Elihu's Words (VI)

Elihu next says:

"Why do you contend with Him? For He does not give an accounting of any of His words. For God may speak in one way, or in another, Yet man does not perceive it. In a dream, in a vision of the night, When deep sleep falls upon men, While slumbering on their beds, Then He opens the ears of men, And seals their instruction." (Job 33: 13-16)

In the previous posting we looked at Elihu's question to Job - "why do you contend with him?" I asserted that this was a false accusation and a misinterpretation of Job's words. Job never fought against God. He bore his sufferings in a manner worthy of our imitation. (James 5: 11) But, Elihu, and the other three, did not think that Job handled his sufferings well. Also, Elihu's question assumes that Job had in fact declared his opposition to God. It is like the baited question - "do you still beat your wife." 

Yes, Job felt like God, for some mysterious reason (such as to try and test him), had become an enemy, and had taken away what he had previously given, and was continuing to give no signs of hearing his prayers nor granting his request for an explanation. But, this is far from "contending with God." It would be an act of lunacy to "fight against God." (Acts 5: 39) 

Next, Elihu gives as the reason why God is ignoring Job (supposedly) and not granting his request for an answer, saying "for he give no accounting of any of his matters."

As I have asked previously in commenting upon this statement, did not Job know this truth? Did he not know that God owed nothing to any of his creatures, being the sovereign Creator of all? Creatures can demand nothing from God. God makes demands of his creatures, but not vise versa. On the other hand, God has invited his rational creatures to ask questions of him and has actually given them answers in his word, by the mouth of his chosen prophets and other sent men. 

The scriptures advise believers to take their questions about life and suffering to their parents, brothers and sisters in the Lord, elders and deacons, and especially to God himself through prayer. Job humbly prayed to God for an answer to his sufferings. There was nothing unrighteous in doing that and God is perfectly at liberty to answer or not. After all, there are "secret things" that "belong unto the Lord," and these things he keeps unrevealed. These secret things are set in contrast to that which God has revealed, what questions he has answered, and which are given to men so that men can say "the things revealed belong unto us and to our children." (See Deut. 29: 29) In fact, the bible is full of God giving an accounting of himself and his works and ways. He even invites his rational creatures to "come and let us reason together says the Lord." (Isa. 1: 18) The Lord says “Present your case,” says the LORD. “Bring forth your strong reasons,” says the King of Jacob." (Isa. 41: 12) Things are secrets with the Lord (or mysteries) until the time when he reveals those secrets. Said the prophet: "Surely the Sovereign LORD does nothing without revealing his plan to his servants the prophets." (Amos 3: 7 ESV)

Elihu says that God may speak in one way or in another, such as in a dream or in a vision of the night. That these are two ways in which God speaks to prophets is not doubted. Said the Lord: “If anyone will be a prophet of the Lord among you, I will speak to him either in dream or in vision.” (Numbers 12:6) But, this is not the normal way God communicates with his people (to those who are not prophets). His normal way is to communicate with them through the words he gives to his prophets. Lots of false teachers have used their dreams and supposed visions to teach false doctrine. Notice these words of our sovereign Lord:

“How long will this be in the heart of the prophets who prophesy lies? Indeed they are prophets of the deceit of their own heart, “who try to make My people forget My name by their dreams which everyone tells his neighbor, as their fathers forgot My name for Baal. “The prophet who has a dream, let him tell a dream; And he who has My word, let him speak My word faithfully. What is the chaff to the wheat?” says the LORD." (Jer. 23: 26-28)

So, though God does speak in dreams and visions to his chosen messengers, yet the false prophets also claimed the same, as the above words show. Their supposed God sent dreams were sources for their lies. They did not originate with the Spirit of God but were "of the deceit of their own heart." Though Elihu claims to speak dreams that have come from God yet he speaks falsehood. In the above words the dreams of the false prophets were chaff. God's word, is wheat. How do we judge the divine origin of dreams and visions? It is by comparing what the dreamer teaches as a result of his dream with the word of God. Further, what dreams or visions does Elihu claim to have received? Perhaps he misinterprets his dreams, for knowing the dream is one thing but knowing its meaning is another, as the Book of Daniel shows us.

Further, in the words of Elihu there is the inference that Job, who wanted to hear from God, was desiring what he already had available to him. God has been speaking to Job and answering him, but Job, he affirms, has not been listening. Though God speaks to men who fail to recognize it, yet this was not true in Job's case. Ironically, as we have seen, it is Elihu who is not hearing the voice of God. Job was a good listener, not Elihu.

Is Suffering Always Chastening?

Elihu next says:

"In order to turn man from his deed, And conceal pride from man, He keeps back his soul from the Pit, And his life from perishing by the sword. “Man is also chastened with pain on his bed, And with strong pain in many of his bones, So that his life abhors bread, And his soul succulent food. His flesh wastes away from sight, And his bones stick out which once were not seen. Yes, his soul draws near the Pit, And his life to the executioners." (33: 17-22)

In these words Elihu is saying that pain and sufferings are sent by God for the good of his creatures, and his shortening of days, is in order that they by them might come to "turn," to repent, to be "chastened" so as to be brought to salvation and restoration. He also says that pain is given to men to keep them humble. 

That God chastens his own children to discipline them, to correct them, to teach them, is not doubted. But, it is not what God does with those not his children, or to lost men in general. The sufferings of all men are due to their fall in Adam and to the fact that they are cursed and under wrath. Yet, men do not get all their due in this life. The next life will be the great equalizer. This being so, we cannot say, for instance, that Lazarus, who laid at the gate of the rich man (Luke 16), and suffered greatly throughout his life, was therefore a wicked man (over and above what he was by the fall of Adam). Nor can we say that the rich man, at whose gate Lazarus waited for crumbs, was righteous because he "fared sumptuously every day." If the full reward for both obedience and disobedience were all received equally in this life, then the rich man would have lived like Lazarus and Lazarus would have lived as the rich in his life.

The word "chastise" (or chastening) may sometimes denote punitive inflictions upon criminals and which are not intended to be "rehabilitating." (Deut. 22: 18) So, the Lord Jesus was "chastised" by the Roman soldiers. (Luke 23: 16, 22) The impenitent are chastened in God's "hot displeasure" (Psa. 6: 1; 38: 1), though even this is mostly in the world to come.

