. The New Testament doctrine of chastening (Hebrews 12:5-13) is indeed the explanation of some sufferings of God's people; but in the light of the prologue, Elihu was not correct in this explanation of Job's sorrows."

The commentary adds:

"Job had challenged God to "show me" (Job 10:2) or "Give me an answer." Elihu is here saying that, "God has been speaking to you all the time, and you are not listening: He has been speaking in dreams (Job 33:15) (Job had mentioned such things as nightmares) and in severe judgments against you" (Job 33:19-22). God's purpose in this, according to Elihu, was stated in Job 33:17. "That he may withdraw man from his purpose" (Job 33:17). The impact of these words upon Job was this: "All of the terrible things that have happened unto you are merely God's way of trying to get you to withdraw from those evil purposes you have in your heart. And hide pride from man (Job 33:17). 

"Elihu perhaps thinks that Job is unduly proud of his integrity." It would be difficult to imagine any words that could have been spoken which might have been any more distasteful or repulsive to Job than these things that Elihu was saying here." 

There can be no doubt about it. None of the four who counseled and condemned Job succeeded in helping him in the least. They rather increased his woes and anxieties. It seems therefore best to see them as the very emissaries of Satan. They, as it were, poured salt into his wounds with their nit picking, fault finding, pointing of the finger, and numerous denunciations. How they could in any sense be called "friends" is ironic. Said Job of them: "My friends scorn me; My eyes pour out tears to God." (16: 20) And, “Have pity on me, have pity on me, O you my friends, For the hand of God has struck me!" (19: 21) And, “To him who is afflicted, kindness should be shown by his friend, Even though he forsakes the fear of the Almighty." (6: 14)

With friends like that, who needs an enemy?

Coffman's commentary adds:

"He is chastened also with pain upon his bed" (Job 33:19). From here to the end of the chapter, Elihu describes how God speaks to men in the judgments sent upon them; and, of course, he vividly describes the very things that have happened to Job! God's message for Job in all this suffering, according to Elihu, is "Repent!" -- exactly the same message the three friends had been pounding into Job's ears." 

In the next posting we will continue examining the counsel and words of Elihu.

Elihu's Words (VI)

Elihu next says:

"Why do you contend with Him? For He does not give an accounting of any of His words. For God may speak in one way, or in another, Yet man does not perceive it. In a dream, in a vision of the night, When deep sleep falls upon men, While slumbering on their beds, Then He opens the ears of men, And seals their instruction." (Job 33: 13-16)

In the previous posting we looked at Elihu's question to Job - "why do you contend with him?" I asserted that this was a false accusation and a misinterpretation of Job's words. Job never fought against God. He bore his sufferings in a manner worthy of our imitation. (James 5: 11) But, Elihu, and the other three, did not think that Job handled his sufferings well. Also, Elihu's question assumes that Job had in fact declared his opposition to God. It is like the baited question - "do you still beat your wife." 

Yes, Job felt like God, for some mysterious reason (such as to try and test him), had become an enemy, and had taken away what he had previously given, and was continuing to give no signs of hearing his prayers nor granting his request for an explanation. But, this is far from "contending with God." It would be an act of lunacy to "fight against God." (Acts 5: 39) 

Next, Elihu gives as the reason why God is ignoring Job (supposedly) and not granting his request for an answer, saying "for he give no accounting of any of his matters."

As I have asked previously in commenting upon this statement, did not Job know this truth? Did he not know that God owed nothing to any of his creatures, being the sovereign Creator of all? Creatures can demand nothing from God. God makes demands of his creatures, but not vise versa. On the other hand, God has invited his rational creatures to ask questions of him and has actually given them answers in his word, by the mouth of his chosen prophets and other sent men. 

The scriptures advise believers to take their questions about life and suffering to their parents, brothers and sisters in the Lord, elders and deacons, and especially to God himself through prayer. Job humbly prayed to God for an answer to his sufferings. There was nothing unrighteous in doing that and God is perfectly at liberty to answer or not. After all, there are "secret things" that "belong unto the Lord," and these things he keeps unrevealed. These secret things are set in contrast to that which God has revealed, what questions he has answered, and which are given to men so that men can say "the things revealed belong unto us and to our children." (See Deut. 29: 29) In fact, the bible is full of God giving an accounting of himself and his works and ways. He even invites his rational creatures to "come and let us reason together says the Lord." (Isa. 1: 18) The Lord says “Present your case,” says the LORD. “Bring forth your strong reasons,” says the King of Jacob." (Isa. 41: 12) Things are secrets with the Lord (or mysteries) until the time when he reveals those secrets. Said the prophet: "Surely the Sovereign LORD does nothing without revealing his plan to his servants the prophets." (Amos 3: 7 ESV)

Elihu says that God may speak in one way or in another, such as in a dream or in a vision of the night. That these are two ways in which God speaks to prophets is not doubted. Said the Lord: “If anyone will be a prophet of the Lord among you, I will speak to him either in dream or in vision.” (Numbers 12:6) But, this is not the normal way God communicates with his people (to those who are not prophets). His normal way is to communicate with them through the words he gives to his prophets. Lots of false teachers have used their dreams and supposed visions to teach false doctrine. Notice these words of our sovereign Lord:

“How long will this be in the heart of the prophets who prophesy lies? Indeed they are prophets of the deceit of their own heart, “who try to make My people forget My name by their dreams which everyone tells his neighbor, as their fathers forgot My name for Baal. “The prophet who has a dream, let him tell a dream; And he who has My word, let him speak My word faithfully. What is the chaff to the wheat?” says the LORD." (Jer. 23: 26-28)

So, though God does speak in dreams and visions to his chosen messengers, yet the false prophets also claimed the same, as the above words show. Their supposed God sent dreams were sources for their lies. They did not originate with the Spirit of God but were "of the deceit of their own heart." Though Elihu claims to speak dreams that have come from God yet he speaks falsehood. In the above words the dreams of the false prophets were chaff. God's word, is wheat. How do we judge the divine origin of dreams and visions? It is by comparing what the dreamer teaches as a result of his dream with the word of God. Further, what dreams or visions does Elihu claim to have received? Perhaps he misinterprets his dreams, for knowing the dream is one thing but knowing its meaning is another, as the Book of Daniel shows us.

