So these three men stopped answering Job, because he was righteous in his own eyes. 2But Elihu son of Barakel the Buzite, of the family of Ram, became very angry with Job for justifying himself rather than God. 3He was also angry with the three friends, because they had found no way to refute Job, and yet had condemned him. 4Now Elihu had waited before speaking to Job because they were older than he. 5But when he saw that the three men had nothing more to say, his anger was aroused.
6So Elihu son of Barakel the Buzite said:
“I am young in years,
and you are old;
that is why I was fearful,
not daring to tell you what I know.
7I thought, ‘Age should speak;
advanced years should teach wisdom.’
8But it is the spirit in a man,
the breath of the Almighty, that gives him understanding.
9It is not only the old who are wise,
not only the aged who understand what is right.
10“Therefore I say: Listen to me;
I too will tell you what I know.
11I waited while you spoke,
I listened to your reasoning;
while you were searching for words,
12I gave you my full attention.
But not one of you has proved Job wrong;
none of you has answered his arguments.
13Do not say, ‘We have found wisdom;
let God refute him, not man.’
14But Job has not marshaled his words against me,
and I will not answer him with your arguments.
15“They are dismayed and have no more to say;
words have failed them.
16Must I wait, now that they are silent,
now that they stand there with no reply?
I too will tell what I know.
18For I am full of words,
and the spirit within me compels me;
19inside I am like bottled-up wine,
like new wineskins ready to burst.
20I must speak and find relief;
I must open my lips and reply.
21I will show partiality to no one,
nor will I flatter any man;
22for if I were skilled in flattery,
my Maker would soon take me away.
33:1“But now, Job, listen to my words;
pay attention to everything I say.
2I am about to open my mouth;
my words are on the tip of my tongue.
3My words come from an upright heart;
my lips sincerely speak what I know.
4The Spirit of God has made me;
the breath of the Almighty gives me life.
5Answer me then, if you can;
prepare yourself and confront me.
6I am just like you before God;
I too have been taken from clay.
7No fear of me should alarm you,
nor should my hand be heavy upon you.
8“But you have said in my hearing—
I heard the very words—
9‘I am pure and without sin;
I am clean and free from guilt.
10Yet God has found fault with me;
he considers me his enemy.
11He fastens my feet in shackles;
he keeps close watch on all my paths.’
12“But I tell you, in this you are not right,
for God is greater than man.
13Why do you complain to him
that he answers none of man’s words?
14For God does speak—now one way, now another—
though man may not perceive it.
15In a dream, in a vision of the night,
when deep sleep falls on men
as they slumber in their beds,
16he may speak in their ears
and terrify them with warnings,
17to turn man from wrongdoing
and keep him from pride,
18to preserve his soul from the pit,
his life from perishing by the sword.
19Or a man may be chastened on a bed of pain
with constant distress in his bones,
20so that his very being finds food repulsive
and his soul loathes the choicest meal.
21His flesh wastes away to nothing,
and his bones, once hidden, now stick out.
22His soul draws near to the pit,
and his life to the messengers of death.
23“Yet if there is an angel on his side
as a mediator, one out of a thousand,
to tell a man what is right for him,
24to be gracious to him and say,
‘Spare him from going down to the pit;
I have found a ransom for him’—
25then his flesh is renewed like a child’s;
it is restored as in the days of his youth.
26He prays to God and finds favor with him,
he sees God’s face and shouts for joy;
he is restored by God to his righteous state.
27Then he comes to men and says,
‘I sinned, and perverted what was right,
but I did not get what I deserved.
28He redeemed my soul from going down to the pit,
and I will live to enjoy the light.’
29“God does all these things to a man—
twice, even three times—
30to turn back his soul from the pit,
that the light of life may shine on him.
31“Pay attention, Job, and listen to me;
be silent, and I will speak.
32If you have anything to say, answer me;
speak up, for I want you to be cleared.
33But if not, then listen to me;
be silent, and I will teach you wisdom.”
34:1Then Elihu said:
2“Hear my words, you wise men;
listen to me, you men of learning.
3For the ear tests words
as the tongue tastes food.
4Let us discern for ourselves what is right;
let us learn together what is good.
5“Job says, ‘I am innocent,
but God denies me justice.
6Although I am right,
I am considered a liar;
although I am guiltless,
his arrow inflicts an incurable wound.’
7What man is like Job,
who drinks scorn like water?
8He keeps company with evildoers;
he associates with wicked men.
9For he says, ‘It profits a man nothing
when he tries to please God.’
10“So listen to me, you men of understanding.
Far be it from God to do evil,
from the Almighty to do wrong.
11He repays a man for what he has done;
he brings upon him what his conduct deserves.
12It is unthinkable that God would do wrong,
that the Almighty would pervert justice.
13Who appointed him over the earth?
Who put him in charge of the whole world?
14If it were his intention
and he withdrew his spirit and breath,
15all mankind would perish together
and man would return to the dust.
16“If you have understanding, hear this;
listen to what I say.
17Can he who hates justice govern?
Will you condemn the just and mighty One?
18Is he not the One who says to kings, ‘You are worthless,’
and to nobles, ‘You are wicked,’
19who shows no partiality to princes
and does not favor the rich over the poor,
for they are all the work of his hands?
20They die in an instant, in the middle of the night;
the people are shaken and they pass away;
the mighty are removed without human hand.
21“His eyes are on the ways of men;
he sees their every step.
22There is no dark place, no deep shadow,
where evildoers can hide.
23God has no need to examine men further,
that they should come before him for judgment.
24Without inquiry he shatters the mighty
and sets up others in their place.
25Because he takes note of their deeds,
he overthrows them in the night and they are crushed.
26He punishes them for their wickedness
where everyone can see them,
27because they turned from following him
and had no regard for any of his ways.
28They caused the cry of the poor to come before him,
so that he heard the cry of the needy.
29But if he remains silent, who can condemn him?
If he hides his face, who can see him?
Yet he is over man and nation alike,
30to keep a godless man from ruling,
from laying snares for the people.
31“Suppose a man says to God,
‘I am guilty but will offend no more.
32Teach me what I cannot see;
if I have done wrong, I will not do so again.’
33Should God then reward you on your terms,
when you refuse to repent?
You must decide, not I;
so tell me what you know.
34“Men of understanding declare,
wise men who hear me say to me,
35‘Job speaks without knowledge;
his words lack insight.’
36Oh, that Job might be tested to the utmost
for answering like a wicked man!
37To his sin he adds rebellion;
scornfully he claps his hands among us
and multiplies his words against God.”
35:1Then Elihu said:
2“Do you think this is just?
You say, ‘I will be cleared by God.’
3Yet you ask him, ‘What profit is it to me,
and what do I gain by not sinning?’
4“I would like to reply to you
and to your friends with you.
5Look up at the heavens and see;
gaze at the clouds so high above you.
6If you sin, how does that affect him?
If your sins are many, what does that do to him?
7If you are righteous, what do you give to him,
or what does he receive from your hand?
8Your wickedness affects only a man like yourself,
and your righteousness only the sons of men.
9“Men cry out under a load of oppression;
they plead for relief from the arm of the powerful.
10But no one says, ‘Where is God my Maker,
who gives songs in the night,
11who teaches more to us than to the beasts of the earth
and makes us wiser than the birds of the air?’
12He does not answer when men cry out
because of the arrogance of the wicked.
13Indeed, God does not listen to their empty plea;
the Almighty pays no attention to it.
14How much less, then, will he listen
when you say that you do not see him,
that your case is before him
and you must wait for him,
15and further, that his anger never punishes
and he does not take the least notice of wickedness.
16So Job opens his mouth with empty talk;
without knowledge he multiplies words.”
36:1Elihu continued:
2“Bear with me a little longer and I will show you
that there is more to be said in God’s behalf.
3I get my knowledge from afar;
I will ascribe justice to my Maker.
4Be assured that my words are not false;
one perfect in knowledge is with you.
5“God is mighty, but does not despise men;
he is mighty, and firm in his purpose.
6He does not keep the wicked alive
but gives the afflicted their rights.
7He does not take his eyes off the righteous;
he enthrones them with kings
and exalts them forever.
8But if men are bound in chains,
held fast by cords of affliction,
9he tells them what they have done—
that they have sinned arrogantly.
10He makes them listen to correction
and commands them to repent of their evil.
11If they obey and serve him,
they will spend the rest of their days in prosperity
and their years in contentment.
12But if they do not listen,
they will perish by the sword
and die without knowledge.
13“The godless in heart harbor resentment;
even when he fetters them, they do not cry for help.
14They die in their youth,
among male prostitutes of the shrines.
15But those who suffer he delivers in their suffering;
he speaks to them in their affliction.
16“He is wooing you from the jaws of distress
to a spacious place free from restriction,
to the comfort of your table laden with choice food.
17But now you are laden with the judgment due the wicked;
judgment and justice have taken hold of you.
18Be careful that no one entices you by riches;
do not let a large bribe turn you aside.
19Would your wealth
or even all your mighty efforts
sustain you so you would not be in distress?
20Do not long for the night,
to drag people away from their homes.
21Beware of turning to evil,
which you seem to prefer to affliction.
22“God is exalted in his power.
Who is a teacher like him?
23Who has prescribed his ways for him,
or said to him, ‘You have done wrong’?
24Remember to extol his work,
which men have praised in song.
25All mankind has seen it;
men gaze on it from afar.
26How great is God—beyond our understanding!
The number of his years is past finding out.
27“He draws up the drops of water,
which distill as rain to the streams;
28the clouds pour down their moisture
and abundant showers fall on mankind.
29Who can understand how he spreads out the clouds,
how he thunders from his pavilion?
30See how he scatters his lightning about him,
bathing the depths of the sea.
31This is the way he governs the nations
and provides food in abundance.
32He fills his hands with lightning
and commands it to strike its mark.
33His thunder announces the coming storm;
even the cattle make known its approach.
37:1“At this my heart pounds
and leaps from its place.
2Listen! Listen to the roar of his voice,
to the rumbling that comes from his mouth.
3He unleashes his lightning beneath the whole heaven
and sends it to the ends of the earth.
4After that comes the sound of his roar;
he thunders with his majestic voice.
When his voice resounds,
he holds nothing back.
5God’s voice thunders in marvelous ways;
he does great things beyond our understanding.
6He says to the snow, ‘Fall on the earth,’
and to the rain shower, ‘Be a mighty downpour.’
7So that all men he has made may know his work,
he stops every man from his labor.
8The animals take cover;
they remain in their dens.
9The tempest comes out from its chamber,
the cold from the driving winds.
10The breath of God produces ice,
and the broad waters become frozen.
11He loads the clouds with moisture;
he scatters his lightning through them.
12At his direction they swirl around
over the face of the whole earth
to do whatever he commands them.
13He brings the clouds to punish men,
or to water his earth and show his love.
14“Listen to this, Job;
stop and consider God’s wonders.
15Do you know how God controls the clouds
and makes his lightning flash?
16Do you know how the clouds hang poised,
those wonders of him who is perfect in knowledge?