Job had already asked them "why the wicked live and become old and mighty in power?" (Job 21: 7) They never answered his question and yet they often complained that he was not answering their questions. Neither does Elihu. In their theology and explanations there should be no wicked man who lives to old age, or who suffers little adversity and poverty in life. But, the fact is, many wicked people fare better in this world than do the righteous. Notice this text:

"Deliver my life from the wicked with Your sword, With Your hand from men, O LORD, From men of the world who have their portion in this life, And whose belly You fill with Your hidden treasure. They are satisfied with children, And leave the rest of their possession for their babes. As for me, I will see Your face in righteousness; I shall be satisfied when I awake in Your likeness." (Psa. 17: 13-15)

For the most part, those who die as lost and unrepentant sinners, have generally fared well in life. God is not continuously sending torments and sufferings to the wicked in their lives. He knows that they will be spending eternity in Hell and so he is "longsuffering" and "forbearing" with the wicked, allowing them to have "their portion in this life." This fact alone refutes the thesis of Elihu. If pain and adversity and loss are means God sends to bring wicked men to repentance, they why is he allowing the wicked to experience so few adversities as compared to the righteous? The portion of the righteous is not so much in this life as in the next. The Psalmist also wrote:

"For I was envious of the boastful, When I saw the prosperity of the wicked. For there are no pangs in their death, But their strength is firm. They are not in trouble as other men, Nor are they plagued like other men. Therefore pride serves as their necklace; Violence covers them like a garment. Their eyes bulge with abundance; They have more than heart could wish." (Psa. 73: 3-7)

Job too saw the prosperity of the wicked and realized that a man's status as either righteous or unrighteous cannot be discerned from his life's circumstances, by his lack of adversity. If Elihu and the three senior friends be correct, then only the righteous would grow old and prosper. The Psalmist denies that this is true, however. Further, the idea of Elihu is that the man who God especially desires to save will receive the greater chastisements so that repentance will hopefully be produced and bring long life and prosperity. Whether the chastisements are effectual to salvation is an "iffy" matter. Thus, a man who is deathly sick and repents of his sin will be made healthy again, according to Elihu. The man who is suffering the loss of all things and repents will be restored to his former standing, he affirms. But, this is not the teaching of the bible. A man may repent and find forgiveness with God and yet not find that he now is restored to perfect health and made suddenly rich in this world. 

As the text cited at the head of this post indicates, God does discipline his children in order that they might be saved, that they might not be condemned with the world. Elihu does not deny, as some affirm, that Job is being punished for his sins. It is true that he says that the punishment, the chastisement, is not merely punitive, but corrective, a means to deliverance. Some commentators affirm that this was a new argument introduced by Elihu, but this is not correct. Eliphaz had said to Job: “Behold, happy is the man whom God corrects; Therefore do not despise the chastening of the Almighty." (5: 17) It is also what Solomon taught in the Proverbs. He wrote: "My son, do not despise the chastening of the Lord, Nor detest His correction; For whom the Lord loves He corrects, Just as a father the son in whom he delights." (Prov. 3: 11-12)

Wrote the apostle Paul:

"And you have forgotten the exhortation which speaks to you as to sons: “My son, do not despise the chastening of the LORD, Nor be discouraged when you are rebuked by Him; For whom the LORD loves He chastens, And scourges every son whom He receives.” If you endure chastening, God deals with you as with sons; for what son is there whom a father does not chasten? But if you are without chastening, of which all have become partakers, then you are illegitimate and not sons. Furthermore, we have had human fathers who corrected us, and we paid them respect. Shall we not much more readily be in subjection to the Father of spirits and live? For they indeed for a few days chastened us as seemed best to them, but He for our profit, that we may be partakers of His holiness. Now no chastening seems to be joyful for the present, but painful; nevertheless, afterward it yields the peaceable fruit of righteousness to those who have been trained by it." (Heb. 12: 5-11)

This chastening pertains to those who are children of God. It also involves fatherly disciplinary punishments, yea, even whippings and scourging, and rebukes. 

Job was not ignorant of God's chastening. He was a beloved son of God and God chastens all his children. So, why does Elihu (and the other three) think that he does not already know about it? Does he think that Job has not already deeply considered that possibility? 

The fact is, Job's sufferings were not chastening for wrongdoing. If Job's sufferings were for heinous sin, then why is Elihu and the other three not suffering as he? Why are we not? Will we say it is because we are righteous, like Elihu and the other three? 

Did Job's sufferings produce a better character in the end? Yes, but as previously noted, this was an indirect result of his sufferings. The main purpose of his sufferings was to prove God right in what he said about Job and his righteous life and his fealty to his God, about his holding fast even though tempted and tried by "the Satan." After all, "all things work together for good to them who love God" (Rom. 8: 28). God brought good to Job as a reward for his patient endurance, but that was a side benefit of God being proven right and the Devil proven wrong. He brought good out of evil. 

Which Books Are Inspired?

I have written on the question of which books should, or should not be, included in the scriptures. Most believers, even teachers of the word, are ignorant of this subject. Most could not give a rational defense for why they believe that there are sixty six books in the Bible (most Protestants) or more (Catholics and other sects) and yet they should (I Peter 3: 15). Some theologians and pastors know a good bit about it, thankfully. 

Are we to accept books of the bible for no good reason other than it is what our religious tradition has given to us and said that these, and these alone, are "THE scriptures"? Does our faith in which books are inspired and which are not depend upon our faith in our forefathers, or in our religious tradition? Ought we not to have a "rule" by which to discern the inspired from the uninspired?

I wrote on "the rules for deciding canonicity" for books purporting to be the word of God, inspired and without error. Any believer can read the sixty six books, and the numerous other books that have claimed inclusion into the inspired "canon," and discern whether they are truly the inspired word of God. They can do this by applying the rules that the scriptures themselves give to us for judging what is "scripture," and what is not.

I do not believe, like Luther, and perhaps Calvin, that the book of Esther is inspired and is the word of God but is to be put into the category of pseudapigrapha (spurious writings). For holding this position I have been told that I was going to Hell. When I asked the bible teacher to tell me how it could be inspired when it does not pass the test of inspiration, using the rules for determining it. I never got a response. Obviously I was expected to believe in the inspiration of Esther without good reason, or simply because this is the predominant view or tradition.

