Elihu's Words (II)

Elihu's Opening Address

"So these three men ceased answering Job, because he was righteous in his own eyes. Then the wrath of Elihu, the son of Barachel the Buzite, of the family of Ram, was aroused against Job; his wrath was aroused because he justified himself rather than God. Also against his three friends his wrath was aroused, because they had found no answer, and yet had condemned Job. Now because they were years older than he, Elihu had waited to speak to Job. When Elihu saw that there was no answer in the mouth of these three men, his wrath was aroused." (32: 1-5)

Job was not guilty of such sin as warranted his sufferings. His sufferings were not sent by God to punish him as an evildoer. Job had invited his wise senior friends to examine him, to discern the sin or sins that might be the cause of his sufferings. But, they could find no fault in him, at least no more than they could find in themselves or others who were less righteous than Job. Job could find no sin that could be identified as the specific sin that warranted his adversities. Nor could his friends. 

He was willing to confess any sin and actually did so. He was always concerned about forgiveness of sins. It is why he often sacrificed and prayed for his children as the prologue of the story tells us. He also said to God: "How many are my iniquities and sins? Make me know my transgression and my sin." (13: 23) Job knew he was a sinner, having a sinful nature, but he also knew that his sins were minor, not grievous departures from God's law. So, he was not affirming that he was sinless or perfect in every respect, and therefore in no need to confess sin. He was always on guard against it, searching his own heart and life as he called upon God to do. If God sees sin where Job sees none, he prays that God will show him his sin. That is a most holy and godly characteristic.

Previously he had spoken of the prosecutorial nature of his wise friend's cross examinations of him, how they sought to trip him up in his words, to get him to perjure himself, though he only sought their comfort. They put the microscope on Job's life, looking for any secret sin that they could point to as the specific cause of his ills. Job does not reject their search of his life, no more than he rejected God's search. But, he did get perturbed when they began to search him "with a fine tooth comb." Do they search their own hearts and lives for sin as they did Job's? 

There is not a holy man anywhere that does not have some secret sin, some immoral thoughts and imaginations, some sins of omission. Job never denied that he had a sinful nature, but affirmed that he was at war with it, and with sin and lawlessness. He knew that his sins did not justify the evils God had sent upon him, looking at it from the standpoint of what others, who were more wicked than he, and yet were not suffering as he. It was God's distributive justice that Job found difficulty comprehending. He could see that others were far more guilty than he and so he wonders why he is being singled out for such evils. What is wrong with him thinking this way? Is it not what anyone would naturally think? When evils come, do not most people think and say "why is this happening?" Or, "why is God allowing this to happen?" 

They found nothing in his conduct that warranted his sufferings. They could not find anything in his thoughts that would be sin, for they did not know them, though Job did. The holiest of men have evil thoughts at times, but they overcome them. They confess to God and seek his forgiveness. Job made this his habit as do all the children of God. Notice these words of Job addressed to God:

"Hast thou eyes of flesh? or seest thou as man seeth? Are thy days as the days of man? are thy years as man's days, That thou enquirest after mine iniquity, and searchest after my sin? Thou knowest that I am not wicked; and there is none that can deliver out of thine hand. Thine hands have made me and fashioned me together round about; yet thou dost destroy me." (10: 4-8)

Did Job speak the truth when he said to God "You know that I am not wicked"? Well, remember, Job spoke correctly of God. So, it is therefore true that God knew that Job was not wicked. So, why do many still want to say Job was wicked and got what he deserved? Is Job fearful of being searched by God? Yes, of course. He feared God, and that was said of him by God himself, before his trial, and was a credential worth much. Did he also fear his inquisitor friends? Yes, but not to the degree he feared God searching him. He does not challenge God's right to search him for hidden unconfessed sin. He rather, like the Psalmist, prays:

"Search me, O God, and know my heart: try me, and know my thoughts: And see if there be any wicked way in me, and lead me in the way everlasting." (Psa. 139: 23-24)

Did Elihu, or his three senior prosecutors, pray such a prayer? What if God had dealt with them in the way he dealt with Job? Would they have cursed God? If God sent the various evils upon Job as retribution for evil doing, what reason do they have to think they will not also suffer such things? Do they think they are more righteous than Job? This thought provoked a fearful and terrifying spirit in the seniors as their speeches reveal. In lieu of this paradox, they must either 1) confess that they also should be dealt with by God as Job (for they are not superior to him in righteous living) or 2) they should not be so treated because they judge themselves as the truly righteous, and are not hypocrites like Job. But, they never confess that they too should suffer Job's ills, yet their own theology demands it. Rather, they do what they accuse Job of doing, and that is to justify themselves. So, though they think they are justifying God by condemning Job, they are actually condemning themselves. They can give no reason why they should not also be dealt with by God as Job.

One thing we should keep in mind is that each of the five characters in the dialogues (excluding God) discuss Job's misfortunes in the light of their shared belief that God was in control of all things. His providence is what accounts for what happens to his creatures. That is a presupposed fact that they all accept and one which God himself approves of as well. None of them argue as an Atheist, Deist, or Agnostic. None of them see God as merely a spectator, whose will and purposes are not behind any events on earth. All of them believe that both punishments and rewards, both weal and woe, are distributed by divine providence. The justice of God in this distribution is what is the point in debate, a fact oftentimes not understood by commentators on Job.

The Silence Of The Witnesses

Elihu comments upon the silence of the three seniors, how they have no more to say, having rested their case and made their conclusion, and rendered their verdict. He is angry that the three preceding senior prosecutors have not proven their case, have not identified the great sin in Job that justified his sufferings. They have searched his life and could find no evidence of grave sin. Elihu, however, makes logical deductions based upon the silence of the three senior speakers that are not correct. 

He thinks that the problem is not because there is not a sin to be found in Job and shown to be the cause of Job's sufferings, but is rather because the three seniors had been poor prosecutors and inquisitors. He says all this to set himself up as senior, as a better prosecutor and "finder of fact." But, what is the real reason why the mouths of the three seniors have stopped speaking? 

It is not because they are not worthy fact finders and prosecutors, but rather because Job, as a man of God, spoke with "sound speech that cannot be condemned, that one who is an opponent may be ashamed, having nothing evil to say of you" (Titus 2: 8); And, because he was one "having a good conscience, that when they defame you as evildoers, those who revile your good conduct in Christ may be ashamed." (I Peter 3: 16). All four of Job's accusers are the ones who suffered shame in defeat, who ended their attempts with having nothing evil to justly say of Job. The reason is because Job was given “a mouth and wisdom which all your adversaries will not be able to contradict or resist." (Luke 21: 15) Though their verdict was that Job was deserving of his evils, it was an unfounded accusation. 

The prosecution failed because they had no solid evidence against Job and for their case. Elihu made an erroneous inference on what the ending of the speeches of his seniors signified. He thereby showed his inability to be a good interpreter, contrary to his claims. At least the three senior advisors finally held their peace willingly. But, Elihu does not seem to end his speaking by choice for he is cut off by the sudden appearance of God. What can we infer from Elihu's sudden end in speaking? 

The Wrath Of Elihu

What kind of wrath is found in Elihu? Righteous anger or "the wrath of man"? Of the latter James wrote:

"So then, my beloved brethren, let every man be swift to hear, slow to speak, slow to wrath; for the wrath of man does not produce the righteousness of God." (James 1: 19-20)

Whatever Elihu said in his lengthy diatribe was all said in wrath. Why be filled with wrath against Job's three senior friends, and against Job himself? Where is the sympathy, the empathy, the sincere concern? It is evident that the author of Job wants us to see Elihu as an angry young man. It is repeated several times that Elihu is full of wrath. The particular noun for “wrath” (used twice in this one verse) is spelled “aph” in Hebrew. It’s the word for “nostril.” And it apparently implies anger that is so vehement that one “snorts” as he rants and raves, being that out of control. The Hebrew verb for “kindled” means “set on fire, hot, incensed,” just plain “furious!”

Does the author want us to see this as a positive or a negative? As "righteous indignation" or "the wrath of man"? This is very important for considering which side is right about the character of Elihu, about whether he be friend or foe, God's spokesman or Satan's. If his wrath is unrighteous, then we must consider these verses about such angry men.

