 Bottom |
Commentary on the Book of Job |
 Burning Coal |
The question has come up, “Is Elihu an example of Jesus' early appearance?” There are several reasons that come up readily. Elihu seems to appear out of nowhere in the narrative. He disappears from the narrative just as quickly. He attacks Job's stubborn position, as well as those of the three friends.
Some commentators are quite fond of Elihu. John Calvin in particular. Calvin is also the first person that I am aware of who presents the concept of a preincarnate Christ appearing to people in the Old Testament. The idea has since become popular in Fundamentalist circles. I do not see any strong evidence that Jesus actually appears to anyone prior to his birth in Bethlehem. In every case suggested, the Bible indicates that the Lord appears, or speaks, presumably the Holy Spirit, or that an angel appears. This doesn't necessarily rule out the idea.
Some commentators suggest that Elihu is a later addition to the book, since his brief appearance leaves no trace. He is not mentioned anywhere in the previous 31 chapters. He is never mentioned in the rest of the book. This theory I won't dispute one way or the other, except to say that if the implication is that chapters 32 through 37 should be deleted from the book or should otherwise be demoted, I would strongly resist. Whether as an addition or part of the original manuscript, the speeches of Elihu do contribute to the narrative. I would be foolish to try in my own arguments to alter scripture as it stands. I can only analyze the character of Elihu and what he has to say from what is contained in the Book of Job. I take the person of Elihu at face value.
On the other hand, the effort to somehow elevate Elihu to the red-letter portion of scripture is equally ill advised. In fact, like all the speeches of the three friends, I would place Elihu's speeches in an isolated category which does not carry God's approval necessarily, any more than do my words necessarily carry God's authority. The reason is simple, the three friends are going to be rebuked sharply for not telling the truth, and since Elihu agrees with them, well... it may explain why Elihu does not stay to the end of the book.
What we know from the text is that Elihu is a Buzite of the kindred of Ram, and the son of Barachel. This tells me that he is known, he has family connections known to the other characters, i.e. he did not just appear despite the fact that his name has not come up in the narrative prior to Chapter 32. The names Elihu, Buz and Ram all suggest that he is a descendant of Abraham, either through Jacob (Israel) or more likely Esau. For more detail on that you can refer to the introduction to my Commentary on Job. The only importance for this discussion is that he is not an unknown character who appears suddenly as an angel or Christ would.
Elihu's value to the narrative of the Book of Job is first of all a summation of arguments. While he claims to be introducing new arguments "neither will I answer him with your speeches", (32:14), for the most part he merely repeats the same arguments already voiced, with even less effect. Besides re-phrasing arguments of the three friends, he also rephrases many of the things that Job says. Two things that should be noted right off: he speaks out of anger (32:5), and he claims the inspired wisdom of the Holy Spirit (Job 32:8). He starts by insulting the three friends: "Great men are not always wise" (32:9). I have to assume that he is frustrated that no conclusion is being reached. We desperately want to know what Job has done wrong, if only to save ourselves from the same fate. This is the engine that drives the three friends, it drives Elihu and it drives the commentators, myself included. Unfortunately, outside of the fact that Job is a son of Adam, the answer is, Job has done nothing wrong, he is perfect (1:1).
Elihu believes that the three friends are right in their condemnation of Job, but are wrong in their failure to convince Job of sin. You can hear a palpable sneer as he says, "I attended unto you, and, behold, there was none of you that convinced Job, or that answered his words" (32:12). I know it should seem obvious that this is the wrong track, but so many commentators go looking for some undisclosed sin, some hidden rebellion, and therefore follow his same vein. I can only remind you that the book opens proclaiming Job's righteousness (1:1), God himself affirms Job's righteousness twice at the beginning (1:8, 2:3) and then at the end says to Eliphaz, "My wrath is kindled against thee, and against thy two friends: for ye have not spoken of me the thing that is right, as my servant Job hath" (42:7). Elihu, who has vanished from the narrative by Chapter 42, takes sides with the three, thus lines up on the wrong side.
Elihu finishes Chapter 33 with a challenge to Job to answer his accusations: "If thou hast any thing to say, answer me: speak, for I desire to justify thee. If not, hearken unto me: hold thy peace, and I shall teach thee wisdom." (33:32-33). Apparently he is expecting Job to swoon in submission to his eloquence. Job makes no response. Now Elihu is really upset. The gloves are off. He sneers, "Job hath said 'I am righteous'... What man is like Job, who drinketh up scorning like water? Who goeth in the company with the workers of iniquity, and walketh with wicked men." Now, he is flat out contradicting God (1:8 and 2:3). He then follows with a quote of Job: "For he hath said, 'It profiteth a man nothing that he should delight himself with God.' " (34:9). Though basically a true quote, this statement is ripped out of context in such a way as to say exactly the opposite of Job's intention. In the passage referenced, Job is referring to the wicked: "Therefore they say unto God, 'Depart from us; for we desire not the knowledge of thy ways. What is the Almighty, that we should serve him? and what profit should we have, if we pray unto him?" (21:14-15). In other words, Elihu is condemning Job for saying what Job is condemning the wicked for saying. To suggest that Elihu is Jesus or an angel of God would suggest that God approves of this blatant twisting of the truth.
