We have reached a stalemate: Job has examined his experiences, the friends have expressed their respective points of view, and with a great deal of bitterness Job has replied, but none has arrived at any solution.
A figure unmentioned hither-to now appears on the scene; “Then Elihu the son of Barachel the Buzite, of the family of Ram became angry.” Elihu was a fellow countryman of Job’s; Buz was of the family of Nahor (Gen. 22;21); Ram, we note, was of the tribe of Judah (1 Chron. 9;10), he therefore was a Hebrew. As we shall see later, Elihu’s role in the affair requires that he be of the chosen people.
There is great divergence of opinion in regard to this man; there are a number of critics who consider that this was not a part of the original, that an editor of the Book many years later, feeling that there should be a “bridge” so to speak between the speeches of Job and those of God, developed the idea of an intermediate person. We cannot, for several reasons, accept this idea. Elihu’s approach to the problem is so important, and he occupies so large a part of the Book that we are compelled to search for a reasonable and logical answer for his position in the drama.
There is also the other viewpoint, that he was just another critic—an arrogant, brash young man saying the same things as the friends, but in a more rude and severe way. But we must disagree to this also.
A striking feature of the Book of Job is its balanced and progressive development. We consider in turn the introduction of the key figure in the prologue. the dramatizing of the problem (which is the motive for Job’s way of life), the putting of Job to the test, and the successive tragedies which failed to break him, and the friends and the “hero” debating the whole matter without arriving at any solution. Quite logically we should expect, at this stage, a new approach to the whole matter—this is precisely what we obtain, our story takes another step forward.
We have noted previously the great skill in characterization demonstrated by the writer by using solely the words out of the mouths of the characters in the story to convey to us what each was like and their particular role in the drama. They are, as it were, self-described. For example, we do not require telling that Eliphaz was an old man, very opinionated, of great experience, as this is quite obvious from his speeches. It is equally so with Job: we become aware, without telling, that he was a proud self-righteous man in the prime of life—chapter 32.1 simply confirms the obvious. We should therefore examine Elihu’s comments, not only for what he has to say about Job, but for clues as to his intended role in the story.
We note as we examine this part of the Book, that three things receive strong emphasis in chapters 32, 35: (1) The extreme anger manifested by him. Four times the Hebrew “aph” signifying fierce wrath is used: in other parts of Scripture we note that this is used frequently as God’s attitude toward Israel; it is used four times by Josiah at the period of the great passover (2 Chron. 28-29). Elihu’s wrath is kindled first of all because of Job’s attitude: “he justified himself rather than God.” Modern translators suggest that the of “rather than,” for the Hebrew terms used imply that Job considered himself more righteous than God. His wrath was also directed against the friends: “because they had found no answer and had condemned Job.” In regard to this statement, it is one of 18 occurrences in the Scripture where the Jew, in mistaken reverence for God had substituted another word. The correct reading is, “they found no answer and had condemned God.” Not that they had believed Job to be right, but their silence at his declaration of self-righteousness, and failure to defend the honor and integrity of God’s name, was in effect condemnatory of the Almighty. If this interpretation of verses 1-3 is reasonable then there was justification indeed for anger. (2) The very positive way in which Elihu dissociates himself from the point of view of the three friends. The way he goes about doing this, gives rise to the opinion that he was a rude and arrogant young man, but we must not be misled by the vigor of the statements. It is the writer’s method of making sure that we realise a completely new point of view is now to be given, quite independent of the human attitudes already presented. Elihu makes three very positive assertions; In the first stanza of chapter 32d-10, he states that since he was young he would “let days speak and many years teach wisdom.” He comments again in verse 9, “It is not the old, (i.e. those of long experience) that are wise, nor the aged that understand what is right.” And then concludes with the positive assertion, verse 10, “Therefore I say, listen to me; let me also declare my opinion.” In the second stanza, v. 11-14, he again comments on the failure of the friends. He has waited patiently while they have developed their arguments, noted their failure, and warns them of a danger in their attitude in an interesting