In any case the following are excerpts from the series I wrote on this back in 2008. 

Canonical Rule #1 - Does the scroll (book) speak of Christ? Is it prophetic? (here & here)

"And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself...And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me. " (Luke 24: 27, 44 KJV) 

 

Which books of the Old Testament did NOT speak of the Messiah? Clearly Esther does not. Some have doubted the inspiration of Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and the Song of Songs (Solomon) for the same reason.

Then where would we put the book of Esther? Is it historical? Is it an inspired novel? Certainly it is not messanic and therefore would not pass the first test of canonicity, given by Jesus above. Would we put it in the same circle with the other historical and romance writings? 

 

There are those who have, historically, sought to place other books into these various circles of inspiration. These would include books called "Apocryphal." 

 

How can we judge the inspiration, truthfulness, correctness, and reliability of these books? How do they stand up to the first rule of inspiration and canonicity? The messianic rule?

What is the first criterion for deciding full inspiration or canonicity? It is the Messianic criterion (which would include what some called the "prophetic" test or criterion). 

 

Does the book speak of Christ? In my previous chapter, I showed from Luke 24: 27, 44 that Christ made this a rule for calling something "scripture." 

 

In this chapter I will enlarge upon the "messianic test (rule)" and show that "the scriptures" are defined by this rule.

"Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me." (John 5: 39 KJV)

From these verses we are given a further description and definition of what constitutes "scripture." 

 

Scripture testifies of Christ. Whatever does not testify of Christ is not "scripture." It discusses repentance and remission of sins. Thus, "content" or "theme" is a sub category within the "messianic rule." 

 

From "the scriptures" one may learn of Christ and the gospel. None of this, however, can be learned from the Book of Esther. 

 

We also learn that "scripture" may be "fulfilled." This makes "scripture," by biblical definition, "prophetic," whether outright or by way of symbolism and analogy. Strictly "historical" and "romance" books of Hebrew literature, are not capable of being "fulfilled."

Canonical Rule 2 - The Profitability Test (criterion) (here)

"For whatsoever things were written aforetime were written for our learning, that we through patience and comfort of the scriptures might have hope." (Romans 15: 4 KJV) 

 

"And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works." (II Timothy 3: 15-17 KJV) 

 

1) Does the book produce a "hope" of salvation through Christ? 

2) Does the book "instruct in righteousness," being "profitable" thereunto? 

3) Does the book "correct" errors in doctrine and righteousness? 

4) Is the book "profitable for doctrine"? If so, what doctrines? 

5) Is the book "profitable for reproof"? If so, how or in what way? 

6) Does the book "perfect" the faith of the "man of God"? 

7) Does the book "make one wise unto salvation"? 

 

Scripture here is defined as what makes one wise unto salvation in Christ. Does the Book of Esther do this? Does it pass the test of "profitability"?

Canonical Rule 3 - Privacy or Origination Test (here & here)

This rule would include the issue of divine "authority." 

 

Those who wrote scripture were not self authorized men, or men who were authorized by groups of uninspired men, but men who were chosen and appointed by God, men who were sent and authorized by him, and taught by him what to say and teach. 

 

"We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts: Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. 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: 19-21 KJV) 

 

In discerning inspiration and canonicity, we should ask such questions as these: 

 

Who authored the book? 

What was the content, subject, or main teachings of the book? 

How did the book come into being? 

What of its origination? 

Is it "prophetic"? 

Does it reveal the nature and workings of God and Christ? 

Does it instruct in righteousness and doctrine? 

Three rules have been given thus far for determining inspiration and canonicity. 

 

1) The Messianic rule (test) 

2) The Profitability rule (test) 

3) The Privacy rule (test)

A popular conservantive web site gives these rules for "Tests of Canonicity." 

"Specific tests to consider canonicity may be recognized." 

(1) Did the book indicate God was speaking through the writer and that it was considered authoritative? 

(2) Was the human author recognized as a spokesman of God, that is, was he a prophet or did he have the prophetic gift? 

(3) Was the book historically accurate? Did it reflect a record of actual facts? 

 

There are some 250 quotes from Old Testament books in the New Testament. None are from the Apocrypha. All Old Testament books are quoted except Esther, Ecclesiastes, and the Song of Solomon."

Canonical Rule 4  - Does the professed sacred scroll contradict itself? (here)

Does the professed sacred scroll contradict itself? Does it have errors? Doctrinal, theological, historical, grammatical, etc.? Jesus said "the scripture cannot be broken." (John 10: 35 KJV)

Canonical Rule 5 - Does it contain the oracles of God? (here)

Thus far we have discovered four cardinal rules that determine inspiration and canonicity. 

 

1. Messianic Test - does it witness to Christ per John 5: 39, Luke 24: 27, 44? 

2. Profitability Test - Does it do the things scripture is said to do per II Tim. 3: 15, 16? 

3. Origination Test - Did it originate by divine initiative and revelation? Is it cited by other scripture writers and consistent with other scripture? Is it from a prophetic or apostolic source? (Per II Peter 1: 20?) 

4. Consistency or Truth Test - is it free of error and contradiction? (Per John 10: 35?) 

 

The "oracles" of God 

 

5. Does it contain the oracles or utterances of God per Rom. 3: 2? 

 

"This is he, that was in the church in the wilderness with the angel which spake to him in the mount Sina, and with our fathers: who received the lively oracles to give unto us." (Acts 7: 38 KJV) 

 

"What advantage then hath the Jew? or what profit is there of circumcision? Much every way: chiefly, because that unto them were committed the oracles of God." (Romans 3: 1, 2 KJV) 

 

"For when for the time ye ought to be teachers, ye have need that one teach you again which be the first principles of the oracles of God..." (Hebrews 5: 12 KJV) 

 

"If any man speak, let him speak as the oracles of God..." (I Peter 4: 11 KJV) 

 

Strictly speaking, no accepted inspired book of the Bible contains only the oracles of God. For instance, all of the Book of Genesis is not the direct verbal utterances of God, or his "oracles." It does contain God's verbal utterances. Yea, the very first oracle is the one given to Adam and Eve, which announced to them the coming "seed of the woman" and his victory over the "seed of the serpent." But, the other parts of Genesis are the words of Moses in commentary, explanation, and narration. Yes, these are true and inspired, but they are not the utterances of God. 

