Sorry about the delay in writing more on the Book of Job. I was diagnosed with Ovarian Cancer in November and have been dealing with Chemo since then. However, I am feeling much better so I shall continue with this study as my health allows. If you would like to review Part I you will find it here: http://www.dailykos.com/...
In this part we will discuss the idea of Retribution Theology and how it affects us today.
One of the more controversial issues in the book of Job are the conversations with the three friends, Eliphaz, Bildad, and Zophar. Many authors believe that these speeches were added to the original story as a commentary on that story. If we accept this premise then, the focus of the Book of Job can be seen in two ways, one, that the original story is the important piece or, two, that these speeches are the important part of the story. I think this second view is where a misreading of the meaning of Job has happened.
The speeches of the four friends may appear wise to some scholars and yet I think they confuse the meaning of the book. If we analyse the speeches of the three friends, we see a theology of retribution woven into their speeches. Many people share this world view that says if you are suffering, you must have done something to deserve it.
The friends begin with speeches of comfort and then move to admonishment.
The problem begins when Job continues to stand upon his innocence. The reader knows that Job is innocent but has been caught in a struggle between God and the Satan. As Job continues his defence, the three friends take on the role of accuser, almost as if they are the Satan. Below, I have put together a table showing the points brought out by each of the friends and the similarities of each of their speeches. Essentially, they cover a limited amount of information:
1 Praise of Job
2 Rebuking Job
3 Accusing Job
4 Calling for Job’s repentance
5 God’s restoration of Job if he repents
6 God’s discipline
7 Praise of God
8 God’s punishment for evil doers
Subject Eliphaz Bildad Zophar
Praise Job 4:34
Rebuke Job 4:5-11 18:2-4 11:2-4, 20:2-3
Accuse Job 5:1-7, 15:4, 22:2-11 8:2-4
Call for Job to Repent 22:21-24 8:5-7 11:3-14
God Will Restore Job 22:25-30 8:20-22 11:15-19
God’s Discipline 5:12-27, 15:5-16
Dream 4:12-16
Praise God 5:8-11, 22:12-14 25:2-6 11:5-9
Questions of the Wise 15:2-3
Punishment for the Evil Doers 15:17-35, 22:19-20 8:8-19, 15:5-21 11:10-12, 11:20, 20:4-29
God’s Gifts 22:18
If the commentator focuses on these speeches as the important part of the story, he will try to find fault with Job and see Job’s protestations of innocence as arrogance and lack of repentance. If, on the other hand, the original story is focused on, the reader can see the error of the three friends. They, too are struggling with the mystery of suffering and their view is limited. Job is suffering so he must have done something wrong. I think that the last chapter of the Book of Job shows the view of God in this as he states that what was spoken is incorrect and then has Job make sacrifices for his friends in their error.
I think it is important, when reading the Book of Job to keep the outer shell of the story in the forefront of your thoughts and remembering that it is the argument between God and the Satan that has caused Job’s suffering. Then you can see the speeches of the three friends for what they are, confusion about the problem of suffering and trying to give an explanation for it that will comfort themselves and put suffering in a nice little box so they can understand it.
Human beings, as a whole, do not like something they cannot explain. I think the Book of Job, shows the confusion that suffering throws all of us into and reveals our different ways of handling it. The friends must accuse Job, for if they do not then, how do they explain that even the good suffer?
The Conservative Rightwingers focus their belief system on the idea that if you are poor or sick or otherwise disadvantaged that it must be your fault for being lazy and a moocher. Almost everyday on Fox News we hear the blame game going on against the poor. The clown car candidates demonize the disadvantaged and the lawmakers use this as an excuse to take away the safety net. They take the part of the three friends and are just as much in error as the friends were. In their self-righteousness they perpetrate a false assumption and add to the suffering of Americans just as the three friends did to Job.
The mystery of suffering encompasses so much and when corporations dirty the water, air and land, it is increased in the damage it causes to people. The heartlessness that the Right Wingers spout allows these corporations to continue the damage in their greed and power hunger.
In many religions, Retribution Theology still holds and even in the non-religious people believe this. It is an Old Testament belief and holds through stories found there. In the New Testament it is done away with. Jesus states that if you follow him you will likely suffer and I think this is because it goes against what so many are taught. If you love and serve your fellow man, you are more likely to suffer because it goes against the power structure and selfishness that is inherent in society. When someone speaks up and champions the weaker members of society, it causes others to feel guilty and ashamed for their lack of caring for others. People do not like those feelings and will demonize those who bring up those feelings in them. So much of society preys on the weaker members and as long as no one challenges them they can live in their selfishness comfortably.
In the end of the book, God restores Job’s life and has him atone for the sins of his friends showing that they were wrong in their judgements and that Job was innocent of their accusations.
Some will point out that there was a fourth friend in this story named Elihu. The speeches of Elihu, (chapters 32-37) in the Book of Job, were written to challenge the theology of retribution, prevalent at the time that the dialogue of Job and the three friends; Eliphaz, Zophar, and Bildad was taking place. This is a lengthy discussion so if you want to skip this after the first couple of pages, feel free.
I would like to address several issues regarding the interpretation of the message and character of Elihu by the following:
1. The theories surrounding the possible corruption of the text.
2. The question of the authenticity of Elihu in the
original writing of the Book of Job and how it has
affected different interpretations.
3. The negative or positive acceptance of the message
contained within chapters 32-37 and how this affects
Elihu as symbol.
4. The importance of reading the Elihu chapters within the context for which they were written in the Book of Job.
A THEORY REGARDING THE POSSIBLE CORRUPTION OF THE TEXT
There are some verses in the Elihu chapters of Job that several of the authors have suggested are untranslatable. The reason for this is that they have become corrupted through damage, specifically: 35:8-16; 36:16 and 20 (Hanson 1953, 95-102). I have found that Gordis's explanation of this is one of the clearest descriptions of this problem:
It is undeniable that the Elihu chapters in the MT (Masoretic Texts) contain a relatively large number of difficult, even cryptic, passages. A plausible explanation is available. There is excellent ground for postulating that the central portion of the manuscript of Job suffered major accidental damage early in its history. This injury took place after the book was complete, but before the Greek version (and probably the Qumran Targum) came into existence, since it reproduces our present sequence and basic text. As a result of the damage and disarray, there occurred the loss of some material in the third cycle...Finally, some verses became illegible or unintelligible and were consequently subjected to miscopying and changes as well...they probably extend to the Elihu chapters (32-37) ...This single assumption, that the text of chapters 24-37 was damaged, would explain the presence of difficult passages in the Elihu speeches that had become illegible and suffered errors in transmission (Gordis 1978, 547-548).