statement (v. 13) “beware lest you say, we have found wisdom, God may vanquish him, not man.” Dhorme suggests that verse 13 says in effect, “do not say we have found wisdom (and that is enough for us), let God drive Job away like chaff” (that is not our responsibility). He then asserts “I will not answer him with your speeches.” The third stanza contains again a reference to the inability of the friends to find a solution and their discomfiture, and, for the third time, emphasizes “his knowledge or opinion.” In speaking of the compelling nature of the desire to answer Job, there is an interesting comparison to be made with Jeremiah’s statement in Jeremiah 20;. He ‘a full to bursting with words and can only find relief by speaking. It seems reasonably evident that a serious effort was made by the writer to impress the reader with the fact of a new and completely independent point of view now to be heard. (3) Elihu’s emphasis on inspiration. In 32;7—”I said, days should speak, and multitude of words teach wisdom, but it is the spirit in a man, the breath of the Almighty that makes him understand” – -the phrase “the breath of” is translated in the Targum as the “spirit of prophecy.” It seems reasonably clear that Elihu is not referring to any spiritual quality of discernment in man himself, but the influence of the spirit of God on the mind of man to make him understand. The source of Elihu’s “opinion” is again emphasized in 36.3-4, “I will fetch my knowledge from far end will ascribe greatness to my Maker. For truly my words are not false; one who is perfect in knowledge is with you.” There are those who feel that Elihu is boasting here of “his” perfect knowledge but if we consider his use of the same phrase in 37;16, we find it applied directly to God. Considering that Elihu is concerned with the “greatness of his Maker” and emphasizes the distance from which his knowledge comes, it appears more likely that he is again referring to inspiration.
If we take the sum of our evidence regarding Elihu (a) extreme anger, (b) a completely independent point of view, (c) inspiration, or direction from the Almighty—remembering again the possibility that the Book of Job may be an allegory of God’s dealings with self-righteous Israel—then there is the disative of the prophetic point of view; tinct probability that Elihu is represent-that he is an “interpreter” of God’s ways, a Divine spokesman. If this is so, then we should find in his speeches evidence of the Divine point of view and of Divine method in dealing with man, as well as a fair and just appraisal of Job’s statements. Is his handling of Job fair and just ?
Well, there is no doubt that his first quotation is an accurate one. If the reader will compare 33;9-11 with 9;20-22, 10;17, 16;17, 23;10-12, he will note that Job does indeed claim personal perfection, blamelessness and innocence, and on the basis of that claim, implies that the Almighty is unjust. In answer to this, Elihu makes a statement that is one of the key principles of the whole Book, and uses this principle as the foundation for his subsequent remarks: 33;12, “Behold in this thou art not right, God is greater than man.” Job has sought to bring God down to the human level, to argue this whole matter out on the basis of a “man to a man”; he has failed to appreciate the impossibility of man viewing and judging anything from the perspective of the Eternal. In every respect God is greater; in power, in integrity, thought and wisdom. We can usefully compare this statement, “God is greater than man” with the 55th of Isaiah, v. 6-13. We realise, of course, that this is a truth which, if it stood alone without elaboration, would be a dismayingly depressing one. It emphasizes man’s utter helplessness; but Elihu does not let it stand alone, for he proceeds to show how God does deal with a man. Job had said (33;13), “why do you contend against him saying, ‘He will answer none of my words’.” But God does answer by vision, when man sleeps, and by opening man’s ears to instruction. The object is constructive—( 33;17-18) “That He may turn man aside from his deed, and cut off (prune away) pride from man.”—to save him from destruction. God goes further—He chastens man physically, and this severely. The object is the same: to prepare his mind to receive the message of the “interpreter” (33;23. It will be noted that the word translated “messenger” in the A. V. and ‘mediator’ in the R. S. V. is translated in Gen. 42;23, as an “interpreter.” The interpreter’s work is twofold: “to declare what is right for a man,” and to reveal the provision of a “ransom” . . . the price of redemption, that which reconciles man to God without affecting the demands of Divine holiness. There is an amazing brevity in this review of the Divine method and purpose. In this writer’s judgment, chapter 33;19-28 is one of the most beautiful in the Scripture, comprehending as it does, the whole scheme of redemption and its wonderful results. It is one major justification for considering Elihu a Divine spokesman.
