Psalm 32: The Joy of Forgiveness - Psalm 51 with R.C. Sproul

A Contrite Repentance: Psalm 51 with R.C. Sproul

Coram Deo: A Fearful and Joyful Experience - Psalm 51 with R.C. Sproul

Purging the Inward Parts: Psalm 51 with R.C. Sproul

God’s Just Judgment: Psalm 51 with R.C. Sproul

Tender Mercies: Psalm 51 with R.C. Sproul

The Sin of David: Psalm 51 with R.C. Sproul

A Psalm of Repentance: Psalm 51 with R.C. Sproul

Elihu’s Categories of Suffering from Job 32-37

By Larry J. Waters

[Larry J. Waters is Associate Professor of Bible Exposition, Dallas Theological Seminary, Dallas, Texas.]

Many people turn from Christianity because they sense it has no answers to the problem of suffering. Even in evangelical circles the disillusion and defection are staggering.[1] The challenge is to give answers that make sense to the inquiring mind and troubled heart of the sufferer or observer. This article examines explanations for suffering found in the Elihu speeches in Job 32-37.[2] This is not to imply that Elihu was offering ultimate and final answers to suffering. Instead he was suggesting alternatives to the one reason for suffering offered by the three antagonists, Eliphaz, Bildad, and Zophar, namely, sin.[3] Elihu made a unique contribution to the study of suffering that serves as preparation for understanding the Yahweh speeches in Job 38-41.[4]

The core of Elihu’s polemic may be seen in two passages, 33:12-13 and 34:10, and summarized in 37:23, “The Almighty—we cannot find Him; He is exalted in power and He will not do violence to justice and abundant righteousness.” Job and his three counselors had unwittingly accepted the common view of  “compensation” theology, in which God is obligated always to bless the good and punish the bad. But Elihu challenged this false belief system, pointing out that God justly administers retribution, and that His righteousness was maintained even when Job was suffering.

Elihu showed compassion for Job by insisting that God was actively involved in his life and that God’s control of creation is purposeful. Unlike the three friends, Elihu avoided completely the futile search for some mysterious sin that Job supposedly had committed as the cause of his suffering. While Job’s initial suffering was undeserved, Elihu pointed out that Job’s continued struggle was because of wrong attitudes toward God. Within these perimeters Elihu offered explanations for suffering that were applicable to Job’s situation and by inference to believers throughout history. In the process Elihu showed Job that God and His justice were working for Job, not against him. For Elihu suffering is not an adversary but a vehicle allowed by God to enhance the divine-human relationship. Even though the speeches of Elihu (Job 32-37) and God (Job 38-41) often parallel each other, it is God who finally satisfies the sufferer’s quest for justice and procures his repentance, not for some sin related to the initial affliction, but for attitudes and actions during the suffering. Elihu introduced a new interpretation of suffering into theology and life, for “Elihu’s emphasis upon suffering . . . constitutes his basic contribution to the discussion.”[5]

Job 31 records Job’s final and passionate oath of innocence and defense of his righteousness. Sure of his claim, Job declared, “I sign now my defense—let the Almighty answer me; let my accuser put his indictment in writing. Surely I would wear it on my shoulder, I would put it on like a crown. I would give him an account of my every step; like a prince I would approach him” (31:35-37, author’s translation). God did not answer Job; He remained silent. Job’s attempt to manipulate the sovereign God into answering his challenge failed. His undeserved suffering had caused him to become obsessed with God’s seeming injustice, so much so that Job’s “burgeoning pride” stood “between him and God,”[6] and became the major reason for Elihu’s entrance into the debate.[7]

Category One: Preventive Suffering [8]

The attitude of Elihu in chapter 33 is one of gentleness and sympathy toward Job. Unlike the three counselors, Elihu identified with Job as a fellow sufferer, and not just as an observer.[9] Elihu did not minimize Job’s move toward sin in the dialogue. Nor did he say that the primary reason for Job’s suffering was punishment for some past hidden sin. Rather, for Elihu, suffering is among other things, a preventive measure to keep Job from perpetuating a sinful, false theology.[10] Job’s flawed concept of God’s justice and providence were challenged and put into correct perspective. Elihu cautioned Job to remember that God is greater than man (33:12). Yet Elihu also gave true comfort to the sufferer, insisting that God sent suffering to Job not to reject him, but to accept him and to encourage him to rely on God instead of his own human righteousness and goodness. Job was always aware of his high position, as seen for example in his use of a rare noun נַדִיבָה (“honor, nobility”) in 30:15. God’s challenge to him in 40:8, “Will you condemn Me?” was on the basis of Job’s exaggerated self-image (10:3, 7; 13:18; 19:6; 27:2, 6; 31:35-37).[11]