THE AUTHENTICITY OF THE ELIHU SPEECHES
The issue that seems to be the most important one surrounding chapters 32-37 in Job revolves around their authenticity. Many people have said that these speeches were added as later interpolations to the Book of Job by another author or the same author at a later date. I agree with this viewpoint as being possible because when Yahweh answers in chapter 38, His speech sounds like Elihu had never spoken. Yahweh's discourse to Job ignores much of what Elihu has just finished saying. Some of the scholars have judged that the later addition of these chapters means that these speeches are reiterations of the earlier arguments and, therefore, have no value in the Job story. They also believe the writing is not as good and the quality of these speeches affects their overall value as well. There are other reasons given to support the theory of the later addition of the Elihu speeches. There are others, however who believe that these speeches were part of the original book of Job. In surveying the different opinions on the Elihu speeches, these points were offered as reasons to believe the speeches were later additions:
1. Anti-climax: Elihu is not mentioned in the prologue or the epilogue.
2. The speeches disrupt the continuity of the story.
3. Elihu is pompous.
4. Differences in the language used and in the way Elihu addresses Job.
5. The speeches add nothing to the dialogue.
I will show that the question of authenticity can have an important affect on the interpretation of the Elihu speeches as they stand in Job. One very negative view in this area was developed by the Hansons:
The Elihu speech comes as an anti-climax;...The stage is set for the appearance of God. Instead of that, the action is held up for six chapters in which little or nothing is added to the argument...All modern scholars, perhaps without exception are convinced that these six chapters were added sometime later (perhaps as late as the Greek period) perhaps by some minor poet who felt he had something to add to the argument (Hanson 1953, 94).
Their statement that "all modern scholars are convinced that these six chapters were added later " can be shown to be wrong as we continue.
Ellison and Anderson give two reasons for Elihu being introduced when he is as a dramatic device. Ellison explains that idea in this way:
If the book is in any sense a drama, the non-mention of Elihu at an earlier stage can be easily explained. Had the reader been waiting all the time for Elihu's cue, he might have missed much of the drama and tension in the speeches of Job and his friends (Ellison 1958, 104).
Anderson adds to this:
Job's final, intrepid challenge and Yahweh's overwhelming reply are kept apart by the speeches of Elihu whose very slowness of movement creates an interval of suspense against which the words of the Lord become all the more majestic (Anderson 1976, 21).
Both Ellison and Anderson read the Elihu speeches as integral to the book as you can see.
The evidence against the Hansons' statement that scholars "perhaps without exception" (Hanson ,94), agree these speeches were added later is incorrect for some scholars believe these speeches were part of the original book. Others, however agree with the Hansons, some in a rather extreme manner.
Ewing shows his disdain for these chapters quite clearly as he says:
The speeches of Elihu...are rejected as secondary additions by a large majority of scholars. Their style is diffuse and even pompous. The language has important differences from the rest of the poetic dialogue...Elihu prefers the name El to the other divine names Eloah and Shaddai; while in the rest of the book they occur with almost equal frequency. Elihu is the only Hebrew name in the book. He is not mentioned in the prologue or epilogue. He appears without warning and disappears without a trace. His speech disrupts the connection between Job's challenge (31:35-37) and the divine response (chaps. 38.ff). Elihu quotes from the dialogue and he addresses Job by name which the three original counsellors never did...Most critics consider the speeches of Elihu as an intrusion, as they interrupt Job's final challenge and God's answer...As one reads through Job, Elihu is best omitted to preserve the drama and continuity of the original (Ewing 1976, 4 & 34).
Ewing's belief that the Elihu speeches were added later has led him to believe these speeches were not valuable to the text of Job. Though I can see the validity for the later addition of these speeches, I do not agree that this makes these speeches useless to the text. Also, I cannot agree with the statement about Elihu being pompous as a good reason for believing that these chapters were later interpolations because I found all of the friends were pompous when speaking with Job.
Ewing's statements are also challenged by other scholars. Pope disputes Ewing's statement concerning Elihu's use of Hebrew names by saying that all of the names in the book are Hebrew names, though some are more obscure in their origin (Pope 1965, 6).
Ellison and Anderson have already challenged his assumptions about the reason for Elihu not being mentioned at an earlier point in the story, and added to this, Gordis challenges the statement that Elihu is the only one of the friends or counsellors that calls Job by name:
As for the injection of Job's name, Elihu is a younger man and an interloper to boot. He is worried whether he will gain and hold Job's attention and, therefore, addresses him by name (32:12; 33:1 & 31; 34:5, 7, 35, 37; 35:16; 37:14).
He also posited that, over time, the poet's style might change and this could explain some of the poetic style differences that are noted in Elihu (Gordis, 548). Gordis views these speeches favourably but Bergant did not. Yet, she also posited that later development by the original author could have been the origin of these speeches (Bergant, 153) and, O'Neill adds that the differences in language might be a way to show the difference of Elihu when compared with the others by his youth and ardency, etc. (O'Neill 1938, 39).
Anderson, in answering Ewings's charges about these chapters being disruptive, is vehement when he says the Elihu speeches are very important to the unity of the book. He shows his disdain for opinions such as the Hansons and Ewing have given:
The question of the unity of Job is very important when it comes to its interpretation. If, for example, as many critics hold, the Elihu speeches do not really belong in the book as it was originally planned, but were added by some misguided and inferior later writer, then it makes quite a bit of difference if we remove them and study as the `real' book of Job only what remains. If Job is the work of one man, or even if its overall structure was organized by one final editor, one should try to discover the plan he had in mind, and interpret the book as a whole in terms of this scheme (Anderson, 42).
Another writer who believes these speeches are not a part of the original book and does not believe these speeches have quality or any value to the book is Pope:
The Elihu speeches are rejected as interpolations by many critics who regard them as having scant value either as literature or as a solution to the problem of evil. Their style is diffuse and pretentious, nearly half of the content of the four discourses devoted to prolix and pompous prolegomena (Pope, xxxvi).