17You who swelter in your clothes
when the land lies hushed under the south wind,
18can you join him in spreading out the skies,
hard as a mirror of cast bronze?
19“Tell us what we should say to him;
we cannot draw up our case because of our darkness.
20Should he be told that I want to speak?
Would any man ask to be swallowed up?
21Now no one can look at the sun,
bright as it is in the skies
after the wind has swept them clean.
22Out of the north he comes in golden splendor;
God comes in awesome majesty.
23The Almighty is beyond our reach and exalted in power;
in his justice and great righteousness, he does not oppress.
24Therefore, men revere him,
for does he not have regard for all the wise in heart?’ ”
Original Meaning
SUSPENSE IS RUNNING HIGH at this point in the book. Job has thrown down the gauntlet before God with his oath of innocence in chapter 31. It looks like a win-win situation for Job. If God strikes him dead for a false oath, Job’s death wish (Job 3) is fulfilled. If God does nothing, Job is tacitly vindicated of wrongdoing because his oath stands. If God defends himself, Job gets the satisfaction of the dialogue he has been demanding. Job has constructed an alternative legal scenario by uttering his oath (where previously he was trying to subpoena God). He has chosen a risky strategy, and for the reading audience the atmosphere crackles with expectation. We have every indication that we have reached the climax and culmination of the drama.
What an odd time to introduce a new character. The resulting literary vertigo has led many interpreters to conclude that the Elihu speeches must be a later addition by a clumsy editor. They consider his bombastic speeches to be nonproductive repetitions of the points already covered. In contrast, however, as suggested in the Introduction, Elihu is the only character in the book who offers a cogent theodicy (I referred to it as an “educative theodicy”). He defends God’s justice rather than a system, though he still accepts a modified version of the RP that the other characters accept. He accuses Job of self-righteousness, an accusation later verified by God (40:8). We can see, then, that Elihu offers a model for coherence while trying to maintain a justice orientation. It is a clever and noteworthy attempt that is more sophisticated than what was offered by the other characters, though it remains inadequate.
While Elihu pontificates against Job and spins his proposal, the audience is left suspended in the shadow of the delayed denouement, wondering how God will respond to Job’s hubris.
Elihu’s Identity and Status (32:1–5)
WHO IS ELIHU? HE does not come among the three friends introduced in 2:11. His pedigree is longer than any other in the book, and all the names would be appropriate Hebrew eponyms. This leads Hartley to identify him as Israelite,1 an opinion that, while attractive, does not account for the fact that he is identified as a Buzite. Buz was a brother of Uz in Genesis 22:20–21, and thus Elihu is related to Israelites as part of the international family of Abram. Territorially, Jeremiah 25:23 locates the clan in Edom. Despite the ethnic relationship and territorial proximity, such identification still distances Elihu from national Israelites.
Nevertheless, the meaning of his name (“He is my God”) draws him nearer and the position he adopts is one that a right-thinking Israelite could maintain. In this way, I might suggest that just as the friends represented the common logic of the ancient Near East, Elihu represents a more theologically sophisticated and nuanced opinion that might have predominated among the Israelites. Those Israelites who would have scoffed at the blatant attempts of the friends to prompt Job to action in order to restore his prosperity and favor with God would likely find Elihu’s thinking more persuasive.
Elihu’s character has been heavily criticized. Though descriptions of him as insufferably pompous are perhaps accurate, they should not lead to a dismissal of him as a buffoon (as some interpreters do). The other friends were also arrogant and insensitive, as people can be when they are not the ones in the difficult situation.
More than any other quality trait, however, Elihu is seen as a raging, angry young man. The narrator indicates this four times in the text itself (32:2 [2x], 3, 5). He directs his anger against Job because of Job’s self-righteous attitude (32:2) and against the three friends because of their philosophical incompetence (32:3, 5). The text is clear that this anger is not just because Job considers himself righteous, for Job’s righteousness has been repeatedly affirmed and Elihu would have no reason to be angry with that which is patently true. More specifically, Elihu is angry because Job regards his own righteousness more highly than he regards God’s. This is the same accusation God will make in Job 40:8, so his anger on this point is justifiable.
Elihu directs his anger against the incompetence of the friends on two counts: (1) They have condemned Job without having found fault, and (2) they had run out of arguments without having succeeded. The first of these has constituted the core of the book’s message: Elihu’s condemnation of the friends is nothing less than a condemnation of the Great Symbiosis in general and the traditional formulation of the RP in particular. They have functioned as unwitting agents of the Challenger by means of representing that philosophy in their arguments. The second count of his anger expresses his disappointment that they could not move beyond their simplistic paradigms to address what Elihu considers the real issues. Those issues are the ones to which he turns his attention.
Elihu’s Premise (32:6–22)
ELIHU FIRST REFUTES WHAT is apparently traditional thinking, if not common sense, that in matters of wisdom, age should have priority. In contrast, he contends that while a certain wisdom can come with age, the most important wisdom comes from God and may be given to young or old (32:9, 18; 33:4).
In Job 32:8 Elihu asserts “But it is the spirit in a person, the breath of the Almighty, that gives them understanding” (NIV 2011). The word translated “breath” alludes to the concept expressed in Genesis 2:7, where God breathed into Adam the breath of life. That breath came from God, and so also here it denotes the “breath of the Almighty.” In Genesis 2 that breath made Adam a living being, whereas here it gives understanding. In this sense, we might justifiably connect the breath of life/the Almighty with the image of God in Genesis 1, which could easily be associated with the human attribute of wisdom.2 In this sense, Elihu’s statement can be viewed as merging anthropological concepts found in Genesis 1 and 2.
Elihu goes further, however, to suggest that this “breath of the Almighty” serves as a person’s spirit (ruaḥ). It is true that some interpreters have preferred a capitalized reading of Spirit and considered it a (veiled) reference to the Holy Spirit.3 Trinitarian theology would not be what Elihu would have had in mind, nor would it be something comprehended by Job or the Israelite audience, whatever we might decide the role of the Holy Spirit to be. If we are to contend for biblical authority, we must retain linkage to the author’s understanding. Elihu’s statement has more to say about his understanding of the human nature than about the divine nature.
We may infer from the Old Testament that the Israelites considered the human spirit to be “on loan” from God. In Israelite understanding, one would not say that humans are body, soul, and spirit. Rather, a human is a nepeš (self or soul; it ceases when one dies, see Gen. 35:18), who has a body (made by God to return to the earth) and has a spirit (ruaḥ, given by God as a portion of his own spirit to return to him upon death).4 The idea that humans have no spirit of their own but only God’s spirit “on loan” is primarily conveyed in the book of Job (27:3–5; 33:4; 34:14–15), but also indicated in Psalm 104:29 (people’s ruaḥ is gathered, presumably back to God who gave it, and they die; their bodies return to dust). God also speaks of his ruaḥ in humankind in Genesis 6:3 (perhaps the only clear part of that difficult verse). Ecclesiastes 12:7 verifies this assertion: “The spirit returns to God who gave it.”
Zechariah 12:1 potentially offers a different view referring to the “spirit of man” that God formed within a human being.5 This is not contradictory, however, if we conclude that when God places his spirit in a human being, it becomes that person’s spirit until he or she dies and it returns to God from whom it came. In Israelite thinking the spirit (whether described as God’s or human’s) is a vitalizing energy rather than a component part.6 Here Elihu identifies the spirit particularly as the source of the wisdom that he declares he possesses. It is the spirit within him (not the Holy Spirit) that compels him in 32:18; he is energized and impatient to speak.
In 32:12–14 Elihu reiterates the failure of the friends to answer Job satisfactorily and proceeds to differentiate himself from the three friends. He anticipates their assessment of the current state of the discussion in 32:13: They believe they have done their job of making wisdom plain, but since Job has proven so intractable, further or more persuasive refutation will have to come from God. In contrast to their lame philosophical capitulation, Elihu declares that none of Job’s arguments have addressed the direction his argument will take (32:14), and he is not going to be following the same tactic they have used.
In 32:15–22 Elihu’s description of himself resembles Jeremiah’s description of how he is compelled to deliver his prophetic message. Just as Elihu feels ready to burst and needs to find relief, Jeremiah reports that if he tries not to speak the prophetic message given to him, “his word is in my heart like a fire, a fire shut up in my bones. I am weary of holding it in; indeed, I cannot” (Jer. 20:9). We should not, however, conclude that Elihu is claiming a prophetic office or role. There is no sense of “This is what the LORD says” here.
Elihu concludes this part of his speech by insisting that he will not engage in flattery or show partiality. Readers will recall that when the friends began their speeches, they acknowledged the wisdom and righteousness of Job. Only as the dialogues continued did they begin accusing. Elihu is not inclined to such diplomacy; he jumps directly to confrontation. The word translated “flattery” (32:22) is used elsewhere to refer to the bestowing of honorific titles (cf. Isa. 44:5; 45:4). Elihu thereby asserts that he has no intention of engaging in obsequious pandering. To use some modern clichés, he views this as a “no holds barred” situation and does not plan to “pull any punches.” Intriguingly he claims that his integrity will not allow any other path. He says that if he did not do this, his Maker would soon take him away. Just as Job continually insists on keeping his integrity intact, Elihu identifies his own guiding mantra as boldly proclaiming hard truths.
Elihu’s Theory Statement (Job 33)
IN CHAPTER 33 ELIHU presents the theology that provides the foundation for his understanding of Job’s situation. In the following paragraphs I will clarify some of the phrasing and statements and then turn to his overall argument in the Bridging Contexts section.
“The Spirit of God has made me; the breath of the Almighty gives me life” (33:4). Even though the NIV capitalizes “Spirit,” the parallel with “breath” suggests otherwise. Humans are viewed as invigorated by the breath of God. If this were to be viewed as a reference to the Holy Spirit, it would suggest that every human has been granted the presence of the Holy Spirit. Furthermore, the Israelites knew nothing of the Trinity and would not have used “the Spirit of God” for the third person of the Trinity. In the Old Testament the “spirit of God” is understood as an extension of the power of God. This statement by Elihu continues his claim in 32:8 that he is possessed of wisdom. The statement that the spirit “has made me” is parallel to the statement that God’s breath “gives me life.” Elihu is speaking of that aspect of creation that is focused on the functional rather than the material.7 God “made” him by giving him life and wisdom. He is referring to the same role of God when he describes him as his “Maker” in 32:22. There he indicates that the Maker would virtually unmake him if he misused his wisdom in idle flattery.
Claims attributed to Job (33:8–11). Even though Elihu does not directly quote any of Job’s lines, Elihu fairly summarizes Job’s overall position. Since we are in the discourse section of the book rather than the dialogue section, we never hear how Job would respond to Elihu, but most likely he would not object to this paraphrase. Job would not have considered himself free of any guilt whatsoever, and Elihu places the claim of innocence relative to the way that God has treated Job. That is, Job would claim that the suffering that has come his way can in no way be justified by his behavior.
Portrayal of God and his ways. Elihu begins by warning Job that no one can “out-God” God (33:12). Job seems to believe that he has caught God in an inconsistency—that his policies are somehow flawed or his execution of them lacking. To his credit, Elihu avers on principle that this can never be the case. This theological commitment is Elihu’s strength and it is what makes his position more acceptable than Job’s.