 

Genesis is inspired because it contains the oracles or very words of God spoken to a prophet by the mouth of God. Thus the prophets were often recorded as saying, "the word of the Lord came unto me" or "thus says the Lord," or "these be the words God has given me," etc.; And, where these divine utterances are recorded, they become his written oracles. But, strictly speaking, they are different from other parts that are not the express utterances of God. Can we say that the chronologies and genealogies in the Old Testament books are the utterances or oracles of God? We can say they are truthful and accurate, as a result of God's providence, but can we say they are the "oracles" of God? No, clearly not. 

 

But, if a book contain an "oracle" or "thus says the Lord," or other such markers of inspiration and revelation, then it passes this test of inspiration and canonicity. 

 

Does the Book of Esther contain any oracle of God?

40 Questions on Esther (here)

1. Have you ever read the Book of Esther? 

2. What was your first impression when reading it? 

3. What lessons did you find in the reading? 

4. What was the major theme of the book? 

5. How many times have you re-read the Book of Esther? 

6. How much has the Book of Esther been part of your meditations? (versus other books of the bible?) 

7. How many sermons or bible study lessons have you heard on it? 

8. What type of Hebrew Literature is it? 

9. Who is the author of the Book? 

10. Are there any memorable words in the Book? 

11. Are there any oracles of God in the Book? 

12. Are there any Messianic references or allusions in the Book? 

13. Is there any instruction in righteousness in the Book? 

14. Is there any reproof for sin in the Book? 

15. Is there anything in the Book profitable for doctrine? 

16. Is there anything in the Book to make a person wise unto salvation? 

17. Is there any correction in the Book? 

18. Does the Book have the words to perfect the man of faith? 

19. Does the Book equip the man of God for good works? 

20. Does the Book have historical or other errors? 

21. Does the Book contradict itself? 

22. Are there doubts about the inspiration of the Book? Or, is there universal agreement? 

23. How does the Book measure up to the rules for judging inspiration? 

24. What have the church fathers and leading apologists said of the Book? 

25. Is the Book cited by Christ, another bible writer, or an apostle? 

26. Is the feast of Purim of heaven or of men? 

27. Is the feast of Purim an addition to the seven feasts of Yahweh as given by Moses? 

28. How does the feast of Purim teach about redemption? 

29. Did Jesus observe Purim as a religious observance? 

30. Did Jesus countenance the general Jewish practice of Purim? 

31. Did he participate in the carnivals and merrymaking? 

32. Did the apostles and early Christian Jews participate in Purim? 

33. Why did the Christian Jews in Qumran not recognize it? 

34. Are the leading Hebrew characters in the Book examples of faith? 

35. Was Esther an heroine of the faith? Was Mordecai a hero? 

36. What are the godly characteristics of Esther? Of Mordecai? 

37. What are the ungodly characteristics of each? 

38. What is the setting or context of the story? 

39. Does the Book edify and build me up in the most holy faith? 

40. What was God's purpose in having this Book to be accepted as his inspired word?

Another posting that may be of interest is Calvin on Esther? (here).

A writer correctly affirmed: 

 

"Luther and Calvin left no commentaries on Esther..." 

Another writer says: 

 

"John Calvin to never have preached the book." 

Another writer, a Reformed writer, wrote: 

 

"As far as we can tell, there were no commentaries written on the book of Esther for the first seven centuries of the Church. And John Calvin, as far as we know, never preached on Esther or wrote a commentary on it. So it seems that people did have a problem with what to make of Esther." 

We know Luther rejected the inspiration and canonicity of the Book of Esther. Others have also, both among the ancient Jews and the early Christian fathers (such as Athanasius). 

In a separate blog titled "ESTHER'S CANONICITY" (here) I have several chapters on Esther.

It is from the Book of Esther that the Jews get their "feast of Purim" authority. But, God gave only seven (the perfect number) of feasts to the Jews and there is no eighth. Further, because of its blind acceptance as inspired (and intended therefore to teach us about God and salvation), men have therefore sought to find something in it to prove its inspiration (even though God's name is not even mentioned in it) and tried to make a Christian heroine out of Esther (which she was not).

The Book of Esther tells us what happened to the Jews who refused to go back to their own land (with Ezra and Nehemiah) in order to pick up where they left off before they were taken to captivity in Babylon. They began to build the city, its walls, and the temple. Those who returned were the godly remnant. Those who chose to stay in Babylon (where many had begun to take root and make money) represent the worldly secular Jew. That being so, we are supposed to believe that the book of Esther shows God's hand of providential blessing upon them in their preservation and deliverance. But, that is not what it shows, and is not what it was intended to show. 

Christ Is Coming Again!

If I could choose one sign to make and hold up to passing vehicles on the highway, what would it be? (I have thought of doing this) Would I hold up John 3: 16? Well, that would be good and has been so used. Would I hold up a sign that says "Repent or Perish"? Well, that would be good and has also been used (thank God for those who have so ministered the word). What about "The Day of Judgment is Coming - Are you ready?" That would be good too. But, the more I have thought about it, the more I think this would be better - "Jesus Is Coming Again! Good or Bad News For You?" 

Perhaps I would put Amos 5: 18-20 at the bottom of the sign. Hopefully people would think about the question and look up the verse when they can do so. It reads:

"Woe unto you that desire the day of the Lord! to what end is it for you? the day of the Lord is darkness, and not light. As if a man did flee from a lion, and a bear met him; or went into the house, and leaned his hand on the wall, and a serpent bit him. Shall not the day of the Lord be darkness, and not light? even very dark, and no brightness in it?"

If I were a multi millionaire, I would rent billboards all over the country and put such a sign up.

The fact that Christ is coming back, and very soon, should thrill and excite the hearts of believers. But, it ought to scare men to death. To what end will the return of Christ be for us? 

Jesus Christ Is Coming Again! 

Good or Bad News For You? 