Believing he has clearly exposed Job's sin, Elihu goes on to condemn Job: "My desire is that Job may be tried unto the end because of his answers for wicked men. For he addeth rebellion unto his sin, he clappeth his hands among us, and multiplieth his words against God." (34:35-36). He finally claims that Job has said "My righteousness is more than God's" (35:2). Job has not said any such thing, so Elihu must be extrapolating this from Job's complaint of innocence, and suggesting that the implication is that God is therefore unjust, i.e. un-righteous. The characterization is unfair, and does not play well with God (42:7).
Finally, Elihu has some lofty rhetoric in praise of God and condemnation of the wicked, but when God does appear, where is he? Running for his life? Hiding? Begging for the rocks to crush him? Elihu is a proud, judgmental, zealot, but not a friend of God. Were he to crawl back in repentance, I am sure that Job, in his new found place at the side of God, would be pleased to pray for his release from condemnation just as he prays for his other three detractors.
This question is tricky. Job is a son of Adam, as we all are, therefore he is subject to the independence from God, which was first expressed by Adam and Eve. This can be and usually is figured as pride or rebellion. My analysis of the Book of Job puts that issue directly in the center of God's final speech to Job. God is intentionally addressing this issue, and in my estimation intentionally engineers the entire scenario from the start, for the purpose of addressing this issue. However, since my assumption is that the question of Job's pride was put forward to me to indicate a particular spirit of pride on Job's part, and therefore he is being punished until he repents, my answer is definitely no, Job is not being punished, and no, Job is not prideful beyond the normal pride of a son of Adam.
Chapter 32 opens with Job's three friends ceasing to debate with him, “because he was righteous in his own eyes.” An older reading suggests that he was righteous in their eyes (Clark) which would indicate they came to agree with him, but the first conclusion could explain the outrage of Elihu, a previously silent witness. For now, I will stick with the King James. In this case, Job, as Elihu accuses, “justified himself rather than God” (Job 32:2). Elihu's wrath is kindled against the three friends of Job (32:5), displaying the spirit that moves him, because “there was no answer in the mouth of these three men”.
If Job is justifying himself, but is not righteous, then Job has a big problem. But, what if Job is righteous? Does he not have a reason resist the persistent accusations of his friends? Should he not justify himself? It is the height of dogmatic foolishness to suggest he should be justifying God in the face of direct assaults on his character.
So what is his character? The book starts out, Chapter 1, Line 1: “There was a man in the land of Uz, whose name was Job; and that man was perfect and upright, and one that feared God, and eschewed evil.” Job is perfect, and I think most commentators would agree with me, he is perfect in the ways of the law. He is not God incarnate, but he is exceedingly righteous. In verse 8, God sets things in motion by asking Satan, “Hast thou considered my servant Job, that there is none like him in the earth, a perfect and an upright man, one that feareth God, and escheweth evil?” The perfection of Job is no idle opinion. Satan does not disagree.
Satan's response is to challenge the persistence of the character of Job, were he to loose all of his blessings. God allows this, so that Job looses all of his wealth and all ten of his children in quick succession. His response: “Then Job arose, and rent his mantle, and shaved his head, and fell down upon the ground, and worshipped” (1:20). Job's reaction is off the charts incredible. The only way to make accusation against Job in this, would be to imply that this was just some religious form he is following. Satan does not suggest any such thing. Instead the text says, “In all this Job sinned not, nor charged God foolishly” (1:22).
After all of the initial troubles poured out on Job, God again affirms his character: “Hast thou considered my servant Job, that there is none like him in the earth, a perfect and an upright man, one that feareth God, and escheweth evil? and still he holdeth fast his integrity, although thou movedst me against him, to destroy him without cause” (2:3). As for unrighteousness, there is no cause for Job to be condemned, and certainly no cause for the hideous suffering unleashed upon him, so says God. That should put the question to rest.
But the question persists. Surely God is not allowing Job to suffer for no reason. When God does appear before Job, He does not come to sooth, and definitely not to apologize. So is Elihu right, the three friends are to be condemned for failing to ferret out Job's sin? Let's take a look at chapter 38 when God appears to Job out of the whirlwind.