Specifically, Elihu contends that God has not been silent; rather, Job has not been listening on the right frequency. He presents dreams and visions as the first examples of the media God uses for communication (33:15–18). Everyone in the ancient world believed that dreams were communication from deity, and Job himself has referred to his dream experiences as one of the ways God has terrorized him (7:14). In ancient Near Eastern thinking, nightmares indicate that the gods are angry with the dreamer.8 Thus, terrifying dreams constitute one form that suffering takes. Elihu adds physical pain to the list of divine communications in 33:19 along with distress (such as Job experienced in losing his property and family). He identifies all of these communication strategies as having corrective intentions (33:17–18).
In other words, Elihu considers these communications to be instructive and constructive rather than punitive. In this he offers a perspective not represented in the thinking of Job or his friends. Rather than restoring the sufferer to the path of life, however, such experiences often lead instead to depression and a decline toward death. On a technical point, it should be noted that the last word in 33:18 is now often understood to refer to the river of death that has to be crossed (see NIV text note) and is thus parallel to “the pit” in the first line of the verse.9
How can this discrepancy (decline toward death rather than restoration to life) be addressed and the cycle broken? Elihu offers his theory in 33:23–28, but it is not an easy one to sort out. Questions arise as to whether the messenger (NIV “angel”) is an angelic mediator or a human one, whether the intercession involves communication to God or to the sufferer, and whether the “ransom” (33:24) is something specific or general. The procedure involves actions by all three parties: the messenger (33:23–24), God (33:25), and the sufferer (33:26–28). The messenger is identified specifically as a mediator (meliṣ), a term used in 16:20 for someone who intercedes with God on the behalf of someone who is suffering. Outside of Job the word is used only three times; in each it refers to humans (a human interpreter, Gen. 42:23; human envoys, 2 Chron. 32:31; most likely prophets in Isa. 43:27). In Job, “angel” (malʾak) occurs only two other times, once referring to a human messenger (1:14) and once to supernatural beings (4:18). In this context, the messenger/mediator speaks both to the sufferer (“to tell a man what is right for him”) and to God (“spare him”)10 regarding the situation and contributes to the solution by finding a “ransom.” None of these dictates whether the messenger/mediator is human. In Job “ransom” (koper) is used as a monetary sum to be paid on one’s behalf.11
Sorting through all of these variables, I would agree with those who believe that Elihu is referring to his own role.12 He views himself as the messenger/mediator who is going to interpret Job’s situation and advise him what he needs to do (“tell him what is right,” as he does beginning in 34:4). He intercedes with God to spare Job’s life (his intention as stated in 33:32),13 and he provides a ransom, if that can be understood as a portion of the wealth of his wisdom. In that case, the ransom provides the reasoning that would allow Job to make progress toward a solution. The ransom is a strategy that would satisfy all parties. That is what diplomats (mediators) do when they attempt to bring two sides together.
If this is the case, rather than Job being provided the equivalent of a public defender (as he has requested numerous times), Elihu is serving in the role we might recognize as federal mediator to bring the sides to a mutual understanding. He proposes that God will restore Job to health (33:25–26; notice no reference to restoring prosperity) and that Job will reconcile with God (33:26) and confess in public to the nature of his wrongdoing and the grace of God’s treatment of him (33:27). That Elihu considers himself to be in this role is supported by the fact that after he paints this scenario, he urges Job to listen to him (33:31–33) as he proceeds to do exactly what he just proposed more generally. Nevertheless, Elihu is hardly the sort of mediator whom Job has been seeking.
Verdict: The Justice of God (Job 34)
ELIHU’S ARTICULATION OF JOB’S position in 34:5–9 is confusing. It is certainly true that Job considers himself innocent and maintains that God has denied him justice (34:5; cf. 40:8, where God says something similar). He also considers his position to be truthful and the scourge of God to be disproportionate to his guilt (34:6; cf. 6:4, 28; 9:21). But what is Elihu referring to in 34:7–9? In 34:7 Job is said to “drink scorn.” One could logically think that “drinking” refers to absorbing scorn—taking it in. This would be an accurate description of Job’s position since he has been absorbing the scorn of people around him, including his friends. Alternatively, however, one could think of drinking as meeting a basic need and providing for one’s own refreshment. In this approach Job indulges in mockery as easily and frequently as he drinks water. In this view, rather than being mocked by others, Job is being accused of engaging in mockery of God. The content of this mockery would be the accusations that Elihu has already identified in 34:5. The shape of the metaphor would thus favor seeing Job as the object of scorn, whereas the context would favor seeing Job as the one who is scorning.
The issue has to be resolved by sorting out 34:8–9. It has certainly not been proven that Job “keeps company with evildoers,” and the purported position stated in 34:9 uses the language that was adopted by Eliphaz in 22:2 (though 34:9 does not reiterate the claim actually made by Eliphaz; see discussion on p. 244). Is 34:9 a claim that represents Job’s thinking accurately? To answer that we have to make sure we understand the statement clearly. We have already treated the Hebrew verb skn in detail in its context in Job 22:2 (p. 245). It means to gain, profit, or benefit from something. The NIV renders the last phrase in 34:9 as “tries to please God,” but we can be a little more specific. The Hebrew root rṣh generally means “to please or take delight,” but here it is combined with the preposition ʿim. This collocation occurs elsewhere only in Psalm 50:18, where by context and parallel it clearly focuses on keeping company with someone (the “pleased” aspect would be represented in that one found the company of certain individuals to be pleasant and desirable).
We can now see, then, that Job 34:9 needs to be read as the complement of 34:8. Job has tacitly taken up company among the wicked when he concludes that associating with God does not produce personal benefit. Thus 34:8 is a logical deduction rather than an empirical observation; that is, Job is accused of aligning himself philosophically with evildoers by default when he sets himself against God.
In this deduction, Elihu is wrong. We should recall that the whole question of the book is whether Job’s chosen behavior is based on potential gain. Job has “maintained his integrity” (27:1–6) by not pursuing regaining his prosperity. Elihu’s statement assumes that if Job finds no benefit in throwing in his lot with God, he is therefore going to throw in his lot with the wicked. This would be a logical deduction only if Job’s alignment with God were based on the expectation of benefit. Job in fact believes that it should work that way (i.e., the RP should work), but the whole book is designed to demonstrate that Job is not motivated by that expectation. After all, that had been the Challenger’s claim from the beginning. This is important because in this sense, though Elihu is more justified in the sort of offense that he identifies in Job (self-righteousness), the accuracy of that assessment still does not compromise or undermine the central question of the book. Though Job is guilty of self-righteousness and disparaging God’s justice (as Elihu contends), he is not guilty of pandering—following God only because of the benefit such a relationship brings. In this misrepresentation of Job, Elihu is no better than the friends. The difference is that he does not misrepresent God as the friends do. He is right about Job’s offense; he is wrong in his inference about Job’s motivation.
In 34:10–20 Elihu offers his basic presuppositions. In 34:10 he indicates that the justice of God is his bedrock. This is what differentiates him from the other protagonists. In 34:11 we see that his corollary includes a full affirmation of the RP. Elihu’s worldview presupposes that if God is just, the RP must be carried out—an ideal he asserts directly in 34:12. In this way we can see that justice provides the framework for Elihu’s worldview just as it does for everyone else in the book. Yahweh is going to offer another alternative through his speeches, so this is still a flaw in Elihu’s position.
Elihu’s insistence that God would not pervert justice echoes the words of Bildad’s first speech (8:2). It is strong language, and in using it Elihu may be guilty of maintaining a simplistic tautology. In this tautology justice is defined by the RP; therefore, perversion of justice is the only possible assessment when the RP is not maintained.
Elihu continues to wax eloquent on the loftiness of God in 34:13–15. He affirms that God is not a contingent being (not accountable or dependent on another). In theological terms, he is asserting God’s aseity (his existence has its source only in himself). Conversely, human beings are absolutely and totally contingent (34:14–15). If God withdrew from us, we would cease to exist. Elihu’s affirmations of God’s aseity and humanity’s contingency contribute to his case in that they establish rank priority: God does not need us but we need him; God is not accountable to us but we are accountable to him. Consequently we do not surpass God in his attributes, including that of his justice.
Elihu continues by posing a rhetorical question in 34:17, but it again reflects reductionism. No one has suggested that God hates justice. Job, for his part, has wondered how important justice is to God and whether he carries it out consistently. So again, hyperbole, though perhaps rhetorically acceptable, here weakens Elihu’s case. Yet as he returns to expressing the attributes of God, his affirmations are legitimate. In 34:17b–20 Elihu again addresses human contingency in reference to the most powerful humans. People cannot hold God accountable (v. 17b), but it is God who condemns wicked rulers, shows no partiality to the wealthy, and exacts punishment. It is true that God acts in this way. The question that Elihu fails to consider is whether his policies are defined by and grounded in such involvement. Does God have options?
What we are seeing is that just as Job has drawn false inferences about governance from his understanding of God (inferences about the centrality and execution of the RP), Elihu is drawing other inferences (based on his reinterpretation of the RP). Though both have a basically sound comprehension of the attributes of God, both are wrong (in different ways) about what inferences can therefore be drawn.
In 34:21–30 we find the next stage of Elihu’s case for God. He begins by affirming God’s omniscience, particularly as it relates to his omnipresence. God has access to every place, and thus, in his role as judge, he has immediate access to all pieces of evidence. He is omniscient and has no need to gather information, no need for research, testimony, or trial (“no need to examine,” 34:23; “without inquiry,” 34:24). He simply acts to carry out judgment. Some of the cases of judgment are final (“shatters,” 34:24; “overthrows” or “crushes,” 34:25) and may take place out of the public eye (“in the night,” 34:25). Other types of punishment are done in public (34:26 uses a word specifically connected with public beatings).
In 34:29–30 Elihu turns his attention to an issue that is closer to home. Up to this point he has been talking about God taking responsibility to maintain justice, but what if God remains silent? Indeed, this is precisely the content of Job’s complaint. He has noted God’s silence in terms of his failure to respond to the deeds of the wicked and his inattention to the pleas of the suffering righteous. Elihu maintains that God has a right to such a silence and thus implies that Job is presumptuous to be critical of God on this count. Elihu also contends that God’s silence does not allow one to conclude that God is an absentee landlord. Though one may not perceive it, God is still at work to prevent negative situations from developing.
Having offered a defense of God’s apparent indifference (which addresses indirectly one of Job’s major complaints), Elihu now proposes a hypothetical course of action (34:31–33). Commentators offer a wide variety of interpretations of verse 31 because the terseness of language creates confusion for the modern reader. The verb translated by the NIV as “I am guilty” (naśaʾti) is a common enough verb (“lift up, raise”), but it usually communicates its meaning through combination with an object (e.g., hand, head, face, sin, eyes, voice—all with their own idiomatic values), and here there is no object. What is Job supposed to lift up and with what purpose?