"Make no friendship with an angry man, And with a furious man do not go, Lest you learn his ways And set a snare for your soul." (Prov. 22: 24-25)

So, who are these characters? How can we identify them? What are the fruits of an angry disposition? What are "the ways" of such "furious" people? Do we see any of these fruits in Elihu? Such people certainly are not "peaceable" and "gentle." They are rather critical, arrogant, disrespectful, and producers of strife and contention. As a "soft answer turns away wrath," a hard answer provokes it. (Prov. 15: 1) 

"Refrain from anger, and forsake wrath! Fret not yourself; it tends only to evil." (Psa. 37: 8)

If Elihu had such unrighteous anger, what are the fruits of it? "It tends only to evil." Were Elihu the truly wise man that he claimed to be, he would have waited to speak till he had calmed himself.

"Whoever is slow to anger has great understanding, but he who has a hasty temper exalts folly." (Prov. 14: 29)

The anger of Elihu is the kind described in these words and so was not wise as he thought. His wrath proves it. Wise men defer anger (Prov. 19: 11), said Solomon. Wise men rule their spirits and are slow to anger (Prov. 14: 29) he also said. He said "A hot-tempered man stirs up strife, but he who is slow to anger quiets contention." (Prov. 15: 18) He also said "Be not quick in your spirit to become angry, for anger lodges in the heart of fools." (Eccl. 7: 9)

Elihu will talk about his "spirit," about how it is inspired and speaks for God, but ironically it is an angry spirit. The truth is to be "spoken in love" (Eph. 4: 15). It is "in meekness of wisdom" that wise men "instruct those who oppose (contradict) themselves." (II Tim. 2: 25) Elihu, however, shows little meekness, and speaks in wrath and hate rather than in love. He did not know what it means to "give place to wrath." (Rom. 12: 19)

The only one to become intensely angry was Elihu. Job's three friends seemed to have kept their cool, as did Job. If Elihu was righteous in being angry, then Job and his senior friends were wrong for not being angry.

For Elihu to be angry with the three senior speakers in their failure to condemn Job by evidence shows that he, like them, had no desire to justify Job. Their whole focus is to condemn him, for in their minds, they think that they must condemn him in order to justify God in his providential governance of his creatures, and in his treatment of his servants, in his distribution of rewards and punishments. Why do they not just confess inability to solve the paradox? Why do they not simply say, "God is just, and Job is righteous, though we cannot see how it can be?" Why do they all not simply say that they have no answer, no solution? Why do they not all seek the answer by prayer and petition to the God they are discussing?  

Further, why is it Elihu's anger the focus of his opening words? Why is there no mention of sympathy, compassion, empathy, love, etc.? Do not good neighbors and friends "Rejoice with those who rejoice, weep with those who weep"? (Rom. 12: 14) The apostle Peter admonished all to "have unity of mind, sympathy, brotherly love, a tender heart, and a humble mind." (I Peter 3: 8) Elihu's angry hostile spirit did not exemplify this kind of spirit.

Said one writer on Elihu (here):

"This majority view believes Elihu to be an arrogant young man who speaks hastily and harshly about things that he is largely unaware of. The reasons for this view are as follows. First, Elihu overestimates his own importance and does truly show himself to be an arrogant young man. Second, while anger isn’t a sin Elihu has sinfully given too much room to his anger and vents it in the direction of these men. Third, Elihu doesn’t contribute anything new to the ongoing conversation between Job and his friends but merely restates what has already been said after rebuking Job and his friends. Like Job’s miserable comforters Elihu also does say some true things but applies them wrongly and draws the wrong conclusions. Fourth, Elihu’s chapters do build suspense within the book of Job but only do so by delaying the judgment of God at the end. Fifth, the reason Elihu is ignored by everyone at the end of the book is because he does prove himself to be something of an irrelevant intruder into an already lengthy conversation. This view is probably the majority view within the Church. You’ll find it in most commentaries, the ESV Study Bible, and the Gospel Transformation Study Bible."

I believe this picture of Elihu is spot on. In the next post we will look further into the opening words of Elihu the young hothead.

Elihu's Words

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

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

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

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

Said one writer on Elihu (here):

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

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

The same writer said:

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

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

The same writer said:

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

A rebuke of Job for being right in his own eyes 

Pride 

The majesty of God 

The purposes of God in affliction."

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What Counsel Do You Give To Sinners?

What do Hardshell Baptists say to sinners? To those who are lost and in sin? Think of Hardshell parents. Many of them have children who are lost and become lawless because of their depravity. I know that they believe that they should 1) teach their children the bible, and 2) pray with their children, and 3) take their children to church. But how can they believe this consistently? If their children are dead in trespasses and sins and cannot know anything about God, then why do the above things? Does doing so not contradict their theology (or soteriology)?

What do Hardshell Baptist pastors say to those unregenerate souls who come to them for counsel about family problems, depression, worries and fears, etc.?

Some have embraced noethetic counseling, which is counseling based upon the bible. But, again, if that is true, then what counsel can the Hardshells give to an unregenerate sinner who is in love with his sin? Seeing they believe that the lost sinner cannot know any spiritual truth, do they only teach them the law? But, wait, "the law is spiritual" (Rom. 7: 14). So, they cannot teach the law to their lost children either, because "the natural man receives not spiritual things." (I Cor. 2: 14) So, why even teach the bible, a spiritual thing, to their children? Why counsel sinners from the word of God?

This is a gross inconsistency between belief and practice. Based upon their practice, they show that they believe that the bible, be it law or gospel, is a means to effect change in lost people; But, this contradicts their creed that says it is foolishness to teach spiritual things to natural men. 

If I counsel with sinners in the noethetic way, from the bible, I want to first ascertain if the one needing counsel is saved or not. That will make a difference in the type of counsel given. If the person is saved, the counsel will begin upon that foundation. If the person is unsaved, the counsel will begin with discussions about sin, depravity, God, salvation, and the coming judgment of God. But, how can Hardshells counsel the lost about his being saved? Ponder deeply that question my Hardshell brothers!

What think ye?

Thoughts On Elihu

(click the picture to enlarge)

Many think that Elihu was a prophet, rather than Job. I vehemently deny it. Job was a prophet of God, a fact I have already proven. Many believe that Elihu was the one who spoke most correctly about God, about the character of Job, and about the reason for Job's sufferings. In doing this they make a bad character (Elihu) into a good character and make a good character (Job) into an evil character. In this short series of postings we will look at the words of Elihu, which take up chapters 32-37, the end dialogue portion of the narrative. 

In an eye-catching title, "Eli-Who? The mysterious man in The Book of Job" (here), we have some interesting observations given on Elihu's character and thinking, and are well worth citing as an introduction to this study of Elihu's words and character. Said the author (emphasis mine): 

"Elihu rejects the notion that God Himself would turn up to address Job personally (Job 32:12-14, 34:21-23, 35:9-15, 37:19-24). Elihu’s picture of God is mighty, righteous, just and holy, but He is also completely inaccessible. Like how the clouds are so high above us (Job 35:5) and how you can’t look directly at the sun (Job 37:21), Elihu is confident that Job’s request for a one on one audience with God is arrogant and in vain."

Since Elihu affirmed that God was unapproachable, and would not so lower himself so as to converse with finite creatures, would not answer Job's call for God to speak and settle the matter, God's actual showing up in the whirlwind refuted and rebuked the foolish contentions of Elihu. By showing up in the whirlwind God refuted, ironically, one of the foundational principles of Elihu's theology and unfounded assertions. The clouds were not as high as Elihu thought. They were beholding God in the courtroom and thus looking into the sun.

Job's plea to be given an answer from God as to why he has brought his evils upon him is not arrogant and not in vain. No more is it so when all the people of God think and pray the same thing. Do they not all seek answers from God? Do they not make plea for him to speak to them? What is wrong with wanting to see and converse with God their Father? What is wrong with asking him the reason why? Is that not what children do?

The author above well describes the views and character of Elihu and it is clear that what Elihu said was not right. He too, like the elder three, was a "physician of no value" and a "forger of lies." 

The same writer says:

"Job’s final defence in Chapter 31 was like his affidavit of innocence. Within this courtroom-like scene, Elihu presents himself, in the absence of God, as the impartial judge to answer Job’s claims (Job 32:17-22). Elihu states he will teach them wisdom (Job 33:31-33) and speak on God’s behalf (Job 36:2). And judge he does! He judges Job’s friends for not being able to prove Job wrong (Job 32:12) and he judges Job for not speaking rightly about himself or God (Job 33:12)."