Further, in the words of Elihu there is the inference that Job, who wanted to hear from God, was desiring what he already had available to him. God has been speaking to Job and answering him, but Job, he affirms, has not been listening. Though God speaks to men who fail to recognize it, yet this was not true in Job's case. Ironically, as we have seen, it is Elihu who is not hearing the voice of God. Job was a good listener, not Elihu.

Is Suffering Always Chastening?

Elihu next says:

"In order to turn man from his deed, And conceal pride from man, He keeps back his soul from the Pit, And his life from perishing by the sword. “Man is also chastened with pain on his bed, And with strong pain in many of his bones, So that his life abhors bread, And his soul succulent food. His flesh wastes away from sight, And his bones stick out which once were not seen. Yes, his soul draws near the Pit, And his life to the executioners." (33: 17-22)

In these words Elihu is saying that pain and sufferings are sent by God for the good of his creatures, and prolongation of days given, in order that they by them might come to "turn," to repent, to be "chastened" so as to be brought to salvation and restoration. He also says that pain is given to men to keep them humble. 

That God chastens his own children to discipline them, to correct them, to teach them, is not doubted. But, it is not what God does with those not his children, or to lost men in general. The sufferings of all men are due to their fall in Adam and to the fact that they are cursed and under wrath. Yet, men do not get all their due in this life. The next life will be the great equalizer. This being so, we cannot say, for instance, that Lazarus, who laid at the gate of the rich man (Luke 16), and suffered greatly throughout his life, was therefore a wicked man (over and above what he was by the fall of Adam). Nor can we say that the rich man, at whose gate Lazarus waited for crumbs, was righteous because he "fared sumptuously every day." If the full reward for both obedience and disobedience were all received equally in this life, then the rich man would have lived like Lazarus and Lazarus would have lived as the rich in his life.

The word "chastise" (or chastening) may sometimes denote punitive inflictions upon criminals and which are not intended to be "rehabilitating." (Deut. 22: 18) So, the Lord Jesus was "chastised" by the Roman soldiers. (Luke 23: 16, 22) The impenitent are chastened in God's "hot displeasure" (Psa. 6: 1; 38: 1), though even this is mostly in the world to come.

Job had already asked them "why the wicked live and become old and mighty in power?" (Job 21: 7) They never answered his question and yet they often complained that he was not answering their questions. Neither does Elihu. In their theology and explanations there should be no wicked man who lives to old age, or who suffers little adversity and poverty in life. But, the fact is, many wicked people fare better in this world than do the righteous. Notice this text:

"Deliver my life from the wicked with Your sword, With Your hand from men, O LORD, From men of the world who have their portion in this life, And whose belly You fill with Your hidden treasure. They are satisfied with children, And leave the rest of their possession for their babes. As for me, I will see Your face in righteousness; I shall be satisfied when I awake in Your likeness." (Psa. 17: 13-15)

For the most part, those who die as lost and unrepentant sinners, have generally fared well in life. God is not continuously sending torments and sufferings to the wicked in their lives. He knows that they will be spending eternity in Hell and so he is "longsuffering" and "forbearing" with the wicked, allowing them to have "their portion in this life." This fact alone refutes the thesis of Elihu. If pain and adversity and loss are means God sends to bring wicked men to repentance, they why is he allowing the wicked to experience so few adversities as compared to the righteous? The portion of the righteous is not so much in this life as in the next. The Psalmist also wrote:

"For I was envious of the boastful, When I saw the prosperity of the wicked. For there are no pangs in their death, But their strength is firm. They are not in trouble as other men, Nor are they plagued like other men. Therefore pride serves as their necklace; Violence covers them like a garment. Their eyes bulge with abundance; They have more than heart could wish." (Psa. 73: 3-7)

Job too saw the prosperity of the wicked and realized that a man's status as either righteous or unrighteous cannot be discerned from his life's circumstances, by his lack of adversity. If Elihu and the three senior friends be correct, then only the righteous would grow old and prosper. The Psalmist denies that this is true, however. Further, the idea of Elihu is that the man who God especially desires to save will receive the greater chastisements so that repentance will hopefully be produced and bring long life and prosperity. Whether the chastisements are effectual to salvation is an "iffy" matter. Thus, a man who is deathly sick and repents of his sin will be made healthy again, according to Elihu. The man who is suffering the loss of all things and repents will be restored to his former standing, he affirms. But, this is not the teaching of the bible. A man may repent and find forgiveness with God and yet not find that he now is restored to perfect health and made suddenly rich in this world. 

As the text cited at the head of this post indicates, God does discipline his children in order that they might be saved, that they might not be condemned with the world. Elihu does not deny, as some affirm, that Job is being punished for his sins. It is true that he says that the punishment, the chastisement, is not merely punitive, but corrective, a means to deliverance. Some commentators affirm that this was a new argument introduced by Elihu, but this is not correct. Eliphaz had said to Job: “Behold, happy is the man whom God corrects; Therefore do not despise the chastening of the Almighty." (5: 17) It is also what Solomon taught in the Proverbs. He wrote: "My son, do not despise the chastening of the Lord, Nor detest His correction; For whom the Lord loves He corrects, Just as a father the son in whom he delights." (Prov. 3: 11-12)

Wrote the apostle Paul:

"And you have forgotten the exhortation which speaks to you as to sons: “My son, do not despise the chastening of the LORD, Nor be discouraged when you are rebuked by Him; For whom the LORD loves He chastens, And scourges every son whom He receives.” If you endure chastening, God deals with you as with sons; for what son is there whom a father does not chasten? But if you are without chastening, of which all have become partakers, then you are illegitimate and not sons. Furthermore, we have had human fathers who corrected us, and we paid them respect. Shall we not much more readily be in subjection to the Father of spirits and live? For they indeed for a few days chastened us as seemed best to them, but He for our profit, that we may be partakers of His holiness. Now no chastening seems to be joyful for the present, but painful; nevertheless, afterward it yields the peaceable fruit of righteousness to those who have been trained by it." (Heb. 12: 5-11)

This chastening pertains to those who are children of God. It also involves fatherly disciplinary punishments, yea, even whippings and scourging, and rebukes. 