Penchansky, who also dislikes Elihu has a very simple way of dealing with this part of the Book of Job as he states in the only paragraph he writes concerning Elihu in his book, "The Betrayal of God: Ideological Conflict in Job,":
The Elihu speeches function in the present text as unintentional comic relief and were certainly added later by some pious soul desperate to rescue the arguments of the friends(Penchansky 1990, 40).
That Elihu was added later is not certain according to some scholars, but the belief that Elihu was a later addition to the book has a decidedly negative affect on the determination of many of the scholars about the value of chapters 32-37. They tend to want to discount this section of the Book of Job and to interpret it as a reiteration of old material. Those that work with the supposition the speeches were original tend to place more emphasis on their importance to the story.
There are also some other theories about the origin of these speeches which I would like to present to show just how much confusion there is around the Elihu speeches. One of them is Jastrow who believes that the Elihu speeches, themselves, were written by more than one author. He states his theory this way:
1. Chapter 32 is a series of drafts of introduction
which was attached as preliminary material to
the speeches.
2. The first and third speeches (chapters 33 and
35) are different from the second and fourth speeches
(34 & 36-37).
a. The first and third speeches were addressed
directly to Job.
b. The second speech addresses "wise men" in
general.
c. The fourth speech addresses no one in
particular.
d. Verses 18-20 in chapter 34 are "poetic insert-
ion."
e. The poem in chapter 36 with the discourse on
God's majesty as seen in the storm is also "poetic
insertion." (Jastrow 1920,78-80).
Buttenwieser is one who believes that these speeches are an original part of the book but in actuality they a part of other speeches in the book:
As to this speech (Bildad's last one that is not included in the third cycle), I had long been convinced that it must originally have included the greater part of chapters 36-37; the difference in style and tenor between chapters 34-36 and chapters 32 and 33 added to my discovery of a large part of Job's concluding speech in chapters 36 and 37 pointed to such a conclusion....I happily came upon the beginning of the speech (Bildad's) and after that it was comparatively easy to disentangle the remaining parts (Buttenwieser 1922, xiii).
There are many theories about where these speeches come from, whether they should be included in the overall text or not and what they add to the text. It is unclear whether these speeches are later additions to the text or not. If they are not original, and I would tend to agree that this is the case, as I have stated before, it is because it was believed that there was no resolution between the arguments of Job and the three friends and Elihu was an addition to try to answer the charges against Job and God.
The emphasis on the authenticity of these chapters is important, but I tend to believe that many scholars have focused too much on this. I agree with Anderson when he says we should try to find out what the author or editor had in mind by the inclusion of these verses. In the next chapter I will discuss the impact that the positive or negative acceptance of chapters 32-37 has on the perception of the symbolic figure of Elihu.
THE IMAGE OF ELIHU AS IT IS AFFECTED BY THE NEGATIVE AND POSITIVE INTERPRETATIONS OF CHAPTERS 32-37
I find the differences in opinion over the character of Elihu to be very interesting. These arguments have been continuing over hundreds of years and what has emerged from the positive or negative interpretations of the Elihu discourse has had an important effect on what scholars believe Elihu symbolizes. These are the opinions I have gathered about who or what Elihu symbolizes to different people:
1. Elihu is a satanic figure.
2. Elihu is a heretic.
3. Elihu is a fool.
4. Elihu is an inspired speaker.
5. Elihu is an explanation for Job's suffering by orthodox circles.
6. Elihu is a wise-man.
7. Elihu is a genius.
8. Elihu is a bridge or transition figure between Job and God.
Some scholars disliked the Elihu speeches so much that they perceived Elihu as a figure of evil. The speeches, as they interpreted them, tended to attack Job instead of enlightening him. The perception of Elihu as Satan or a heretic was described very clearly in this quotation from O'Neill's, "The Classic Job":
The view taken (about 1600) by the eminent Jesuit commentator Pineda...represents Elihu as merely the mask of the Evil One. St. Gregory, a thousand years earlier, was but slightly milder when he treated Elihu as a false philosopher, a vain talker, and a type of concealed heretic. St. Isidore of Seville was of much the same opinion. St. Thomas Aquinas, in a minute exegesis of Elihu's speeches, convicts him of misunderstanding or misrepresenting Job's words and misjudging Job's sentiments (O'Neill, 38).
These are some of the negative comments about Elihu from the past, but this system of belief is carried on today as shown by Weisel in 1976:
His (the Satan's) hurried departure led one sage to reintroduce him in the guise of the fourth friend, Elihu. Appearing unexpectedly, almost at the end, tried to drive Job to despair and, once again failed. For Satan, one more failure. Poor Satan, disguised as a friend, suddenly he is used by Midrashic legend in an attempt at black humour (Weisel 1976, 228).
I do not agree with these views of Elihu. The satan, described in chapters one and two of Job, was there to challenge both Yahweh and Job. He bargained with Yahweh to convince Yahweh to remove his protection from Job so that he (the Satan) could then direct his energies into the destruction of Job to prove that Job would turn away from Yahweh in anger or curse Yahweh to His face (1:9-11, 2:4 and 5). The satan (or accuser in Old Testament language) believed that Job was obeying God out of fear rather than out of love for Yahweh. The satan of the Old Testament was viewed by the above eminent theologians in terms of the New Testament Satan who is the symbol of evil. Elihu, on the other hand, tries to bring about a reconciliation between Job and Yahweh during his discourse, thus destroying Satan's plans.
On the other hand, there are several people who have been very fond of Elihu as O'Neill also reveals. He stated that there is nothing faulty about Elihu's doctrines, though he too finds him pompous. For this reason he cites several eminent theologians who liked the Elihu speeches as a contrast to those who did not:
St. Augustine regarded Elihu as not only "wise" but even "modest"! Olympiadorus of Alexandria, a valued Greek commentator of the seventh century, considered that Elihu "speaks admirably of the wisdom and grandeur of God; wherefore Job offers no reply to his words, and God in His discourse shows His approbation."...In Modern times, Father Prat, S.J. (Dictionnaire de la Bible) maintains that Elihu presents a faithful exposition of the author's mind, and gives so well the true explanation of the problem debated that no repetition of it is heard or needed from the mouth of the Lord. Dr. Zschokke, (Historia Sacra Veteris Testamenti), and Fr. Hugh Pope, O.P., voice similar opinions. M.L. Bigod (Dictionnaire de Theologie) and Msgr. Chauvin (Dictionnaire Apologetique) both regard Elihu as the most authentically inspired of the human speakers in the Book. Father Knabenbauer and Canon Vigouroux had already, at earlier dates earnestly championed him as a teacher admirable in doctrine and sublime in eloquence (O'Neill, 38).