The second major problem arising out of Job’s speeches, is dealt with by Elihu, and still on the principle “God is greater than man.” He quotes Job, (34;1-9), and considers the implications of Job’s reasoning—v. 9, “It profits a man nothing that he should take delight in God.” There is no record of Job saying precisely this, but in chapters 9 & 21 (especially 21;15-16) R. S. V., the implication is definitely there. That God should do wickedly and pervert justice, is impossible. He is the faithful Creator, and the Sustainer of all flesh. 34;13-15, is like the 104th Psalm; God is the ultimate in power, greatness, truth and integrity, there can be no questioning of His doings. v. 19: He shows no partiality to princes or the poor. v. 21; He is aware of the ways of a man. v. 23: He is not obligated to appoint for man’s convenience a time of judgment. v. 24: He can shatter the mighty without investigation. v. 29.: If He does not answer the cry of the oppressed, who can condemn Him ? In conclusion to these comments, Elihu bluntly says, 34;35, “Job speaks without knowledge, his words are without insight.”
The third major principle dealt with by Elihu is mentioned by him in 34;5: “For Job has said, I am innocent, and God has taken away my right, in spite of my right I am counted a liar.” In 35;2-3, Elihu replies, “Do you think this to be just ? Do you say, it is my right before God, that you ask; what advantage have I? How am I better off than if I had sinned?” The friends, and Job, revealed in the speeches their firm belief that obedience to Divine law, and integrity in personal behaviour, brought Divine blessing, as directly related as cause and effect. Equally so, they applied the same reasoning to sin—the results disaster and cursing. It was a most dangerous philosophy; it placed God’s favors on the basis of earnings or wages. It was only a step further to reach the belief that blessings for perfect behaviour were a “right.” This philosophy was not restricted to Job; it was held by the Pharisees in the days of Christ and was the cause of their self-righteousness. It is the basic motivation of millions of professing Christians today. The established standard of Christian behaviour: good works, church attendance and men and women go their ways confident that they have earned the Divine favour Elihu answers this deceptive point of view clearly and concisely: (35;6-7) “If you have sinned, what do you accomplish against Him, and if your transgressions are multiplied, what do you do to Him? If you are righteous, what do you give to Him ? and what does He receive from your hand? Your wickedness concerns a man like yourself, and your righteousness a son of man.”
As Elihu says in the final comment, human behaviour in all its various forms, directly or indirectly, affects our fellow men, but it is utter conceit to suppose that any form of human behaviour interferes with the Divine purpose, or places an obligation on the Eternal. This pride and conceit is no doubt responsible for the fact that God does not hear an empty cry, nor regards it—v. 13. So again, Elihu concludes with the blunt comment: “Job opens his mouth in empty talk, he multiplies words without knowledge.”
Elihu now speaks in defence of the greatness of God (Chapters 36-37). It is a review of the wonders of God’s work, (36-24) “Remember to extol his work on which men have sung. Behold He is great, and we know Him not; the number of His years is unsearchable.” As he speaks, clouds gather: (v. 29) “Can anyone understand the spreading of the clouds, the thunderings of His pavilion?” In chapter 37, he cries , “hearken to the thunder of His voice and the rumbling that comes from His mouth.” As the storm gathers, he concludes his talks with the majestic words; (v. 23) “The Almighty—we can not find Him; He is great in power and justice, and abundant righteousness He will not violate.” And, in the last words, there is a final thrust at Job—”He does not regard any who are wise in their own conceit.”
We do not know what effect Elihu’s comments have had on Job. There is silence. Undoubtedly, they played their part in the final collapse of his pride. If we carry out the allegory to its correct conclusion, we know that in the main. the prophets had little effect on the behaviour of the nation of Israel, yet their message will be remembered when at last they see the Christ and remember that they pierced Him. The Lord now speaks and it requires two of His speeches to effect the necessary change. If the Lord will, these will form the subject of the next article.
The Origin of the Organic World – Part One