Job was not ignorant of God's chastening. He was a beloved son of God and God chastens all his children. So, why does Elihu (and the other three) think that he does not already know about it? Does he think that Job has not already deeply considered that possibility? 

The fact is, Job's sufferings were not chastening for wrongdoing. If Job's sufferings were for heinous sin, then why is Elihu and the other three not suffering as he? Why are we not? Will we say it is because we are righteous, like Elihu and the other three? 

Did Job's sufferings produce a better character in the end? Yes, but as previously noted, this was an indirect result of his sufferings. The main purpose of his sufferings was to prove God right in what he said about Job and his righteous life and his fealty to his God, about his holding fast even though tempted and tried by "the Satan." After all, "all things work together for good to them who love God" (Rom. 8: 28). God brought good to Job as a reward for his patient endurance, but that was a side benefit of God being proven right and the Devil proven wrong. He brought good out of evil. 

Elihu's Words (V)

"All day long they distort my words; All their thoughts are against me for evil" 

(Psalm 56: 5)

Elihu next says, speaking directly to Job:

“But please, Job, hear my speech, And listen to all my words. Now, I open my mouth; My tongue speaks in my mouth. My words come from my upright heart; My lips utter pure knowledge. The Spirit of God has made me, And the breath of the Almighty gives me life. If you can answer me, Set your words in order before me; Take your stand. Truly I am as your spokesman before God; I also have been formed out of clay. Surely no fear of me will terrify you, Nor will my hand be heavy on you. Surely you have spoken in my hearing, And I have heard the sound of your words, saying, ‘I am pure, without transgression; I am innocent, and there is no iniquity in me. Yet He finds occasions against me, He counts me as His enemy; He puts my feet in the stocks, He watches all my paths.’ “Look, in this you are not righteous. I will answer you, For God is greater than man. Why do you contend with Him?" (33: 1-13)

Once again Elihu continues being repetitive. He also continues calling attention to himself. In the words above he begins by again asserting how good a listener he is. Yet, ironically, he shows himself not to be such a good listener, for he misquotes Job and misconstrues his remarks. What did Job actually say? Compare that with what Elihu says that he said. One will see how he twists and distorts Job's words and make him to say what he did not say. Most commentators recognize this. For instance, Ellicott's Commentary says (emphasis mine): 

"I am clean without transgression.—Job has nowhere used this language; but many of his statements were capable of being so perverted and misrepresented (Job 9:20-21; Job 16:17; Job 23:10-12; Job 27:5-6)."

Pulpit Commentary comments similarly: 

"I am clean without transgression, I am innocent. Job had not said that he was "clean," or "without transgression," or "innocent." With respect to "cleanness," he had observed, "Who can bring a clean thing out of an unclean? not one," implying that all men were unclean (see Job 14:4). Concerning, 'transgressions," he had declared, "I have sinned... Why dost thou not pardon my transgression, and take away mine iniquity?" (Job 7:20, 21); and again, "Thou makest me to possess the iniquities of my youth" (Job 13:26). Further, he had asked to be told the number of his iniquities and sins (Job 13:23), and declared that God kept his transgressions and iniquities sewn up and sealed in a bag (Job 14:17). With regard to "innocence," the only observation that he had made was, "I know that thou wilt not hold me innocent" (Job 9:28). What he had really asserted was his uprightness, his integrity, his "righteousness" (Job 12:4: 16:17; 23. 7; 27:5, 6; 31:5-40). And these are exactly what God bore witness to (Job 1:8; Job 2:3). It is plain, then, that Elihu overstated his case, and, whatever his intentions were, was practically almost as unfair to Job as the "comforters." Neither is there iniquity in me. Nor had Job said this. He had frequently acknowledged the contrary (see Job 7:21; Job 13:26; Job 14:17)."

Albert Barnes in his notes wrote:

"Job had not used these very expressions, nor had he intended to maintain that he was absolutely free from sin; see Job 9:20. He had maintained that he was not chargeable with the transgressions of which his three friends maintained that he was guilty, and in doing that he had used strong language, and language which even seemed to imply that he was without transgression; see Job 9:30; Job 10:7; Job 13:23; Job 16:17."

Since Elihu misquotes Job and then attacks those misquotes, he shows that he was not a good, unbiased, listener, nor a good interpreter, but shows his ignorance and lack of wisdom. 

Job did see God's dealings with him as a case where God had taken away and was continuing to withhold his good things from him. From all appearances it seemed that God had indeed treated him as an enemy and metaphorically put him in the stocks. The words of Job in his sufferings and deep questioning are similar to both the Psalmist and of the prophet Jeremiah. So, if such questionings make one unrighteous, as Elihu contends, then so too is the Psalmist and Jeremiah. Said the Psalmist:

"In the day of my trouble I sought the Lord; My hand was stretched out in the night without ceasing; My soul refused to be comforted. I remembered God, and was troubled; I complained, and my spirit was overwhelmed...I call to remembrance my song in the night; I meditate within my heart, And my spirit makes diligent search. Will the Lord cast off forever? And will He be favorable no more? Has His mercy ceased forever? Has His promise failed forevermore? Has God forgotten to be gracious? Has He in anger shut up His tender mercies?" (Psalm 77: 2-3, 6-9)

In reading these words one might think Job was the man talking, for the language of the Psalmist is so similar to the words of Job. They are the words of a suffering saint. Notice what the Psalmist says about God. He says God's hand was stretched out against him. He says he was troubled and remembered God. That certainly was true of Job in his sufferings. "I complained" said the Psalmist. So too did Job and he was condemned as unrighteous for so complaining. The Psalmist questioned God's love and care for him, querying "will the Lord cast off forever?" And, "will he be favorable no more?" And, "has his mercy ceased forever?" Etc. If Job be judged as unrighteous for asking such questions, and being in doubt, then so must the Psalmist. So must every believer! 