Therefore in view of Job’s hubris Elihu introduced his first category of suffering: suffering is preventive. Elihu identified four areas where this is true. First, suffering is preventive in that it warns and instructs (“He opens the ears of men,” 33:16). Second, suffering is preventive in that it turns people from wrongdoing and sin (“That He may turn man aside from his conduct,” v. 17). Third, suffering is preventive in that it keeps a person from pride and the destructive conduct associated with arrogance (“That He may . . . keep man from pride,” v. 17). Fourth, suffering is preventive in that it protects a person from death (“To bring back his soul from the pit [death],” v. 30).[12] The “pit” is also mentioned in 33:18, 22, 24, 28.

Category Two: Corrective or Disciplinary Suffering

Corrective or disciplinary suffering is the alternative to heeding the warnings of preventive suffering. In corrective suffering God takes the believer beyond the warnings of preventive suffering and actually chastises. “Man is also chastened with pain on his bed” (33:19). Elihu said that this category of suffering may have been used in Job’s life to help correct some of Job’s false concepts that had surfaced during the debates. These included Job’s misunderstanding of God’s justice (34:12, 21-37) and Job’s misconception of righteousness and its rewards (35:2-14).

The word יָכַח, “chastened,” in 33:19 means “to correct by punishment,” and is “especially used of God dealing with men in discipline.”[13] The passive form of the verb points to Yahweh as the ultimate source of this pain, thus showing that the suffering was not random, but was divine discipline for transgression.[14] Job had deteriorated physically to the point of death, and he was in a position where only God could deliver him.

Why would God need to use suffering in Job’s case to discipline or correct him? What needed to be corrected? For one thing Job had developed a false idea of his own righteousness and whether it was of any value in serving God. Elihu contended that Job said, “I am righteous before God,” or with Gordis and others, “I am more righteous than God?”[15] In Job’s fervent defense of his innocence and his vigorous accusations against God’s justice, he seems to have “claimed for himself a righteousness that surpasses God’s.”[16] Of course no human being, regardless of numerous righteous acts and pious standing, could be more righteous than Yahweh.

Elihu quoted Job as saying, “What advantage will it be to You? What profit will I have, more than if I had sinned?” (35:3). And “It profits a man nothing when he is pleased with God” (34:9). These statements by Job (harking back to his words in 21:15, “What would we gain if we entreat Him?”) demonstrate that he, like the three, assumed that God guaranteed reward for obedience and godly living. His faith in that assumption had been shattered by his own experience, but rather than casting off his misinterpretation of God’s retributive justice, he turned against God and cynically asked, in essence, “How am I better off than if I had sinned?” (35:3). It is as if Job were saying, “If it matters to God what I do, then God will express that by a difference in the way he treats me. I have been righteous. But it has not made a difference in the way God is treating me. Therefore it does not matter to God what I do.”[17] Certainly this attitude needed correcting. Therefore Elihu viewed the alternative to heeding the warnings of preventive suffering as disciplinary or corrective (37:13; cf. Prov. 3:11; Heb. 12:5-6).

Category Three: Educational Suffering

Elihu offered a third category for Job’s suffering as pedagogical or educational. Statements that God is the teacher and that He uses suffering educationally abound in Elihu’s speeches (33:16, 30; 34:32; 35:11; 36:8-10, 15b–16, 22). Specifically the teaching ministry of suffering is designed to keep down pride (33:17; 35:12-13; 36:9; 37:19-20), to solicit patience (35:14), and to humble the sufferer before the power and majesty of the Almighty God (36:24-37:24). The ultimate objective is to lead the sufferer to a deeper relationship with God.

Job 36:22-25 plays a transitional role in preparing for Elihu’s subsequent presentation in 36:26-37:20. It also pertains to God’s activity in the human moral sphere (36:22-23).[18] Verses 22-23 assert the supremacy of God and His incomprehensible activity. The first question, “Who is a teacher like Him?” (v. 22) introduces Elihu’s contention that God is the supreme teacher who uses suffering to direct and instruct (cf. Pss. 25:8-14; 94:12). As a loving and caring teacher, God uses suffering to move His students along the right path in contrast to a capricious, tyrannical god who would simply be indifferent to his subjects. The second question, “Who has appointed Him His way?” (Job 36:23) asserts that God cannot be swayed by human accusation or traditional prescription. His dealings with humankind are free of manipulation and coercion. Therefore no one, especially Job, can accuse Him of error. Since God is above all in knowledge and without error, His wisdom is superior to human wisdom.[19]