The decision must be made on the basis of 34:32–33. In verse 32 there is no admission of offense, only the willingness to be shown offense and the commitment to deal with it once it is made known. Furthermore, verse 33 speaks of the absence of repentance. We must therefore conclude that verse 31 does not contain repentance or admission of guilt. Instead, it would logically refer to the person adopting a posture of confidence—standing tall in the dock with head held high.
The last verb in verse 31 (NIV: “offend”) is first person imperfect and therefore suggests the person is offering a statement about present or future behavior. It could not easily be read as a statement about the past (i.e., “I have committed no offense”). The verb is rarely used and the only other occurrence of the Qal is in Nehemiah 1:7. It may well be that this should be read as his determination not to act corruptly. Corrupt behavior would result in the kind of compromising of his integrity to which the friends have been urging him. If this is the case, then the attitude attributed to Job here is similar to that which he stated himself in 27:1–6.
Support for this view of 34:31 comes in 34:32. Here the person in the dock (presumably representing Job in Elihu’s little vignette) requests that he be charged with specific offenses if they are known. He demands a formal accusation from the prosecution. In this sequence Elihu has characterized Job accurately in terms that are consistent with the dialogue section of the book. As Job has refused to repent, Elihu makes his case as he asks Job what he expects God to do (34:33). Elihu implies that he has expressed Job’s expectations in this confrontation and thus insinuates that Job’s request is impious. Though Elihu has characterized Job’s posture correctly, has he rightly identified Job’s expectation? What does Job expect to result from the legal confrontation that he requests?
Elihu’s assessment is that Job wants God to “reward” him on Job’s terms. The verb NIV translates “reward” (šlm, Piel) usually expresses something more along the line of compensation or recompense in legal contexts. Most agree that the thrust of the first line is to challenge Job concerning his apparent belief that he can call the shots and drive the process according to his understanding. Elihu’s affirmations about God through the middle section of this chapter have led to this climax. God is in charge and cannot be called to heel as Job has been attempting. This posture of Job’s is what Elihu then identifies in 34:36–37 as he summarizes what he perceives to be Job’s offense. That offense is not something that occurred prior to his downfall, but it has become evident in his response to his downfall. Elihu’s call, then, is: “Stand down, Job!” Now that he has issued his summary indictment, Elihu will develop his understanding of Job’s offense in more detail in the next chapter.
Transcendence of God (Job 35)
ELIHU’S SUMMARY OF JOB’S putative position presents Job as expecting to benefit from his righteous behavior (35:3). As I indicated earlier, that may indeed be Job’s expectation, but that does not mean it is his motivation. If, however, we could imagine Job’s response to Elihu (which he never gives), he might object that he is not looking for profit or gain from not sinning; he is expecting that he would be protected from major devastations. The semantic distinction might be that any profit Job might expect would be in protection, not in material prosperity. Argue as we may, however, it is Elihu’s rhetorical style to be reductionist and to engage in hyperbole.
Elihu’s first point of reply is that any human being’s righteousness or wickedness has no effect on God whatsoever. In these affirmations Elihu offers a concise refutation of the Great Symbiosis. As discussed in the Introduction, this symbiosis is benefit-focused: The gods reap benefits from the labor of humans, and the humans reap benefits from the favor of the gods. In its ancient Near Eastern form, people were providing material support for the gods (food, clothing, housing, etc.).
In Job, no one is advising Job that he should be more involved in the care and feeding of the gods, but there is still an element of the Great Symbiosis in the assumption that Job has offended God and therefore disrupted the Great Symbiosis. Offense would often take the form of intruding on divine prerogatives. In this way the other friends were encouraging Job to adopt the Great Symbiosis thinking; Elihu, by contrast, accuses him (as the Challenger had) of falling prey to that kind of thinking. Again, he is wrong about Job but right about God. The other friends spoke incorrectly about God because they viewed him as involved in the Great Symbiosis system. Elihu becomes the defender of God by denying the validity of the Great Symbiosis. The difference that righteous or wicked behavior makes must be viewed only horizontally (affecting the human world) rather than vertically (affecting God).
In 35:8–13 Elihu contrasts two different ways of approaching God. The first involves prayers for relief from oppression (35:9); the second involves a search for God and recognition of his grace as he teaches wisdom (35:10–11). Elihu suggests that God is not responsive to the former (35:12–13). In this he suggests that people should be more interested in coming to know God better rather than on trying to get God to solve their problems. He should be the object of our inquiry rather than the object of our complaints. He is not at our beck and call and cannot be called to heel like a dog—he is our Maker!
As Elihu thus emphasizes God’s transcendence over his immanence (introduced in 35:5) he suggests that we need to show a little more recognition of our place. If God’s “job” is not to field people’s complaints, then Job should not expect God to be responsive to his calls for attention. Elihu would say that we should think in terms of responding to God rather than God responding to us. God responds according to his own purposes and timing. People cannot call him to account for the way he interacts with them nor to criticize him in accordance with their own expectations.
In this Elihu again offers a valid understanding of the nature of God. In Elihu’s view Job has made the mistake of thinking that he is important. This sense of self-importance is out of proportion but is characteristic of people who think that God is micromanaging their personal circumstances (e.g., as Job does in 7:17–24). He believes that Job has diminished God by the way he thinks about him.
Summary and Closing Remarks—The Acts of God (Job 36–37)
AS ELIHU INTRODUCES HIS last speech, he again indicates that he views himself as speaking on behalf of God. Elihu’s insistence that people recognize God’s transcendence (again the title “Maker”14 in 36:3, to keep us in our place) is entirely appropriate and not open to discussion. At the same time we can see that he continues to believe that justice is the foundation of God’s policies and behavior. In the end, this view is not going to be endorsed in the book. Ultimately, God does not defend his justice and does not posit justice alone as the foundation of his policies.
Elihu appears to have an elevated view of himself (“knowledge from afar,” 36:3a; “perfect in knowledge,” 36:4b). The word translated “afar” (lemeraḥoq) refers sometimes to distance in relation to divine (2 Sam. 7:19; 2 Kings 19:25, information of an arcane nature). At other times, it refers to distance in relation to the human world (relative to sound, Ezra 3:13, or sight, Job 39:29). Elihu is claiming the former. This is consistent with his earlier claims that God has given him this understanding (32:8). It would mean little for him to claim that his knowledge is exotic (from faraway places). When he describes himself as “perfect [tammim] in knowledge,” we easily misunderstand his claim. Even though he is prone to hyperbole and may be engaging in it here, he is only saying that his opinions (which he is about to put forward) are consistent and coherent. The adjective tammim is related to integrity.15 Opinions that have an internal integrity are soundly reasoned and well-thought out.
In the remainder of Elihu’s speech he waxes eloquent on the might of God, introducing the topic with the adjective kabbir. Of its ten occurrences in Hebrew Bible, seven are in Job and the remainder in Isaiah.16 The contexts are widely disparate. Only one other occurrence in Job is used as a divine attribute (34:17). The other occurrences serve to modify wind, wealth, and years of life. In Isaiah it describes a loud roaring and the power of waves in flooding, and in its negation it refers to feeble survivors of Moab. An English adjective approaching a similar range of meaning might be “inexorable.” It speaks of that which cannot be opposed or even withstood. Such things are relentless and overwhelming. Something so described represents a force to be reckoned with—a juggernaut.
The view of God that Elihu offers balances the ideas that though God is inexorable, he does not therefore simply run roughshod over humans indiscriminately. He is not incognizant of people and their situations (my interpretation of “he does not reject”—to care little for something or devalue it through disdain or neglect). In contrast, God’s inexorability is guided by a “firm … purpose” (NIV). The “strength of heart” (lit. trans.) with which God is characterized is the opposite of indiscriminate neglect. Instead, he has a determined posture and steadfast policy regarding his treatment of humanity, though that does not mean he is predictable. Again, Elihu identifies this divine policy as the RP—the wicked are punished while the righteous are rewarded (36:6–7). He elaborates by asserting that not only does God act according to this principle, but he also communicates (36:9–10), thus giving people opportunity to change their ways and their circumstances (36:11–12). As before, God’s character is accurately perceived, but his policies are misrepresented.
After characterizing the wicked as unresponsive to God’s promptings (36:13–14), Elihu makes a bold transition from third person plural forms to second person singular in 36:16–21 to draw out the implications for Job personally. The Hebrew is particularly difficult and interpretations range widely. In 36:16 Elihu suggests that God would like nothing better than to restore Job to a status of blessing. The verb that NIV translates as “woo” typically refers to trying to persuade someone to follow a course of action that they either do not want to pursue or should not pursue. Here the meaning would have to be the former—Elihu portrays Job as disinclined to accept the generous offer of God to resolve his situation. In Elihu’s mind, Job has demonstrated this disinclination by refusing to back down and adopt a submissive posture before God. He considers Job’s strident demands to be evidence of the intractable position he has adopted.
Job 36:17 then explains that Job has brought this judgment of God on himself—not by prior sin (as the other friends were persuaded) but by his self-righteous posture before God; yet evil is evil. In the remainder of this section Elihu turns to exhortation (36:18–21). We need to determine what courses of action Elihu is warning against and assess whether they realistically describe a behavior to which Job is prone.
In 36:18, the word translated “entice” is the same verb that was translated “woo” in 36:16 (swt). There it described a course of action offered by God that Job was disinclined to follow; here, the subject of the verb is someone who is presumably trying to lure Job into pursuing a course of action he should resist. Elihu expresses the idea that Job, in his present condition, is so attracted to wealth and power that he would be vulnerable to those who offered it in conjunction with oppressive schemes. If Job has found his righteous behavior incapable of delivering success and prosperity, he may be amenable to gaining it in other less honorable ways. As we have seen throughout Elihu’s speeches, this is an inaccurate characterization of Job, who has demonstrated that his motivation is not wealth or power, but righteousness. As the other friends did, Elihu is representing a sort of thinking that one could pursue in seeking to understand suffering. Elihu’s system differs from the friends, but as readers we see that Elihu’s understanding is inadequate.
Elihu rightly observes that the short-term gain of accepting unrighteous profits would, in the end, have unsatisfactory results. This leads to his concluding admonition that Job should resist turning to evil, a course of action that Elihu alleges Job might soon opt for as a resolution to his affliction. Elihu has indicted Job for accusing God of injustice and adopting an attitude of self-importance and self-righteousness. He views this as only one step short of abandoning the idea of a just God and becoming an opportunist willing to take profit in a world where God is inattentive and justice is only an idle wish (Ezek. 9:9). The proverbial slippery slope Elihu presents begins with participating in get-rich schemes, then accepting bribes, and inevitably descends to displacing innocent people in the middle of the night.
In summary, Elihu suggests that if Job seeks to regain wealth and power through evil, he will simply be exchanging his current affliction for another one. It could not be fairly said that Job chose his current affliction, but if turning to evil is the choice he makes, he will be choosing the affliction that will inevitably result.
