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