That suffering can teach humility is clearly indicated in chapters 36 and 37 (36:24-37:24). In chapter 37, as the approaching storm moves closer, Elihu’s emotional involvement is expressed (v. 1). He described the autumn storm (vv. 2-5) and God’s control over the winter weather (vv. 6-13). Elihu then asked Job a series of rhetorical questions that call for a silent consideration of God’s power and infinite wisdom in contrast to Job’s limited power and wisdom (vv. 14-18). This contrast demonstrates the “futility of expecting to have a hearing with the Almighty” based on Job’s ability to understand the inexplicability of God’s ways (vv. 19-22).[20] In view of God’s might, justice, and transcendence, humankind should be humble before Him. The proper response to suffering is not to mount a defense of one’s own rights and righteousness (vv. 19-20), but to stand in awe of His power, recognizing that, even though the cause of the affliction cannot always be understood, it fulfills God’s just purpose in the life of the sufferer and the collective lives of all humanity (vv. 23-24). Viewing the awe of His handiwork, Job’s “error of egocentricity”[21] was challenged so that through humility he would be better equipped to deal with his suffering.

The Scriptures verify that “suffering produces discernment [and] knowledge, and teaches us God’s statutes” (Job 34:32; 36:22; Ps. 119:66-67, 71).[22] Also suffering teaches the sufferer to look to future glory (2 Cor. 4:17; 1 Pet 5:10), to learn obedience and self-control (Job 33:17; 35:12-13; 36:9; 37:19-20; Ps. 119:67; Rom. 5:1-5; Heb. 5:8). It teaches patience and perseverance (Job 35:14; Rom. 5:3-4), it challenges believers to be sympathetic to others who suffer (2 Cor. 1:3-7), and to live a life of faith (Job 13:14-15; Rom. 8:28-29; James 1:2-8). Suffering helps the sufferer understand God’s gracious purpose (Job 36:15), to share in Christ’s suffering and represent Him to others (2 Cor. 4:8-10), to pray and give thanks in times of trouble (2 Cor. 1:11; 1 Thess. 5:18). It can deepen a person spiritually (Rom. 5:3-4) and teach humility (Job 36:24—37:24; 1 Pet. 5:6-7) and contentment (2 Cor. 12:10; Phil. 4:11).[23]

The ultimate objective of Elihu’s presentation of educational suffering was to lead the sufferer to a deeper relationship with Yahweh, the superb teacher (Job 36:22; 37:19-24).

Category Four: Glorification Suffering

Suffering can also be a glorification process whereby the sufferer brings glory to God by remaining faithful during the suffering. The testimony of the repentant person glorifies God because of His providing restoration after suffering (33:26-27). God is also glorified when He promotes the righteous person after a period of suffering (36:7, 15; cf. 42:10-16). In human suffering God is often glorified when His work is displayed and He is praised (36:22-26; cf. John 9:3; 11:4). This means that even when a sufferer does not know the reason for the suffering, there is indeed a reason, a divine reason: this suffering is primarily for God’s glory.

If the sufferer receives truth, then he “sings out”[24] to others (33:27) and announces that even though he has sinned, God did not withdraw from him or give him what he deserved.[25] And once his relationship with God is renewed, the sufferer becomes a witness of God’s mercy and glorifies God before the whole community (vv. 27-30). In this way the whole community shares in the joy of the renewed relationship. The reason for this joyful declaration is that God has redeemed him from going down to the pit (death) and is enabling him to enjoy the “light of life” (vv. 28, 30).

Elihu wanted Job to abandon his present anger against God and to engage in a simple declaration of the greatness of God (“you should exalt[26] His work,” 36:24). Like others who had observed God’s greatness, Job should be singing praise in honor of God’s wondrous deeds. In this sense Job’s suffering would be a source of glorification of God in the midst of his suffering; a testimony of His greatness to his acquaintances. Elihu’s point is that once Job abandoned his complaint, he would glorify God and reap the benefits of the suffering he was undergoing (cf. Pss. 59:6; 92:5; 138:5; Rev. 15:3). If Job recognized God’s use of suffering in his life, he would glorify God and magnify His works in the suffering instead of complaining and demanding a court hearing (Job 37:22-24).