Amos 5: 18-20

Elihu's Words (V)

"All day long they distort my words; All their thoughts are against me for evil" 

(Psalm 56: 5)

Elihu next says, speaking directly to Job:

“But please, Job, hear my speech, And listen to all my words. Now, I open my mouth; My tongue speaks in my mouth. My words come from my upright heart; My lips utter pure knowledge. The Spirit of God has made me, And the breath of the Almighty gives me life. If you can answer me, Set your words in order before me; Take your stand. Truly I am as your spokesman before God; I also have been formed out of clay. Surely no fear of me will terrify you, Nor will my hand be heavy on you. Surely you have spoken in my hearing, And I have heard the sound of your words, saying, ‘I am pure, without transgression; I am innocent, and there is no iniquity in me. Yet He finds occasions against me, He counts me as His enemy; He puts my feet in the stocks, He watches all my paths.’ “Look, in this you are not righteous. I will answer you, For God is greater than man. Why do you contend with Him?" (33: 1-13)

Once again Elihu continues being repetitive. He also continues calling attention to himself. In the words above he begins by again asserting how good a listener he is. Yet, ironically, he shows himself not to be such a good listener, for he misquotes Job and misconstrues his remarks. What did Job actually say? Compare that with what Elihu says that he said. One will see how he twists and distorts Job's words and make him to say what he did not say. Most commentators recognize this. For instance, Ellicott's Commentary says (emphasis mine): 

"I am clean without transgression.—Job has nowhere used this language; but many of his statements were capable of being so perverted and misrepresented (Job 9:20-21; Job 16:17; Job 23:10-12; Job 27:5-6)."

Pulpit Commentary comments similarly: 

"I am clean without transgression, I am innocent. Job had not said that he was "clean," or "without transgression," or "innocent." With respect to "cleanness," he had observed, "Who can bring a clean thing out of an unclean? not one," implying that all men were unclean (see Job 14:4). Concerning, 'transgressions," he had declared, "I have sinned... Why dost thou not pardon my transgression, and take away mine iniquity?" (Job 7:20, 21); and again, "Thou makest me to possess the iniquities of my youth" (Job 13:26). Further, he had asked to be told the number of his iniquities and sins (Job 13:23), and declared that God kept his transgressions and iniquities sewn up and sealed in a bag (Job 14:17). With regard to "innocence," the only observation that he had made was, "I know that thou wilt not hold me innocent" (Job 9:28). What he had really asserted was his uprightness, his integrity, his "righteousness" (Job 12:4: 16:17; 23. 7; 27:5, 6; 31:5-40). And these are exactly what God bore witness to (Job 1:8; Job 2:3). It is plain, then, that Elihu overstated his case, and, whatever his intentions were, was practically almost as unfair to Job as the "comforters." Neither is there iniquity in me. Nor had Job said this. He had frequently acknowledged the contrary (see Job 7:21; Job 13:26; Job 14:17)."

Albert Barnes in his notes wrote:

"Job had not used these very expressions, nor had he intended to maintain that he was absolutely free from sin; see Job 9:20. He had maintained that he was not chargeable with the transgressions of which his three friends maintained that he was guilty, and in doing that he had used strong language, and language which even seemed to imply that he was without transgression; see Job 9:30; Job 10:7; Job 13:23; Job 16:17."

Since Elihu misquotes Job and then attacks those misquotes, he shows that he was not a good, unbiased, listener, nor a good interpreter, but shows his ignorance and lack of wisdom. 

Job did see God's dealings with him as a case where God had taken away and was continuing to withhold his good things from him. From all appearances it seemed that God had indeed treated him as an enemy and metaphorically put him in the stocks. The words of Job in his sufferings and deep questioning are similar to both the Psalmist and of the prophet Jeremiah. So, if such questionings make one unrighteous, as Elihu contends, then so too is the Psalmist and Jeremiah. Said the Psalmist:

"In the day of my trouble I sought the Lord; My hand was stretched out in the night without ceasing; My soul refused to be comforted. I remembered God, and was troubled; I complained, and my spirit was overwhelmed...I call to remembrance my song in the night; I meditate within my heart, And my spirit makes diligent search. Will the Lord cast off forever? And will He be favorable no more? Has His mercy ceased forever? Has His promise failed forevermore? Has God forgotten to be gracious? Has He in anger shut up His tender mercies?" (Psalm 77: 2-3, 6-9)

In reading these words one might think Job was the man talking, for the language of the Psalmist is so similar to the words of Job. They are the words of a suffering saint. Notice what the Psalmist says about God. He says God's hand was stretched out against him. He says he was troubled and remembered God. That certainly was true of Job in his sufferings. "I complained" said the Psalmist. So too did Job and he was condemned as unrighteous for so complaining. The Psalmist questioned God's love and care for him, querying "will the Lord cast off forever?" And, "will he be favorable no more?" And, "has his mercy ceased forever?" Etc. If Job be judged as unrighteous for asking such questions, and being in doubt, then so must the Psalmist. So must every believer! 

The prophet Jeremiah said:

"I am the man who has seen affliction by the rod of His wrath. He has led me and made me walk In darkness and not in light. Surely He has turned His hand against me Time and time again throughout the day. He has aged my flesh and my skin, And broken my bones. He has besieged me And surrounded me with bitterness and woe. He has set me in dark places Like the dead of long ago. He has hedged me in so that I cannot get out; He has made my chain heavy. Even when I cry and shout, He shuts out my prayer. He has blocked my ways with hewn stone; He has made my paths crooked. He has been to me a bear lying in wait, Like a lion in ambush. He has turned aside my ways and torn me in pieces; He has made me desolate. He has bent His bow And set me up as a target for the arrow. He has caused the arrows of His quiver To pierce my loins." (Lam. 3: 1-13)

Had Elihu, like his three seniors who spoke to Job, heard the above words of the prophet, they would have condemned him as they did Job for saying similar things about God's providential dealings with him. In fact, the above words are very similar to the words of suffering Job.

Job had said to them about God's dealings with him in his sufferings:

"I was at ease, but He has shattered me; He also has taken me by my neck, and shaken me to pieces; He has set me up for His target, His archers surround me. He pierces my heart and does not pity; He pours out my gall on the ground. He breaks me with wound upon wound; He runs at me like a warrior." (Job 16: 12-14)

So, if Job is condemned for his complaining, for his questioning, for his doubting and perplexity, then so too may we condemn the Psalmist and the Prophet Jeremiah. Remember that Elihu says to Job - "in this you are not righteous." That is, in his complaining, Job was not righteous. But if that is so, then so too are the Psalmist and the prophet.

He says Job says that "God watches all my paths." So, what is wrong with that? God does watch our paths. Even more than that, he actually does think upon each of us. (See Psalm 14: 17) The same sentiment was expressed by the Psalmist and the prophet.

