ChristadelphianBooksOnline
David Baird
The Education of Job

Chapter 34 - Elihu's Monologues - Elihu's Second Speech - God Does Not Pervert Justice
34:1-4
 Elihu's appeal to the wise

34:5-9
 Elihu's rebuke of Job's assertions

Elihu Defends the Justice of God
34:10-12
 God never does wrong

34:13-15
 God is all-powerful

34:16-20
 God's justice is superior

34:21-30
 God does not answer to anybody

Elihu's Condemnation of Job
34:31-33
 The correct response to God

34:34-37
 The incorrect response of Job

After a probable pause at the conclusion of his first speech, Elihu, receiving no response from Job, proceeds to address what he perceives to be Job's greatest problem. It wasn't so much that Job justified himself. It was that Job justified himself rather than God (32:2). He considered that Job had been impious in that he had charged God with being unjust. Elihu feels that he has prepared Job for what he is about to say as he declared in his previous speech that suffering may be an act of divine chastening (33:19).

In this speech, Elihu's main thrust is that injustice is completely inconsistent with everything we know about God. However, Elihu's manner has a cold, detached quality and seems, in some instances, to overstate or misquote the words of Job. Elihu's themes are essentially correct but in expressing them he betrays that he is not the inspired spokesman of the Almighty.

34:1-4         Elihu's appeal to the wise

Elihu addresses the gathered throng by calling them "wise men" (34:2). While a number of commentators exclude Job and the three from this group, it is possible that Elihu is linking back to Job's insult of 17:10, "For I cannot find one wise man among you", in a bid to show that he was different to the occasionally belligerent Job. Furthermore, Elihu's inference is that wisdom will be displayed by listening to him.

He continues in verse 3, showing how carefully he had listened to the debate, by echoing Job's words, "Doth not the ear try words? and the mouth taste his meat?" (12:11), and throwing out the challenge to his audience to test what is being said and to choose what is right (34:4; 1Thess 5:21).

34:5-9         Elihu's rebuke of Job's assertions

Elihu represents Job's position with a pastiche of identifiable citations and possible inferences drawn from Job's utterances. The dogmatism displayed in this section stretches the credibility of Elihu's words and leaves him open to censure from a number of Bible commentators (e.g. Andersen).

For example, Job may not have directly said, "I am righteous" (tzadak 34:5 also 9:15, 10:15, 13:18) but this is clearly implied in 23:10 and 27:6-7. There is no disputing that Job accused God with refusing to give him justice (27:2 also implied in 9:20-21). However, the statement that Job believed "in spite of my right I am counted a liar" (34:6 RSV) is clearly an exaggeration. Job never said that God accused him with being a liar even though it may be hinted, albeit tentatively, in 9:20 and 16:17.

Elihu also placed the utterance, "My wound (hes) is incurable, though I am without transgression", on the lips of Job. Nowhere does Job directly say this. Again, such an expression can be compiled from a variety of sources. Hes should be rendered as "arrow" (YLit, NIV, Delitzsch, RVmg) and is translated as such in 6:4. It is there that Job likens God to an archer firing poison-tipped arrows (Job's disease?) into his body. The same style of language is also recorded in 16:13 where Job's savage description of God includes Him as a malevolent leader of a troop of archers. The aspect of incurability, while never stated, could be construed from 17:11.

Finally, Elihu repeats his accusation of 33:9 that Job considered himself without transgression (34:6 see notes on 33:9). This is an overstatement of Job's words as it contradicts the instances where Job acknowledges transgression (7:20, 13:23, 14:17). There is the possibility, however, that Job's demeanour, when pushed by the intransigence of his erroneous antagonists, conveyed a sense of being without transgression.

For all we know, Elihu could be supplying a fair assessment of Job's negative feelings towards God. He has not quoted Job verbatim but the sentiments summarised do reflect Job at his lowest, most pressured, moments. However, the rebuke that follows is particularly harsh. His description of Job in 34:7-8 and the proceeding justification in 34:9 does not enhance objective discussion. Perhaps it is a portrayal of a worst-case scenario designed to shock Job into realising how seriously flawed Job was in the presence of Almighty God.

In verse 7 Elihu adjusts Eliphaz's words of 15:16 (replacing "iniquity" with "scorning" Heb. la'ag) to declare that Job satisfies his thirst with "impious speech" (Ges). I believe Elihu is linking back to one of Job's more extreme statements; "(God) will laugh (la'ag) at the trial of the innocent" (9:23). In what is one of his most bitter outbursts, Job attributes a cruel injustice to God (see notes on 9:23). Elihu's harsh rebuke can be justified but what follows, on a literal reading, is groundless.