The description of God’s cosmic power in 36:22–37:13 is one of the most eloquent in the Hebrew Bible. Elihu begins by identifying God’s power as a means by which he teaches. The noun for “teacher” used here (moreh) occurs in only five other passages.17 Syntactically, this passage presents the teaching as being accomplished by God’s exaltation of his strength. This latter verbal form (“exalt,” Heb. śgb) occurs approximately twenty times, but this is the only time it occurs in the Hiphil. In general the root refers to being lifted up for the purpose of security and protection. Usually the objects of the verbal action are vulnerable before they are secured (these occurrences use the Piel form) or are secure because they have been so lifted up (like a city that is lifted up and therefore secure in its defense, Isa. 26:5). When it is God or God’s name that is lifted up, the verb describes the divine state (secure) and therefore its invulnerability (these occurrences use the Niphal form of the verb).
Presumably Elihu’s speech uses the Hiphil because God’s own strength, not an alternate outside force, secures his position. This secured, exalted position makes him an unsurpassable teacher because his instruction cannot be gainsaid. The next verse verifies this reading—no one can question him. This proclamation of the general greatness of God draws to a close with the exclamations in 36:26. When Elihu declares that God’s years are unsearchable, we may prefer to translate mispar (NIV: “number”) as “account” because the count of the years is ultimately insignificant. The question is, can they be accounted for?18 That is, can God’s biography be written? Elihu’s few meager observations scarcely begin this report.
Now we come to Elihu’s recitation of some of the mighty acts of God, mostly related to precipitation, thunder, and lightning. His description of precipitation in 36:27–28 has drawn some interesting comments over the years. Some are inclined to see Elihu as offering a scientifically sophisticated understanding of the water cycle, including evaporation and condensation.19 This idea would anticipate its scientific confirmation by millennia and one might wonder why, if that was what Elihu was understanding, that the scientific knowledge did not develop much earlier.
Much of this interpretation depends on the translation of the Hebrew verbs grʿ (NIV: “draws up”) and zqq (NIV: “distill”). The first occurs only here and the second appears in this verbal stem only elsewhere in Job 28:1 (NIV: “refined”).20 This ought to make us cautious about concluding that they represent scientific innovation. We do not have a clear idea of what grʿ means, and zqq, with its connection to refining and filtering, most logically concerns how salt water in the cosmic seas (perhaps those above and below?) becomes fresh water in rain.
Before drawing conclusions such as these, we should explore what people in the ancient world thought about precipitation and see if Elihu offers a dramatically different conclusion. One author’s assessment of the ancient worldview concludes that they believed that “the drops of water are taken from the celestial reservoirs, trickle through the firmament, and collect into clouds, which then finally cause the rain to fall.”21 This is as good a guess as any, but it is lacking clear, nonpoetic substantiation in the texts. The difficulty arises from the fact that the ancients did not concern themselves very much with material explanations since the phenomena were beyond their ability to investigate.22 Not only were the means absent, so was the motivation.
In the ancient worldview, the germane questions concerned who controlled the weather, not how weather phenomena operated. They wanted to know who could send rain or withhold it and why they would do so. We might seek to control the weather by understanding the mechanics by which it works and then seeking to infiltrate those mechanics in order to manipulate the causes to produce more suitable results. Such manipulation is still largely beyond our capacity, so we content ourselves with reading the indicators and understanding the workings sufficiently to predict tolerably well what will happen. For the ancients, if they were to seek to control the weather by understanding the mechanics, they would be in the realm of theology, not meteorology. They did not believe there were material causes independent of deity, so why bother investigating them? Since the mechanics were ultimately theological, their attempts to infiltrate and manipulate the weather system were also theological.
Under these conditions, it is clear why the ancient world would have little concern for being able to describe the material processes. When they offer any thoughts on the matter, they are couched in poetry, as in Elihu’s speech, and are related to divine activity. We might compare the brief and broken description in the Babylonian Creation Epic, Enuma Elish 5.49–50: “He [Marduk] collected it [presumably Tiamat’s spittle, though the previous lines are broken] and rolled it into the clouds.”23
In Elihu’s comments we can see that he also is describing divine action, not material mechanisms (“He draws up …”); in fact, he explicitly notes that it is beyond understanding (“Who can understand how he spreads out the clouds?” 36:29). He shows no inkling that he is receiving new revelation about the hydrologic cycle, and we would be surprised to find God introducing such a scientific innovation in this context.
The rain is ultimately delivered to the “streams” (NIV; Heb. ʾed). This is that same problematic word that occurs in Genesis 2:6 (its only other occurrence), where it refers to how the earth was watered. It may be instructive to excerpt from the study of this word that I included in my Genesis commentary in this same series.24
The term has posed difficulties to translators on three counts: the context is obscure, the lexical base is small (only one other occurrence, Job 36:27), and the comparative Semitic data have been variously interpreted. Thus we find quite a variety of translations offered (e.g., “mist,” “flood,” “water,” “streams”). Lacking contextual, synchronic, and diachronic information, it is no surprise that our exegesis must be considered tentative. Contextually ʾed can be distinguished from rain in that rain comes down while ʾed comes up. Synchronic information (that which is derived from how contemporary authors used the word) draws from Job 36:27 only that the ʾed was the recipient of rain.
Diachronic information (that which is derived from the etymology, constituent parts, other uses of the root, or cognate usage of the word) is a generally unreliable source of information about a word, but must suffice when synchronic information is lacking.25 Two connections have been suggested: one to the Sumerian ID, which refers to subterranean fresh waters (followed, e.g., by Westermann and Wenham); the second to Akkadian edu, which refers to waves or the swell of a body of water (followed, e.g., by Speiser and Hamilton).
Tsumura makes a case that ʾed refers (among other things) to the regular inundation of the major river systems.26 As such it stands in contrast to rain so that both represent the two major ways that water fertilized the land in the ancient Near East. The inundations would be mentioned in relation to people working the ground because the annual inundations were only made useful by the digging of irrigation canals to channel the water profitably. It is also true that the inundation rises (to match the verb in v. 6). In Akkadian usage edu was believed to arise from the apsu, the subterranean waters.27
The thrust of verses 5–6 in an interpretive paraphrase is as follows: “No shrubs or plants were yet growing wild (for food) because God had not yet sent rain; and people were not yet around to work the ground (for irrigation) so the regular inundations saturated the ground indiscriminately (thus no food was being grown).” A creation text from Nippur sets the scene for creation in a similar way by saying that waters did not yet flow through the opening in the earth and that nothing was growing and no furrow had been made.28
In the decade since that was written, little has changed in our ability to understand the word.
Elihu’s discourse on the weather continues in 36:29–37:5 with discussion of thunder and lightning. The focus is still on God’s control of these phenomena and the evidence they provide of his rule (36:31). His rule is expressed in providing the food supply necessary for survival. This is the way he governs the people (not NIV’s “nations”—the present term does not refer to political rule). Furthermore, the Hebrew word that NIV translates “governs” (dyn) is one that typically refers to judging. It is by means of providing or withholding food that God brings justice on the people.
This reminds us that the focus of Elihu’s discussion is on God’s justice. We may not understand his justice (36:29), but even the cattle recognize his hand at work (36:33). This is the conclusion that he draws in 37:5—it is God’s voice that thunders, and it is beyond human understanding. Elihu notes the unfathomable nature of all of this by assigning it to the category of niplaʾot (NIV: “marvelous ways”). This term is used when something is classified as divine and therefore impossible for humans to grasp (e.g., when God or his messenger’s name is requested and is told it is “wonderful,” as in Judg. 13:18; cf. Gen. 18:14).
Elihu illustrates the way this unfathomable instrument of judgment works in 37:6–13. Extreme weather is debilitating to agricultural work. All meteorological phenomena continue to be seen as the direct work of God (note particularly that his breath produces ice, 37:10, not the cold temperatures and their effect on molecules of H2O). All of it takes place at his command (37:12).
Elihu concludes this section by returning to his main point: Through this activity God punishes or shows his favor—weather is an instrument of his justice (37:13). This is surely the sense of this line though the Hebrew is far from transparent. The main dilemma is whether the verse offers two possible scenarios or three. NIV treats it as two (punishment or love), but the syntax favors three (for a rod [= punishment], for his land [= neutrality with regard to people], or for his loyalty [= blessing]).
Elihu’s speech concludes as he addresses Job directly again in 37:14–24 and urges him to consider the “wonders” (niplaʾot, as in 37:5) of God. This strategy is intended to cause Job to recognize his false presumption that he could comprehend what God was doing and critique his policies. Elihu’s posing of rhetorical questions to prompt Job’s recognition of God’s great works in nature (37:15–16) foreshadows the approach of God in the next chapter. He also challenges Job to envision himself in God’s role (37:18), which is likewise part of Yahweh’s challenge (40:10–14). Yahweh’s challenge concerns the enforcement of the RP, however, while Elihu’s concerns involvement in creation.
The cosmological comments in 37:18 require some specific attention. In the first line Elihu poses the question to Job about whether he thinks he could join God in “spreading out the skies.” Both the verb and its direct object are of interest here. The verb is from the root rqʿ (11x), which is related to the noun raqiaʿ, used in Genesis 1:6 (NIV: “expanse”). The verb in some of its forms appears in metallurgical contexts, referencing the technical work of preparing metals for overlaying wood (e.g., Ex. 39:3; Num. 16:39).29 In other contexts it refers to trampling (e.g., 2 Sam. 22:43; Ezek. 6:11).30 The remaining three occurrences refer to cosmology (Ps. 136:6; Isa. 42:5; 44:24—all referring to God spreading out the earth on the waters).31 Job 37:18 stands uniquely apart from these other occurrences in both its verbal form (the only Hiphil) and its direct object (connected with the “skies” instead of the earth). When the Qal form is active indicative, as it is with this root, the Hiphil typically involves a double direct object (someone causes D.O.1 to do D.O.2). The use of the Hiphil thus suggests that the role posited by Elihu for Job is not as passive as “join with him” might imply. It rather puts Job in the position of control and cause with God as his instrument. The object (here, God) is viewed as participating in the event, to “participate indirectly as a second subject” rather than serving as the primary actor.32 Job is thus hypothetically portrayed by Elihu as directing God in this cosmological process.
As Elihu concludes his speech, he confronts Job with a question that Job himself has considered: “What in the world do you think you would say to him if you got your request of a day in court?” (cf. 37:19). Job has already anticipated this problem (9:14–20) and, like Elihu, held out little hope for the prospect. Elihu wonders why anyone would ask for the inevitable trouble that would result (37:20). When God approaches, his majesty is overwhelming. Elihu’s description of this in 37:22 anticipates Yahweh’s entrance a few verses later.
Elihu, however, is mistaken in his assertion that God is beyond human reach, though he is right that God is exalted in power (37:23). God is going to demonstrate that he is both beyond human reach (transcendent), yet accessible in his immanence.