The prophet Jeremiah said:

"I am the man who has seen affliction by the rod of His wrath. He has led me and made me walk In darkness and not in light. Surely He has turned His hand against me Time and time again throughout the day. He has aged my flesh and my skin, And broken my bones. He has besieged me And surrounded me with bitterness and woe. He has set me in dark places Like the dead of long ago. He has hedged me in so that I cannot get out; He has made my chain heavy. Even when I cry and shout, He shuts out my prayer. He has blocked my ways with hewn stone; He has made my paths crooked. He has been to me a bear lying in wait, Like a lion in ambush. He has turned aside my ways and torn me in pieces; He has made me desolate. He has bent His bow And set me up as a target for the arrow. He has caused the arrows of His quiver To pierce my loins." (Lam. 3: 1-13)

Had Elihu, like his three seniors who spoke to Job, heard the above words of the prophet, they would have condemned him as they did Job for saying similar things about God's providential dealings with him. In fact, the above words are very similar to the words of suffering Job.

Job had said to them about God's dealings with him in his sufferings:

"I was at ease, but He has shattered me; He also has taken me by my neck, and shaken me to pieces; He has set me up for His target, His archers surround me. He pierces my heart and does not pity; He pours out my gall on the ground. He breaks me with wound upon wound; He runs at me like a warrior." (Job 16: 12-14)

So, if Job is condemned for his complaining, for his questioning, for his doubting and perplexity, then so too may we condemn the Psalmist and the Prophet Jeremiah. Remember that Elihu says to Job - "in this you are not righteous." That is, in his complaining, Job was not righteous. But if that is so, then so too are the Psalmist and the prophet.

He says Job says that "God watches all my paths." So, what is wrong with that? God does watch our paths. Even more than that, he actually does think upon each of us. (See Psalm 14: 17) The same sentiment was expressed by the Psalmist and the prophet.

Elihu said "God is greater than man. Why do you contend with Him?"

So, Job did not already know that God was greater than man? That was insulting. Further, when did Job contend, or fight with, God? That was putting words into Job's mouth. Job would never have been a rebel to his God. Job contended with his counselors, and in their minds this was tantamount to his contending with God, for in their minds they have equated themselves with God. 

In the above words he does not add anything new but makes the same points, the same accusations, as did his three seniors. Ironically, this is what he promised he would not do! He does in fact answer Job with similar words to that of the three, though he said he would not answer Job with their words. 

Elihu says "My words come from my upright heart; My lips utter pure knowledge" and "Truly I am as your spokesman before God."

What presumption! What arrogance! Of course, God does not have this same opinion of Elihu. What hypocrisy too! He condemns Job for what he himself does! He can say he is perfectly righteous, and it not be unrighteous, but if Job says he is upright and speaks truth, then he is judged as unrighteous. 

Elihu's Words (IV)

"he shall take them away as a whirlwind"

(Psalm 58: 9)

"Lest you say, ‘We have found wisdom’; God will vanquish him, not man. Now he has not directed his words against me; So I will not answer him with your words. “They are dismayed and answer no more; Words escape them. And I have waited, because they did not speak, Because they stood still and answered no more. I also will answer my part, I too will declare my opinion. For I am full of words; The spirit within me compels me. Indeed my belly is like wine that has no vent; It is ready to burst like new wineskins. I will speak, that I may find relief; I must open my lips and answer. Let me not, I pray, show partiality to anyone; Nor let me flatter any man. For I do not know how to flatter, Else my Maker would soon take me away." (13-22)

The Reason for the Failure of the Three

Elihu says that the three previous speakers had failed, and he sees this as keeping them from boasting, from saying "we have found wisdom," meaning "we have discovered the hidden reasons behind Job's sufferings and have the credit for doing it by our wisdom (cunning)." But why does Elihu not want the three seniors to get any credit for wisdom? Would he not want them to show themselves wise? Why is he happy about their failure at showing themselves wise? To keep them from pride? If so, why does he not want to be himself shown to be unwise? It seems rather likely that though he condemns their lack of wisdom, he is nevertheless happy that they have failed to show wisdom. But, why would that be if he is so righteous? It seems he is not merely disappointed in the failures of the three, condemning them for their failures, but is happy about it. But, in this he is showing himself unwise, proud, and self asserting. It is rather likely that he was happy at their failures because they gave him opportunity to do what they could not do. He sees the whole discussion as a contest, and he wants himself to be the sole winner of it. 

God Will Vanquish Job

"God will vanquish him, not man." Are these the words of the three elders or of Elihu? Are those words to be connected with "you say"? So that the text reads "lest you say God will vanquish him, not man." 

Or is it Elihu who adds the commentary that says "God will vanquish him?" The text is not clear on that point. It does fairly well describe the summation of the three senior speakers. They essentially "gave up" the case and left it to God's providence to decide the point, believing that God would cast him down, or drive him away. Further, the word "lest" seems to infer that Elihu did not want his seniors, who had already spoken and laid out their case, to be able to legitimately and boastfully "say" 

1) that they have been wise in their decision (solution or claim) or 

2) "God will vanquish him, not man." 

