Elihu's Words (III)

In the preceding chapter I cited the opening words of Elihu (chapter 32) and focused on 

1) the accusation of Elihu that Job justified himself, and 

2) the foolish wrath of Elihu, and 

3) the reasons Elihu offers for why the three previous senior advisors (or prosecutors) were brought to silence (his misinterpretation of it).

We will now focus on other things Elihu says in his opening address and what his words reveal about him.

We focused our attention in the previous posts on the introductory words given by the author/narrator of the speeches of Elihu (32: 1-5). In this post we will begin examining Elihu's actual words as given in verses six through twelve. 

In those previous observations about Elihu we called attention to his inability to reason correctly, to properly interpret facts, to speak calmly and without bias and prejudice, to be humble in his judgments and varied exhortations, to show empathy, to give a "word fitly spoken" (Prov. 25: 11), to "speak a word in season to him who is weary," not having "the tongue of the learned" (Isa. 50: 4). 

Further, as we will see, he relied heavily on ethos and pathos in his efforts to convince the jury and very little on logos, or on logical argument and on evidence of fact.

The Ethos of Elihu

"So Elihu, the son of Barachel the Buzite, answered and said: “I am young in years, and you are very old; Therefore I was afraid, And dared not declare my opinion to you. I said, ‘Age should speak, And multitude of years should teach wisdom.’  But there is a spirit in man, And the breath of the Almighty gives him understanding. Great men are not always wise, Nor do the aged always understand justice. “Therefore I say, ‘Listen to me, I also will declare my opinion.’ Indeed I waited for your words, I listened to your reasonings, while you searched out what to say. I paid close attention to you; And surely not one of you convinced Job, Or answered his words." (6-12)

Why does Elihu tell us about why he waited to speak? Was that necessary? Was his waiting to speak not already self evident? Did he think that Job and the three senior advisors would not recognize that fact? So, why then call attention to the fact? Is it not because he is trying to establish credibility and forestall suspicion as to his motives? Sophists learn well how to begin their discourses with a mixture of audience flattery and self praise (extolling their credentials or ethos). Though there are exceptions to the rule, yet ordinarily one does not begin a persuasive speech by referring to things about himself. 

The egotism of Elihu is seen in how many times he uses the personal pronoun "I." He says "I am young," as if the men listening did not already know that! He says "I said," and "therefore I say," and "listen to me," and "I will declare my opinion," and "I waited for your words," and "I listened to your reasonings," and "I paid close attention to you." Egotism is defined as "the practice of talking and thinking about oneself excessively because of an undue sense of self-importance." It is also defined as the overuse of personal pronouns such as "I" or "me." Elihu begins his speech or dialogue with excessive use of pronouns, and his intent is to call attention to himself. 

Elihu, though wanting to appear respectful to his elders, to "give honor to whom it is due," nevertheless slaps his seniors in the face with his words, speaking to them in wrath, and condemning them for their inability to prove their case against Job or to find him guilty. If one reads the above verses aloud in an angry tone, this hostility vented upon the elders will help understand the spirit as well as the letter of his opening words. He basically told the elders that they were fools. "Aged men are not always wise," which means "you three are not wise." In other words he says, "it is generally true that aged men are wise, you three are sad exceptions." He says that they do not "understand justice" with the inference that he does. 

In this accusation (misinterpretation) Elihu, ironically, makes himself an exception to the rule also. Young men are rarely wise, but he claims to be an exception, but in a positive way. Is that not highmindedness? Pride? Presumption? 

Next, let us notice the fake humility of Elihu. He confesses "I was afraid to speak." Why afraid? Afraid of what? It was not the normal fear that the average person has of public speaking. Elihu says his fear was the result of his sense of inferiority, being young and inexperienced. Was that true? Was that the reason? Perhaps his fear if real originated from another source. Some think that by fear is meant mere timidity. But, it could just as well describe cowardice. He could mean that he did not feel safe in speaking, especially while the elders were speaking. But, why does he not fear now? What gives him courage to speak now? What has changed? Could it be because he thinks "the coast is clear" now? Could it be that he realizes that he can do a better job than the three senior speakers? 