O'Neill's two quotations show how the opinions have been divided over the centuries and demonstrates how the differences between the negative rejection of the Elihu speeches and the positive acceptance of the Elihu speeches affect the interpretation of the character of Elihu. To cite a more modern source, Hartley describes Elihu this way:
Elihu...is a young, promising wise-man who attempts to offer some new insight into the issue of Job's suffering Hartley 1988, 449).
I agree with these views in many ways. Elihu tries to offer deep insight into the arguments between Job and his friends a new twist on the subject of Job's suffering and the way he has been treated by his friends. The question is, though, did he add anything new to the arguments?
Jastrow's view is that these speeches were endeavours of the orthodox circles to find a satisfactory solution that the friends gave up as hopeless (Jastrow, 77).
Kissane, Jastrow, and MacKenzie, all believe the Elihu speeches were added later and were important in that they helped to resolve the arguments between Job and the friends in the explanation of why Job was suffering. Kissane presents his view of Elihu in this manner:
His chief concern is to defend the doctrine of the justice of God, and to show that Job's sufferings are quite compatible with it. Elihu is a fiery youth whose wisdom is the wisdom of genius given to him as a gift by the creator (Kissane, xxvi and 213).
I believe that Elihu is an important figure to the text of Job. His speeches attend very carefully to the previous dialogue and he answers many of Job's questions which the friends do not do. I think MacKenzie and Murphy's idea is that Elihu is a transition figure - he looks back to the speeches of Job and his friends and he anticipates the speech of Yahweh speaking out a storm is an interesting and valuable addition to my analysis of Elihu:
The critic presumably was dissatisfied with the original conclusion of the book (chapters 38-42) and wished to provide a more explicit corrective to some of Job's outbursts. He also felt that the friends' speeches had not done justice to the traditional wisdom teaching and that a better case could be made for it. His work then, is an interesting specimen of early doctrinal and literary criticism and is almost contemporary with the original composition. He had the - initiative - we might say courage, to dramatize his criticism in speech form, to create another character as his spokesman, and to integrate his own contribution into the great masterwork he had studied so closely. (Needless to say, the section is to be regarded as an integral part of the canonical book, and its author, whoever he was, as having had the grace of inspiration)(MacKenzie, Murphy, Guinan 1990, 1968, 483-484).
Though, as I stated before, I do not totally totally in the idea of Elihu as a transition figure as Anderson and MacKenzie have proposed, I do feel, however, MacKenzie points out some important points to consider in working with the Elihu chapters.
THE IMPORTANCE OF INTERPRETING THE ELIHU SPEECHES WITHIN THE CONTEXT OF THE JOB STORY
I believe that it is very important to the interpretation of these speeches that they are interpreted within the context for which they were written for these reasons:
1. These speeches were written for the Job story, whether originally or later.
2. The speeches were written to answer many of the questions that were asked in the earlier dialogue.
3. The author of the Elihu speeches had the grace of
inspiration.
I would challenge Ewing's belief that they should be left out for a better interpretation of Job and I do not believe that the possible later addition of the Elihu section of Job justifies its exclusion from the interpretation of the Book of Job.
MacKenzie had a very good point which I brought out in the last chapter. They are a part of the canonical book. This alone makes the Elihu chapters important to the interpretation of Job. I think we should deal with the text as it is presented to us for that is what the general reader is going to use. They probably will not be using a commentary to assist them to read the Bible and will not be likely to notice the nuances that would indicate that this might be a later piece. Therefore, we should try to see it the way the non-scholar will understand it. Guinan agrees with this as he says:
These questions need not detain us as we seek to understand the text before us (Guinan, 64).
THE FORM OF THE ELIHU SPEECHES
I have found in my research that most commentators agree to the form of the Elihu speeches. This is surprising since there are so many areas that scholars disagree on. Two of the clearest explanations about the form of the speeches that I found, come from Habel and Hartley. Two of the commentators take different stances as to how they interpret the Elihu speeches and yet, their form analyses are similar. Hartley outlines the chapters and verses as a thesis, while Habel delineates them as a court case. Habel is the first one I will outline:
A. Chapter 32:
1. 32:1-5 these verses are an introduction of Elihu.
2. Verses 6-22 are accusations of both Job and the three
friends.
B. Chapter 33:
1. 33:1-7 are the summons to appear in court.
2. 33:8-11 are a restatement of Job's allegations.
3. 33:12-28, Elihu refutes Job's charges and offers
evidence to back up his claim.
4. 33:29 & 30 are a summation of the case to this point.
5. 33:31-33 are an invitation for Job to take up his own
defence.
C. Chapter 34:
1. 34:1-9 are a summons for the "wise" to be the judges for Job's case.
2. 34:10-30 are defences of El.
3. 34:31-37 are the adjuration and verdict.
D. Chapter 35 - 37:
1. 35:1-36:15 are testimony about El.
2. 36:16-21 are an admonition to Job.
3. 36:22-37:13 are more testimony about El.
4. 37:14-24 are a closing challenge to Job and the
final summation of the case (Habel 1985, 450-516).
Hartley's outline has a few differences but much that is similar:
A. Chapter 32:
1. 32:1-22 as an introduction and an apology for his
intrusion.
B. Chapter 33:
1. 33:1-7 are a disputation.
2. 33:8-11 are a presentation of Job's claims.
3. 33:12-30 are a dissertation on discipline.
4. 33:31-33 are an invitation for Job to answer.
C. Chapter 34:
1. 34:1-4 are a summons for Job to listen to Elihu.
2. 34:5-9 are a presentation of Job's complaints.
3. 34:10-15 are the presentation of the thesis.
4. 34:16-30 are the defence of the thesis.
5. 34:31-33 are a call for a decision on the thesis by
Job.
6. 34:34-37 are the judgment.
D. Chapter 35:
1. 35:1-4 are the presentation of Job's concerns.
2. 35:5-16 are the response.
