ChristadelphianBooksOnline
David Baird
The Education of Job

Chapter 33 - Elihu's Monologues - Elihu's First Speech

Elihu's Address to Job

	33:1-7	Why Job should listen to Elihu
	33:8-13	Elihu recounts Job's presumptions
	33:14-22	God speaks to man in many ways
	33:23-30	God does save
	33:31-33	Elihu's challenge to Job

Elihu's Address to Job

Elihu now specifically addresses Job and what quickly comes to our attention is the fact that Elihu is focussed on what Job said in his adversity. Elihu, unlike the others, does not call into question Job's former life. He does not seek the elusive causative sin as the others constantly did. However, he is seriously concerned with some of Job's comments that came to light during the preceding debate.

33:1-7 Why Job should listen to Elihu

Elihu returns to the courtesy that began the debate and also addresses Job, as none of the others had done, by name. In attempting to convince Job of the absolute sincerity of his utterances, Elihu, possibly to ameliorate an early concern of Job expressed in 6:25, becomes repetitive and his words redundant. He uses three synonyms for "words" and an unusual eloquence when he says, "Behold now, I have opened my mouth, My tongue speaketh in my palate (hek)" (33:3 Delitzsch - see also Roth, JB, RVmg).

It could be that Elihu, in his wordiness, is striving to establish some sort of rapport with Job. Job in asserting his sincerity and innocence, while under enormous provocation, said, "Neither have I suffered my mouth (hek - "palate" AVmg) to sin" (31:30). "I also", infers Elihu, "Will speak the honest truth. In my sincerity, wisdom will be spoken."

Should Job not believe Elihu's claims, a challenge, reminiscent of Job's in 24:25, is thrown out to him - "Refute me if you can. Prepare your ground to oppose me" (33:5 JB). This does not mean that Elihu is declaring himself to be infallible, or that he believes he is inspired by God. He is placing a great deal of confidence in the quality of the knowledge he is about to share. As suggested in 32:8, Elihu is merely indicating that as a man, created and enlivened by God, he is on the same footing as any other man. As we read in 33:6, Elihu claims no special endowment over the others - "Lo! I am like thyself toward God, From clay have I been nipped off even I" (Roth, see also RSV, RV, Green). However, he does claim the right to express his opinions.

Elihu, in saying this, is also addressing Job's terror (ema). In reference to God, Job had said, "Let not his fear terrify (ema) me" (9:34) and, "Let not thy dread (ema) make me afraid" (13:21). Zophar also plays on this theme in 20:25. "Don't worry", reassures Elihu, "I am a man just like you, so you need not be terrified by what I have to say" (33:7). One wonders if this comment was even necessary, let alone reassuring. If anything, it could be imagined that Job was drumming his fingers and thinking, "I wish he would get on with it."

The word translated "hand" (ekep - only found in Job 33:7) means "pressure" (TWOT) and is translated that way by a number of versions (e.g. RV, RSV, Soncino, Delitzsch).

33:8-13 Elihu recounts Job's presumptions

Finally, Elihu begins to discuss Job's statements. It is important to note that it is Job's words that are to be called into question. Elihu only deals with what he has heard or thinks he has heard. He does not hypothesise. It is also Job's words that are questioned by Yahweh (38:2), repented of by Job (40:5) and, as a result of that repentance, are the basis for divine approval (42:6-7). While it is true that the others addressed Job's comments, their ventures into the realm of speculation merely condemned them. Elihu sticks to the knowns although, as we will see, he is not literally correct with some of the expressions he attributes to Job.

According to Elihu, Job had said, "I am clean (zak) without transgression (pesha), I am innocent (hap) neither is their iniquity (avon) in me" (33:9). This verse is used by Elihu's detractors to claim that he was a young upstart who misrepresented Job.