Category Five: Revelational or Communicational Suffering

According to Elihu suffering can be revelational, that is, it can help the sufferer gain a deeper understanding of God and His relational attributes—love, grace, and mercy. As Creator God He speaks in many and various ways (33:4; cf. 34:14-15). He is gracious and forgives (33:24, 26). He is a teacher, He redeems, and He turns back His people to Himself (34:32; 33:27-30). He is loving and encourages those He loves (36:15-16, 22-23, 26, 31). He is the great and sovereign God, who gives grace and mercy even in punishment (37:7, 13). In the revelational sense suffering is also communicational, for God uses suffering as a means of communicating His will to people (33:19-33).

Elihu claimed that Job’s charge that God is silent is unreasonable. Actually God speaks (33:14), though people do not always perceive it. Elihu then discusses nocturnal dreams and visions as a means of divine communication (v. 15). Job’s false accusations against God’s silence were answered by Elihu, who in essence said, “Job, you are on a wrong course.” God was intimately speaking with His loved one and seeking a more intimate relationship with him, which in his case could be gained only through undeserved suffering.

In Old Testament times God often communicated with people through dreams and visions (Gen. 20:6; 31:24; 41:1; Num. 12:6; Judg. 7:13-15; 1 Sam. 28:6; 1 Kings 3:5; Dan. 2; 4; 7). This is also recorded in Near Eastern literature.[27] Job felt his dreams were a means of divine cruelty (Job 7:14). However, Elihu said dreams could be a legitimate means for receiving a message from God.28 And in Job’s case the purpose was to instruct him, turn him from pride, and keep him alive (33:16-18).

Elihu’s desire to “see Job cleared” is intensified in chapter 34. Elihu presented the true doctrine of retribution as it normally operates when sin continues. Elihu’s defense of God’s justice showed that He allowed undeserved suffering to continue in the life of Job for the purpose of revealing (a) his own struggle with the operation of God’s justice, and (b) his difficulty with a false belief system that led him to challenge God’s justice and goodness.

Therefore through revelational, communicational suffering God focuses attention on Himself (Job 38-42; cf. John 9:3), His Word (Deut. 8:3; Ps. 119:50, 67, 71), and even His blessings (Job 36-41; Ps. 77:1-2). In addition, suffering reveals the life of God in sufferers (2 Cor. 4:10) and deepens one’s confidence in the Lord (John 11:15; Rom. 8:38). Suffering demonstrates the love of God (Job 36:15-16; 2 Cor. 8:1-2, 9). And it can be used, among other things, as a revelatory tool to disclose to a person his status before God (Job 33:15-18; 34:32).

Category Six: Organizational Suffering

Suffering can be organizational in the sense of helping to prioritize what is important in one’s life and relationship to God (37:7, 14, 23-24). The power of the weather confines and restricts human activity on earth (v. 7). “The most resolute humans must capitulate to the whims” of God’s use of the weather.[29] This is important to Elihu’s argument, for confined people are forced to at least consider their dependence on the power of the Creator and acknowledge that He is the source of such storms. The desired result is that people will acknowledge God’s creative work (v. 7). Even animals are forced into cover and the strongest of animals are confined to their dens and lairs for hibernation or for survival (v. 8). Through the elements God reveals Himself to His creation.

In verses 14-18 Elihu sought to persuade Job to acknowledge God’s justice and sovereignty. He advised him to “stand and consider the wonders of God” (v. 14). Alden states that this “is perhaps the most important statement that Elihu made and the one thing that Job was forced eventually to do. It was ultimately the solution to his problem and the cure for his ills, physical, emotional, and attitudinal.”[30] Elihu wanted Job to contemplate the wonders of God, for that would reveal to Job “his inadequacies in knowledge and power.”[31] By doing this Job would gain insight into his situation and acknowledge God’s superior wisdom and power.

Organizational or prioritizing suffering is designed to make the sufferer see what is important. It “prods us to rely more on God” (2 Cor. 1:9-10),[32] to spend more time in prayer (Pss. 50:15; 77:2; James 5:13), and to keep on the right path (Job 33:18, 30). “Suffering teaches us to number our days so we can present to God a heart of wisdom.”[33] It helps the sufferer focus hope on the grace that will be revealed when Christ returns (1 Pet. 1:6, 13).[34]

Category Seven: Relational Suffering

Suffering can also help believers relate to God in prayer. Elihu said the sufferer “will pray to God, and He will accept him” (33:26), and God will “hear the cry of the afflicted” (34:28). The sufferer sees “His face with joy,” prays to God (33:26; which is exactly what Job did in 42:5-6), and is restored. God hears the cries of the needy (34:28), and “He delivers the afflicted in their affliction” (36:15). God is personally related to and involved in the suffering of His people. Elihu assured Job that God did care about him, was active in his life, is in control of human existence, and does nothing that is contrary to His attributes, especially His justice. Also suffering is relational in that it brings people together and is an opportunity for showing compassion and comfort to others (2 Cor. 1:3-11).