E. Chapter 36 - 37:
1. 36:1-4 are another introduction.
2. 36:5-15 are a discussion on discipline.
3. 36:16-25 are a warning to Job.
4. 36:26-37:13 are a description of God.
5. 37:14-20 are an admonishment to Job.
6. 37:21-24 are a discussion on God
(Hartley, 1988, 428-485).
There are parallels in these two outlines and some differences as shown above. I have put together a chart demonstrating the differences and similarities below. Though there is some variation by verse, this seems to be the general form of the Elihu speeches among most commentators: there are four distinct speeches and two introductions in these chapters. The introductions take place in 32:1-22 and 36:1-4. The four speeches are 33:1-33, 34:1-34:37, 35:1-16, and 36:5-37:24.
TABLE OF COMPARISON BETWEEN HABEL AND HARTLEY ON THE FORM
OF THE ELIHU SPEECHES
Verses Habel’s Views Hartley’s Views
32:1-5 Introduction Introduction
6-22 Accusation Apology
33:1-7 Summons Disputation
8-11 Restatement of Allegations Presentation of Job’s Claims
12-30 12:28 Refutation of Claims Dissertation
29-30 Summons
31-33 Invitation for Defence Invitation for Answer
34:1-9 Summons to the “Wise” 1-4 Summons to Listen
5-9 Presentation of Claims
10-30 Defences of El 10-15 Presentation of Thesis
16-30 Defence of Thesis
31-37 Adjuration and Verdict 31-33 Call for Decision
34-37 Judgement
35:1-36:15 Defences of El 1-4 Presentation of Job’s Concerns
5-16 Response to Those Claims
36:1-4 Introduction
5-15 Discussion on Discipline
36:16-21 Admonition to Job 16-25 Warning to Job
36:22-37:13 More Testimony about El 26-37:13 Description of God
14-24 Admonitions to Job and Summation 14-20 Closing Challenge
21-24 Summation
Theories have been espoused as to the authenticity of chapters 32-37 in the original writing of Job; they were part of the original text, they were later interpolations, they were later additions by the original author. I have presented my opinion on why the text of Elihu should be read in the context for which it was originally written. Elihu may be pompous, he may reiterate many of the arguments of the other friends and even some of God's speech. He is, however, in the canonized text and, therefore, must be dealt with in any interpretation of Job.
I have the same regard for his speeches as I do for the speeches of the other three friends but I believe that, because of all of the controversy surrounding Elihu's speeches, space should be made to present them.
LINE BY LINE INTERPRETATION OF THE ELIHU SPEECHES
32:1-22
Most commentators, seem to agree that 32:1-5 is an introductory passage. Buttenweiser and others talk of this chapter; 32:1-22, as a "tiresome and vainglorious introduction" (Buttenwieser, 85). As I have stated before, Habel, for the most part, does not view the Elihu speeches in a positive way:
The prologue depicts Elihu as passionate and hot-headed. Even before we know his name, we meet his anger.....A conflict exists between the portrayal of Elihu as a passionate youth and Elihu's self-perception in his apology. He speaks of himself as waiting patiently, listening to arguments, paying close attention, and reflecting sensitively on the situation (v. 7, 11, 12). Only after the others have fallen silent does he finally speak his piece (v. 16, 17). He considers himself wise and superior to his seniors in knowledge (32:7-8, 33:4). From the portrait of Elihu in the preceding prose prologue, however, we expect a brash individual typical of the impetuous fool common to wisdom literature. This ironic gap between the audience knowledge of Elihu and his own perception of himself as wise and patient is heightened by the rhetoric of reversal employed in the poetry of the apology (Habel 1985, 443).
I do not agree with the characterization of Elihu as the fool although Penchansky and Weisel do as was shown before in this paper. Bergant speaks of the introduction of Elihu as being the introduction of a new element into the story:
If the author's purpose is to show that wisdom is not the prerogative of the elders, then the new insights should not come from one of them. Nor should it come from Job for that would imply that human experience is indeed the source of all wisdom. The conclusion will show that this is not the answer that the author wishes to put forward. The only way to suggest that humans can propose another viewpoint is to introduce another person, and this after the traditional stance has been both defended and challenged (Bergant, 156-57).
Ellison adds to this:
As was stressed at the beginning..., Job and his friends are introduced, irrespective of whether they were of a good family or not, as representatives of the Wise. Their position in society rested on their own merits, not on those of their fathers. Elihu, however, is introduced as a young aristocrat. He does not share in the vested interest of the Wise, and he begins by challenging their whole position. Elihu challenges them with the claim that man needs the inspiration of the Spirit for this. Beyond a doubt, Elihu stands on firmer ground than the three friends (Ellison, 103-104).
Again we see how the positive or negative acceptance of these speeches affect their interpretations. Verses 6-22 have been called an apology, Pope says that this is an apology on Elihu's part for his temerity in presuming to lecture to his elders (Pope, xix).
Kissane states that:
Elihu intervenes because the three elders have failed to confute Job and by their silence seem to acquiesce in Job's statement of his case. But to admit Job's innocence seems to imply injustice on the part of God (Kissane, xxvi).
I disagree with this view because 32:1 states "the three men stopped answering Job because he was righteous in his own eyes." They gave up because he refused to accept their view of his suffering, to accept the false guilt they were trying to make him take on.
Habel takes a different view than Kissane as to what these verses are stating:
Earlier Eliphaz had said, in a snide remark to Job: should a wise man answer, "with a mind of wind," and bloat his belly with an east wind (15:2)? The poet, with wry humour, has Elihu describe his condition in precisely those terms. Elihu declares that he plans to "answer" with the dictates of his own "mind" or knowledge because he is "bloated" with the arguments and has a belly bursting with "wind" (vs. 17-18). Unwittingly, Elihu characterizes himself as a windbag and a constipated fool appropriating the sarcastic language chosen by Eliphaz to taunt Job (Habel 1985, 444).
Several biblical scholars state that Elihu is angry because the friends have condemned Job for sinning even though they could not prove that he had sinned but they don't take the idea far enough. The friends proved him guilty on the basis of the teachings that stated that men who are righteous are rewarded and men who are sinners suffer. He is telling them that they are wrong to do this and he cannot remain silent in the face of the charges they have levied on Job (32:12-22).