The Hebrew word for "afraid" alludes to animals who through fear stay "holed up" into their holes till all sense of threat from predators has been removed. So, why does Elihu crawl out of his hole of silence suddenly? What threat does he think no longer exists? He had been "shrinking back" into his silence, afraid to interrupt or speak. Was it the timidity of the humble? Or, could it be that he was himself a predator, and stayed in the dark silence of his hole (unnoticeable) till he observed the right time to emerge from it in order to strike his prey?

How did his fear connect with his anger? He confesses to be guided by two emotions, by fear and anger. He also wants his listeners to see that he is a humble reluctant speaker, that he is speaking not by any inferior motives, but because he is forced to do so by the circumstances. He wants all to know that he has been "reserved" in forming his opinions, not hasty in his conclusions, and that he was acting wise in waiting for the right time to speak. 

He says that, he had respected his elders by letting them speak first. Did he need to say this? Would not the fact itself be sufficient? Why does he want to call attention to his humility, to his virtue in this regard? Did he really respect his elders? No. He rather says that they have failed, that they are not wise, that they do not know justice. If that is so self evident, then why call attention to it? He insults them, and does it in wrath. He has decided not to be gentle in his rebukes, but to speak in arrogant wrath. That of course, does not win him any sympathizers. He does not want to speak as a lamb but as a lion. He is proud but wants to cloak it in humble words. He is also the only one who calls Job by his first name. He in fact literally says "hey you, Job, listen up!" That is not the way the young should address their elders, especially one who was so highly respected as was Job. He was disrespectful though he tried to appear respectful. On this one writer made these observations (here):

"Of course, Job's name is common in the book named after him. It is used thirty-seven times by the narrator, six times by YHWH and once by the Satan. But in a book that is overwhelmingly direct speech, no-one, not even YHWH himself, uses it in speaking to Job, except Elihu. Elihu uses it over and over, even making direct demands for Job's attention by name both in his first speech (33:1) and in his last one (37:14). This is a key marker of Elihu's distinct style. Job's three friends never use his name at all. An explanation is called for."

He points out that the constant mention of Job's name (said in anger) is not the way inferiors speak to superiors. So, it is obvious that Elihu sees himself as superior to Job and to his three senior friends. As we will see in his speeches, he claims this superiority. That is pride and egotism. The same writer said:

"Elihu is portrayed as arrogant and rude, asserting an in-your-face authority over someone who is both his senior in society and suffering acutely. This understanding fits with what we have seen about marked redundancy and the use of names in the Old Testament. It also fits the context...Politeness and respect have long since gone." 

Citing another the same source says:

"However, "a human non-family member's addressing an adult by personal name alone is tantamount to treating the addressee as a child, and so is used in reference to social inferiors." Elihu addressed Job as if he were a child. Doing it multiple times would have been disrespectful even if he were senior to Job."

Again, citing another, the same source said:

"Even by the use of this word, 'Listen,' that he uses, he inflicts a grievous insult upon Job: it is grievous arrogance for an inferior to wish to extort for himself a hearing from his superior."

Said the same author:

"Elihu's use of Job's name was deliberately offensive. This understanding fits linguistically, it fits within broader Old Testament patterns and it fits contextually in the book. Future exegesis of the Elihu chapters of Job needs to take this aspect into account. Certainly, it qualifies positive understandings of Elihu's speeches and role."

Elihu wants those listening to him to think that he is one who honors tradition and cultural conventions. He wants to be thought a gentleman. In many respects, in his attempts to build his credibility, he also observes Sophistic convention in persuasive speech, ironically. He does it in the sense of prepping the audience, a kind of "poisoning of the well." He wants listeners to have a favorable opinion of himself and a bad opinion of Job, and having laid that foundation, proceeds with his accusations and explanations (interpretations). His intent was to predispose the mind and emotion of the listeners for what he will say more concretely. It is all designed to prejudice the listeners against Job and his seniors and prejudice them in his favor. 

It seems clear to me that Elihu begins by creating smokescreens, by clouding the issues. He takes things personally rather than keeping the matter of debate purely academic and on a higher level. He, like the Sophists of old, desired victory in debate rather than the arrival at truth. 

There is nothing in Elihu's opening words that exemplify true humility and a gentle godly spirit. He seems full of himself, seeing things only from his perspective. 