Though I will speak more on the words of Elihu in postings to follow this introduction, yet I do wish to observe that the analysis above is correct. I also wish to observe how Elihu, as respects arrogance and pride, shows that he is the guilty one, not Job. It certainly is pride to begin a discourse by saying "I speak for God," or "I judge in the stead of God." Further, he thinks that such a declaration ought not to be challenged, although he offers no proof for his claims of inspiration. 

In such comments he appeals to Job and the three elder friends to accept what he says because of his supposed credibility (ethos). In other words "you should believe me because I can be trusted to speak the truth." But, he assumes that fact, and in any court such argumentation would be of no weight. Elihu gives no reason why he should be believed and asks all to accept what he says as true because he is not one to speak falsehood. But, that is no argument at all, being not a fact in evidence. Courts are concerned with facts, with truth and reality, and since there is no evidence to prove that Elihu is always right, then his appeal to that supposed fact is of no weight. 

The one thing that Elihu was right about was his judgment that the three friends of Job had not been able to prove that Job's sufferings were a direct result of his apostasy from God. But, he thinks he can do what those three senior men could not do. He will be a superior prosecutor of Job. Is that not arrogant presumption? Does it not show that he has a high opinion of himself? 

The same writer says:

"The question remains, is Elihu right? Is Elihu’s role to just be another incorrect voice of folly in this great debate, or does he actually speak words of truth on God’s behalf? As we listen to Elihu’s speech, we will find both are actually the case. Elihu says many true things about God, but he wrongly dismisses Job’s claims of blamelessness and wrongly assesses God’s purpose behind Job’s suffering (Job 33:19-30, 34:34:11, 36:6-12)."

Is Elihu right? No, he is wrong. Does that mean he said nothing right? No. Every con man knows how to mix the truth with error. So does every counterfeiter. So does Satan. Elihu misapplied what truth he stated. Elihu also made illogical deductions from the facts. He also was guilty, like the three elder friends, of misrepresenting what Job said, often adding to his words or taking him out of context. 

Elihu was another "incorrect voice" and he spoke for the Satan, not for God. There was much folly in his words as in the words of the three elder friends. He is guilty of "condemning the righteous" just like the three seniors who preceded him, in condemning righteous Job. This is sin, as much so as "justifying the wicked." (Prov. 17: 15) 

The same writer says:

"Ultimately it seems Elihu’s role in The Book of Job, with both his correct and false words of judgement, is to prepare Job (and us) for the coming words of the true Judge. By the end of Elihu’s six chapter speech, Job is left with absolutely no hope of meeting with God face to face. As Elihu states in his conclusion, “The Almighty is beyond our reach” (Job 37:23). It is at that point in the story, with all hope gone, that God turns up."

"At that point" God appears on the scene! When Elihu rambled on in nonsense, saying things that were not fitting or correct, and says "The Almighty is beyond our reach," then boom! God shows up, cuts off the rambling of Elihu, takes him away by his whirlwind presence. If Elihu is so full of the Spirit and inspiration, spewing out oracles, saying the most wonderful things, then why would God suddenly cut him off? 

In an article titled "Why Elihu is So Mysterious" Peter Krol (here) also wrote (emphasis mine) some observations worth considering:

"At a recent pastor’s conference on the book of Job, a leader asked the attendees whether the speeches of Elihu (Job 32-37) should be trusted, like God’s (Job 38-41), or discarded, like those of Job’s three friends (Job 4-5, 8, 11, 15, 18, 20, 22, 25). The show of hands was evenly divided. I couldn’t believe my eyes; every attendee was fully committed to studying and explaining God’s word carefully, and yet there was a widespread and fundamental disagreement on how to read a significant part of the book of Job."

Is that not very interesting? Why is there such confusion about understanding the Book of Job? For understanding the arguments of Elihu and the others? Who is right about Elihu? How can we decide the matter? Well, for one, no one who does not spend the time reading and contemplating the Book of Job, the speeches of the three elder friends of Job, his colleagues and closest associates, and that of Job, Elihu, and of God himself, will never know the answer. Perhaps many Christians are not even interested in the Book of Job and in what any of the speakers in the Book said. Well, that is sad indeed. It is the oldest Book of the Bible and is full of talk about the most important subject, the subject of God's works, his providence, on the problem of evil (theodicy). It is no wonder that it is a must read for anyone studying ancient literature.

I believe that Elihu's words demonstrate how incorrect he was in his theology and in his judgment of Job. When we look at his words, in future posts, we will see this to be true.

Said Krol:

"He pops on the scene out of nowhere: “Then Elihu the son of Barachel the Buzite, of the family of Ram, burned with anger” (Job 32:2). He speaks a few times and then vanishes. God clearly vindicates Job and condemns Eliphaz, Bildad, and Zophar (Job 42:7-8), but he says nothing about Elihu."

"He speaks a few times and then vanishes." And, what are we to make of that fact? I have already observed how Dr. Piper and others make invalid arguments on why Elihu is not mentioned by God in the prologue, either condemnatory or justifyingly (commendatory). What arguments can be deduced from the fact that Elihu seems to vanish? I have already given my interpretation (he was taken away in the whirlwind, God being angry at the anger of Elihu). 

Said Krol:

"In addition, we’re clearly told that Elihu is young (Job 32:4, 6), raving mad (Job 32:2, 3, 5 – four times!), and full of criticism for Job (Job 33:12, 34:7-8, 34:35-37, etc.). Yet God clearly claims that Job has “spoken of me what is right” (Job 42:7-8). What’s all the fuss? This case should be closed."

Elihu is no model of a "servant" of God as was Job. He shows he cannot "keep his cool," how he is governed by emotion, with little self control. We might say he was "hot headed." He speaks, as we will see, in disjointed sentences, with little logical reasoning. He certainly speaks presumptuously, assuming many things which have not been proven or established as true. He speaks of things not applicable to the case at hand, throwing out "red herrings" and "ad hominem" and personal attacks as a Sophist. He rambles, rants, speaking in a confused and inconsequential way. 

From the length of his speeches (exceeding by far that of the three elder speakers) one can conclude that he likes to hear himself talk. From the language he uses one can also conclude that he thinks highly of himself, that he is self confident, and though younger and less experienced, puts himself forth as the senior in wisdom and knowledge. But, he also shows other traits of Sophists and men who only want to win an argument so as to promote themselves. He pretends to be humble, having what is called a "false show of humility" (Col. 2: 18). He does not flatter Job or his seniors, no, he reserves all flattery to be directed to himself. In fact, he shows his egotism and narcissism in how many times he uses the word "I." 

The same author has a sub heading titled "Why Elihu is Just Like the Other" and says "Here is the main challenge": 

Elihu draws the same conclusion as Eliphaz, Bildad, and Zophar. 

That’s why many interpreters think Elihu is just like them. 

 Eliphaz: “Job has sinned” (Job 4:7, 15:4-6, 22:5). 

 Bildad: “Job has sinned” (Job 8:5-6, 18:4). 

 Zophar: “Job has sinned” (Job 11:6, 20:29). 

 Elihu: “Job has sinned” (Job 34:7, 37; 35:16). 

"Of course, the reader knows Job has not sinned: “There is none like [Job] on the earth, a blameless and upright man, who fears God and turns away from evil” (Job 1:8, 2:3). But Elihu charges him with sin, just as the other three do. What’s all the fuss? This case should be closed."

I like how this author says more than once "what's all the fuss? This case should be closed." It is true. The testimony of God himself is that Job alone has spoken correctly.

In the next several postings we will analyze the words of Elihu and add to our remarks about this mysterious character. 

Piper On Job (II)

In another article, "Job: Rebuked in Suffering" (here), under the sub heading "Five Reasons We Should Accept Elihu's Counsel," Dr. Piper said: 

"Let's begin our survey of Elihu's theology by asking why we should accept it. Many interpreters understand Elihu as no better than Eliphaz, Bildad, or Zophar. For example, I gathered from one commentator's 40 pages on Elihu's speeches the following labels: Elihu is cruel, cold, detached, crass, trite, perfectionist, vain, etc. (Francis Anderson, TOTC)."

Those commentators who see Elihu as "cruel, cold, detached, crass, trite, perfectionist, vain, etc." are the ones who got it right on the character of Elihu. We could also add some other similar adjectives to the young firebrand, such as brash, cocky or cock-sure, self asserting, egotist, full of himself, flamboyant, etc. One must pause and wonder how commentators on the Book of Job can appraise Elihu in two far different ways!

Further, Elihu is in fact "no better than Eliphaz, Bildad, and Zophar." Not only so, but we can say that he is worse than the three. He showed his youthful lack of wisdom. 