This discourse Elihu has directed almost entirely at the three friends. The friends all know Job, and Eliphaz even stated in 4:4-6 that Job is a blameless and pious man, and yet, the friends have ended their diatribes by accusing him of being unrighteous (22:5-14).
Elihu will not speak as the friends do, he will speak only as his God would have him speak (32:20-22).
33:1-33
In chapter 33, Elihu directs his words to Job first. He is letting Job know that he will not condemn him as the friends have (33:1-7). Then he begins to introduce some of the themes from the earlier discussions. Kissane explains Elihu's words like this:
Job's case is no exception to the general rule. For he is by no means as innocent as he claims, his dreams and his sickness are themselves warnings which call upon him to repent (Kissane, xxvi-xxvii).
Habel calls chapter 33 a refutation of Job's words followed by the evidence of how God communicates in dreams, suffering, and healing (Habel, 471-72). Bergant develops the ideas of Kissane and Habel when she explains that Elihu refers back to what he believes is a misreading of dreams by Eliphaz. Instead of dreams being for the receiving special knowledge to use against Job, they are warnings, and the terror experienced in them is a deterrent to dissuade a man from wrong-doing. Bergant sees no difference in these words and the words of the three friends except for God warning people before they do wrong.
Bergant continues by saying that the advice Elihu gives reveals a "self-righteous attitude" and "his kindness is patronizing and his concern is veneer" (Bergant, 160-162).
I think Bergant is correct in this. Elihu repeats much of what the friends say and his attitude seems to be just as pompous and self-righteous as the three other friends. Elihu has presented a new idea, not brought forward by any of the friends, but he doesn't stop with the new idea, he repeats other things the friends have already said. Elihu is speaking to Eliphaz as well as Job at this point and saying that God is using dreams to warn Eliphaz that he is falling into error. This is in response to Eliphaz's dream and not Job's dream.
Eliphaz in 4:13-17 has informed Job of the apparition he saw that asked if a man can be more righteous than God. Eliphaz takes this to mean an accusation of Job. Elihu interprets it as a warning to Eliphaz. Job is having dreams too, but he knows they are warnings.
Elihu is telling the three friends that if they do not listen to the warnings they are receiving, they may then fall into the suffering that leads them to the pit (4:14-18).
Guinan interprets this to mean that Elihu is saying that God does speak but Job has missed it and Guinan cites Elihu as referring to Job's heavenly mediator when he talks about the "heavenly mediator (33:23-25) from the divine court" who will help bring a sinner to repentance. He says that Job wants, not repentance, but vindication (Guinan, 67).
Hanson says that Elihu is just reiterating the traditional forms of communications with God (Hanson, 96).
Elihu has already told Job that he is not going to hurt him. He has told him he will not condemn him. He is now talking to the friends (33:19-30). Hartley adds to the description of the "angel/mediator as a helper for one being disciplined - a friend, prophet, teacher, one of the angelic host, a heavenly witness (16:19), a special angel, messenger of Yahweh, or the concealed Christ." This being helps bring a man to repentance, renewal, prayer, and revitalization (Hartley, 444-448).
I think Gordis puts chapter 33 together in an interesting way:
In essence, Elihu occupies a middle ground between Job and the Friends. The Friends, as protagonists of the conventional theology, argued that God is just and that suffering is therefore the consequence of sin...Elihu rejects both the Friends' arguments that suffering is always the result of sin and Job's contention that God is unjust. He offers a new and significant insight which bears all the earmarks of being the product of the poet's experiences during a lifetime: suffering sometimes comes to upright men
as a discipline, as a warning to prevent them from slipping into sin. For there are some weaknesses to which decent, respectable men are particularly prone, notably the sins of complacency and pride (Gordis, 354).
In 1-7, Elihu begins by reassuring Job to trust him not to hurt him. He knows exactly where the blame lies (one of perfect knowledge is here). In verses 8 and 9, Elihu repeats Job's words about his innocence. In verses 10 and 11 he then repeats Job's charges about God. He then tells Job that the things he's saying about God aren't correct (11-3). Elihu is also warning Job of an error he is falling into. From the speeches of the friends, Job has drawn the conclusion that God has made a mistake with him. Filtered through the old teachings, this is what the situation looks like to Job. Elihu is warning Job that he is misled in this (33:8-13).
Turning to the friends in 14-18, he addresses Eliphaz as I explained above. In 19-22 he addresses all of the friends with a discourse describing Job's suffering. Verses 23-26 tell the friends how they should have behaved even if Job had sinned.
What Job needed was for his friends to have faith in his righteousness. Instead they are trying to coerce him into saying that he sinned which he did not (the snare others lay). This can lead to sins of complacency and self-righteousness in men because if their life is going well, they can point to themselves as righteous men, whether they are or not. God has brought them dreams as warnings of this.
His discourse is on how the suffering man who has sinned can be helped by someone who does not follow the old concepts and can reach out to his suffering friend. It describes in detail how the friend is then able to bring his companion towards healing (33:23-27).
The suffering man will then be able to turn to God rejoicing in the help he has received and come into repentance (27-28). He will be able to turn his face towards God knowing that he has not been destroyed.
The suffering one is brought back by a friend who finds him righteous in spite of the charges others would lay on him because of his suffering. The three friends could not do it because they had condemned him for his suffering instead of believing in the Job they knew. Their accusations were just driving Job closer to the pit. Their words did not have the healing properties that would bring Job closer to God and healing that belief in him would have.
Verses 29-30 talk about God's willingness to keep trying for a man's redemption so that the man may walk with God in the light of life and in verses 31-33 he turns to Job and asks him to pay attention to his next speech.
34:1-37
Habel refers to this chapter as a summons to the "wise" to stand in judgment on Job. He continues by saying that during this chapter, Elihu gives testimony as to the character and governance of El (10-30). It closes with an adjuration to and a verdict on Job (Habel, 480-85).
Bergant puts it a little differently:
The bulk of the chapter is a defence of God's sovereignty. Once again, Elihu is expounding on a point not being contested by Job: How could anyone insinuate that the almighty is unjust? How could the author of cosmic order be guilty of any form of disorder (Bergant, 162)?
Guinan states that Elihu now turns his attention to the friends that he sarcastically calls the "wise." Job is mocked as a blasphemer who wallows in evil company. Then comes the lengthy defence of the justice and righteousness of God. Those who turn away from God have only themselves to blame. Guinan continues, Elihu then suggests (as the friends have done before) what Job might say in repentance to God (Guinan, 67-68).