Job only uses the word zak in reference to his prayer (16:17). It is Zophar who directly accuses Job with saying "My doctrine is pure (zak)" (11:4), and Bildad who infers that Job is not "pure (zak) and upright" (8:6). Elihu could have attributed the comments of Zophar and Bildad to Job. But, while zak is not a regular part of Job's vocabulary, he does assert his innocence in a number of places (10:7, 16:17, 23:12, 27:5-6). Elihu's recall of Job's statement, while imperfect, could essentially be sound.

Again, Job never says that he is without transgressions (pesha). 7:20, 13:23 and 14:17 strongly suggest that Job acknowledged he had committed transgressions and sought God's forgiveness. However, Job does deny ever committing pesha in the sense of personal vindictiveness (31:30). Elihu has possibly granted a broader meaning to Job's proud boast and in doing so is probably addressing an arrogance that unchecked could lead to Job's spiritual downfall.

Hap is unique to 33:9 in Scripture. It means to be "pure, in a moral sense" (Ges). Job never directly claimed to be hap, but decrees like "I have made a pact with my eyes, not to linger on any virgin" (31:1 JB) adds substance to Elihu's observation.

Job also recognised that he could have committed iniquity (7:21). So what is Elihu linking avon (see notes on 13:23) with? Again, chapter 31 appears to contain the salient sections because it is there that Job denies avon in the contexts of infidelity (31:11), idolatry (31:28) and hypocrisy (31:33). Job's specificity has again been generally applied by Elihu.

Is Elihu being unfair in his accusations against Job? While the record does not strictly correlate Elihu's citations with the original spokesman, the essence of Job's self-justification is captured by Elihu. Elihu has not quoted verbatim but he has not acted inappropriately. Job did not believe that he was sinless but his attitude saw him decline into an unfortunate self-righteousness.

His self-righteousness meant that Job had to call God's treatment of him into question (33:10). This time Elihu's quoting of Job is relatively precise. The first part - "he findeth occasion against me" - is not entirely clear and could be an overstatement of Job's feelings. The second part - "he counteth me for his enemy" - is a solid citation of 13:24 (see also 19:11, 30:21). Verse 11 is a direct quotation from Job's statements in 13:27.

Elihu's reaction to Job's words is simplistic, almost banal, but accurate. He tells Job, "You are wrong" (33:12 JB, Andersen) and that "God is greater than man." While Job may not have willingly embraced the opening judgment, he had already affirmed the greatness of God in virtually every speech he uttered. However, if Job really believed that, "Why," queries Elihu, "Has Job sought to strive (rib) against Him?" (33:13). Elihu is possibly alluding to 31:35 where Job called the Almighty "the man of my strife" (ish rib). Yahweh lends credibility to Elihu's criticism of Job when He asks Job, "Shall the one who contends (rib) with the Almighty correct Him?" (40:2 NKJV).

And why did Job express displeasure at the apparent silence of God to his questions (13:22, 19:7)? Elihu is shocked by the sound of Job's words. How could Job expect God to reply in accordance with Job's requirements? After all, God speaks to man in many ways.

33:14-22 God speaks to man in many ways

According to Elihu, because God does not always speak to man in the way he expects, man fails to notice when God is communicating. God uses one method with no result and follows with another unsuccessful method. It is not God's fault if man fails to perceive when God is speaking to him.

Elihu continues by outlining two forms of divine communication. The first is by dreams (33:15-18), the second is through pain and suffering (33:19-22). Job was subject to both experiences. This prompts some commentators to align Elihu's style of speaking with the heavy-handed approach of the others. But, there is a difference. Both communication channels are used by God elsewhere in Scripture and notably in the Pentateuch. Elihu was being factual rather than spiteful.

God speaks through dreams (halom - Gen 20:3-7, 31:24; Num 12:6) and visions (hizzayon - 2Sam 7:17), when man is in a deep sleep (tardema - Gen 2:21, 15:12). Eliphaz (4:13) claimed that God spoke to him in a vision (hizzayon) during a deep sleep (tardema). It is obvious from the content of Eliphaz's vision that this was not the case. In 7:14, Job complained that God plagued him with dreams (halom) and terrifying visions (hizzayon). Maybe Elihu is suggesting that God did this to Job for a reason. God was not indulging, as Job hints, in some sort of malicious prank to aggravate a tortured man.