As interpreted in the NIV, Elihu ends with a rhetorical question (37:24).33 Part of this decision is based on the identification of the “wise in heart.” Is it referring to those who actually are wise or to those who think they are wise? To begin the discussion, we might inquire as to why Elihu uses “wise of heart” instead of just “the wise.” M. Fox investigates the use of the combination of hakam and leb and suggests that it functions as a designation of those who have been given the wherewithal to exercise wisdom, though it has yet to be gained, developed, or exercised.34 In many contexts this would make sense, but a previous use in 9:4 presents a problem for this analysis because it is traditionally translated as a reference to God. There is reason, however, to suggest an alternative translation. Rather than God being identified as the one whose “wisdom is profound and power is vast” (NIV), the description could be taken as a reference to the one who wishes to dispute with God (9:3). Even though such a one might be wise and powerful, he does not escape unscathed. It is the next verse that adopts God as its subject.
With this modification as caveat, Fox’s assessment of the nature of the designation “wise of heart” suits well the sixteen contexts in which the two terms occur together.35 The result of this analysis as it regards Elihu’s statement is that rather than a rhetorical question, it is his final conclusion that God cannot be swayed by those who would qualify as the wisest among humanity (whether in the estimation of others or in their self-assessment). People fear (= respect) him because they are no match for him.
Elihu’s Rhetorical Role in the Book
I HAVE SUGGESTED THAT the three friends are representatives of ancient Near Eastern thinking and that they unwittingly press the case of the Challenger. If the friends had persuaded Job to comply with their advice, the Challenger would have won his case. Job would have thus shown that prosperity was his highest priority rather than righteousness itself.
That is not so with the argument of Elihu. If Job were to accept Elihu’s accusations as truth, he would not thereby betray self-interested motives (though Elihu does also believe that Job’s motives are questionable). Elihu is not advising Job as to how he can get back in favor with God to have his prosperity restored (as the friends were). Elihu instead is holding Job accountable to God. This contrast demonstrates that Elihu’s discourse properly belongs in this section of the book where Job’s case against God is being treated (“It is bad policy for righteous people to suffer”) rather than the Challenger’s case (“It is bad policy for righteous people to prosper”).36 Elihu believes that Job deserves his treatment because of his self-righteous attitude in which he justifies himself at the expense of God’s reputation.
We can identify the parameters of Elihu’s claims from his speeches:
1. He defends God from the charge of evil (34:10, 12, 17).
2. He defends God’s justice (36:3; 37:23).
3. He accepts the paradigm of the RP (34:11; 36:11–12).
4. He agrees with the Challenger about Job’s motives (35:3).
5. He accuses Job of the sin of self-righteousness and considers that to be the reason for Job’s suffering (34:35–37); this is the only point that differentiates him from the other accusers.
6. His emphasis is on righteousness, not the Great Symbiosis, though he questions whether God needs human righteousness (35:7–8).
To clarify Elihu’s position we need to return to the triangle diagram offered in the Introduction (pp. 42–44). There I observed that Elihu seeks to defend the corner of the triangle that represents God’s justice and thus to offer a theodicy. It is an “educative theodicy” that sees suffering as a means of bringing potential problems to our attention so that they can be remedied. Elihu modifies the RP even as he defends it. His modification is that suffering is not just God’s response to past sin; it can also preempt future or potential sin. He also modifies the triangle with regard to his understanding of Job’s righteousness. Having redefined the scope of the RP (preventive, not only remedial), he now faults Job for his self-righteous response to suffering. So God’s justice is maintained (theodicy) because Job really has committed a serious offense (indictment) and the (revised) RP remains intact as the foundation of God’s policies in the world. In this position he refutes the friends, whom he considers guilty of counseling Job to bribe God with repentance of things he did not do in order to gain his riches back (36:18), and he refutes Job, whom he considers guilty of undermining God’s justice by subordinating God to his own sense of self-righteousness.
As we assess Elihu’s position, we can affirm some of his beliefs about Job and God, but we must reject others. He is patently right in his condemnation of Job’s self-righteous attitude—not suggesting Job has been deceptively hiding massive crimes against humanity and maintaining a duplicitous life that has finally caught up to him (the implications made by the friends). No, Elihu has rightly identified Job’s willingness to defend himself at the expense of God.
At the same time, Elihu is wrong about Job’s motivations. Elihu despises the Great Symbiosis attitude and believes that Job is still harboring a desire for benefits. Job has amply demonstrated that prosperity at any cost is not the driving motivation of his life.
Elihu is right about God when he insists that God is not accountable to us and that his justice, along with all other aspects of his character, is unassailable. We cannot question God; we cannot do his job better; we dare not impugn his governance. God is not contingent, and we should not think that his actions are subject to our evaluation or correction.
Though he is therefore right about the nature of God’s person, Elihu is wrong about the nature of God’s policies. He continues to have an inadequate theodicy and does not seem to realize that in attempting a theodicy, he is falling prey to the same fault of which he accuses Job—he overestimates his ability to bring coherence on the basis of justice. God will present his policies very differently in his own speeches, and we will find that human attempts at theodicy are inevitably presumptuous.
What is Elihu’s contribution to the book? Could we do without him? Though we can affirm much of Elihu’s theology, he is not intended to be a doctrinaire voice instructing the reader in sound theology. His theology simply forms another component of his rhetorical role, and it is that rhetorical role that is his raison d’être in the book. In turn, that rhetorical role is essential to the book and its message. Without Elihu’s voice, readers might have a tendency to idealize Job and to conclude that his response to his suffering was impeccable. In light of Elihu’s sound rebuke of Job’s self-righteousness, however, we are all warned against thinking that our suffering should properly instigate a challenge of God. Job’s other friends had discovered no cracks in the façade of Job’s character; Elihu, in contrast, reveals gaping wounds.
Furthermore, the philosophical contribution of Elihu plays a significant role. He begins to call into question the RP insofar as he does not seek to identify sin in Job’s behavior prior to the onset of suffering. Though he does not go far enough, through Elihu we, as readers, can begin to detect the philosophical vulnerability of the RP. Elihu’s most important philosophical role, however, is that he is the sole figure to attempt a theodicy, and the failure of his attempt shows that a reasoned theodicy such as the one he proposes cannot be the answer to suffering. God is above reproach, but theodicies of our own devising easily fall short. Thus Elihu, in his failure, effectively shuts down a significant philosophical approach to understanding suffering in the world. At the same time, he has represented the third angle of the triangle. With all three angles having been defended and found wanting, the book has arrived at the point anticipated in Job 28, that a solution lies in a different direction than the triangle could provide.
Elihu’s Theology
WE HAVE SUGGESTED THAT Elihu offers a largely accurate (biblically speaking) picture of God, but a flawed understanding of how God’s policies work (specifically the issue of theodicy). In this section we will explore Elihu’s theology and philosophy as we unpack its truths as well as its distortions.
Spirit of God and man. Elihu’s understanding of the divine spirit is nonpersonal; that is, God’s spirit is never articulated in trinitarian terms in which the Spirit is a distinct person of the godhead. As in the rest of the Old Testament, the spirit is an extension of God’s power, presence, and authority.37 It is viewed as part of God’s person, but not as a distinct person.
Elihu’s view of the human spirit appears to be that it is a gift on loan from God. This also is a view consistent with other Old Testament passages. In this view, the spirit in Elihu, for example, is God’s spirit in Elihu, not Elihu’s spirit. In these elements Elihu can be seen to have theological ideas that Israelites would have agreed with, but that have been superseded in modern theology. New Testament revelation about the Holy Spirit has given us new ways to think about the spirit of God in the Old Testament. On the human side of the equation, we continue to understand the human spirit as a gift from God, but we are more inclined to consider it more than just an invigorating power. It is often seen as bearing the identity of the human person beyond death into eternity. Christian theologians and philosophers continue to debate the constitution of the human person (e.g., monism vs. dualism), what survives death in eternity and what existence beyond death will be like. There is no unanimity on that issue, but none of the positions align with Israelite beliefs. Consequently, Elihu does not offer us guidance on how to formulate a comprehensive doctrine of either the Spirit or the human spirit.
Revelation and the word of God. Elihu does not make claims of special inspiration. He views his wisdom as like that of any wise person, for all wisdom finds its source in God (32:8). Like a prophet he feels ready to burst under the compulsion of his message (32:18–19), but he has no oracles to offer under the rubric of “this is what the LORD says,” and it does not present his argument as having its source in revelation from God. Elihu takes the mantle of a sage, not of a prophet.
No one can “out-God” God (33:12). This is one of Elihu’s strongest and most important points. Its message should ring in our souls. One of the most persistent human errors is the belief that God is not doing a very good job, which implies that given the chance, we could do it better. This is precisely the mentality evident in Job’s responses throughout the book, and this is what Elihu attacks most vigorously.
When the world doesn’t work the way that we think it should, we are inclined to manufacture solutions in our minds that will address either our situation or the situation that concerns us (famine in Africa, child prostitution in the Far East, oppressive tyranny in this country or that). We are inclined to make it seem like a simple fix. We are rarely able to imagine the complications or collateral damage—a problem portrayed in modern application by the movie Bruce Almighty.
The human plight is a consequence of our fallenness. No aspect of that human plight can be addressed in isolation. Addressing one aspect of it is insufficient, and the only true resolution is in eliminating human sin. Practically speaking, that means the problem would be addressed only by obliterating sin—which would mean obliterating humanity (or, of course, initiating a process to redeem it). Our shortsighted and inadequate solutions only register as naive hubris when visualized to scale in relation to the majesty of God and the magnitude of the problem. We are mistaken to think of God as handling it poorly; God is no bumbler.
We should not even imagine that it is complicated for God or that he is somehow fraught with anxiety wondering how he can manage it all. For us there would be constant angst in finding the line between justice and mercy. For God, however, his attributes intertwine and apply in seamless perfection. This is not an affirmation we can make because we understand how that all happens and can be explained; it is the conviction of our faith that it is so. Such is Elihu’s insistence, and we can be grateful for the reminder and the challenge that it brings.
Perverting justice? Job and his friends believe that if the RP is not maintained, God could be accused of perverting justice. Elihu’s modification of the RP in defense of God and his construction of a theodicy suggest that he agrees (34:12–15). Many people throughout history have thought the same way in response to their suffering. Consequently we must ask whether it is so.
If we were to believe that justice could be assessed by the RP, we would have to develop a complex understanding of the principle. Elihu gives us a good example as he seeks to include both preventative and remedial aspects in his attempt to address what constitutes the offense that stimulates God’s response. It becomes even more complicated than Elihu’s modifications address. Two other factors, timing and proportionality, must also be considered.
With regard to timing, we would have to determine how often the accounts must be balanced for justice and the RP to be maintained. Should judgment and reward be given decade by decade? Month by month? Day by day? Moment by moment? What would meet the demands of justice? The psalmist addresses this issue when he asks “How long?” in the midst of injustice (Pss. 13:1; 82:2), or when he accepts a longer span of time between action and retribution (Ps. 37:25–26).
With regard to proportionality, the principle is that great righteousness should bring great reward; inversely, great wickedness should bring great judgment. This is fine in theory, but how do humans, with all of their limitations, assess the scale of one’s wickedness or righteousness? How do we measure what is enough reward or enough judgment for one’s actions? All of these unknowns make it impossible for humans to make this assessment.