I believe that Elihu has again directed his attention to the friends. He is berating them for their accusations of Job (34:1-9).
Hartley directs his attention to Elihu's description of God's workings in the world of men. Hartley says that Elihu talks of justice and power `united in the ideal ruler.' He shows his impartiality to all and his slowness to act does not deny his sovereignty (Hartley, 449). Kissane also addresses Elihu's description of God. He says that Elihu is talking of God's justice and impartiality in his dealings with all men. He talks of his omnipotence and omniscience, and his infallibility and that it looks as if there are exceptions to God's rules but that is because someone has sinned without them knowing they have (34:29-32c). Kissane says that Elihu is still reiterating the friends' arguments (Kissane, xxvi-xxvii) I agree that it sounds as if Elihu is rehashing old arguments at this point. Gordis adds this idea:
Citing a proverb which Job himself had quoted, Elihu declares that Job has denied the justice of God, only to bolster his own innocence. In fact, Job has been guilty of false accusations against God, whose creation of the world is evidence of His love for the world, not His hostility. Actually, God is beholden to no one and has no need to play favourites. He shows his partiality to rulers or rich men. If He so wills it, He can destroy them in a moment. To be sure, at times He may delay their punishment, but there are good reasons for the postponement. It may be because the misrule of tyrants itself constitutes a penalty upon sinners, since tyrants are instruments of God's justice at work in the lives of men and nations. Or he may be hoping for their repentance.
Elihu calls upon Job to submit to God and ask for His guidance. For how can Job expect that God's actions will be governed by a man's wishes? Charging God with injustice, as Job has done, means, in effect, trying to take His place as judge in the world. Job has demanded that God present the indictment against him. This plea Elihu emphatically endorses. He wants Job to be tested because of his many sins, such as his agreement with evildoers, his heaping of iniquity, and his rebellion against God (Gordis, 381).
As I said above, verses 1-9 are berating the three friends for their charges against Job which he is repeating as a foundation for the rest of his speech. In verses 10-15 he tells them that God does not do wrong. God does deal with the man as he deserves. No one created God and it is by God's will and power that man lives. In verses 16-20 Elihu says that God created all men and He is impartial in his treatment to them. No one has more importance than any other. In 21-28 he addresses the friends telling them that God sees all that men do. He does not need to put them on trial. Men need to stand in judgement on one another because they can't see what is in a man's heart. They choose to look at what they can see on the outside, not the inside. The strong will be punished for their sins on the weak. But the oppression of the strong, the friends, has caused the cry of the weak, Job, to be heard. In verses 29-30, Elihu is saying that God does not have to answer their charges about Job. He has chosen not to hear the accusations, Job's words of pain, that have been thrown at him. He has chosen to turn his face away from them. God rules over all and protects others from the snares that other people's condemnation lays to entrap them. Verses 31-33 talk of a man falling into these snares and yet repenting and learning from God instead of listening to man.
Elihu then asks them if God should reward them when they refuse to listen to him? Verses 34-37 demonstrates what Elihu has said above by repeating the accusations that the friends have levelled at Job for his words and for which they have asked the Lord to punish him.
The writers cited in this section are focusing on Job as the sinner. In chapters 1 and 2, God has stated very clearly that Job is a righteous man (1:8, 2:3). Elihu knows that Job is a righteous man. Therefore, the focus is moved from Job as sinner towards the behaviour of the friends towards Job. God knows that Job is crying out in anguish and He chooses not to hold Job's words against him. The friends, however, do. God also knows who Job is. It is the friends who accuse Job, not God.
35:1-16
In chapter 35, Elihu again addresses Job. Pope finds that in answer to Job's assertion that neither sin nor piety appear to make a difference to God, Elihu answers that God is too exalted to be
benefited or harmed by what man does but God does reward and punish anyway. If God ignores a man's appeal, it is only because He knows the appeal is insincere. Job erred in accusing God of transgression (Pope, xx). Guinan says that in this chapter Elihu continues to develop the theme of God's transcendence and grandeur. Human behaviour, for good or ill only affects other humans and it is arrogance to think humans could affect God. The oppressed, like Job, cry out for deliverance and perhaps God does not hear (Guinan, 68).
Bergant declares that Elihu says Job's is a crying from pain, not from piety, and that he wants relief when he should be calling out to God for God's presence (Bergant, 170). Habel, on the other hand, calls this chapter "Elihu's theology of divine detachment" (Habel, 491). Kissane sums up chapter 35:
Elihu...suggests the particular crimes which have been the cause of his calamity, viz. his neglect to succour the oppressed(35) (Kissane, xvii).
The theme of Job's sin is still being developed by the other authors. Jastrow's opinion is that chapter 35 is meant to wash God's hands of the responsibility for wickedness in the world in answer to Job in 9:21 and 7:20 (Jastrow, 82). Gordis explains that chapter 35 is the completion of Elihu's answer to Job. He says Job is arrogant to think that God should reward him for anything. His sins or his righteousness do not affect God. Elihu says God is the creator. Therefore, a man's sins only affect those around him (Gordis, 397).
Elihu speaks to Job in 35:1-3 asking Job if he is being just towards himself when he knows God will clear him and yet he does not see what he has gained by not sinning. He has not sinned. In verses 4-9, Elihu tells Job that his problem is that he has been trying to get answers from men. Men are the ones that worry about sin. It is not God who is worrying about Job's sin. In 10-11, Elihu asks why Job doesn't just listen for God who will comfort and send the wisdom he needs. This is referring back to 32:8 and Elihu's discussion on where wisdom comes from, not from men but the spirit of God in men. In 12-16 Elihu explains that God does not listen to the arrogance of the wicked which makes men cry out. Job's words are empty when he speaks of being on trial before God. This refers back to 34:23. God has no need to bring men before him in judgment when he already knows their deeds. Only men do this because they do not have the power to see all of a man's actions. God does not take notice of false charges of wickedness.
36:1-33
In this chapter, most of the commentators say that the reasons for suffering are addressed. This is only partly true. Actually, he is explaining what suffering can accomplish. He is also addressing the value of choosing to suffer rather than to accede to the condemnation of others when a man knows they are wrong. However, the scholars tend to take a narrower view, still being sure that Elihu is, like the others, out to charge Job with some form of wrongdoing.