Elihu said "God is greater than man. Why do you contend with Him?"

So, Job did not already know that God was greater than man? That was insulting. Further, when did Job contend, or fight with, God? That was putting words into Job's mouth. Job would never have been a rebel to his God. Job contended with his counselors, and in their minds this was tantamount to his contending with God, for in their minds they have equated themselves with God. 

In the above words he does not add anything new but makes the same points, the same accusations, as did his three seniors. Ironically, this is what he promised he would not do! He does in fact answer Job with similar words to that of the three, though he said he would not answer Job with their words. 

Elihu says "My words come from my upright heart; My lips utter pure knowledge" and "Truly I am as your spokesman before God."

What presumption! What arrogance! Of course, God does not have this same opinion of Elihu. What hypocrisy too! He condemns Job for what he himself does! He can say he is perfectly righteous, and it not be unrighteous, but if Job says he is upright and speaks truth, then he is judged as unrighteous. 

On The Trade War

It is my belief that we are in the middle of a "trade war." I have written on this previously. See

"Comments On My 2016 Prediction" (here) and 

"News On The Predicted Trade War" (here)

This trade war began with President Donald Trump and the major opponent was China. It began with "tariffs," and each side kept reacting to each other with more tariffs, and greater threats of economic war. Well, where are we now? Is the war over? If so, who won? 

No, the war is not over. It has rather increased in magnitude. The supply chain problems we are now having are no accident. They are part of this ongoing trade war. Further, it may very well be the case that China purposely released a weaponized virus (Covid) in order to damage the economy of the USA (and others too). Some might think that this is something that China would never do. After all, no country would purposely kill many of their citizens, right? 

Every tyrannical government has been guilty of killing its citizens. Hitler did it. Stalin killed millions of his own citizens. So did Mao Tse Tung, and so have those who followed him, such as Xi. 

It could well be that China figured that they would suffer less from Covid than the USA or other countries. So what if China loses a few of its citizens? They have plenty! Further, if China planned the release of the Virus, they would have been better prepared for its consequences than any other country. They certainly would be in a position to make money from it (selling masks, buying pharmaceuticals, etc.).

Economic wars quickly become militaristic conflicts. 

If the Covid Pandemic is a plan of China, along with other collaborators, to bring about the destruction of the present world order (to bring about a new world order), as suggested by the Vision 2030 project of the World Economic Forum, then things may yet get worse economically. The rise of totalitarianism in most countries of the world as a result of battling Covid is therefore a planned outcome, one designed to prepare the way for a one world government which will completely control all aspects of life for everyone.

If the world's ruling elite are conspirators in all this, whether in business or government, then what is happening now is a "jockeying for position" for that new world order that they know is coming. 

 What think ye?

Elihu's Words (IV)

"he shall take them away as a whirlwind"

(Psalm 58: 9)

"Lest you say, ‘We have found wisdom’; God will vanquish him, not man. Now he has not directed his words against me; So I will not answer him with your words. “They are dismayed and answer no more; Words escape them. And I have waited, because they did not speak, Because they stood still and answered no more. I also will answer my part, I too will declare my opinion. For I am full of words; The spirit within me compels me. Indeed my belly is like wine that has no vent; It is ready to burst like new wineskins. I will speak, that I may find relief; I must open my lips and answer. Let me not, I pray, show partiality to anyone; Nor let me flatter any man. For I do not know how to flatter, Else my Maker would soon take me away." (13-22)

The Reason for the Failure of the Three

Elihu says that the three previous speakers had failed, and he sees this as keeping them from boasting, from saying "we have found wisdom," meaning "we have discovered the hidden reasons behind Job's sufferings and have the credit for doing it by our wisdom (cunning)." But why does Elihu not want the three seniors to get any credit for wisdom? Would he not want them to show themselves wise? Why is he happy about their failure at showing themselves wise? To keep them from pride? If so, why does he not want to be himself shown to be unwise? It seems rather likely that though he condemns their lack of wisdom, he is nevertheless happy that they have failed to show wisdom. But, why would that be if he is so righteous? It seems he is not merely disappointed in the failures of the three, condemning them for their failures, but is happy about it. But, in this he is showing himself unwise, proud, and self asserting. It is rather likely that he was happy at their failures because they gave him opportunity to do what they could not do. He sees the whole discussion as a contest, and he wants himself to be the sole winner of it. 

God Will Vanquish Job

"God will vanquish him, not man." Are these the words of the three elders or of Elihu? Are those words to be connected with "you say"? So that the text reads "lest you say God will vanquish him, not man." 

Or is it Elihu who adds the commentary that says "God will vanquish him?" The text is not clear on that point. It does fairly well describe the summation of the three senior speakers. They essentially "gave up" the case and left it to God's providence to decide the point, believing that God would cast him down, or drive him away. Further, the word "lest" seems to infer that Elihu did not want his seniors, who had already spoken and laid out their case, to be able to legitimately and boastfully "say" 

1) that they have been wise in their decision (solution or claim) or 

2) "God will vanquish him, not man." 

In the latter case it is not a record of what had actually been said but of what might have been said. In either case, it seems to me that all suspected that God would appear in righteous anger and drive Job away. 

The Hebrew word for "vanquish" ("thrusteth him down" kjv) is "nāḏap̄" and is translated thusly:

"Do not say, ‘We have found wisdom; let God, not a man, refute him.’" (NIV)

"And don’t tell me, ‘He is too wise for us. Only God can convince him.’" (NLT)

"Beware lest you say, ‘We have found wisdom; God may vanquish him, not a man.’" (ESV)

"Lest ye should say, We have found out wisdom: God thrusteth him down, not man." (KJV)

"Lest you say, ‘We have found wisdom’; God will vanquish him, not man." (NKJV)

“So do not say, ‘We have found wisdom: God will defeat him, not man.’" (NASB)

“Do not say, ‘We have found wisdom; God will rout him, not man." (NASB 1995) 

The KJV translates the word in the following manner: drive away (4x), drive (1x), thrust him down (1x), shaken (1x), driven to and fro (1x), tossed to and fro (1x).p

Strong says - "a primitive root; to shove asunder, i.e. disperse:—drive (away, to and fro), thrust down, shaken, tossed to and fro." Thayer also says it means to "drive away." 

So, we may say "let God throw him down," "let God vanquish him," "let God rout and defeat him," "let God refute and convince him." 

Of course, Job was not driven away by the whirlwind appearance of God. Was anyone "driven away" by the stormy presence of the Almighty?

Elihu Driven Away

All had agreed that "God will drive him (Job) away." Elihu adds these interesting words: "For I do not know how to flatter, else my Maker would soon take me away."

I find it rather interesting that we have two similar expressions that seem to uphold my view that Elihu was taken away by the whirlwind. All four of Job's antagonists thought that God would "drive away" Job from this life as a final divine judgment upon him. Elihu adds to this prediction by saying "if I am a flatterer, my Maker will soon TAKE ME AWAY." Well, God did take him away! How ironic! 

Further, the prediction that God would show up and "drive away" or vanquish Job turned out to be wrong! The one literally taken away seems to be Elihu. Surprise, surprise! Two separate sentences, one talking about being "driven away" and another about being "taken away," and each very important in the context of God showing up in a stormy wind and Elihu vanishing from the scene. Who of the four seems to have vanished suddenly from the scene? Elihu is the one. Many commentators find this puzzling. There is a mystery about his 1) sudden disappearance, and 2) not being mentioned by God in the epilogue. 

In addition to the words we have previously cited (at the head of this posting - 'he shall take them away as a whirlwind'), let us notice these words about being taken away in a tornado or stormy wind.

"They are like straw before the wind, And like chaff that a storm carries away." (Job 21: 18)

The "they" are wicked (unrighteous) men. They are "like the chaff which the wind drives away." (Psa. 1: 4) 

"Terrors take hold on him as waters, a tempest steals him away in the night. The east wind carries him away, and he departs: and as a storm hurls him out of his place. For God shall cast upon him, and not spare: he would fain flee out of his hand." (Job 27: 20-22)

This is talking about the fate of lost wicked men, and what seems to be the very thing that happened to Elihu. He was interrupted, or cut off, in his speaking by the sudden storm, the whirlwind. It is safe to assume that Elihu was "blown away" by the appearance of God, but Job and the others not, for they were judged not to be chaff. 

So, the irony is expressive. They all predict that Job will be "driven away" as wind drives away chaff and whatever is not anchored or well founded. Yet, it is one of them, and not Job, who is literally driven away. The remaining three advisors, though not driven away, yet they were scolded by the Lord and given opportunity for atonement and redemption. They requested Job to pray for them, confessing to him their wrong treatment of him, acknowledging their bad counsel, and have the proper sacrifices made. This is a mercy shown to them that does not seem to be afforded to Elihu.

Elihu the Presumptuous

Elihu next says:

"He  (Job) has not directed his words against me, So I will not answer him with your words."

Here again we have Elihu, as a young whippersnapper, castigating his elders, repeating his rebuke of his seniors who have preceded him. He "talks down" to them. Listen to him saying in an angry voice - "So I will not answer Job with your words." Hear him say it also in a sarcastic tone. Picture him emanating disgust. Was it justified disgust? Did the three elders need to be so derided? Could he have had a little judgment with mercy? Could he not rather see that they had tried to convince Job? Why glory in their failure? He has already confessed that his wisdom and knowledge is the only thing that will resolve the problem of Job's evils, and that his wisdom and knowledge has been given to him by inspiration. Well, if so, how can he condemn the three for not having wisdom and knowledge that God has chosen not to give to them? Why get mad at those who are unwise? Are they not rather to be pitied, counseled, and prayed for?

Elihu believes he has superior words to utter to Job from his inspired lips, for he, and he alone, has "the breath of the Almighty" that is producing his words. What arrogant presumption! 

The apostle Peter spoke of "those who walk according to the flesh in the lust of uncleanness and despise authority. They are presumptuous, self-willed. They are not afraid to speak evil of dignitaries." (II Peter 2: 10) This seem to fit Elihu perfectly. The Greek word for "presumptuous" denotes a "daring man," one who is audacious. Again, this is a fitting character description of Elihu. Wrote the Psalmist: "Keep back Your servant also from presumptuous sins; Let them not have dominion over me. Then I shall be blameless, And I shall be innocent of great transgression." (Psa. 19: 13) The Hebrew word for "presumptuous" means arrogant, proud, insolent, rebellious. This too fits Elihu. Notice too the reference to the "great transgression." Though Job, like all holy men, had minor transgressions, moral slips and falls, none were guilty of great transgression, or apostasy from the God they serve.

Elihu next says:

"They are dismayed and answer no more; Words escape them."

Again, he just cannot restrain his demeaning of his seniors. His method is to tear others down so that he may lift up himself. Yes, words escaped them (finally, after giving many words), but what purpose is there in continually calling attention to the fact? Why keep pointing the finger? What is to be accomplished by doing it? Who is on trial, the three elders, or Job? Are Elihu's words entering his mind and coming from his mouth by the Spirit of God? Then, why is the Spirit calling frequent attention to the weaknesses of the arguments of the three? Further, it was in fact a good and noble thing for the three wise counselors of Job to finally shut up and be silent. They finally "wised up." Knowing when to be silent, when to shut up, is a mark of wisdom. Notice these proverbs of the wise king Solomon.

"When there are many words, transgression is unavoidable, But he who restrains his lips is wise." (Prov. 10: 19)

Most scholars and commentators on Job have observed how Elihu is verbose. With him there are "many words." But, he was not singular in his verbosity, for the three seniors also spoke in too many words, saying little in so much. Job pointed this out more than once in his replies.

"A man of understanding keeps silent." (Prov. 11: 12)

But, this is the thing that Elihu says he cannot do! He must speak, or bust.

"He who restrains his words has knowledge, And he who has a cool spirit is a man of understanding." (Prov. 17: 27)

Well, that surely does not describe Elihu.

"Even a fool, when he keeps silent, is considered wise; When he closes his lips, he is considered prudent." (Prov. 17: 28)

"The words of a wise man’s mouth are gracious, But the lips of a fool shall swallow him up; The words of his mouth begin with foolishness, And the end of his talk is raving madness. A fool also multiplies words. No man knows what is to be; Who can tell him what will be after him?" (Eccl. 10: 12-14)

"Do not be rash with your mouth, And let not your heart utter anything hastily before God. For God is in heaven, and you on earth; Therefore let your words be few." (Eccl. 5: 2)

All these texts condemn Elihu and his three seniors who spoke to Job. Job knew the truth of these texts and tried to keep his words as few as possible. In fact, he often asked them to leave him alone so that he may suffer in silence. He also admonished the three friends to just be silent and sit with him. He said: “O that you would be completely silent, And that it would become your wisdom!" (Job 3: 15)

Elihu, the Buzite (or shall we comically say "the buzzard"?), next says:

"And I have waited, because they did not speak, Because they stood still and answered no more. I also will answer my part, I too will declare my opinion." 