The result is that we may well recognize that we cannot discern how the RP should work in all cases, but we believe we can recognize a travesty of justice when we see it, or even more so, when our personal situations are involved. I would therefore suggest that most attempts to tie justice to the RP amount to little more than special pleading for our own circumstances to be worked out more conveniently and comfortably. We really have no inkling how to make a whole system work consistently; we only know that it is not working to our satisfaction. We may talk about theodicy, but God is less of a concern than our personal claims of unfairness and our (less than objective) assessment of what would constitute our “just deserts.” Consequently I would suggest that the true issue when people today cite failure of the RP is not really a concern about the perversion of justice; it is purely and simply disappointment with God that he did not work things out better for us.
God as judge. When we think of God as judge, we might consider the issue of his gathering of evidence and then weighing that evidence to arrive at a verdict. We have some sense of how this works in a court of law, and the Israelites also had beliefs about how the judiciary system works. Though their system differed at many points from our own, all people would share the idea that a judge ought to gather all possible evidence and then sift through it to arrive at a just decision. Despite this ideal, we all recognize that a human judge has limitations that can undermine, if not cripple, his ability to do his job. People may do things in secret places hidden from view of any potential witness. At times the important factor of their motivations could be involved. Furthermore, it was not unusual for a case to come down to one person’s word against another. Any of these can hinder a judge’s work or invalidate his verdict.
In Job 34:21–24 Elihu suggests that God is not subject to such limitations. In Psalm 139 the psalmist confirms this as he affirms that God knows everything we think (139:2–4), that we can do nothing in secret (139:7–12), and that he knows us intimately (139:13–16, which presumably includes our motivations). In this psalm these affirmations are part of the claim that God is therefore not a judge who suffers under the limitations of human judges. He has all the necessary information at his disposal and therefore should be able to execute justice perfectly. Elihu concludes with an affirmation that God indeed does judge fairly. Though he has all power and is not accountable, “he does not oppress” (Job 37:23). He is respected among men not as a result of his intimidating power, but for his justice (37:24).
Aseity and contingency. We reiterate what was stated in Original Meaning: God does not need us but we need him; God is not accountable to us but we are accountable to him. The Great Symbiosis has been one of the background discussion points in the book. It is a system that was based on gods who had needs. The gods of the ancient Near East were contingent beings. They not only needed what human beings provided for their continued sustenance, they needed one another to ensure the continuing operations of the cosmos, as well as those principles that had been woven into the cosmos. Polytheism is a contingency network. Further contingency is evident in the positioning of the gods in the cosmos. The ancient Near Eastern gods were inside the cosmos, not outside it. Many aspects of the cosmos were not set up by them and not subject to their authority. Consequently, they were contingent with relation to the cosmos just as they were to humans and one another.
Another piece of the picture of Elihu’s view of God’s aseity is that he values transcendence over immanence (35:6–7). When we discuss transcendence and immanence today, we often think in terms of the level of God’s involvement with us. In Elihu’s elaboration, he is more interested in our potential involvement with God. Our wickedness has no impact on him and our justice adds nothing to him. Today we often talk about how our sin grieves God and our righteousness delights him. To an extent these are true descriptions of how our behavior succeeds or fails to coincide with God’s character and wishes. But we go too far if we begin to think of God’s emotional stability as dependent on human behavior. If we think that our behavior is something that can be dangled over his head to motivate him to certain sorts of action, we have again reduced him to a contingent being.
In Elihu’s speech we find a notably Israelite-shaped theology that posits a noncontingent deity. The God whom Elihu defends has no accountability (35:9–15) and no subordination. This is sound theology and a needed element in the theology of the book.
Accessibility. If God is judge, then one might think he ought to be accessible because in human terms, what good is a court system if no one can ever have their case heard. Yet if God is transcendent, such that our wickedness or righteousness does not affect him significantly, why should he bother? It is fine to affirm that God is a competent, even perfect judge, but is he accessible?
In the book of Job, God’s lack of accessibility has been one of Job’s greatest complaints. Elihu’s portrayal is of a God who is not accessible (37:23). Elihu’s opinion would be that God does not need our prompting to do justice and he should not be bothered with our petty requests. “Don’t worry, he is doing his job and he shouldn’t be bothered with your challenges or demands.” God should not be viewed as working the customer service desk. People should be content to view him from afar to learn about him and respect him. Job should not have thought for a moment that God would respond to his desire for a hearing. We should be more concerned with responding to God rather than trying to get him to respond to us.
Is this sound theology? I believe that we should see wisdom in it and be cautioned by it. God, of his own will, has drawn near to us. From the very beginning, he has loved us and wants to be in relationship with us; this came to clearest expression in the incarnation of Jesus Christ. This immanence, however, can be abused, and we must be careful not to impose on his grace and generosity. I do not refer to how close we feel to him, but to the sort of familiarity where we might feel we have an inside track to influence his behavior of receive special favors.
We often hear “It is not what you know, but who you know that counts” in our world, where power is wielded and influence-peddling accomplishes things. Our governments are beleaguered by lobbyists seeking influence for their clients to affect public policy and accomplish their corporate objectives. There is power in being an “insider.”
It is not surprising, then, that a natural human inclination is to want to have “insider” status with God. This is the accessibility that Elihu would most denounce, and rightly so. God is not subject to our influence-peddling or our attempts to exploit a relationship with him to achieve our goals. We must not overstep our privileges or presume on his grace. We insult him with our demands for more information as if he needed to be reminded of his responsibilities or explain what we might think are questionable actions.
God’s control of weather for justice.38 Elihu suggests that God uses the weather as one of his instruments to carry out justice (37:13). Yahweh’s speech to Job is going to qualify this (38:25–27), but not negate it. Our theology can affirm that God is able to use the weather for his purposes, but there are limits to our ability to determine when that is the case. The question then is not “What can God do?” but “How would we know whether any given weather-related phenomenon is communication of God’s favor or disfavor?” To answer such a question we need to enter a discussion of divine communication specifically as it relates to epistemology (How we know what we know?), beginning with Elihu.
In Job 33 Elihu offers the theoretical underpinnings of his theology. He begins with Job’s claim that he is righteous yet has become God’s target (33:9–11). Elihu contends that Job is incorrect in his complaint that God has refused to answer his pleas (33:12–14), and here he gets to his main point: God communicates in a variety of ways (Elihu mentions dreams and pain as two examples), and he does so in a variety of circumstances (33:17, remedial [turn from wrongdoing] or preventative [keep from pride]).
One of the areas of sharpest distinction between the ancient world and our modern world concerns how we think God communicates. How do we believe that we can know how God communicates and know what he is saying? What convinces us that we know what we believe we know? Modern Christians believe that they can know about God through the Bible because of their beliefs about the nature of the Bible. We further believe that some information about God is available from the blunt facts observable in the world around us (Rom. 1:20). We also believe that God communicates through his Holy Spirit. These are three elements of our epistemology that distinguish us from the world around us. Others in our world, more skeptical of the claims of Scripture and about the existence or involvement of God, might believe that we can only know things that our senses perceive or that can be demonstrated naturalistically or scientifically.
By contrast, the epistemology of people in the ancient world included many other ways that deity communicated. Some believed that he communicated through the movements of the heavenly bodies, through the configuration of the entrails of animals, through the strange behaviors of animals in the world around them, and through dreams—just to name a few. What we understand as meteorological phenomena were also seen as a means by which God communicated. Some continue to think that today when they interpret a tsunami, a hurricane, a tornado, or a flood as acts of God’s judgment.
A middle ground position that is more common today is that it may well be true that God is judging through natural disasters, but we have no reliable interpretive methodology by which we can receive that communication. Consequently, the credibility we lend to those who claim such prophetic ability has greatly diminished. For Elihu and his audience, however, the epistemological premise is uncontested even when a variety of interpretations might be possible. Weather is a communicative instrument of God.
Are we supposed to adopt this epistemology as biblically mandated? We cannot do so on the strength of Elihu’s assertions, because he is not always correct. Sound bites from Elihu’s speech cannot be used for theological proof texts. What he says must be verified from other canonical texts before they can be taken as truth. In this case Yahweh’s speech offers important qualifiers that must supersede Elihu’s blunt statements (this will be discussed further in the next chapter, pp. 414–15).
Contemporary Significance
SENSE OF SELF-IMPORTANCE. IN this topic we find one of the great mysteries that we struggle with all the time. Our theology tells us that God cares about every aspect of our lives. Scripture tells us he knows the number of hairs on our head. Our moment-by-moment circumstances are important to him. We believe that he is involved in our lives and that nothing that happens is outside of his control. This is all sound theology.
At the same time, we share Elihu’s caution about thinking of God micromanaging every second of our lives. An illustration might help. Once after a Christmas visit to the east coast, my wife and I were driving back to the Midwest. In western Pennsylvania we encountered blizzard conditions and the roads became treacherous. As I tried to move carefully and gradually from a middle lane to the right lane I found that the car was not responding to my steering. When I tried to stop moving over, the car continued its slide toward the edge of the road. We slid past the shoulder and up onto a rocky embankment, which finally gave me sufficient traction that I was able to steer back toward the shoulder. However, the rocks of the terrain had given me a flat tire, and when I got back to the shoulder, that wheel stopped working and the car pivoted 180 degrees to end up facing the opposite direction, thankfully still on the shoulder. Shaken, but relieved that we had been spared injury or serious accident, we thanked God.
As we waited for the tow truck and thought back through the experience, we realized how very fortunate we had been. All along that stretch of highway there were sections with deep drop-offs and others with rock walls. Sliding off the road in places like those would have been disastrous. We were thankful that we slid off the road where we did rather than in more dangerous locations.
Now to the theology. When we thank God in such situations, what role are we imagining for him? If we think that he was involved in protecting us from sliding off the road where there was a cliff, does that mean he orchestrated our sliding off the road where we did? In that case, why didn’t he prevent us from sliding off altogether? Would it be appropriate to think of him with control of the wheel or the tires or the road or the placement of rocks? On one hand, we might well be reluctant to say that God had nothing to do with any of those things. On the other hand, I suspect that we would all feel reticent about thinking of God as selecting the place, guiding the steering wheel, and making sure that certain rocks were hit. Where is the line between a deism that posits an uninvolved God, and a micromanagement of everyone’s circumstances down to the smallest detail (a form of what is sometimes called “meticulous providence”)?
Elihu’s opinion was that when anyone thinks of God as paying close attention to the details of our lives and micromanaging our circumstances, we are giving ourselves too much importance and trivializing God’s role in the cosmos. Yet what is the alternative? Do we believe that God is not really involved in the details and is only engaged in the larger issues? Here lies mystery. While we can err on the deism extreme or on the micromanagement extreme, we can also err by thinking we can sort it all out and figure out how God works or does not work. The error of “God too small” is committed when we misrepresent at one extreme or the other, but it is also committed when we think we can fully describe the nature of his involvement. To believe that his work could so easily be defined is to reduce him to something manageable. We must be content with mystery. I can thank God for protecting us and be grateful that we did not slide off the road at a more dangerous spot. But I must stop short of trying to detail all of the aspects of his involvement.
