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.