Man may not normally notice God's message but he finds it very difficult to ignore a disturbing dream. He awakes terrified from the warnings it contains (33:16 RSV). Such dreams, sent by God, are intended to turn man away from evil-doing and to "make an end of his pride" (33:17 JB). Man is stopped from pursuing paths that will lead to his death (Prov 16:25). His trip to "the pit" (shahat) is delayed and his life is not subject to an early termination by the sword. In summary, divinely sent dreams, according to Elihu, halt man in following sins of self-importance and deliver him from an untimely death, whether it be natural or violent.

Elihu emphasises "the pit" (shahat) in this chapter (33:15,22,24,28,30). He is more than likely responding to Job's sentiments as expressed in the only other two places shahat is found outside chapter 33 in the Book of Job. In 9:31, Job declared that, regardless of how vigorously he ceremonially cleansed himself, God would simply dunk him into a filthy pit to ensure that Job remained detestable. In 17:14, Job describes the pit (AV "corruption") as his father such is the intimacy of his relationship with it. Elihu now attempts to impress on Job that God is communicating with Job in order to keep him from a premature entry into the pit.

God does this through visions, while man is in a deep sleep, and through the infliction of pain and suffering, while man is awake. This is not a soothing concept to lay on the horribly afflicted Job, especially when the detail of God's chastening includes general pain, "strife in his bones" (33:19 RSV), anorexia, emaciation, rotting flesh and a near proximity to death. All these symptoms were Job's symptoms (7:5, 19:20,27, 30:17,30 etc) as well as being the reasons for the others to consider Job as a giant of sin.

Elihu sees Job's affliction in a different light. It was part of God's chastening and therefore for Job's benefit. "Chastened" (33:19) is yakach in the Hebrew and a popular word in the Book of Job (see notes on 13:1-12). Elihu uses yakach in 32:12 (AV "convinced") when criticising the three friends. His point is that God reproves, convinces and corrects through the use of pain and suffering. The three misunderstood this legitimate concept (Heb 12:5-12) and were therefore unable to effectively address Job's dilemma.

The term "destroyers" (33:22) is a curious one translated from a common word that means "die, kill, have one executed" (TWOT). In this context it could mean "killers" (Ges, Andersen) and have reference to angels who are commissioned by God to slay men (Delitzsch, Gibson - see Psa 78:49; 2Sam 24:16). Brother Mansfield interprets it as "manslayers" in reference to the afflicting disease or illness. Verse 22 parallels with verse 18 and neither interpretation detracts from the overall argument.

33:23-30 God does save

God not only speaks to man, He is also prepared to save him. He can do so by way of a mediator between Himself and man. Such a concept is critical to an understanding of how God saves fallen man (1Tim 2:5-6). The use of a mediator is also another way that God speaks to man. Elihu's understanding of this concept sets him apart from the others and places this section as the most advanced and profound of all his comments. Those who interpret Elihu in a wholly negative way are not supported by the depth of spiritual insight displayed in these verses.

However, verse 23 is not easy to decipher. Who is the mediator suggested by Elihu? A number of commentators claim that he is an angel, whereas Brother Papowski aligns him with Christ. Brother Mansfield believes that Elihu is promoting himself as the mediator. I believe that Elihu could be referring to anybody who could fulfil the role of a mediator between God and man. He is not being specific as he does not precisely identify who the mediator is. However, his description of the mediator narrows the field down to a very special kind of person. This individual possesses the following characteristics:

He is a messenger (malak). There are many instances where malak refers to human messengers (1:14), including humans who served as God's messengers (2Chron 36:15-16; Hag 1:13);
He is an interpreter (lis). Lis is a strange word that usually conveys the aspect of scorn (16:20) but, in this context, has the sense of an interpreter (Gen 42:23), a negotiator (2Chron 32:31) and a God-commissioned speaker (Isa 43:27). It is he who makes plain the message of God to men;
He is one among a thousand. Elihu is possibly addressing Job's concern in 9:3. There Job declared that should man contend with God, man is in a hopeless position. God could ask a thousand questions that would be beyond man's capacity to answer. Elihu is informing Job that while Job could not negotiate with God, God appoints special agents who can;
He is one "who would declare to man what is right for him" (Andersen). He can provide instruction on the correct means to remedy sin or disease; and
He is one who is gracious to the sinner. In other words, he approaches God on the sinner's behalf. He asks God to "Deliver him from going down into the pit: I have found a ransom" (33:24).

Clearly, all these characteristics were perfected in the Lord Jesus Christ and one can only marvel at the detail Elihu provides here. He knew what was required and he knew that it included a ransom - "a covering by shedding of blood, or the price of expiation, or atonement" (CompB). While Elihu would not have been fully conversant with the details of the saving work of Jesus Christ (1Pet 1:10-12), his remarkable understanding of the work of the mediator has confirmatory correspondence with the Apostle Paul's description, in the Epistle to the Romans, of Christ's work.

"For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;
Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Jesus Christ:
Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God;
To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and a justifier of him which believeth in Jesus.

(Romans 3:23-26 see also Romans 5:18-21)

Elihu has identified how Job can be saved. God will not necessarily deal directly with man. God can operate through a mediator who can speak on his behalf, can represent the sinner to him, is a specially selected individual and knows what is right. Should Job receive God's salvation through the work of this mediator then:

His flesh will be restored to that of a young child's (2Kings 5:14);
God has listened and responded favourably to his prayers (33:26; 2Kings 20:5; Psa 28:6; Jer 33:3) as well as being admitted (as a man whose righteousness has been restored), in a spiritual sense, into God's presence (Psa 11:7);
He will be full of joy and singing (33:27 RV, RSV, Delitzsch, JB, Roth. AV "looketh upon") as he publicly recounts his salvation; and
He will confess his sin so that a huge burden is lifted off his mind (Psa 32:3-6).

Furthermore, God is patient in His dealings with man. While man has difficulty perceiving God's message, despite the number of ways it is expressed (33:14), God continues with man in order to save him - "Behold, God works all these things, twice, in fact, three times with a man, to bring back his soul from the Pit, that he might be enlightened with the light of life" (33:29-30 NKJV). The idiom "twice, in fact, three times" is a statement indicating thoroughness and perseverance. It is another example of ascending enumeration designed to provide emphasis (see notes on 5:19).

What has Elihu offered Job? He has provided a clear and accurate portrayal of how God can work. He has also indicated where he believed Job was wrong. He has encouraged Job to humble himself before God by acknowledging personal sin and God's righteousness. There is no doubt that Elihu has been fairer and more accurate than the others and that this section demonstrates the higher spiritual plane in which Elihu inhabits. His solution is not based on a philosophy that reduced Job's former prosperity to a disaster waiting to happen. His advice that Job's disease and nightmares were God's ways of communicating with Job appears to be logical. However, it seems a simple way to explain why Job was so horribly afflicted. As an explanation it may be correct, but is it sufficient?

33:31-33 Elihu's challenge to Job

This short section is repetitive and a little confused. Elihu instructs Job to hold his peace and listen (33:31) but to interrupt if he has anything to say (33:32)! To Elihu's credit, he would like Job to speak up because "I want you to be cleared" (NIV). This was not the spirit that ultimately motivated Job's three friends.

However, should Job keep silent, Elihu bids him to stay silent (a somewhat redundant piece of advice) so that he can teach Job some wisdom (hokma - the discernment of right and wrong - see notes on 12:13). Hokma was not with the three (32:7-9) so Elihu gives the impression that he knows best. This could be true even though it sounds ever so much like the cockiness of an opinionated younger man.