The first words God speaks are a clear challenge: “Who is this that darkeneth counsel by words without knowledge?” Let me take a slight sidestep, in order frame my commentary: What we know as Original Sin, was a deliberate choice on the part of Adam (and Eve) to choose “the Knowledge of Good and Evil”. From that first awful choice springs all human sin. I am afraid that many of us believe that “the knowledge of evil” is the cause of all sin, but I have to say that choosing our own “knowledge of good”, that when I decide that this or that is good, outside of an clear communication from Heaven, I am opening myself to Sin. Of course many of us, like Job, may want to hear from God, but we don't. Now, Job is finally hearing from God, clearly and directly, but he is not doing as well as he thought he would. We are drawn into sin less often by any evil intent, but by sheer ignorance, bad advice, and by the Word of God divorced from the Spirit of the Living God. God's challenge to Job is simple: Do you know what I have done and what I have intended (38:4-38)?; Do you know My care for all things (38:39-39:38)?; Can you provide strength to the war horse, or the eagle (39:19-30)?
God completes his first discourse, “Shall he that contendeth with the Almighty instruct him? He that reproveth God, let him answer it” (40:2). I don't want to get off into a long discussion of contending with God here, but I do want to suggest that if God is deeply offended by it, why are men like Jacob, or Jonah, or for that matter, Paul, listed among the greats. In her fascinating book Why?, Ann Graham-Lotz suggests that because Martha struggled to understand Jesus she came to a deeper place in her relationship with him. When Jesus came to Lazuras's tomb, Martha immediately went out to meet him, while Mary stayed and had to be called specially (John 11:28). For sure, contention can quickly become ugly and destructive, but, as iron sharpens iron (Proverbs 27:17), contending brings growth and maturity. All that to say that I do not believe God is trying to crush Job, as so many commentators have suggested. He is trying to penetrate a dullness in Job's understanding.
God challenges Job (40:8-13), if you have the understanding, if you have the strength, if you have the majestic countenance of God, then put an end to sin and bring justice about. Then, in one ironic statement, God encompasses the entire gospel: “Then will I also confess unto thee that thine own right hand can save thee” (40:14). If, by your own efforts, you can bring to pass the Kingdom of God, do it. If not, open your hand to Me. This encompasses works righteousness, justification by faith, grace, the need for a savior, and a hundred other issues. Job does not know enough to save us from ourselves. Job does not have the strength to move entrenched evil. All of Job's wisdom is empty and foolish without a deep and abiding relationship with God.
Then begins God's description of two strange creatures. “What is the point of the almost baroque descriptions of the two great animals”, complains one commentator; and he is not the only one who dismisses the two beasts as irrelevant. Others suggest the purpose is to intimidate Job into submission. We do not want to begin by suggesting that two chapters of the Bible are irrelevant, nor should we want to suggest that God's purpose is to intimidate his best example of righteousness.
No, God, through an allegorical description, is revealing the deepest truth of the gospel, God's champion, “chief of the ways of God” (40:19), and our adversary, “He beholdeth all high things: he is a king over all the children of pride” (41:34). I won't go into depth here, I just suggest Job gets it.
Suddenly the dullness is gone. Job is seeing clearly the majesty of God, the wrath of God, the mercy of God, the grace of God, the patience of God. There is only one adequate response: “I abhor myself, and repent in dust and ashes.” This is the response of Isaiah, of the apostle John, and will be the response of all of us before the judgement seat of Christ. Mother Teresa does not escape this revelation.
So are the three friends commeded for seeing that Job was righteous in his own eyes? “The LORD said to Eliphaz the Temanite, My wrath is kindled against thee, and against thy two friends: for ye have not spoken of me the thing that is right, as my servant Job hath” (42:7). Job was right to commend his righteousness and to justify himself? Insofar as he does so, it appears that God is not upset at all. I will point out that Job does not spend a lot of time defending himself. In thirty chapters of attacks, he answers the accusation, or doesn't, and then he moves on to what is important.
He does contend with God. He does ask why. He does beg for an advocate. But in the end, face to face with the most holy, Job falls on his face. It is as if, suddenly submerged in majesty and grace, his loss and his suffering vanishes without a trace. When God tells the three friends to offer a sacrifice for Job to bless, “lest I deal with you after your folly, in that ye have not spoken of me the thing which is right, like my servant Job” (42:8), God simply says, “my servant Job shall pray for you” (42:8). There is no question, "I know they said some bad things, but will you pray for them?" Job prays for them as one in perfect unison with God, and the LORD accepts (42:9).
My conclusion: Job is perfectly righteous, but until he stops clinging to the law (the knowledge of good and evil) he cannot grasp the “Tree of Life”. God in His grace and mercy breaks Job off of the branch of Adam preparing him for the true vine. To God be the glory.
|
Top |
Commentary on the Book of Job |
Burning Coal |
Questions of The Book of Job: