Elihu's Words (X)

Speaking to Job Elihu says next:

"Moreover Elihu answered and said: “Do you think this is right? Do you say, ‘My righteousness is more than God’s’? For you say, ‘What advantage will it be to You? What profit shall I have, more than if I had sinned?’ “I will answer you, And your companions with you. Look to the heavens and see; And behold the clouds— They are higher than you. If you sin, what do you accomplish against Him? Or, if your transgressions are multiplied, what do you do to Him? If you are righteous, what do you give Him? Or what does He receive from your hand? Your wickedness affects a man such as you, And your righteousness a son of man." (35: 1-8)

Job, just "come clean"! Just admit your sins and quit trying to prove your innocence. Confess and fall on the mercy of the court. This is essentially what Elihu is saying to Job. It is an attempt to extort a confession from an innocent. 

Again, Elihu keeps misrepresenting Job and building a straw man case. Said Thomas Aquinas in his commentary:

"After Eliud had rejected the words of Job, because by his estimation Job imputed evil to divine judgment, he now intends to reproach him for saying that he was just. So the text says: “So Eliud spoke again,” for he had interrupted his speech and waited to see if Job would answer. When he did not, Eliud took up his discourse again saying, “Does your reflection seem reasonable to you when you say: I am more just than God?” Job had never said this, and Eliud did not impute to his that he used these words, but that the words which he did say originated in this reflection, and so he clearly makes mention of this thought. Eliud distinctly says that Job had this intention, “For you said: Good does not please you, (or in another text, “what is right”) or what does it profit you if I sin?” These two sayings are never found in what Job has said, but the first of them, that good does not please God, he seems to find in what Job had said in Chapter Ten, If I am wicked, woe is me! And if I am just, I will not raise my head.” (v. 15) When Job has said this he meant that the just and the unjust are equally afflicted with temporal punishments, but Eliud interpreted him to have almost said that the justice of man does not please God. The second thing he says is, “what does it profit you if I sin?” One can find no text in which Job had said this, but he wanted to take this from what Job had said in the same place, “If I have sinned and you spared me for a little, why do you not allow me to be cleansed from my evil?” (10:14) Job had said this to show that temporal prosperity does not always accompany innocence, for he had been innocent in other respects in the time of prosperity, after he renounced his sins. So there was no reason why after the remission of his sins he should again be cleansed from sins by God. But Eliud twisted these words around as though Job held this opinion: that God had brought in his sin and the punishment of sin because of his own utility. From these two things: that God was not pleased with what is good and that he considered sin useful to him, it seems to follow that Job was more just then God since he had said about himself that evil displeased him and good please him. (v. 31)"

Notice how Aquinas, like many other commentators, see Elihu as guilty of falsely representing what Job had either actually said or implied. 

Elihu next says:

“Because of the multitude of oppressions they cry out; They cry out for help because of the arm of the mighty. But no one says, ‘Where is God my Maker, Who gives songs in the night, Who teaches us more than the beasts of the earth, And makes us wiser than the birds of heaven?’ There they cry out, but He does not answer, Because of the pride of evil men." (35: 9-12)

To which of the poor and oppressed does God give his help so as to bring restoration and deliverance, according to Elihu? All that "cry out" to him for help? No, only those poor who cry humbly.  Those who cry to God without humility can expect no deliverance. If the poor cry to God and there is no restoration of lost fortunes, then it evidences, by Elihu's argument, that the poor was full of pride. Applied to Job's case, Job had called upon the Lord for an answer, for revelation of his reasons, for his sufferings, and also petitioned the Lord for deliverance from his sufferings. But, God had ignored Job, had not granted him deliverance, had not answered his prayers. By Elihu's rule this indicts Job and evidences that he is not heard because he is a proud man, and proud men are wicked men. 

Elihu also states that the poor who cry out to God for help and salvation are not heard because they do not inquire after a knowledge of God or a relationship with him in their pleas, but only want him to save them without respect to their repentance and confession. Thus, Elihu gives his reasons why God does not always positively answer prayer and grant deliverance. Job has not been answered by God because he is proud and only wants deliverance from his sufferings apart from repentance. But, of course, nothing could be further from the truth. Further, as the end of the story shows, God did answer Job! He did restore his losses and give him deliverance. Elihu and the three friends who argued this way were simply prejudging and not giving enough time for God to answer. Why did not Elihu rather say "God will answer you Job in his own good time, so just patiently wait for him"? 

Elihu next says:

"Surely God will not listen to empty talk, Nor will the Almighty regard it. Although you say you do not see Him, Yet justice is before Him, and you must wait for Him. And now, because He has not punished in His anger, Nor taken much notice of folly, Therefore Job opens his mouth in vain; He multiplies words without knowledge.” (35: 13-16)

It is ironic that Elihu would mention the fact that God "will not listen to empty talk" when his speeches are themselves empty talks. It is also another instance of irony when he once again speaks of Job "multiplying words" when it is Elihu who is the most verbose, who says so little in so much. 

In closing I would like to cite these words from John Mark Hicks (here). He said in commentary on Elihu (emphasis mine):

"In general, what Elihu says about Job is inaccurate or misapplied..." 

This is what is quite evident in the speeches of Elihu when comparing what he said that Job said and what he actually said. Hicks states what has been said by many commentators, except those who think the Elihu is a prophet who spoke by inspiration.

Said Marks:

"So, why is Elihu absent from the Prologue and the Epilogue? Of course, one explanation is that the Elihu speeches were added after the Prologue and Epilogue or another is that Elihu’s words are sanctioned by the narrator/editor. But it is also possible that something more subtle is at work in the rhetoric. Elihu is introduced by the narrator in Job 32 as a young man who thinks he can do better than the traditional and aged wisdom of the friends. He even denies that wisdom is associated with age and years (experience; 32:9). His youth is underscored and youth usually thinks it can do better. And, in fact, he does worse in some ways (as I hope to demonstrate below). His youthful intrusion into the discussion among his elders is itself arrogant and angry (noted four times in the narrator’s introduction of Elihu in Job 32). In this way he sides with the friends as he wants to improve their arguments rather than contravene them. When God condemns the words of the friends–naming Eliphaz, Bildad, and Zophar–in the Epilogue that condemnation includes Elihu."

I agree with this totally. I also agree that God condemns Elihu by condemning his three seniors for he spoke essentially the same thing as they did.

Said Marks:

"At the same time, his last speech–as well as occasional flashes in other speeches–soars high in its account of God’s relation to creation. In this sense, Elihu moves the drama toward the Yahweh speeches. But Elihu’s speeches are flawed in the way they treat Job."

True indeed. But, not only are Elihu's speeches flawed in the way they treat Job, so too are those commentators who condemn Job as Elihu and the three senior friends of Job did. Commentators who say Elihu is a prophet and spoke by inspiration and deny that Job was an inspired prophet are in league with Job's accusers and have a different opinion of Job than God had of him. It is ironic that Job continues to suffer character assassination by such commentators.

Said Marks:

"It is Elihu who is self-righteous. As Bartholomew and O’Dowd (Old Testament Wisdom Literature, 143) note, “Where God and the narrator declare Job ‘upright’ (yoser), Elihu claims to speak from an ‘upright’ heart (Job 33:3) and claims that God could send an angel (perhaps Elihu?) to teach Job what is ‘upright’ (Job 33:23) so that Job might in turn repent and confess that he perverted what was ‘upright’ (Job 33:27).” In essence, Elihu denies Job the very commendation that Yahweh gave Job in the Prologue. Elihu, like the friends, thinks Job is a sinner and has been disciplined for his wickedness. The condemnation of the friends, then, is also the condemnation of Elihu."

There is so much irony in the story of Job! It is ironic that the real self righteous characters are Elihu, Eliphaz, Bildad, and Zophar! 

Said Marks:

"Elihu gets to his point by quoting Job in 33:9-11. He summarizes Job’s protestations of innocence (cf. 9:21; 10:7,13; 13:24,27; 16:17; 19:11; 23:10; 27:5; 30:21). But the quotations are not exact. Elihu uses a word for “pure” or “clean” that only appears here in the Hebrew Bible. Further, Elihu absolutizes Job’s words, e.g., “without transgression” and “there is no iniquity in me.” Though Job did view God’s attack as an expression of hostility, Job never intimated that God invented sins (“occasions”) in order to assault him. Elihu denies Job’s innocence, but this is the substance of the Prologue."

This is the substance of what we have observed already.

Said Marks:

"Second Speech (34:1-37). Now Elihu addresses the friends (“wise men,” 34:2) and speaks of Job in the third person (cf. 34:5). He talks to the friends about Job in front of Job, which appears rather insensitive. His imprudence is indicated by his second misquotation of Job (34:5-6; cf. 9:15, 20; 13:18; 16:8; 27:2, 6). He quotes him as saying he is “without transgression” (34:6). And he accuses Job of walking with the wicked and sharing the company of evildoers (34:8). He proves this by quoting Job again in 34:9: “For he has said, ‘It profits me nothing to take delight in God’.”

How can Elihu be viewed as God's prophet and spokesman when he misquotes him so often?

Said Marks:

"But this is the opposite of what Job actually said in 21:15-16 (cf. 9:22; 21:7; 24:1). Job quotes the wicked as saying that there is no profit in serving God, and he explicitly rejects that orientation. Elihu’s approach entails that the satan was correct–Job only serves God for profit and now has cursed God when God failed him. Elihu has manipulated Job’s words. Yet, on the basis of this misapplication of Job’s words, Elihu appeals to the friends..."

Very well said! Why do so many bible commentators see Job as Elihu and Job's three friends?

Said Marks:

"Elihu clearly considers Job one with the “evildoers” (34:22), burdened with “wickedness” (34:26), and sharing the life of the “godless” who afflict the poor (34:28-30). And he appeals–in the second person singular (“you, Job”; 34:30-34)–to Job to repent, to choose submission. Job’s arrogance is beyond measure, and Elihu wishes that he “were tried to the limit” (34:36) though it is difficult to imagine what more Job would need to endure in order to fulfill Elihu’s wish-prayer."

How Elihu viewed and judged Job's character is not in agreement with God's assessment, but is in line with the view of Satan.