Elihu's indignation with Job sees him affirming that Job goes "in company with the workers of iniquity and walketh with wicked men" (34:8). This appears to be untrue. Job specifically dissociates himself from "workers of iniquity" in 31:3 and it is obvious, by all accounts, that he did not keep company with evildoers. However, Job's occasional rashness of speech coupled with his perceived arrogance in spiritual matters could see him beginning to walk in step with those who are wicked (Prov 2:10-13). Eliphaz certainly thought that this was the case with Job (15:5).

34:7-8 has a vein of legitimacy running through it but what do we make of 34:9? Did Job say, "It profiteth a man nothing that he should delight himself in God"? Yes, Job did in 21:15 but he was paraphrasing the attitude of the wicked. Job could have been heading in that direction (9:31, 10:3) but Elihu, in this instance, is being unfair in his use of Job's words. Elihu was concerned that Job's cogitations were leading to an outcome whereby Job considered it useless to try and please God. He deals with this in chapter 35 but, at the present, he is concentrating on a general vindication of God's justice.

Elihu Defends the Justice of God

34:10-12         God never does wrong

Having rebuked Job for charging God with injustice, Elihu now expands on this accusation. This short section establishes the premise that God does not pervert justice. In doing this, Elihu:

1.
 Answers Bildad's rhetorical questions, "Doth God pervert judgment? or doth the Almighty pervert justice?" (8:3);
2.
 Addresses Job's fear that he has been wronged by God (19:6); and
3.
 Declares a number of truths which are reiterated by the Apostle Paul in his Epistle to the Romans.

As Elihu exclaims, it was out of the question ("far be it" - same as "God forbid" 27:5) that God should commit iniquity (34:10). This truth is repeated in Romans 9:14 - "What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? God forbid." Elihu continues by saying that God is entirely fair and will repay man according to his work (34:11 NKJV). Again, this theme, not uncommon in the Scriptures, is recounted by Paul in Romans 2:6 - "Who will render to every man according to his deeds." Finally, Elihu proclaims that God only conducts Himself in truth (34:12). Romans 2:2 echoes this irrefutable proposition - "But we are sure that the judgment of God is according to truth."

Why does Paul allude to the words of Elihu? I believe that Paul's frequent referral to Elihu's themes indicates just how valid they are. The words of the three friends are only clearly cited in one location (1Cor 3:19 - see notes on 5:13), whereas Elihu's are scattered throughout Romans.

While it is true that Elihu's expressions are sometimes harsh and even appear to misrepresent Job, his religious viewpoints are essentially correct. Another possible reason that Paul quotes Elihu could relate to the context of Romans. Paul is attempting to prove to the Roman believers that God does not limit his judgment to Jews or people who adopt a Jewish pattern of religious life (Rom 2:8-11). One of the best ways to establish this fact was for Paul to take his readers back to the sayings of an ancient who was, most likely, not a Jew and who did not adhere to the Law of Moses.

34:13-15         God is all-powerful

God is so supreme that He is accountable to nobody. His supremacy is displayed in how He keeps the earth and its inhabitants in existence. Who else has this sort of power (34:13)? God only has to withdraw his "spirit (ruah) and his breath (neshama)" and everybody would perish (34:14-15).

The sense being conveyed by Elihu is that of God's benevolence. It is not that God wants to destroy all mankind. It is that God chooses to maintain mankind even though He has the power to destroy human existence.

Ruah and neshama are interchangeable terms and Elihu could be using both as a form of emphasis. However, the other places in the Book of Job where they are found together could reveal other reasons for 34:15 as well as demonstrating the advanced understanding Elihu had in divine matters. He may be establishing a contrast to the terrifying image of divine judgment described by Eliphaz - "By the blast (neshama) of God they perish, and by the breath (ruah) of his nostrils are they consumed" (4:9). It is also possible that Elihu is showing Job that his solemn oath that "All the while my breath (neshama) is in me, and the spirit (ruah) of God is in my nostrils; My lips shall not speak wickedness" (27:3-4) stands for little in the sight of He who controls neshama and ruah. Elihu acknowledged such in 32:8 and 33:4.

34:16-20         God's justice is superior

Elihu now ceases from addressing the gathered bystanders and fires questions directly at Job. This is evident in that the verbs are now singular (Andersen). Rotherham indicates this change and the New English Bible hits on the sense of verse 16 with, "Now Job, if you have the wit, consider this." Elihu's patronising tone grates on the reader and most likely grated on Job.

Elihu's shrill questions to Job personalise much of what has been said already. The essence is, "How dare you call into question the justice of God!" Delitzsch captures Elihu's mood with,

"Would one who hateth right also be able to subdue (AV "govern")?
Or wilt thou condemn the All-just?
Is it becoming to say to a king: Worthless One!?
Thou evil-doer! to princes?" (34:17-18).