In the latter case it is not a record of what had actually been said but of what might have been said. In either case, it seems to me that all suspected that God would appear in righteous anger and drive Job away. 

The Hebrew word for "vanquish" ("thrusteth him down" kjv) is "nāḏap̄" and is translated thusly:

"Do not say, ‘We have found wisdom; let God, not a man, refute him.’" (NIV)

"And don’t tell me, ‘He is too wise for us. Only God can convince him.’" (NLT)

"Beware lest you say, ‘We have found wisdom; God may vanquish him, not a man.’" (ESV)

"Lest ye should say, We have found out wisdom: God thrusteth him down, not man." (KJV)

"Lest you say, ‘We have found wisdom’; God will vanquish him, not man." (NKJV)

“So do not say, ‘We have found wisdom: God will defeat him, not man.’" (NASB)

“Do not say, ‘We have found wisdom; God will rout him, not man." (NASB 1995) 

The KJV translates the word in the following manner: drive away (4x), drive (1x), thrust him down (1x), shaken (1x), driven to and fro (1x), tossed to and fro (1x).p

Strong says - "a primitive root; to shove asunder, i.e. disperse:—drive (away, to and fro), thrust down, shaken, tossed to and fro." Thayer also says it means to "drive away." 

So, we may say "let God throw him down," "let God vanquish him," "let God rout and defeat him," "let God refute and convince him." 

Of course, Job was not driven away by the whirlwind appearance of God. Was anyone "driven away" by the stormy presence of the Almighty?

Elihu Driven Away

All had agreed that "God will drive him (Job) away." Elihu adds these interesting words: "For I do not know how to flatter, else my Maker would soon take me away."

I find it rather interesting that we have two similar expressions that seem to uphold my view that Elihu was taken away by the whirlwind. All four of Job's antagonists thought that God would "drive away" Job from this life as a final divine judgment upon him. Elihu adds to this prediction by saying "if I am a flatterer, my Maker will soon TAKE ME AWAY." Well, God did take him away! How ironic! 

Further, the prediction that God would show up and "drive away" or vanquish Job turned out to be wrong! The one literally taken away seems to be Elihu. Surprise, surprise! Two separate sentences, one talking about being "driven away" and another about being "taken away," and each very important in the context of God showing up in a stormy wind and Elihu vanishing from the scene. Who of the four seems to have vanished suddenly from the scene? Elihu is the one. Many commentators find this puzzling. There is a mystery about his 1) sudden disappearance, and 2) not being mentioned by God in the epilogue. 

In addition to the words we have previously cited (at the head of this posting - 'he shall take them away as a whirlwind'), let us notice these words about being taken away in a tornado or stormy wind.

"They are like straw before the wind, And like chaff that a storm carries away." (Job 21: 18)

The "they" are wicked (unrighteous) men. They are "like the chaff which the wind drives away." (Psa. 1: 4) 

"Terrors take hold on him as waters, a tempest steals him away in the night. The east wind carries him away, and he departs: and as a storm hurls him out of his place. For God shall cast upon him, and not spare: he would fain flee out of his hand." (Job 27: 20-22)

This is talking about the fate of lost wicked men, and what seems to be the very thing that happened to Elihu. He was interrupted, or cut off, in his speaking by the sudden storm, the whirlwind. It is safe to assume that Elihu was "blown away" by the appearance of God, but Job and the others not, for they were judged not to be chaff. 

So, the irony is expressive. They all predict that Job will be "driven away" as wind drives away chaff and whatever is not anchored or well founded. Yet, it is one of them, and not Job, who is literally driven away. The remaining three advisors, though not driven away, yet they were scolded by the Lord and given opportunity for atonement and redemption. They requested Job to pray for them, confessing to him their wrong treatment of him, acknowledging their bad counsel, and have the proper sacrifices made. This is a mercy shown to them that does not seem to be afforded to Elihu.

Elihu the Presumptuous

Elihu next says:

"He  (Job) has not directed his words against me, So I will not answer him with your words."

Here again we have Elihu, as a young whippersnapper, castigating his elders, repeating his rebuke of his seniors who have preceded him. He "talks down" to them. Listen to him saying in an angry voice - "So I will not answer Job with your words." Hear him say it also in a sarcastic tone. Picture him emanating disgust. Was it justified disgust? Did the three elders need to be so derided? Could he have had a little judgment with mercy? Could he not rather see that they had tried to convince Job? Why glory in their failure? He has already confessed that his wisdom and knowledge is the only thing that will resolve the problem of Job's evils, and that his wisdom and knowledge has been given to him by inspiration. Well, if so, how can he condemn the three for not having wisdom and knowledge that God has chosen not to give to them? Why get mad at those who are unwise? Are they not rather to be pitied, counseled, and prayed for?

Elihu believes he has superior words to utter to Job from his inspired lips, for he, and he alone, has "the breath of the Almighty" that is producing his words. What arrogant presumption! 

The apostle Peter spoke of "those who walk according to the flesh in the lust of uncleanness and despise authority. They are presumptuous, self-willed. They are not afraid to speak evil of dignitaries." (II Peter 2: 10) This seem to fit Elihu perfectly. The Greek word for "presumptuous" denotes a "daring man," one who is audacious. Again, this is a fitting character description of Elihu. Wrote the Psalmist: "Keep back Your servant also from presumptuous sins; Let them not have dominion over me. Then I shall be blameless, And I shall be innocent of great transgression." (Psa. 19: 13) The Hebrew word for "presumptuous" means arrogant, proud, insolent, rebellious. This too fits Elihu. Notice too the reference to the "great transgression." Though Job, like all holy men, had minor transgressions, moral slips and falls, none were guilty of great transgression, or apostasy from the God they serve.

Elihu next says:

"They are dismayed and answer no more; Words escape them."

Again, he just cannot restrain his demeaning of his seniors. His method is to tear others down so that he may lift up himself. Yes, words escaped them (finally, after giving many words), but what purpose is there in continually calling attention to the fact? Why keep pointing the finger? What is to be accomplished by doing it? Who is on trial, the three elders, or Job? Are Elihu's words entering his mind and coming from his mouth by the Spirit of God? Then, why is the Spirit calling frequent attention to the weaknesses of the arguments of the three? Further, it was in fact a good and noble thing for the three wise counselors of Job to finally shut up and be silent. They finally "wised up." Knowing when to be silent, when to shut up, is a mark of wisdom. Notice these proverbs of the wise king Solomon.

"When there are many words, transgression is unavoidable, But he who restrains his lips is wise." (Prov. 10: 19)

Most scholars and commentators on Job have observed how Elihu is verbose. With him there are "many words." But, he was not singular in his verbosity, for the three seniors also spoke in too many words, saying little in so much. Job pointed this out more than once in his replies.

"A man of understanding keeps silent." (Prov. 11: 12)

But, this is the thing that Elihu says he cannot do! He must speak, or bust.

"He who restrains his words has knowledge, And he who has a cool spirit is a man of understanding." (Prov. 17: 27)

Well, that surely does not describe Elihu.

"Even a fool, when he keeps silent, is considered wise; When he closes his lips, he is considered prudent." (Prov. 17: 28)

"The words of a wise man’s mouth are gracious, But the lips of a fool shall swallow him up; The words of his mouth begin with foolishness, And the end of his talk is raving madness. A fool also multiplies words. No man knows what is to be; Who can tell him what will be after him?" (Eccl. 10: 12-14)

"Do not be rash with your mouth, And let not your heart utter anything hastily before God. For God is in heaven, and you on earth; Therefore let your words be few." (Eccl. 5: 2)

All these texts condemn Elihu and his three seniors who spoke to Job. Job knew the truth of these texts and tried to keep his words as few as possible. In fact, he often asked them to leave him alone so that he may suffer in silence. He also admonished the three friends to just be silent and sit with him. He said: “O that you would be completely silent, And that it would become your wisdom!" (Job 3: 15)

Elihu, the Buzite (or shall we comically say "the buzzard"?), next says:

"And I have waited, because they did not speak, Because they stood still and answered no more. I also will answer my part, I too will declare my opinion." 

More verbosity, wordiness, repetition! And, this is supposed to be God talking through Elihu? 

Elihu next says:

"For I am full of words; The spirit within me compels me. Indeed my belly is like wine that has no vent; It is ready to burst like new wineskins. I will speak, that I may find relief; I must open my lips and answer."

Again, is this God talking through Elihu? Elihu says that he "must" speak, that he cannot help it, being "compelled" by his spirit (which is moved by the breath of the Lord). He is ready to "burst." If that is so, then he cannot be condemned for anything he says! The two reasons are 1) he cannot help uttering what he says (and one cannot be held responsible for what he is forced to do or say), and 2) he is God speaking, and God cannot be condemned. He is very presumptuous.

He says he speaks "that I might find relief." Why not speak so that Job may find relief? Who is he more concerned about, Job or himself? He says he must give "vent" to his thoughts and feelings. But, as we see, what he vents is anger, hate, disgust, arrogance, etc. Lots of sinners who are guilty of ranting and raving say that they are simply venting their thoughts and emotions. Elihu knows little about self control. 

Elihu next says:

"Let me not, I pray, show partiality to anyone; Nor let me flatter any man. For I do not know how to flatter, Else my Maker would soon take me away."

Two things are of importance to notice from these words. First, his claims to be unbiased and unflattering. Second, his belief that flatterers and prejudiced people will be "taken away" by God their Maker.

But, the fact is, he was guilty of the very things he condemned. He was biased against Job and formed a bad opinion of him without any just reason for doing so. He may not have flattered the three senior friends, or Job, but he sure did flatter himself.

Further, as I believe, his Maker did take away Elihu! He was driven away by the stormy wind of the presence of the Lord, like chaff before the wind, and this accounts for his absence in the prologue. God cuts him off in his speech! Had God not cut him off, Elihu may have talked till he was "blue in the face." 

Again, notice in those few words, how many times he overuses personal pronouns ("I" and "me"). He feels a need to keep talking about his ethos, his good character, his credentials. He does not know how to flatter? Who honestly believes this? If he was such a wise and learned man, he surely would have known how to flatter. Of course there is a difference in knowing how to flatter and actually flattering. I know how to flatter but do my best to not practice it. But, Elihu is claiming not to "know how" to flatter. Yea, right!

Are the above words the inspired words of God? Do they really represent the thinking of God as Elihu wants us to believe? 

Thus, from the opening words of Elihu we are able to ascertain much information on the character of Elihu. How any bible commentator can claim he is a prophet, or type of Christ, is puzzling to me. In the next posting we will continue to look at Elihu's opening words.

Elihu's Words (III)

In the preceding chapter I cited the opening words of Elihu (chapter 32) and focused on 

1) the accusation of Elihu that Job justified himself, and 

2) the foolish wrath of Elihu, and 

3) the reasons Elihu offers for why the three previous senior advisors (or prosecutors) were brought to silence (his misinterpretation of it).

We will now focus on other things Elihu says in his opening address and what his words reveal about him.

We focused our attention in the previous posts on the introductory words given by the author/narrator of the speeches of Elihu (32: 1-5). In this post we will begin examining Elihu's actual words as given in verses six through twelve. 

In those previous observations about Elihu we called attention to his inability to reason correctly, to properly interpret facts, to speak calmly and without bias and prejudice, to be humble in his judgments and varied exhortations, to show empathy, to give a "word fitly spoken" (Prov. 25: 11), to "speak a word in season to him who is weary," not having "the tongue of the learned" (Isa. 50: 4). 