He says that he has been reluctant to speak (for the reasons he names), but then says that he has been anxious to speak, even being about ready to bust from holding in his desire to speak. That seems contradictory. He is both anxious and not anxious to speak. 

Elihu's Claims

To establish his ethos, or credibility as a teacher or witness, to give his credentials, he talks first in his introduction about himself, or to what relates to himself. He calls attention to himself. He wants to appear to be sincere and honest. Yet, by a look at his claims, he is clearly revealed not to be such.

1. I am inspired by God, being an able mediator (arbiter) between God and man.

2. I am worth listening to, having greater wisdom and knowledge

3. I am the exception to the rule as respects youth and wisdom

4. I have respected my elders

5. I have shown self control in not speaking previously

6. I am not biased or prejudiced

7. I only want to find the truth and am zealous for it

8. My motives are pure and righteous

But, the fact is, none of these things are the truth.

Wrote Thomas Aquinas, who wrote a commentary of Job (emphasis mine):

"However, he was not moved only by the zeal to defend the truth, but also by vainglory, and so he says, “and I will of show my knowledge.” In fact, someone who desires vainglory wants to show off his excellence clearly if he has it and therefore he shows that he has the greatest ability to answer when he says, “For I am full of words,” as if to say: Abundant answers occur to me." (Commentary on Job 32 - here)

And what can we say of Elihu's claim to inspiration? To being the spokesman for God. Was he what he claimed to be? Some say yes, even calling him the mediator and redeemer that Job desired, a veritable prophet. Ironically, as we have shown, Job is the real prophet of God who speaks as moved by the Spirit of God. 

First, if Elihu were indeed inspired and uttering forth truth as the Spirit gave him utterance, why does God cut him off in his speech? Why does God interrupt him abruptly? It seems more likely that God had, as the saying goes, "heard enough." He could, speaking anthropomorphically, "not stand it any more," could not tolerate any more foolish speaking by one who falsely and presumptuously claimed to speak on his behalf, as his defense attorney. 

Every good orator of Satan claims to speak by inspiration and by divine authority. They are constantly affirming it and criticize any who would dissent. So, to think that a mere claim to inspiration is proof of the fact is not wise thinking or good reasoning. Every false prophet and teacher has claimed inspiration. So, Elihu's claims to inspiration mean nothing. But, we may reasonably ask, why does he feel the need to say this about himself? Why not just not mention it and let his speech prove his inspiration? Remember how we called attention to the fact that he chose to mention the reason why he waited to speak (was young and respectful) and for no other reason than to promote himself as a credible and honorable person, a man of virtue. 

Consider also the fact that if Elihu really believed that he was inspired, then why did he not interrupt the elders when they were speaking and going in the wrong direction? Ironically, God himself interrupted Elihu! If the scene in Job be viewed as a courtroom atmosphere (and most scholars agree that it is), it is apropos for attorneys to "object," and which stops those speaking so that the objection can be dealt with. But, Elihu never objects. He rather stores up inside him all his objections so that he can vent them all at once in what he judges will be the final "closing arguments." Elihu thinks that the three senior prosecutors rested the case too soon. 

When Elihu speaks of his inner "spirit," he means the "womb of the mind," as Aquinas talked about, the place where thoughts are begotten or come into existence. It is a fitting metaphor. He believes that his own spirit has received divine revelation that has produced his thoughts and his words. But, do not his three seniors, and Job, not also have a "spirit"? Can their spirits not receive revelation from God as his? He claims that "the breath of the Almighty" has imparted to the "spirit of his mind" absolute truth, which makes him an authority. That being true, Elihu expects, and demands, acceptance of his words. Elihu calls for people to trust him and what he says. But, all this is pretension, highmindedness, pride, etc. 

He speaks of himself as being divinely gifted (God has given him understanding), which gift he denies has been given to the three elders or to Job. What a gifted theologian is this young upstart! He has the answers to the deepest things of God. There are no unsolved mysteries, riddles, or enigmas for Elihu! He is an inspired man who can speak no untruth. There is little humility in these fantastic claims.

When a person reads the words of Elihu, he should, as I previously said, read the words out loud in intense anger and see what this may reveal about the letter of what he says. He should also listen, in his mind, to the words as if you, the reader, were God listening to Elihu. What is God thinking as he is hearing Elihu?