Piper said:

"I admit that there are some things in Elihu's speeches very hard to understand. And it is true that when you read his speeches, you hear some of the same things the three friends said (they were not totally wrong!). And it is true he is tough with Job, perhaps too tough sometimes."

Well, if Elihu was difficult to understand, why is that? Could it be because his words are mostly rambling? Is it not because he talks about things that are not pertinent to the matter of Job's sufferings? Yes, Elihu spoke of things that were "not totally true." But, if this is so, then why does Piper uphold Elihu as one who spoke most correctly? What part of Elihu's speeches were false and which were right? Do we need Dr. Piper to tell us? Piper also says that Elihu was probably too tough on Job sometimes. Well, I agree, but how does such a fact agree with Piper's high appraisal of Elihu? 

Piper said:

"But there are at least five reasons why I take the words of Elihu to represent the truth as our inspired writer saw it. In other words, I think Elihu gives the first step in solving Job's problem, and that God then speaks in chapters 38–41 and gives the final conclusive word."

I will not mention all five reasons because several have no merit at all. The reader can go to the web page (link above) and read them for himself. But, I will deal with a couple of his "reasons." 

Piper said:

"Job does not try to argue with Elihu."

And, what are we to infer from this fact? What Piper infers? No. Said Piper: 

"He had been successful in silencing Eliphaz, Bildad, and Zophar, but he does not say one word against Elihu even though Elihu challenged him in 33:32, "If you have anything to say, answer me." The easiest explanation for this silence is that Job agreed with him. In fact, in 42:6 Job does repent for some of the things he said, which shows that Elihu's rebukes are not all wide of the mark."

No, that is not "the easiest explanation." Perhaps it is because God "cuts off" Elihu by instantly appearing in the whirlwind. Perhaps this same whirlwind took the younger "smart aleck" away from the courtroom! We could say that God, the Judge, the one called to testify, "cleared" the courtroom of Elihu's presence. Notice what Solomon said about this:

"When the whirlwind passes by, the wicked is no more, But the righteous has an everlasting foundation." (Prov. 10: 25)

There are many other verses that speak of God coming as a whirlwind and blowing away the wicked. Why can we not assume that the appearance of the whirlwind took away Elihu from the courtroom so that he was "no more"? The ending narrative seems to indicate that he is either not present or ignored. The language also indicates it. The Lord tells Job's three friends to

"...go to my servant Job, and offer up for yourselves a burnt offering; and my servant Job shall pray for you: for him will I accept: lest I deal with you after your folly, in that ye have not spoken of me the thing which is right, like my servant Job." (Job 42: 8)

The divine threat "lest I deal with you after your folly" (give you what you deserve based upon your theology and theodicy) may well imply that God did in fact do so in the case of Elihu. He dealt with Elihu after his folly. 

No, Dr. Piper, Job did not agree with Elihu any more than he did with his three elder friends. Did he agree with Elihu when he charged Job with being a wicked man? No. Also, Elihu's words were in fact "wide of the mark." Again, it is bewildering how theologians can differ so dramatically on their appraisal of Elihu's character and words (as well as that of Job). The fact is, in the speeches of all four men, there are some things they say that are true. But, there is much more error, much more false reasoning, jumping to conclusions, hasty generalizations, etc., than truth sayings.

Again, the "repenting" of Job was not repenting of sin, nor repenting of having taught heresy. That Hebrew word is used of God repenting. It denotes a change of mind and purpose. The text where this is stated shows what is meant. After his repentance he rises from the ashes, washes himself, and begins life all over again. He had purposed to sit in dust and ashes despising and bemoaning himself, and gave up on living. When God finished speaking to Job he then repented, changed his mind about sitting in ashes, about drowning in self pity. He at first coveted the ash heap, but he repented, changed his mind, and so rose up from the ashes, rose up with faith and hope.

Piper said:

"But God does not rebuke Elihu. Why not? Probably because Elihu's words are not in the same class with the words of those three." 

Why not? Must it be for the reason Piper suggests? Can there not be another reason? Could it be because God has taken him away by the whirlwind? Or, for perhaps some other reason? Could it be that Job judged Elihu as not worth the effort? That he was so far off base and set in his thinking that justified not wasting time replying to his rantings? One thing is for sure, it is not for the reason Piper suggests. Piper has already admitted that Elihu spoke some things that were not correct. He has also said that Elihu has repeated the arguments of the three elder friends. Well, Job has already responded to those speeches, so, if Elihu is merely repeating their arguments, why does Job need to repeat himself in retort? Further, the words of Elihu are in fact "in the same class" as the words of the three elder advisors, and of their words God testifies that they are not theologically correct.

Piper said:

"Elihu's words are true and prepare the way for the final, decisive words of God. (He claims to be guided by the Spirit of God—32:8.)"

But, how can he say that "Elihu's words are true" when he has already said that Elihu said some things that were not right? Also, I agree that the "final decisive words" in the narrative are those which God himself speaks. But, God says that Job was the one who correctly represented his thinking. And, though Elihu "claims" to speak by the Spirit of God, he does not do so. The one who spoke by the Spirit was Job, the prophet, the holy man who "spoke as moved by the Spirit." Many false prophets and teachers claim to speak by the Spirit of God.

Under the sub heading "Elihu's Rebuke of Job" Piper said: 

"Elihu thinks that Job has been wrong in some of what he has said—indeed, he sees pride and arrogance in Job's attitude (see 33:17; 35:12; 36:9). In 33:8–12 he puts his finger on Job's error: 

Surely, you have spoken in my hearing, and I have heard the sound of your words. You say, "I am clean, without transgression; I am pure, and there is no iniquity in me. Behold [God] finds occasions against me, he counts me as his enemy; he puts my feet in the stocks, and watches all my paths." Behold in this you are not right.

Job is wrong to claim innocence at the expense of God's grace. We know that Elihu is right about this because in 42:6 Job does in fact repent: "I despise myself and repent in dust and ashes." His suffering had driven him to say things about himself that were overly optimistic and things about God that were disrespectful. Even though Job was a righteous man, he was not a sinlessly perfect man. There was a sediment of pride that began to cloud the purity of his life when it was stirred up by suffering."

Job did not show "pride and arrogance" in his "attitude"! Job was rather humble! Let Piper suffer the evils that Job suffered and let us see how he reacts. Let those commentators who chastise Job for his reactions to his many evils go through what Job went through and see if they remain humble, without any murmuring or complaining! 

Further, what is wrong with arrogance at times? Surely we can agree that Job was not arrogant towards the Lord? He may be thought of as being arrogant at times in his retorts to his adversaries. Perhaps he was even sarcastic at times, but so too is God and many of the bible writers too. 

So, what about Job's humility? Was he the proud one that Piper and others say he was? I deny that Job is a picture of a proud man! Job was a humble man. I just do not see how anyone can legitimately say this about Job. Was it not a very humbling thing to sit in dust and ashes? But, concerning Job's humility, I will write about in a separate posting.

Under the sub heading "Not to Punish but to Save" Piper said:

"So Elihu puts the pain of sickness and visions of the night side by side as two ways that God speaks to man for his good. Verse 17 describes God's purpose: "That he may turn man aside from his deed, and cut off pride from man, and keep back his soul from the Pit." 

God speaks to us by "visions of the night"? That God has done so in special cases, with prophets and divinely appointed men, is not doubted. But, this is not the way he normally communicates with his people. God speaks to us through sickness? Really? Then let us pray God to be sick! That does not deny that God is able to teach us things about him and ourselves through hardships and adversities. If Elihu's thesis (Piper's too) is true (that the sufferings of Job are sent to save him), then may God send us many sufferings! But, the thesis (premise) is false, for we know the reason for Job's sufferings. It was not to punish him for sin. It was not to make him foremost a better man (though that no doubt happened) but to test Job, to demonstrate to Satan and all observers that God's testimony concerning his servant was in fact correct, and that Satan was a liar and slanderer. 

Piper said:

"In other words God's purpose for the righteous in these dreams and in this sickness is not to punish but to save—to save from contemplated evil deeds and from pride and ultimately from death. Elihu does not picture God as an angry judge but as a Redeemer, a Savior, a Rescuer, a Doctor. The pain he causes is like the surgeon's knife, not like the executioner's whip."

So, all Job's sufferings, all his losses (ours too), were means of salvation? Then, again, I say, we all should pray for such sufferings. Yes, we can benefit from sickness and trial. Said the Psalmist "it is good for me to have been afflicted that I might learn your statutes." (Psa. 119: 71) All God's people suffer under their heavenly Father's "rod of correction." They know the record which says "who the Lord loves he corrects." (Prov. 3: 12; Heb. 12: 6) But, we must keep in mind that Job's sufferings are not normal. If God were simply intending correction and discipline for Job then why so much suffering? After all, as the record shows, God himself says that Job was his servant living a godly life.

Piper said:

"God himself called Job a righteous man in 1:1, and Job won his argument on the basis of his reputation as a righteous man. And yet at the end of the book Job repents and despises himself. So Job is righteous (by the testimony of God!) even though he has sin remaining in him. He is not among the wicked."

One can surely see the dissonance in the mind of Dr. Piper as he wrote the above words. He wants to affirm that Job is superbly righteous (God's own testimony) but yet wants to keep referring to his sin. But, if God is punishing Job because he has remaining sin in him, then so we should expect to be dealt with in the same way. But, God never mentions Job's sins. It is only commentators like Piper who mentions Job's sins, Job's self righteousness, Job's arrogant pride, etc.

To show how another sees Elihu in a different light than Dr. Piper, I will cite from an author at Ligonier ministries (here). He writes (emphasis mine):

"Elihu first appears on the scene in Job 32. We learn that he was a younger contemporary of Job and his friends, and that he had been standing by silently as the older men argued about divine justice (v. 4). At first, it seems that Elihu might have been humble and willing to defer to his elders, for he did not speak right away but let them go first (vv. 4–6). However, by the end of his speeches to Job he was revealed to be quite the arrogant young man."

"Though he listened to the dialogues between Job and his friends, Elihu never actually heard what they were saying. All he could finally offer was the same tired, old argument that Job suffered greatly because of some specific sin (36:5–12). In this, commentators argue, Elihu represents the arrogance of youth, the view that the rising generations somehow possess greater insight than their forefathers. He is the unteachable person, the one who thinks he has all the answers (36:4). Yet as he could offer no other counsel than what had been given, his arrogant claim was falsified. Let us not think that we always know better than those who came before us, for we may just be repeating their mistakes."

I agree with this one hundred percent.

In the next several postings I want to write upon:

1) Job a type of Christ

2) Job's humility and patience

3) Job's Speeches/Theology

4) Elihu's Character

5) God's Oration To Job

Piper On Job

In the previous posting "Defending Job," I mentioned how many commentators teach that Job suffered his evils because he had sinned, the thing Satan and Job's friends also affirmed. I mentioned Dr. Piper as being one of those who do so. In this follow up posting I want to cite some of the things Dr. Piper said about Job and about Elihu, the fourth counselor to Job, and the youngest.

Said Dr. Piper under the heading "Job's Wavering Faith and Complaints to God" (here - emphasis mine): 

"At first Job bore these calamities with amazing submission: "The Lord gave and the Lord has taken away, blessed be the name of the Lord. . .Shall we receive good at the hand of the Lord, and shall we not receive evil?" But as the misery drug out over the months, Job wavered in his confidence that God was for him. In defending himself against the bad theology of Eliphaz, Bildad, and Zophar, he said things about God that were not true. He began to insist on his own righteousness at the expense of God's justice."

That is a total misinterpretation of the story of Job! It is unbecoming such a good interpreter as Dr. Piper. He says that Job "at first" was righteous, without fault, bearing his "calamities with amazing submission." But, he says that Job did not continue in such a blessed condition for his sufferings "got the best of him," and so he succumbed, and then began to sin by saying "things about God that were not true" and to "insist on his own righteousness at the expense of God's justice." 

What contradiction! What a misinterpretation of the story of Job! God says that all Job said about him was right, and yet Piper says that God is wrong, that Job said many things that were not right! (Job 42: 7-8) 

I deny that Job said anything about God that was wrong! Job was a prophet and spoke the truth. Well might we say of other prophets that they also said things that were not right! 

Did Job insist on his own righteousness? Well, yes and no. No, in the sense of salvation or justification from the guilt of sin. This is clear in Job's confessions. He always trusted in the righteousness of his Redeemer, in the Messiah, to which he bore testimony. Yes, however, in the sense that he knew that he was not guilty of such sin as warranted his extreme sufferings. 

Job knew that he lived righteously, and he knew that his evils were not a result of sin. This is not to say that Job thought that he never sinned, but he was not guilty of any grave sin. Job was a righteous man, as Noah, Enoch, and the other prophets of God. Job no doubt observed that other sinners were far more unrighteous and law breaking than he and yet they did not receive from God the same evils as he. God's distributive justice was at stake. If Job suffered his many evils because he was not living righteously, then each of us should expect far more evils than Job suffered because he far outdoes us in regard to righteous living. Why should God punish Job to such a degree, and not us? But, more on this shortly.

Job did not understand why God had brought the evils of his sufferings upon him. He could see no sin in his life that warranted it, for others lived ungodly and yet did not suffer as he. He did not know why God was doing what he was doing, in regard to his sufferings, and yet, he trusted God to have his good reasons even though he could not discern the reason. 

He knew as well as did the younger Elihu that God "does not give account of any of his matters." (Job 33: 13) It was an insult to Job the elder for Elihu the younger to think that righteous Job did not understand this fact. The fact is, in respect to Job's case, no one had the right answer in each of their own attempts to "give account" for the "matter" of why God had allowed Job to suffer such great evils. At the end of the story of Job God does give an account of the matter of Job's sufferings and his accounting does not indict Job, nor charge that he had committed a crime that justified God in sending such evils. 

The reason, as the narrative shows, was in order to prove the Devil wrong about Job. But, if Job, midway in his sufferings, begins to speak against God (which is sin or blasphemy), and to say things that were not correct, then such an explanation (accounting) is counter to what God's own testimony was on the "matter." Piper's view gives credibility to the Devil who predicted that Job would fall. But, Satan was wrong and so is Piper. Job did not charge God foolishly, did not say that God was unjust, did not say that God had no right to do with him as seems good to him.

Was the view of Piper correct, then God would have said of Job, at the end of the story - "Job spoke correctly of me and acted righteously at the start of his sufferings but later he did not do so." But, God did not say that, but rather said that Job spoke correctly of him with no exceptions. Further, God did not say of the three friends (who gave bad counsel) - "they have not spoken of me correctly as my servant Elihu has," which is what Piper believes, affirming that Elihu corrected Job. No, the record is "as my servant Job has." Job spoke for God but the other four did not.

Job shows himself the better man by his affirming that he did not know why God had allowed his evils, though he knew it was not because of any heinous sin against the law of the Lord. Job expressed this when he said "though he slay me yet will I trust him." (Job 13: 15) He also knew that God was testing him. He said: "But He knows the way that I take; When He has tested me, I shall come forth as gold." (Job 23: 10) He knew that God was testing him. He did not know why God was testing him. That revelation would come to him later by God's appearing to him. Did Job think that he would not pass the test? Did he fail the test as Piper and others affirm? Absolutely not! 

The patience, the perseverance, of Job, the servant of God, is held up by James as noteworthy (James 5: 11) But, if he backslid, as Piper affirms, then he did not persevere and endure, did not pass the test. But, the scriptures declare that he passed the test "with flying colors."