Furthermore, Elihu is right that we should be reluctant to think of ourselves as at the center of God’s attention and worthy of his continuous involvement in our circumstances. Yet we should not be surprised that we are never “off the radar” and on our own. Again, the line between is part of the mystery that we can never fully understand. We should be willing to think less of our own importance and always willing to give more credit to God.
Christian responses to natural disasters. The world was shocked at the devastation caused throughout the Far East by the tsunami that struck on the day after Christmas in 2004, caused by the Sumatra-Andaman earthquake (the third largest ever recorded) in the Indian Ocean. The death toll was nearly a quarter of a million people. Was that an act of God? Some were quick to affirm it as such; others were unpersuaded and echoed Abraham’s comment to God, “Far be it from you to do such a thing—to kill the righteous with the wicked, treating the righteous and wicked alike. Far be it from you! Will not the Judge of all the earth do right?” (Gen. 18:25).
The following spring I had a student in my class from one of the devastated areas of Indonesia. In one conversation with her I asked whether she had lost family or loved ones in the tragedy. She replied that gratefully all were safe, and then she told me a remarkable story. In recent years there had been a thriving Christian community living in the coastal region, her family included. The dominant Muslim population of that area, however, had become belligerent and had begun persecuting the Christians, taking their homes and driving them from the area. Over several years the Christians were all driven inland. Then the tsunami struck and virtually wiped out the population of their oppressors.
It would be easy to see how the Christians of that community would conclude that justice had been done—God had used the tsunami to punish evildoers. They got what they deserved. That was indeed the immediate response, but the wise and godly pastor began to push their thinking in a different direction. The tsunami, he insisted, was an opportunity for the Christians to show love to their enemies by coming to the aid of those who had persecuted them. He urged his congregation to gather medical supplies, food, and clothing and to travel to their old community and help those who had survived. What a challenge!
That pastor offers a lesson to all of us. Though it may well be that God has used a disaster to execute justice, it is not our job to take a seat next to him on the judge’s bench to proclaim his deeds and add our renunciation to what we perceive as his verdict. God’s verdicts are often sealed, and we cannot know their content. Our job, rather than taking up a cry of renunciation, is to respond with grace and mercy. God is the one responsible for doing justice. We are asked to be forgiving and merciful. This was the model Jesus gave us. It is articulated in the Sermon on the Mount and is illustrated in his interaction with his own enemies.
One remarkable illustration of this balance of justice and mercy is in the contested story of the woman caught in adultery in John 8:3–11. The force of the story has been captured brilliantly by Orson Scott Card in his fantasy novel Speaker for the Dead.39
A great rabbi stands teaching in the marketplace. It happens that a husband finds proof that morning of his wife’s adultery, and a mob carries her to the marketplace to stone her to death. (There is a familiar version of this story, but a friend of mine, a speaker for the dead, has told me of two other rabbis who faced the same situation. Those are the ones I’m going to tell you.)
The rabbi walks forward and stands beside the woman. Out of respect for him the mob forbears and waits with the stones heavy in their hands. “Is there anyone here,” he says to them, “who has not desired another man’s wife, another woman’s husband?”
They murmur and say, “We all know the desire. But, Rabbi, none of us has acted on it.”
The rabbi says, “Then kneel down and give thanks that God made you strong.” He takes the woman by the hand and leads her out of the market. Just before he lets her go, he whispers to her, “Tell the lord magistrate who saved his mistress. Then he’ll know I am his loyal servant.”
So the woman lives, because the community is too corrupt to protect itself from disorder.
Another rabbi, another city. He goes to her and stops the mob, as in the other story, and says, “Which of you is without sin? Let him cast the first stone.”
The people are abashed, and they forget their unity of purpose in the memory of their own individual sins. Someday, they think, I may be like this woman, and I’ll hope for forgiveness and another chance. I should treat her the way I wish to be treated.
As they open their hands and let the stones fall to the ground, the rabbi picks up one of the fallen stones, lifts it high over the woman’s head, and throws it straight down with all his might. It crushes her skull and dashes her brains onto the cobblestones.
“Nor am I without sin,” he says to the people. “But if we allow only perfect people to enforce the law, the law will soon be dead, and our city with it.”
So the woman died because her community was too rigid to endure her deviance.
The famous version of this story is noteworthy because it is so startlingly rare in our experience. Most communities lurch between decay and rigor mortis, and when they veer too far, they die. Only one rabbi dared to expect of us such a perfect balance that we could preserve the law and still forgive the deviation. So, of course, we killed him.
It is not within our ability to decide what are acts of God or what are not. It is not our place to take up the role of prophet announcing doom. It is our responsibility to come alongside hurting people, even if they are enemies, and offer assistance in the name of Christ. We promote justice insofar as it is within our ability to establish it. God will do his part.
Pain as God’s megaphone. In Job 36:9–10, 15, Elihu asserts that God communicates wrongdoing by inflicting suffering and pain. Again, we cannot take Elihu’s theological pronouncements as reliable because of his role in the book, so we have to examine whether they are accurate or not.
C. S. Lewis is well-known for expressing a similar perspective on pain: “But pain insists on being attended to. God whispers to us in our pleasures, speaks to us in our conscience, but shouts to us in our pains: it is His megaphone to rouse a deaf world.”40 In the movie version of Lewis’s life, Shadowlands, he is shown as repeating that line in several lectures, but coming to reject its insensitive naiveté when faced with the deep suffering of his friend, and eventual wife, Joy Davidman Gresham.
It is undeniably true that pain shouts to us and that it must be attended to. It is also biblically supportable and theologically sound that God can use pain and suffering as a response to wrongdoing. The problem comes when we seek to move from those observations to generalizations about what suffering intrinsically is and how God is characteristically related to it. We can readily and appropriately conclude that suffering and pain can serve to draw our attention to God, rely on him, and perhaps in self-evaluation, discover behaviors or attitudes that should be corrected. But we should be more cautious about suggesting that pain and suffering be always viewed as God’s instrument for accomplishing any of those goals. We cannot adopt a view of suffering that sets up those potential results as God’s reasons for bringing suffering into our lives.
Kelly’s Story41
ARMED WITH THESE REFLECTIONS, we turn back to Kelly to see how they function when people are actually suffering.
JHW: Does the idea of pain as God’s megaphone appeal to you? Does it help you to process your experiences?
Kelly: When I think of the idea of pain being God’s megaphone, I do not reject the idea, but I also don’t relate to it either. I can relate to entertaining the thought that God is causing these things to happen to correct some major sin in my life. But the more I thought and prayed about that idea, the more I found that wasn’t the case. As you said, there is biblical support that God can use pain to draw our attention to him, bring us closer, teach us things, refine us in the fire, if you will. But I see a big difference between God using the pain that occurs in your life, and God putting the pain in your life as a megaphone to communicate to you that things need to change.
I was in a car accident and suffered from an injury that has left me extreme amounts of pain. That statement is a sign of the reality that we live in a broken, fallen, and imperfect world. I don’t believe that God caused my brother to fall asleep at the wheel and have a nearly fatal car accident in order to use that as his megaphone to correct sin in our lives. In the same tone, I don’t believe the devastation of the unending pursuit of pain relief is God’s megaphone either. So “pain as God’s megaphone” approach is not one I relate to; rather, when I am in trials that have come from circumstances, I pray that God will use the trial to teach and prune me.
JHW: How does Elihu’s position strike you? Do you feel that his assertions have the potential of offering any comfort or resolution as you deal with your day-to-day circumstances?
Kelly: Elihu’s position, although it has some faults, strikes me as a strong and important perspective that was needed in the conversation with Job and in our conversation about suffering in the present day. His assertions are applicable to one in the midst of suffering or any believer because I think we can easily fall into these faulty mind-sets and views of God. Given how Elihu’s position was written, I would not say that if I were Job, I’d feel “comforted,” but we should be comforted that he was right about God’s character. We worship a God who is bigger than the box that we, and Job, create for him. I would much rather be corrected in my distorted view of God than worship a God who was in fact petty, accountable, or contingent in the way that Job’s arguments imply, and we should take comfort in that.
Even though Elihu was not accurate about Job’s motivations, he was right to correct Job’s view of God. Elihu’s attack on Job’s mentality that he can “out-God” God was one that we so often need to correct in our own lives. Elihu’s position is one that can help in the day-to-day circumstances because we have a choice in how we respond to our suffering, and I think Elihu’s challenges to Job’s view of God are ones to keep in our minds. So often we let our experiences on earth dictate God’s character.
With these assertions in mind, we can check ourselves when we are in a deep trial to see if our perspective of God is aligning with Job’s and needs to be corrected. During the spring of 2011, when I was on the long drive back from California, I was confused and upset that once again I felt the Lord had opened all these doors and led me in, only to experience pain and disappointment, and to waste thousands of dollars I didn’t have on something that did nothing for me. I began seeing myself starting to challenge God, but this time I was in a trial and felt more equipped. I had been studying Job throughout this process as we have been writing this commentary and reflecting on how my suffering has distorted my view of God in the past, so I began to catch myself before forming more lies in my head about God’s character.
I still have questions and days where I am frustrated that God did not close that door and protect me from yet another emotional and physical rollercoaster, but overall I noticed that the questions I was asking were different and my thought process had changed as I wrestled with the unknown. So Elihu’s position is directly linked with Job’s faulty views of God and his character, and I think it can be helpful day by day to keep these things in mind, but also in being careful not to adopt Elihu’s entire position. We should focus on his assertions regarding how Job viewed and approached God.
JHW: In your long-time experience of suffering, how satisfying is the proposal that we have to be content with “mystery in the middle”?
Kelly: When we consider God’s involvement, we have no choice but to rest with the “mystery in the middle,” because drifting to either extreme downgrades God’s deity once again. But as I read that question, “… how satisfying is the proposal,” I guess if I am honest, I’d have to say that I’m not fully satisfied if I continue to ask the same questions and wrestle with that mystery. I logically see that I need to be satisfied because we are not going to get the answers to God’s mysteries, yet I know that I still pray and question God at times hoping that maybe this time he’ll clue me in and give me a different answer.
Our own “sense of self-importance,” as you described above, can often lead us to misconstrue God’s role in the cosmos as well as bring us to false conclusions about our own experiences. We tend to put our trial as the center focus not of just our universe, but of God’s. The example that you gave about your family’s near accident is one I feel is so common in Christians’ thinking today. We can overspiritualize experiences and credit every positive detail to be of God’s intentional involvement, but those who hold that belief struggle with holding it consistently. If God is involved in every detail of the blessings in our lives, that would mean he is also involved in every detail of the painful things in life. I struggled with falling to the extreme that God micromanages, because I remember believing that God purposefully kept every medication and treatment from working in order to strengthen my testimony. This thought process reveals that I was giving myself and my testimony too much importance by thinking that God is focusing solely on me and causing these painful situations in order to strengthen my testimony. If I rest in the middle, I might conclude that my situation is likely due to the unfortunate truth that in our fallen world we have pain, and science has not found a way to treat the pain that I suffer. God sees this occurring, mourns with me as I suffer, and wants to use it for his purpose. So even though I wrestle with it and at times question God, I do feel at peace that God is in the middle of the two extremes.