In other words, we treat mortal dignitaries with respect (i.e. Job in 29:25) yet these mortals are only in position through the permission of the Almighty. Surely, God is worthy of much greater honour. This honour is based on two unassailable truths:

1.
 God is no respecter of persons (34:19; Rom 2:11) because they are all "the work of his hands" (see 31:15 for similar sentiments from Job). Elihu could be alluding to Job's protest in 10:3, that God despised the work of his hands (i.e. Job himself), even though Job does shift ground to a beautifully positive recognition of God in 14:15.


2.
 God is all-powerful and everlasting whereas man is dependant on God and short-lived (34:20). The phrase "The mighty are taken away without hand" (RV) means with "no human hand." This is echoed in Daniel 2:34 and 8:25 where it refers to the kingdoms of men being overwhelmed by divine intervention.

34:21-30         God does not answer to anybody

Mortal man may question the judgments of God but they do so in opposition to the fact that God knows everything. He is completely aware of all the circumstances in whatever case is at hand. There will also come a time when God will openly crush those who refuse to follow His way. These are Elihu's themes in this section and they are not presented to ridicule Job or to elevate himself (as Zophar does in 11:5-11). His intention is to declare the righteousness of God.

Elihu also cleverly addresses a number of the issues raised by Job. He is no longer adopting his accusatory "You said" tone. Instead he is systematically considering Job's remarks. What also becomes clear in all Elihu's speeches is that he does not question Job's former life. He deals exclusively with Job's words and attitudes as they emerged in the debate with his three friends.

Verse 21
 God sees everything; a fact acknowledged by a puzzled Job in 31:4.


Verse 22
 Up until now Job was the only speaker to use "darkness" (chosek) and "shadow of death" (tsalmaveth) together (3:5, 10:21, 12:22, 24:16-17, 28:3). In 24:16-17 Job states that home invaders, and by implication from the context, murderers, adulterers and thieves have no fear of God because the darkness is their friend. Elihu, with this in mind, reminds Job that, regardless of what such people may think, nobody can hide from God (Psa 139:11-12; Isa 29:15; Jer 23:24). Is Paul drawing on Elihu in 1Corinthians 4:5 - "Who will bring to light the hidden things of darkness"?


Verse 23
 The Authorised Version is difficult to comprehend on this verse. While a number of interpretations abound, the most logical and literal would be that God "knows all the time what a man is doing and can punish him whenever He thinks fit without a formal enquiry" (Reichert - see also RV, Green, Roth). Such news seems to make redundant Job's desire to plead with God (16:21) at God's tribunal (23:7). If anything, it confirms Job's gloom in 9:32. There is also a possible link between 34:23 and Romans 9:20.


Verse 24
 God breaks in pieces mighty men "without investigation" (RSV - Heb. heqer "searching, inquiry" TWOT - AV "without number" is incorrect). Elihu is confirming Job's words of 9:10 that God does great things "past finding out" (heqer).


Verse 25
 Elihu reintroduces a word favoured by Eliphaz (4:19, 5:4, 22:9) with "they are destroyed" (daka - literally "crushed"). Job uses daka in 6:9 when he seeks death from God as a solution to his suffering. The crushing Elihu refers to is the destruction of evil to be replaced by a new order (Isa 66:18). This event will occur unexpectedly; "in the night" (1Thess 5:2).


Verse 26
 God's judgment of these mighty men will be public (Psa 58:10; Isa 66:24). Despite their high station they will be treated as "criminals" (Heb. rasha - AV "wicked men"). Elihu's far-sighted view was probably designed to challenge Job's myopia of 9:22 - "He destroyeth the perfect and the wicked" (rasha).


Verses 27-28
 God will crush those who had turned from Him, had no regard for Him and who failed to help those crying out in need. As Elihu suggests in his comments, "If God can hear their cry in heaven then surely the mighty men on earth can!" If anything, Job should have taken some comfort from this summation because Job had not departed from God and had, when he was able, relieved the sufferings of the poor (29:12, 31:16-22).

The first part of verse 29 is readily discernible. God answers to nobody so no explanation is required when God is silent. God may give the impression that He is hiding His face (i.e. withdrawing His favour) so that Job cannot behold God (23:8-9), but God is under no compulsion to show His favour when man feels he deserves it.

The rest of verse 29 along with verse 30 is virtually unintelligible. The Hebrew is obscure and a number of variations are suggested; none with an attached high degree of confidence. The Septuagint offers one of the more understandable renditions with:

"... whether it be done against a nation, or against a man also:
        causing a hypocrite to be king, because of the waywardness of the people."

Such an angle whereby God will allow a godless man to reign, giving the people what they deserve, is confirmed in other parts of Scripture (2King 21:9; Hos 13:11; 2Thess 2:11-12). However, it is at odds with other interpretations and is rejected by Delitzsch as being Hebraically inconsistent.