Job said:

"All the while my breath is in me, and the spirit of God is in my nostrils; My lips shall not speak wickedness, nor my tongue utter deceit. God forbid that I should justify you: till I die I will not remove mine integrity from me. My righteousness I hold fast, and will not let it go: my heart shall not reproach me so long as I live." (Job 27: 3-6)

This is not self righteousness! Suppose I stand before a judge, being accused of a crime, and I say "I am not guilty, I am righteous," do I mean that I have no sin? No, it means I am not guilty of the particular crime, not that I am perfect and without fault. In such a case we too would hold fast to our innocence, to our law abiding status. Job knew that he was righteous because he was righteous. Job is affirming that he is not guilty of any sin that makes his evils just, distributively speaking. He knew that others who lived lawlessly were not suffering such evils. By this fact alone Job knew that his sufferings were not because of transgression but because God was testing him. If what Job says in the above cited words are all incorrect, then why does God say at the end that Job only spoke what was correct? Further, Job did not act unrighteously at any time during his ordeal. Notice what he says:

"Because I delivered the poor that cried, and the fatherless, and him that had none to help him. The blessing of him that was ready to perish came upon me: and I caused the widow's heart to sing for joy. I put on righteousness, and it clothed me: my judgment was as a robe and a diadem. I was eyes to the blind, and feet was I to the lame. I was a father to the poor: and the cause which I knew not I searched out. And I brake the jaws of the wicked, and plucked the spoil out of his teeth." (29: 12-17)

Job says that his life demonstrates and proves that he is righteous in his conduct. He even invites his inquisitor friends to point out the sin in his life. He is willing to confess and turn from any sin. But, he does not see any sin that would warrant God to do to him as he has done. Do the counselors of Job present any evidence of immorality in Job? No. On these words Dr. John Gill wrote the following in his commentary:

"I put on righteousness, and it clothed me - Not the righteousness of his living Redeemer, the robe of righteousness and garment of salvation he had from him; though he had put on that by faith, and it was his clothing in the sight of God, which covered his person, and covered all his sins from the avenging eye of divine justice; and in which he was presented before God unblamable and irreprovable in his sight, and with which he was adorned and beautified, being made perfectly comely through it, and completely justified by it; but legal righteousness in the administration of his office as a magistrate; he put it on, that is, he exercised it, and he exercised it constantly from morning to night, and day after day; as a man puts on his clothes in a morning, and keeps them on all the day, and which he is always repeating; and it was as visible in him, and to be seen and observed by all, as the clothes on his back; and it covered him all over as a garment does; no blemish was to be seen in him, or blame to be cast upon him, throughout the whole course of his administration; and this was a fence unto him against all calumny and reproach, as garments are against the inclemency of the weather; see (1 Samuel 12:3-5); so a godly conversation in the exercise of graces and virtues, and in the performance of duties both to God and man, is sometimes expressed by a putting them on, as garments are put on; see (Ephesians 4:24; (Colossians 3:10; Colossians 3:12; Colossians 3:14); and these are an outward clothing to appear in before men, and should be shown forth with meekness and wisdom, so as to be beheld by men; and should be continually exercised and constantly performed; and then they are a covering with respect to men, and they appear harmless, blameless, and without rebuke, in the midst of a crooked and perverse generation; and thus, by well doing, put to silence the ignorance of foolish men, and such to the blush, those who falsely accuse their good conversation: and this in every sense was Job's case."

There was no unrighteousness in Job. He was perfect. Nothing he did merited the sufferings he endured. Let Piper and those who denounce Job's moral integrity point out his sins. He can say that Job spoke wrongly about God, but where? He can say that Job spoke against God, but where? He can say that Job did not hold on his way, but where? He can say that Job acted unrighteously, but where? I affirm that there is no text in Job that says such things. God has nothing but good to say of Job.

Piper said:

"For example, in 13:23–24 he said, "Make me know my transgression and my sin. Why dost thou hide thy face, and count me as thy enemy?" Job could only think that God was ignoring his faithfulness and treating him as an enemy."

No, Job thought no such thing! To read that into the words is bewildering. Further, the words of Job are not addressed to God but to his three friends and their bad counsel. No, Job was asking his friends to tell him what his great sin is which they think has brought on his calamities. Do they present the evidence of his immorality? No. Further, since the words are addressed to the friends, and not to God, it may be said that Job thought that they were ignoring him, ignoring his faithfulness and righteous living (a fact they could not dispute), and that they, his supposed friends, were treating him as an enemy. He is not saying that God is treating him as an enemy, although in some respects that is true. 

Piper said:

"He did reach the point where he confessed (in 19:25–27) that after death he would see God as his Redeemer. But for now God was treating him as an enemy, not a friend or a child—so Job thought."

He did reach that point where he confessed? No, he already had confessed that before his trials began, and when they began, and all the way through his trials. Again, Piper misreads the passage and thinks Job is addressing God when he is rather addressing his friends. No, Job did not think that God judged him to be his enemy! God forbid that we would think this of this holy prophet. God may, in Job's thinking, be treating him like an enemy even though he is not an enemy, for reasons only God knew. 

Piper said:

"And so he complains to God: "Oh, that I knew where I might find him, that I might come even to his seat! I would lay my case before him and fill my mouth with arguments. . .Why are not times of judgment kept by the Almighty, and why do those who know him never see his days?" (23:3–4; 24:1; cf. 13:23–24)."

That is a "complaint" against God? Is it evil speaking? Blasphemy? God forbid. Rather than being a "complaint," it is rather a plea, is it not? What is wrong with his plea? What was wrong with his desire to know, from God's own mouth, the reason for God's willing his calamities? Nothing! Further, by "filling his mouth with arguments," he simply means that he would express his thoughts to God. The Hebrew word for "arguments" means "reasons," or "reasoning." It also carries the idea that Job wished that he could get a chance to plead with God as respects his faithfulness and hear God's response. It is the language of one who wants to talk to God and to know the reason for his sufferings. Good Lord, what is wrong with that?

Piper said:

"In chapters 32–37 the younger friend Elihu rebukes both Job and his three friends. The three friends of Job had not been able to account for the suffering of this good man with their theology. And Job had said rash and presumptuous things about God in order to justify himself."

Elihu, who Piper thinks speaks most correctly, even more than Job, rebukes the prophet Job, the one whom God said spoke what was right! Piper agrees with Elihu in his condemnation of Job, affirming that Job spoke "rash and presumptuous things about God." Well, I'll take what God said about Job's words rather than Elihu or Piper. Further, Job did want to "justify himself," but not in the sense of eternal salvation from punishment in Hell. He did want to justify himself against the charge that he was most wicked and therefore suffered extreme punishments for it. Further, God himself agreed with Job's purpose of justifying himself against the charges of Elihu and the three friends for he himself justified Job! When they accused Job of being a really bad immoral man, he denied it and "justified himself" against those accusations. He is not justifying himself against any accusation from God! No, he is justifying himself against the accusations of his wicked advisors. 

Piper said:

"Elihu's point of view is that Job is a righteous man, though not perfect, and that he is loved by God. God is not treating him as his enemy but as his child and friend."

That is not the point of view of Elihu. Elihu's view is not much different than the three elder friends of Job. He did not believe Job was righteous. Piper is wrong on that. Said Elihu:

"Behold, in this you are not just" (33: 12).

"What man is like Job, who drinks up scorning like water? Which goes in company with the workers of iniquity, and walks with wicked men." (44: 7-8)

That was Elihu's assessment and it was as wrong as was the assessment of Job's elder three friends. For Piper to agree with Elihu's assessment of Job is to make Job to be unrighteous when the testimony of God was that he was righteous, more so than any man living at that time.

Further, Job was "perfect"! That is stated clearly in the book of Job. Any sin of Job was minor, not gross, and of such kind that all holy men of God are guilty. 

Elihu also often misquotes Job, and takes him out of context, as did the three friends. He makes Job to say what he did not say, putting words into his mouth, a thing that Job pointed out to them all.

Piper said:

"God originally allowed Job's sufferings to commence in order to show Satan and the armies of heaven that Job cherished the worth of God more than his possessions and his family and his health. But after Job showed that he did in fact love God more than all else in the world, there was another purpose that God sought to achieve by letting his suffering drag on for several months."

To show Satan what? That Job would remain righteous, that he would not curse God, that he would not charge God foolishly. Well, by Piper's standard, Job did not prove God right! He says that he was guilty of not remaining holy and right as his sufferings progressed! Well, then Satan was right! Take away from Job all that is good and he will curse God, charge God with injustice, will backslide. This was the prediction of Satan. If Job did that, and Piper thinks he did, then Piper agrees with Satan, and thus Satan was proven right about Job. But, if as I contend, Satan was wrong, then Job did not say anything amiss to God or about God. Remember the record is "in all this Job sinned not nor charged God foolishly" (Job 1: 22) and Job spoke of God what was right (Job 42: 7). 

Piper said:

"That purpose, according to Elihu, was to purge out of Job's life a residue of pride that had lain quietly at the bottom of his life. When Job was shaken by suffering long enough, the sediment of pride was stirred up into his life and showed itself when Job tried to justify himself at God's expense."

Well, if that was God's purpose in Job's sufferings and losses, did it work? Did's God's purpose fail? According to Piper, he must say yes, for he says that Job, in the middle of his sufferings, began to be self righteous, to justify himself and condemn God, to speak theological error, etc. If the outcome of Job's sufferings was that Job ended up "justifying himself at God's expense," then how did his the sufferings achieve their purpose? 

There was no "pride that had lain quietly at the bottom of his life." What a thing to say about this holy prophet of God! Quite the contrary. Job was a humble man, as much as he was patient. Also, again, I repeat, Job did justify himself as respects the accusations of immoral conduct made by his counselors. 