Further, as we will see, he relied heavily on ethos and pathos in his efforts to convince the jury and very little on logos, or on logical argument and on evidence of fact.

The Ethos of Elihu

"So Elihu, the son of Barachel the Buzite, answered and said: “I am young in years, and you are very old; Therefore I was afraid, And dared not declare my opinion to you. I said, ‘Age should speak, And multitude of years should teach wisdom.’  But there is a spirit in man, And the breath of the Almighty gives him understanding. Great men are not always wise, Nor do the aged always understand justice. “Therefore I say, ‘Listen to me, I also will declare my opinion.’ Indeed I waited for your words, I listened to your reasonings, while you searched out what to say. I paid close attention to you; And surely not one of you convinced Job, Or answered his words." (6-12)

Why does Elihu tell us about why he waited to speak? Was that necessary? Was his waiting to speak not already self evident? Did he think that Job and the three senior advisors would not recognize that fact? So, why then call attention to the fact? Is it not because he is trying to establish credibility and forestall suspicion as to his motives? Sophists learn well how to begin their discourses with a mixture of audience flattery and self praise (extolling their credentials or ethos). Though there are exceptions to the rule, yet ordinarily one does not begin a persuasive speech by referring to things about himself. 

The egotism of Elihu is seen in how many times he uses the personal pronoun "I." He says "I am young," as if the men listening did not already know that! He says "I said," and "therefore I say," and "listen to me," and "I will declare my opinion," and "I waited for your words," and "I listened to your reasonings," and "I paid close attention to you." Egotism is defined as "the practice of talking and thinking about oneself excessively because of an undue sense of self-importance." It is also defined as the overuse of personal pronouns such as "I" or "me." Elihu begins his speech or dialogue with excessive use of pronouns, and his intent is to call attention to himself. 

Elihu, though wanting to appear respectful to his elders, to "give honor to whom it is due," nevertheless slaps his seniors in the face with his words, speaking to them in wrath, and condemning them for their inability to prove their case against Job or to find him guilty. If one reads the above verses aloud in an angry tone, this hostility vented upon the elders will help understand the spirit as well as the letter of his opening words. He basically told the elders that they were fools. "Aged men are not always wise," which means "you three are not wise." In other words he says, "it is generally true that aged men are wise, you three are sad exceptions." He says that they do not "understand justice" with the inference that he does. 

In this accusation (misinterpretation) Elihu, ironically, makes himself an exception to the rule also. Young men are rarely wise, but he claims to be an exception, but in a positive way. Is that not highmindedness? Pride? Presumption? 

Next, let us notice the fake humility of Elihu. He confesses "I was afraid to speak." Why afraid? Afraid of what? It was not the normal fear that the average person has of public speaking. Elihu says his fear was the result of his sense of inferiority, being young and inexperienced. Was that true? Was that the reason? Perhaps his fear if real originated from another source. Some think that by fear is meant mere timidity. But, it could just as well describe cowardice. He could mean that he did not feel safe in speaking, especially while the elders were speaking. But, why does he not fear now? What gives him courage to speak now? What has changed? Could it be because he thinks "the coast is clear" now? Could it be that he realizes that he can do a better job than the three senior speakers? 

The Hebrew word for "afraid" alludes to animals who through fear stay "holed up" into their holes till all sense of threat from predators has been removed. So, why does Elihu crawl out of his hole of silence suddenly? What threat does he think no longer exists? He had been "shrinking back" into his silence, afraid to interrupt or speak. Was it the timidity of the humble? Or, could it be that he was himself a predator, and stayed in the dark silence of his hole (unnoticeable) till he observed the right time to emerge from it in order to strike his prey?

How did his fear connect with his anger? He confesses to be guided by two emotions, by fear and anger. He also wants his listeners to see that he is a humble reluctant speaker, that he is speaking not by any inferior motives, but because he is forced to do so by the circumstances. He wants all to know that he has been "reserved" in forming his opinions, not hasty in his conclusions, and that he was acting wise in waiting for the right time to speak. 

He says that, he had respected his elders by letting them speak first. Did he need to say this? Would not the fact itself be sufficient? Why does he want to call attention to his humility, to his virtue in this regard? Did he really respect his elders? No. He rather says that they have failed, that they are not wise, that they do not know justice. If that is so self evident, then why call attention to it? He insults them, and does it in wrath. He has decided not to be gentle in his rebukes, but to speak in arrogant wrath. That of course, does not win him any sympathizers. He does not want to speak as a lamb but as a lion. He is proud but wants to cloak it in humble words. He is also the only one who calls Job by his first name. He in fact literally says "hey you, Job, listen up!" That is not the way the young should address their elders, especially one who was so highly respected as was Job. He was disrespectful though he tried to appear respectful. On this one writer made these observations (here):

"Of course, Job's name is common in the book named after him. It is used thirty-seven times by the narrator, six times by YHWH and once by the Satan. But in a book that is overwhelmingly direct speech, no-one, not even YHWH himself, uses it in speaking to Job, except Elihu. Elihu uses it over and over, even making direct demands for Job's attention by name both in his first speech (33:1) and in his last one (37:14). This is a key marker of Elihu's distinct style. Job's three friends never use his name at all. An explanation is called for."

He points out that the constant mention of Job's name (said in anger) is not the way inferiors speak to superiors. So, it is obvious that Elihu sees himself as superior to Job and to his three senior friends. As we will see in his speeches, he claims this superiority. That is pride and egotism. The same writer said:

"Elihu is portrayed as arrogant and rude, asserting an in-your-face authority over someone who is both his senior in society and suffering acutely. This understanding fits with what we have seen about marked redundancy and the use of names in the Old Testament. It also fits the context...Politeness and respect have long since gone." 

Citing another the same source says:

"However, "a human non-family member's addressing an adult by personal name alone is tantamount to treating the addressee as a child, and so is used in reference to social inferiors." Elihu addressed Job as if he were a child. Doing it multiple times would have been disrespectful even if he were senior to Job."