More verbosity, wordiness, repetition! And, this is supposed to be God talking through Elihu? 

Elihu next says:

"For I am full of words; The spirit within me compels me. Indeed my belly is like wine that has no vent; It is ready to burst like new wineskins. I will speak, that I may find relief; I must open my lips and answer."

Again, is this God talking through Elihu? Elihu says that he "must" speak, that he cannot help it, being "compelled" by his spirit (which is moved by the breath of the Lord). He is ready to "burst." If that is so, then he cannot be condemned for anything he says! The two reasons are 1) he cannot help uttering what he says (and one cannot be held responsible for what he is forced to do or say), and 2) he is God speaking, and God cannot be condemned. He is very presumptuous.

He says he speaks "that I might find relief." Why not speak so that Job may find relief? Who is he more concerned about, Job or himself? He says he must give "vent" to his thoughts and feelings. But, as we see, what he vents is anger, hate, disgust, arrogance, etc. Lots of sinners who are guilty of ranting and raving say that they are simply venting their thoughts and emotions. Elihu knows little about self control. 

Elihu next says:

"Let me not, I pray, show partiality to anyone; Nor let me flatter any man. For I do not know how to flatter, Else my Maker would soon take me away."

Two things are of importance to notice from these words. First, his claims to be unbiased and unflattering. Second, his belief that flatterers and prejudiced people will be "taken away" by God their Maker.

But, the fact is, he was guilty of the very things he condemned. He was biased against Job and formed a bad opinion of him without any just reason for doing so. He may not have flattered the three senior friends, or Job, but he sure did flatter himself.

Further, as I believe, his Maker did take away Elihu! He was driven away by the stormy wind of the presence of the Lord, like chaff before the wind, and this accounts for his absence in the prologue. God cuts him off in his speech! Had God not cut him off, Elihu may have talked till he was "blue in the face." 

Again, notice in those few words, how many times he overuses personal pronouns ("I" and "me"). He feels a need to keep talking about his ethos, his good character, his credentials. He does not know how to flatter? Who honestly believes this? If he was such a wise and learned man, he surely would have known how to flatter. Of course there is a difference in knowing how to flatter and actually flattering. I know how to flatter but do my best to not practice it. But, Elihu is claiming not to "know how" to flatter. Yea, right!

Are the above words the inspired words of God? Do they really represent the thinking of God as Elihu wants us to believe? 

Thus, from the opening words of Elihu we are able to ascertain much information on the character of Elihu. How any bible commentator can claim he is a prophet, or type of Christ, is puzzling to me. In the next posting we will continue to look at Elihu's opening words.

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? 

MY TALKS WITH ELDER JEFF LITTLE UNION ASSOCIATION OF OLD REGULAR BAPTISTS

 A few weeks ago, I contacted Elder Jeff Little of the Union Association of Old Regular Baptists in Kentucky. What a delightful talk we had! He is an avid Baptist historian like me. He is currently doing research for a book he hopes to write about the origins of the Old Regulars. He has traced his association all the way from the Philadelphia Association down to the present time. He readily admits on his website, that some traditions which speak of Old Regular history are in error, and he speaks the truth. How refreshing!

   As we talked, we both discussed at how perplexed we are at some who hide their history, or worse yet, lie about it. Why lie, especially when it concerns doctrine? There is no shame in changing your doctrine if you believe it contradicts Scripture! Isn't that what being a Baptist is all about? Scripture above all! Yet some seem they have to maintain a false story of what they now believe, feeling that if they admitted to the truth, it would invalidate them. The only thing that "invalidates" is when the Bible is forsaken for a tradition. We talked about how our love of history, when intersecting our love of theology, forces us to think very hard at times.

   We talked about his association's articles of faith and how differing terms mean different things to different people, such as the third article of the Union Association which states "we believe in election by grace". For some, that means a limited atonement view, for others a general atonement view. The Union Association rejects the limited atonement view, yet Jeff was totally willing to acknowledge that the simplicity of that article may have been an attempt to "refuse" to go into depth as both views were acceptable when Regular Baptists and Separate Baptists, and later the United Baptists agreed to disagree over the issue. We talked about when the Old Regulars parted ways with the Primitives over extreme hyper calvinism. We talked about baptism, music, etc and our two different traditions within the Baptist family. We also discussed the Old Regular view on doubt and assurance. We both agreed that there is a vast difference between mere "hope" and a "blessed hope"...a hope that is blessed is a hope that cannot be lost, and will endure to the end.

   As our talk went on, we got more and more personal, with him telling me of his family. We were on speaker phone and his wife was hearing our conversation, and she asked to speak to me. She told me about her granddaughter who had a severe case of appendicitis over the Christmas holidays, and how God intervened and spoke to them, leading them to the hospital just in time. The doctor who was present was just the one that was needed for such an emergency, and the girl has fully recovered, praise God! I prayed for them over the phone, and tears filled all our eyes as we felt the presence of of the Holy Ghost. He has invited me to come up to Kentucky and stay in his home for a visit, and I may just do that.

   Why am I writing about this you may ask? Well, several reasons the foremost of which shows that we can have an honest conversation without compromising what we believe. Another reason is because I thought it important to show that tradition, even among Baptists, can sometimes get in the way. How can we scream "Scripture alone!" on one hand, then refuse to see past OUR OWN TRADITIONS on the other? Mormons and Jehovahs Witnesses cover up their history and doctrinal changes with a cult mindset, and God forbid that we Baptists should fall into that boat! That boat is one that is full of holes and will surely sink. It is a boat I refuse to get into. How about you?

   Thank you Brother Jeff Little, my brother in Christ and new friend! We will have an eternity to discuss all we have learned, and to praise our Lord for all His goodness and kindness towards us!I pray God as touched your heart in the reading of this little testimony. Ken Mann