Piper said:

"So the words of God in chapters 38–41 are not a rebuke of Elihu. Nowhere does God rebuke or criticize Elihu. Elihu had been right. Job listens in silent agreement. And when Elihu is finished, God speaks to Job and not to Elihu. And so now we want to know what more God has to say to Job. Let's look and see."

Here Dr. Piper is arguing from the silence of God in respect to Elihu. His argument is that God approved of what Elihu said, affirming that he was more right than Job. But, I say again, God did not say that none spoke correctly "as my servant Elihu has," but "as my servant Job has." Why did God ignore Elihu? Why did he say nothing condemnatory of him? Is it for the reason Piper states? Or, for some other reason? For some other reason no doubt. If Elihu was so right, why do we not find God saying so? Why is he ignored? Could it possibly be because God was more angry at his speeches against his servant Job as compared to the speeches of the three elder friends of Job? Could it be that he was swept away by the whirlwind? Why did God not ask Job to pray for Elihu, and offer sacrifices for him, as he did the others? Did Elihu need no prayers? 

Dr. Piper wants to make Elihu the perfect man, the one more righteous and correct than Job. What a misreading of the story!

Piper said:

"Who is on trial in the story of Job? Well, several characters in the story. God is on trial (justifying the ways of God to men - SG). Satan is on trial. Job is on trial. Job's three friends are on trial. So too is Elihu."

And, who, according to Dr. Piper, passes the test? Not God, for he is proven wrong. God told Satan that Job would not turn on him through his trials. Satan said he would. Piper says Satan was right. Job did begin to speak foolishly of God at some point in his sufferings. Piper believes that Job did not pass the test. The only ones to pass the test, according to Piper, are Satan and Elihu! 

In the next posting I will look at other things Dr. Piper has said about the story of Job.

Defending Job

Job did not sin. God's word declares it. Theologians who say Job sinned (and that this is inferred, they say, because he "repented"), affirm what the story of Job, and the witness of God himself, denies. Job's sufferings were not a result of any sin. Not only that, but nothing Job said was theologically wrong, even though denied by Job's three friends and by Elihu and by many commentators on Job. Those who say Job got what he deserved, that his sin was the cause of his sufferings, are in agreement with Satan, Elihu, and Job's three friends. They are also in opposition to what God says of Job. I will never follow the lead of such commentators who affirm that Job was self righteous and attacking God and his justice. 

The following are some of what I wrote on this several years ago. The whole series consisted in six postings (chapters) and the following gives the first two chapters complete with some excepts from the others. In particular please note the comments I make on what is meant by Job's repentance and abhorring of himself. I show that the Hebrew word for "repent" is not the word used for repenting of sin, but the word used for such repenting that even God does. If the Hebrew word means "repent of sin" then God does that. But, it does not mean that, but simply denotes a change of mind or purpose. I will always deride those theologians, like Dr. Piper, and others, who denigrate the prophet (and a prophet he was) and find themselves in agreement with Satan and Job's counsellors.

Job's Theology Job's Righteous Character - Chapter One (here)

Before examining the theology of Job, we should look at the character of Job. It is fair to say that Job has suffered (in the hands, ironically, of many Christian commentators) a "character assassination" of the worst kind. Many believe Job, in character, was not, in reality, as he is described, either in the Book of Job, or elsewhere in scripture. Many consider the things he said about God to be gross error, his theology to be heresy, and surely not, therefore, an inspired prophet of God. 

 

When one compares the divine judgment of Job's character with the judgment of many commentators on Job's character and theology, one sees an intriguing and surprising difference. God's commentary on the character of Job differs greatly from that of many Christian commentators. 

 

The Book of Job begins with a divine interrogative to "The Satan" (or The Accuser) -- "Have you considered my servant Job?" 

 

The same question may be asked of every person on earth, especially of those who read the story of Job, and of all those who are Christians. Have we "considered" God's prophet and servant, the man called "Job"? Have we deeply pondered his character, life experiences, and theology? 

 

In this series of essays on Job's Theology, this is precisely what we will be doing. We will be considering the character and teachings of Job. How will our judgments of Job compare with the judgment of God? With that of The Satan? With that of Job's "friends"? How will our portraiture of Job compare with the scriptural portrait of Job? 

  

Job's Character 

  

"In the land of Uz there lived a man whose name was Job. This man was blameless and upright; he feared God and shunned evil." (Job 1: 1 NIV) 

 

"Then the LORD said to Satan, "Have you considered my servant Job? There is no one on earth like him; he is blameless and upright, a man who fears God and shuns evil." (1:8) 

 

These are the words of both God and the inspired writer of the Book of Job concerning the character of Job. They give us a portrait of Job that ought not to be impugned. With such an holy character attributed to him, it is no wonder, as we shall see, that he is a type of the Lord Jesus Christ, the greater sufferer, or greater than Job. 

 

"None like him in the earth." 

"Upright" 

"Perfect" 

"Just" 

"Man of Integrity" 

"Fears God" 

"Eschews evil" 

"God's servant" 

"In all this Job sinned not" 

"In all this Job did not charge God foolishly" 

"Job has spoken concerning me what is right" 

These are the character descriptions of Job, given in the Book of Job. They are accurate and truthful, being the very judgment of God. One of the ways in which we may judge the correctness of our interpretations of the Book of Job is to compare our estimation of Job and his character with this divinely inspired estimation. Has our interpretation of the words of Job caused us to have a lower estimation of him and his character than that expressed in the above citations from the Book of Job and the oracles of God? 

  

Satan says Job is 

 

1. Selfish (serves God for what he can get from God, i.e., he "uses" God) 

2. Really a God hater, but who covers it up ("he will curse you" given the opportunity) 

3. A hypocrite 

4. Not what God thinks he is, that is, not perfect and upright, etc. 

5. Unfaithful, disloyal and unreliable 

6. Not a man of integrity 

 

In all this Satan not only condemns the character of Job but also the character and ways of God. 

 

"At this, Job got up and tore his robe and shaved his head. Then he fell to the ground in worship and said: "Naked I came from my mother's womb, and naked I will depart. The LORD gave and the LORD has taken away; may the name of the LORD be praised." In all this, Job did not sin by charging God with wrongdoing." (1: 20-22 NIV) 

  

"Then the LORD said to Satan, "Have you considered my servant Job? There is no one on earth like him; he is blameless and upright, a man who fears God and shuns evil. And he still maintains his integrity, though you incited me against him to ruin him without any reason." (2: 3) 

  

"So Satan went out from the presence of the LORD and afflicted Job with painful sores from the soles of his feet to the top of his head. Then Job took a piece of broken pottery and scraped himself with it as he sat among the ashes. His wife said to him, "Are you still holding on to your integrity? Curse God and die!" He replied, "You are talking like a foolish woman. Shall we accept good from God, and not trouble?" In all this, Job did not sin in what he said." (2: 7-10) 

 

These verses are clear and concise and tell us the truth about this man named "Job." Our view of him ought to be the same as that of God. If it is not, then something is wrong with our view of Job, and not with God's view of him. 

  

"Though these three men, Noah, Daniel, and Job, were in it, they should deliver but their own souls by their righteousness, saith the Lord GOD...Though Noah, Daniel, and Job were in it, as I live, saith the Lord GOD, they shall deliver neither son nor daughter; they shall but deliver their own souls by their righteousness." (Ezekiel 14: 14, 20 KJV) 

 

Here Job is put in the company of prophets and righteous men. Yet Noah and Daniel have not suffered from "character assassination" as has God's "servant" Job. No reputable Christian commentator questions the holiness or inspiration of the words of either Noah or Daniel, yet a host of them question the holiness and inspiration of the godly Job. 

  

Job the Prophet 

  

"Take, my brethren, the prophets, who have spoken in the name of the Lord, for an example of suffering affliction, and of patience. Behold, we count them happy which endure. Ye have heard of the patience of Job, and have seen the end of the Lord; that the Lord is very pitiful, and of tender mercy." (James 5: 10, 11 KJV) 

 

Is not Job here clearly identified as one of "the prophets" who "spoke in the name of the Lord"? Is he not an "example" of "prophets" suffering affliction? Is he not an "example" of "prophets" having patience in suffering? 

 

Why would Christian theologians and bible students exclude Job from being one of the inspired prophets with so much evidence in support of it? 