The fate of the righteous and the wicked are reviewed again. Suffering can be sent by God to educate and to instruct us (Guinan, 69). Habel sees this as a closing challenge to Job (Habel, 485) and Kissane adds to this:
Of the suffering of the just his explanation is substantially the same as Eliphaz (4:5). If a just man be held captive in the bonds of affliction it is in order to reveal to him the fact that he has sinned without his knowledge. If he repent, he will be restored to happiness, if he refuses, he will suffer the fate of the wicked and will die prematurely (36:8-15). This has been the motive in God's action in Job's case. He had been negligent in his duty toward the poor and the oppressed and because of this he has been tried by affliction (36:21) (Kissane, xxvii).
Bergant is explains this more clearly:
The justice of God is salvation through contrition. God is trying to point out the error of Job's ways. God is all powerful in the cosmic sphere, who would dare question him in the human sphere (Bergant, 172-176)?
In chapter 36, Verses 1-4 are another reassurance on Elihu's part that he is telling the truth, almost like an oath on the witness stand. Verse 5 tells that though God is all powerful, he does not use his power wrongly against men. In verses 6 and 7 Elihu says that God does punish the wicked and helps gain justice for the afflicted. He honours the righteous. In 8-12 Elihu explains that if man who is afflicted is a sinner and he repents and takes instruction from God, he is freed of his affliction, but if he does not repent, he will die in his affliction. In 9-14 he talks about the godless men who are in affliction but who are resentful rather than suffering because of their afflictions and because of this will not take instruction from God and therefore die in their sins in their youth.
Verses 15-16 talk about the afflicted who is suffering because of his afflictions. Elihu says that through that suffering God is wooing them from their sins to freedom from the restrictions the sins are causing in their lives and restoration of the things in their lives that have been taken away by those sins.
In verse 17 Elihu addresses Job directly. He is telling him that he is carrying the condemnation that belongs to the wicked, and that Job feels as if he has been judged falsely and that a false justice has taken hold of him. In verse 18 Elihu is warning him not to let the doubts of others make him repent for something he did not do. In 19-21 Elihu is asking Job if he could really live a comfortable life knowing that he had given in to other people's wishes instead of standing on what
he knows is right. He is warning him to beware of being tempted to bow to the false condemnation of men just to feel comfortable.
In verses 27-33 he shows how no one can understand the workings of God, so how can Job listen to others try to explain it to him.
37:1-24
Kissane talks of the power of God:
In his final speech, Elihu describes the marvellous power and wisdom of God as manifested in the power of nature, especially in the rain and thunder. This is usually taken by critics to be an anticipation of Yahweh's first speech. But it is more likely that the object is the same as Zophar's speech on the same subject (11), namely to prove that God may have knowledge of sins of which Job himself is unaware. This seems to be the meaning of both the opening and of the closing verses. God is a `teacher' and He is able to `exalt'; that is, He can reveal Job's sins, and He can restore him to happiness after due repentance (36:22-23). His justice is not to be impugned; men must conclude that when he sends suffering it is not without adequate reason (37:23-24) (Kissane, xxvii).
Bergant's view is a bit different. She believes that Elihu is saying that all obey when God speaks. His activity can be for fertility, as when He brings a rain shower or, as in a thunderstorm, it can be for admonishment. He makes His will known when He pleases (this sets the stage nicely for a revelation and admonishment from Yahweh in the next chapters) (Bergant, 177-178).
Guinan - 36:22-37:13 is a hymn to the Creator in praise of the vastness of Yahweh's power, wisdom, and knowledge and how they are beyond our ability to understand. We cannot call God to account however wise we may be. All we can do is to "fear" (worship and revere) God, and this is, after all, the beginning of wisdom (Guinan, 70-71).
Hartley explains that Elihu talks of God's greatness being visible in a thunderstorm. Such a God is worthy of praise, not a legal challenge. Job should focus on God and make full submission to Him as his Lord (Hartley, 481-485). Habel calls this Elihu's summation for the court (Habel, 485) and Gordis sees the last speech of Elihu this way:
In the concluding portion of his rejoinder to Job, Elihu restates his essential ideas. God does not disregard or despise the righteous, who ultimately attain to honour. When suffering comes upon them, it is a warning against sin. If they take the message to heart, they are restored to well-being. But if they remain obdurate, they suffer destruction, which is the inevitable consequence of sin. This is what God wishes to teach Job through the medium of his suffering.
As Elihu speaks, the signs of a gathering storm are seen in the sky, and he breaks into a paean of praise to the greatness of the creator whose mysterious ways are manifest in nature. Elihu describes the autumn season which brings the miracle of rain. The downpour of rain produces food on earth, while the crashing thunder which accompanies it reveals the heavenly judge bringing retribution upon evildoers. Then comes the winter with its own complement of wonders, the snow and the storm, when men and beasts seek shelter from the elements. Finally, the winter is past and the rains are over and gone. As golden light of the sun cleanses the heavens of their clouds, the summer is ushered in. These are the ways of the almighty, who is great not only in power, but also in justice. God is therefore worth all reverence (Gordis, 405).
Again, I disagree with these readings. Elihu is now reaching the end of his discourse. He is very excited as he moves through verses 1 and 2. He is sharing with Job the excitement he feels as he finally speaks the last of his words. In 3-13, Elihu is telling Job about God's power. He is also talking about God's love in feeding and providing for men as well as for chastening men. In 14-17, Elihu tells Job how the one who has been his redeemer, the one perfect in knowledge is also the one who will bring justice down for both sides in the dispute between Job and his friends as he reiterates God's power in a thunderstorm. He tells him it is God, and through this that God has been there as his witness. In verses 19-20, Elihu asks Job if he still needs to speak, does he still want to face God in court so that he may charge God with injustice and take the chance that he might fall into sin because of it? Verses 21-24 talk about how everything has been made clear in the argument, for God will always defend those who are obedient to Him, he will always show their righteousness to all if they are wise in their heart (those who listen to God). This leads into the speech by Yahweh where Yahweh says essentially the same thing as Elihu in the last few verses. Unfortunately, in his own way, Elihu condemns Job of sinning and uses many of the same arguments as the other friends.