Elihu's Condemnation of Job

This concluding section of Elihu's second speech demonstrates the confusing split personality of Elihu's words. It is this that divides commentators into entrenched camps of interpretation.

Elihu's general advice and religious comments are generally sound. He possesses a perception of God that is significantly higher than the three. They see God as right but in a petty and exacting way. Their conception is of God as a small God, responding to every little nuance of mankind. Elihu presents God's righteousness in a more noble and wider setting. His general comments also skilfully evaluate the words of Job and, at times, express his agreement with Job.

However, when Elihu directly confronts Job the whole tone of the text changes. He becomes blunt, dogmatic and exaggerated in speech. A number of his accusations are insupportable and rank alongside some of the more defamatory ones uttered by the three.

34:31-33         The correct response to God

The obscure Hebrew of 34:29-30 continues into these three verses. This results in some interesting lines of thought in various versions and commentaries, but, I believe, Elihu is outlining how Job should respond to God. Job should not question God's justice. Instead he should:

Elihu's advice is certainly commendable. Job had lifted himself up. Job had questioned God's justice. Job did need to humble himself before the Almighty. This is precisely what Job did (40:3-5). Elihu is not, as some suggest, aligning himself with the philosophy of exact retribution as promoted by the three. He is not telling Job to hunt for the mystery sin that had allegedly caused Job's affliction.

As Elihu continues, "In such a case (i.e. where understanding is sought by the repentant), do you think he ought to punish him, you who reject his decisions?" (34:33 JB). The obvious answer is, "No." God takes into consideration the overall demeanour of a man and will "look to him that is poor and of contrite spirit, and trembleth at my word" (Isa 66:2).

34:34-37         The incorrect response of Job

Again Elihu addresses the bystanders with flattering terms (34:34 - see also 34:2,10) in a way that declares that Job lacks understanding and wisdom. As Gibson paraphrases, "All thoughtful and unprejudiced persons must agree that Job's words were not marked by wisdom." The language that follows is extraordinarily severe. According to Elihu:

1)
 Job had spoken without knowledge (da'at - 34:35) despite Job's assertion in 13:2. Elihu also places Job within Job's definition of a wicked man (21:14) which contrasts with Elihu's self-assertion of his own knowledge (33:3). However, the statement that Job spoke "without knowledge" is affirmed by Yahweh in 38:2 and Job himself in 42:3.


2)
 Job's words were without wisdom (sakal). Sakal refers to "an intelligent knowledge of the reason" (TWOT - i.e. insight). It can also mean to "act circumspectly or prudently" (TWOT).


3)
 Job should be placed on trial (bachan - AV "tried") to the end "because he answers like wicked men" (34:36 RSV). This is opposite to Job's confidence that he would be acquitted should he go to trial (23:10).


4)
 Job has added rebellion (pesha - see notes on 13:23) to his sin (chattaah - see notes on 13:23). In other words, he has added wilful revolt to his sins of weakness. Job's rebellion could be interpreted as his defiant attitude that had been superimposed on his original questioning of God's justice.


5)
 Job has behaved derisively ("clappeth his hands" 34:37). This can be supported by Job's remarkable outburst in 27:13-23 wherein Job scornfully summarises his friends' arguments. It seems more than coincidental that 27:23 is the only other place in the Book of Job where clapping hands are mentioned.


6)
 Job multiplieth his words against God (34:37). It is interesting to note that Job accused God with multiplying his wounds without cause (or possibly "for no reason" - 1:9 see notes on 2:3)" (9:17). Maybe, in a play on Job's words, Elihu had 9:17 in mind when he made this accusation.

Is Elihu right? It can be observed that some of Elihu's accusations against Job are endorsed by God, acknowledged by Job and are in response to Job's expressions. Therefore, it is wrong to reject this harshly spoken section. But, it is harshly spoken and its dogmatism does not allow for the fact that God eventually affirmed that Job had the better of the debate with his three friends (42:7).

Overall, Elihu's second speech contributes to the process of bolstering the spiritual education of Job. While its expression is, at times, savage, its content is more than satisfactory. It is not a speech based on the words of the friends but it consistently draws on Job's utterances. Elihu does not question Job's pre-affliction life as he confines his criticisms to Job's conduct during the debate. He shows Job that his negativity about God's justice contradicts everything there is to know about God. On the contrary, God cares for His creation by allowing His spirit to prevail and by exercising His perfect justice impartially. God sees absolutely everything, knows everything and is accountable to nobody. Nothing turns Him aside from exercising judgment except lowly penitence that stems from a recognition of the supremacy of the Almighty.

Previous Index Next