Job's Theology 

Job The Prophet - Chapter Two (here)

 "Take, my brethren, the prophets, who have spoken in the name of the Lord, for an example of suffering affliction, and of patience. Behold, we count them happy which endure. Ye have heard of the patience of Job, and have seen the end of the Lord; that the Lord is very pitiful, and of tender mercy." (James 5: 10, 11 KJV) 

 

As shown in the previous chapter, these words of James prove that Job was a prophet of God, one who spoke in the name of the Lord. This testimony is sufficient in itself, but we will notice more. Job said: 

  

"For I know that my redeemer liveth, and that he shall stand at the latter day upon the earth: And though after my skin worms destroy this body, yet in my flesh shall I see God." (Job 19: 25, 26 KJV) 

 

Was this not a "prophecy" of Christ the Messiah? Does this prophecy not constitute Job as a "prophet"? 

 

Wrote Peter: 

  

"For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost." (II Peter 1: 21 KJV) 

 

Was Job not one of these "holy men of God"? Was he not one of "the prophets"? Did he not speak as "moved by the Holy Ghost"? Are his words not inspired? Approved by God himself in Job 42: 7? In that verse, God says: 

 

"And it was so, that after the LORD had spoken these words unto Job, the LORD said to Eliphaz the Temanite, My wrath is kindled against thee, and against thy two friends: for ye have not spoken of me the thing that is right, as my servant Job hath." (KJV) 

 

These words should settle all debate about the correctness of Job's theology, about the truthfulness of what he said about the nature and workings of God in his dialogues with his "friends." Yet, many commentators and interpreters of the Book of Job have found intriguing and crafty ways of "twisting" this divine commentary on the character and teachings of Job. In spite of what God said about Job's theological teachings, many "interpreters" nevertheless tell us that Job was wrong about many things he said about God and his providence! But, more on this in a future chapter. Clearly these words of Lord God confirm that Job was a prophet who spoke in the name of the Lord and as moved by the Holy Ghost. 

  

"I have also spoken by the prophets, and I have multiplied visions, and used similitudes, by the ministry of the prophets." (Hosea 12: 10 KJV) 

 

Did Job not see God face to face, as much so as Moses? Did he not receive the very words of God? What greater oracles are there than those given to the prophet Job? Did Job not receive from God "multiplied visions"? Was not the whole character and experiences of Job a "similitude" for the sufferings of Christ? Did God not identify Job as his "spokesman" by always faithfully calling him his "servant" and by affirming that Job had "spoken concerning me what is right"? (42: 7) 

 

"Therefore have I hewed them by the prophets; I have slain them by the words of my mouth: and thy judgments are as the light that goeth forth." (Hosea 6: 5 KJV) 

 

How can any legitimately exclude Job from this description of "the prophets"? Has not the theology of Job sculptured and shaped the thought of God's people? In the words of Job, and of God's words to Job, do we not have the "words of my (God's) mouth"? His "judgments"? Who can honestly read Job and not come away with the feeling of being "hewed" by the message? 

 

Also, as pointed out in the previous chapter, Lord God, through Ezekiel the prophet, put Job in company with two other prophets, with Noah and Daniel. Does this not also indicate that Job was a prophet?

Job The Accused - Chapter Three (here - excerpts)

Sins of Job (supposed) 

 

1. Pride and arrogance (presumption) 

2. Self righteousness (self justification) 

3. Hypocrisy and idolatry 

4. Cowardness (too much complaining) 

5. Selfishness and greed 

6. Impenitence (refusal to confess sin) 

7. Impatience (complains too much) 

8. Unbelief (refusal to trust God) 

9. Unfaithfulness and disloyalty 

10. False Teacher (bad theology) 

11. Respecter of persons (envious) 

12. Murderer (for being suicidal) 

 

If one reads the words of Job's "friends," and of commentators and interpreters since their day, he will discover one or more of the above sins charged against Job. In fact, many commentators on the Book of Job invariably end up being just as accusatory and critical against Job's character and theology as were Job's "friends," the very ones God condemned in the Epilogue for sin and heresy!

Job's Repentance Chapter Six (here - excerpts)

“Wherefore I despise myself, and repent in dust and ashes.” (Job 42:6 KJV) 

 

Do these words of Job indicate that Job was in error and guilty of sin? And, such sin as to warrant his superlative sufferings? Those commentators and interpreters who are intent on indicting the righteousness, faith, and patience of Job, insist that they do indicate such. It is argued that his "abhorrence" and his "repentance" are proofs of his theological errors and his unrighteous character. Yet, nothing could be further from the truth.

 

If the above words indicate Job's theological and moral errors, then the testimony of God himself must be set aside, who both, at the beginning and at the end, testify to Job's righteous character and conduct and of his theological correctness. Wrote one interpreter: 

  

"Verse six is actually very difficult to translate into English. The Hebrew can be translated in two distinct ways, and there is no clue from the text itself how the author intended it to be understood. It can be understood as a confession of one’s sin and one’s inferiority to God: “I despise myself and repent in dust and ashes” (the traditional translation). But the Hebrew verb translated “I despise myself” can also be translated “I hate” or “I reject” (cf. Jer. 31:37; 33:26). And the Hebrew verb, nikhamti, can just as well be translated “rue” or “regret” as it can be translated “repent” (cf. Gen. 6:7; I Sam. 15:11; Jer. 4:28; 18:3). Therefore, the passage can be as legitimately translated “I reject and regret dust and ashes” as it can be translated “I despise myself and repent in dust and ashes”. See here 

Another writer sees the verse like this: Upon this I reject/despise [something] and am sorry/comforted For/Concerning/Upon the dust and ashes. He says: "The verb "reject" normally requires an object. Ancient manuscripts smudged easily, so accidental erasure is one possibility. A daydreaming copyist is another. At 34:33 and 36:5, "reject" is used without an object but the usage in those verses is pretty clearly not applicable here, though the coincidence of three abnormal usages in a row like that does give pause. Also, the Hebrew for "am sorry for / am comforted concerning" is a standard verb-preposition compound. The King James reading is still possible, but Job would have to put a definite break between the verb and the preposition to get his non-standard meaning across, and he would end up sounding awkward and a little pompous: "I reject [something] and I repent --pause-- upon the dust and ashes." 

Another writer said: 

  

"I despise" must have an object, and the nearest one is "dust and ashes." The preposition "al (upon), following upon the verb nhm, "I repent" or "I am comforted," introduces the object of the repentance or the subject of the comfort. "Dust and ashes," then, does double duty as the accusative of both "I despise" ('em' as) and "I repent" (nhmty)." (pg. 376, "In turns of tempest: a reading of Job, with a translation," By Edwin Marshall Good) 

Again, another writer, Robert Sutherland, says: 

  

"Naham" can be translated "repent" but only in the loosest possible sense and a potentially misleading sense in this context. The New Oxford Annotated Edition of the NRSV adds an important editorial note to its translation of the word "naham" as "repent": "Repent, a verb that is often used to indicate a change of mind on the Lord's part (Exodus 32: 14; Jeremiah 18: 8, 10). Here it does not mean repeantance for sin (see vv. 7-8, where Job is said to have spoken what is right)." "Shub" is the normal Hebrew word for a repentance that involves confession of wrongdoing or sin. "Shub" means "turning away from sin and returning to God through repentance." The author of the Book of Job has carefully chosen his words. He has deliberately chosen "naham" as opposed to "shub." 

The author is tempting the inattentive reader to premature judgment. He is tempting the reader to find that Job is confessing sin, either for his so-called excessive words, his Oath of Innocence or both. Nothing could be further from the truth. Job never confesses sin. He never confesses to having wrongfully used excessive language. He never confesses to having wrongfully instituted his Oath of Innocence. And he never retracts or withdraws his Oath of Innocence. God would later say Job was right in everything he said. (Job 42: 7,8) In the face of such a judgment, there is no room to attribute sin or wrongdoing to Job for either his so-called excessive words or his Oath of Innocence. If Job were actually confessing sin of any sort, then Job would be damned on the terms of his Oath of Innocence. The Oath of Innocence once sworn cannot be withdrawn as having been wrongfully instituted. If Job were actually confessing sin of any sort, the Satan would be proven right in his challenge of God. And the consequences would be enormous. God would be proven wrong in his three judgments on Job. (Job 1: 8,9; 3: 2; 42: 7) God should step down from his throne. And all humankind should be destroyed as a failed project." (pg. 131, 132, "Putting God on Trial: The Biblical Book of Job," By Robert Sutherland)