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.