Again, citing another, the same source said:

"Even by the use of this word, 'Listen,' that he uses, he inflicts a grievous insult upon Job: it is grievous arrogance for an inferior to wish to extort for himself a hearing from his superior."

Said the same author:

"Elihu's use of Job's name was deliberately offensive. This understanding fits linguistically, it fits within broader Old Testament patterns and it fits contextually in the book. Future exegesis of the Elihu chapters of Job needs to take this aspect into account. Certainly, it qualifies positive understandings of Elihu's speeches and role."

Elihu wants those listening to him to think that he is one who honors tradition and cultural conventions. He wants to be thought a gentleman. In many respects, in his attempts to build his credibility, he also observes Sophistic convention in persuasive speech, ironically. He does it in the sense of prepping the audience, a kind of "poisoning of the well." He wants listeners to have a favorable opinion of himself and a bad opinion of Job, and having laid that foundation, proceeds with his accusations and explanations (interpretations). His intent was to predispose the mind and emotion of the listeners for what he will say more concretely. It is all designed to prejudice the listeners against Job and his seniors and prejudice them in his favor. 

It seems clear to me that Elihu begins by creating smokescreens, by clouding the issues. He takes things personally rather than keeping the matter of debate purely academic and on a higher level. He, like the Sophists of old, desired victory in debate rather than the arrival at truth. 

There is nothing in Elihu's opening words that exemplify true humility and a gentle godly spirit. He seems full of himself, seeing things only from his perspective. 

He says that he has been reluctant to speak (for the reasons he names), but then says that he has been anxious to speak, even being about ready to bust from holding in his desire to speak. That seems contradictory. He is both anxious and not anxious to speak. 

Elihu's Claims

To establish his ethos, or credibility as a teacher or witness, to give his credentials, he talks first in his introduction about himself, or to what relates to himself. He calls attention to himself. He wants to appear to be sincere and honest. Yet, by a look at his claims, he is clearly revealed not to be such.

1. I am inspired by God, being an able mediator (arbiter) between God and man.

2. I am worth listening to, having greater wisdom and knowledge

3. I am the exception to the rule as respects youth and wisdom

4. I have respected my elders

5. I have shown self control in not speaking previously

6. I am not biased or prejudiced

7. I only want to find the truth and am zealous for it

8. My motives are pure and righteous

But, the fact is, none of these things are the truth.

Wrote Thomas Aquinas, who wrote a commentary of Job (emphasis mine):

"However, he was not moved only by the zeal to defend the truth, but also by vainglory, and so he says, “and I will of show my knowledge.” In fact, someone who desires vainglory wants to show off his excellence clearly if he has it and therefore he shows that he has the greatest ability to answer when he says, “For I am full of words,” as if to say: Abundant answers occur to me." (Commentary on Job 32 - here)

And what can we say of Elihu's claim to inspiration? To being the spokesman for God. Was he what he claimed to be? Some say yes, even calling him the mediator and redeemer that Job desired, a veritable prophet. Ironically, as we have shown, Job is the real prophet of God who speaks as moved by the Spirit of God. 

First, if Elihu were indeed inspired and uttering forth truth as the Spirit gave him utterance, why does God cut him off in his speech? Why does God interrupt him abruptly? It seems more likely that God had, as the saying goes, "heard enough." He could, speaking anthropomorphically, "not stand it any more," could not tolerate any more foolish speaking by one who falsely and presumptuously claimed to speak on his behalf, as his defense attorney. 

Every good orator of Satan claims to speak by inspiration and by divine authority. They are constantly affirming it and criticize any who would dissent. So, to think that a mere claim to inspiration is proof of the fact is not wise thinking or good reasoning. Every false prophet and teacher has claimed inspiration. So, Elihu's claims to inspiration mean nothing. But, we may reasonably ask, why does he feel the need to say this about himself? Why not just not mention it and let his speech prove his inspiration? Remember how we called attention to the fact that he chose to mention the reason why he waited to speak (was young and respectful) and for no other reason than to promote himself as a credible and honorable person, a man of virtue. 

Consider also the fact that if Elihu really believed that he was inspired, then why did he not interrupt the elders when they were speaking and going in the wrong direction? Ironically, God himself interrupted Elihu! If the scene in Job be viewed as a courtroom atmosphere (and most scholars agree that it is), it is apropos for attorneys to "object," and which stops those speaking so that the objection can be dealt with. But, Elihu never objects. He rather stores up inside him all his objections so that he can vent them all at once in what he judges will be the final "closing arguments." Elihu thinks that the three senior prosecutors rested the case too soon. 

When Elihu speaks of his inner "spirit," he means the "womb of the mind," as Aquinas talked about, the place where thoughts are begotten or come into existence. It is a fitting metaphor. He believes that his own spirit has received divine revelation that has produced his thoughts and his words. But, do not his three seniors, and Job, not also have a "spirit"? Can their spirits not receive revelation from God as his? He claims that "the breath of the Almighty" has imparted to the "spirit of his mind" absolute truth, which makes him an authority. That being true, Elihu expects, and demands, acceptance of his words. Elihu calls for people to trust him and what he says. But, all this is pretension, highmindedness, pride, etc. 

He speaks of himself as being divinely gifted (God has given him understanding), which gift he denies has been given to the three elders or to Job. What a gifted theologian is this young upstart! He has the answers to the deepest things of God. There are no unsolved mysteries, riddles, or enigmas for Elihu! He is an inspired man who can speak no untruth. There is little humility in these fantastic claims.

When a person reads the words of Elihu, he should, as I previously said, read the words out loud in intense anger and see what this may reveal about the letter of what he says. He should also listen, in his mind, to the words as if you, the reader, were God listening to Elihu. What is God thinking as he is hearing Elihu?