The ultimate answer for Job is that he “sees God” and has a meaningful relationship with Yahweh based on His grace. At the end of God’s speeches Job’s focus was on God, not his suffering. God wants the sufferer to focus on Him and His blessings (Ps. 77:1-2, 10-12). Job, like all believers, experienced God’s comfort through his suffering (cf. Matt. 5:3), and this deepened his faith and trust in the Lord (Rom. 8:28-31). Suffering encourages believers to offer thanks in all circumstances (1 Thess. 5:18) and to know that God’s purposes and plans are not hindered by suffering, but are often moved forward (Jer. 29:11).

Category Eight: Judgmental or Providential Suffering

Suffering can be used in a judgmental or providential sense in which God uses suffering as a means of punishing evildoers, both nations and individuals. Job’s three protagonists had argued that the punishment of evil is the only reason for suffering. Elihu agreed that God often uses suffering to punish wrongdoing, but this, he argued, is only one of many reasons. In 34:21-30 Elihu elaborated on God’s impartial judgment. He stated that God’s omniscience, the ability to see and comprehend all activity and thoughts on earth, substantiates His justice. To continue the thought from the last section (vv. 16-20), God’s omniscience will not allow Him to make any mistakes when He punishes evildoers, nor is His justice restricted by a fixed time frame (vv. 23, 29). Since God sees all (vv. 21-22), a court appointment, as Job had been demanding, is not necessary (vv. 23-24). A trial is unnecessary either for condemnation or for blessing, because God knows the thoughts of humankind.

On this basis God can judge people publicly and openly “without inquiry” (v. 24) and His punishment will always be just and expeditious (vv. 24-26). This judgment is said to be based on the failure of people to follow God (v. 27) and specifically for their cruel treatment of the poor (v. 28). Elihu concluded that God is not obligated to speak and can remain silent and “hide His face” from nations and individuals alike (v. 29) and still be just in what He does (v. 30). How then could Job judge God? Although the wicked do not know His ways and they oppress the humble and needy, God knows their ways and will rectify the plight of the poor. The wicked will be “shattered” (v. 24), “overturned” (v. 25), “crushed” (v. 25), and “slapped,” or “struck down” (v. 26). Contrary to Job’s assertions (9:24; 12:6; 21:7; 24:1), God does punish those who are wicked. Elihu said that God is not limited by human thoughts nor must He act within presumed boundaries. He acts silently as the “absolute Executor”[35] to perform His will “over nation and man” alike (34:29), even when evil seems to reign supreme.

The wicked do sometimes prosper, and the righteous are often oppressed. However, unlike Job, Elihu did not agree that this conflicts with God’s just rule over earth and humankind. God’s seeming “slowness” in rectifying wrongs does not deny His goodness, justice, and omnipotence.[36] Elihu was very aware of wicked rulers, corrupt justices, and deceitful leaders, but this did not mean that their existence nullifies God’s justice. True, there are apparent exceptions to God’s administration of justice. But this is because of God’s use of the wicked as tools of judgment on others who are equally or exceptionally wicked. Certainly God may delay punishment, but there are good reasons for this postponement: He sometimes uses tyrants as His instruments of justice (vv. 29-30).[37] As Gordis states, “God permits evildoers to hold sway in order to punish men and nations who have themselves been guilty of seeking to snare the innocent.”[38]

Category Nine: Proclamational or Declarational Suffering

Suffering can also be proclamational or declarational in that the sufferer has the opportunity to magnify God in several areas. First, the sufferer may reveal the just and nonarbitrary nature of God’s actions by recognizing that God will not “do wickedness,” “act wickedly,” or “pervert justice” (34:10-12). He acts in full accord with His perfect nature. Then in verse 13 Elihu asked, in essence, Who gave God the right to rule the universe? The answer, of course, is no one. This implies that as the Sovereign of the universe God is not accountable to anyone, and as the sovereign Sustainer He demonstrates His grace every moment through His life-giving Spirit who nourishes and supports life on earth (vv. 14-15). To question God’s administration of justice over His creation would require that the critic of His justice be entrusted with the administration of the world, making him equal to God. To question God’s actions one would need to place himself above God. This of course is absurd.

Job was insisting on his innocence (“I am without transgression” (v. 6), and he was convinced that he was being unjustly afflicted as an innocent man. However, Elihu declared that it is impossible for God to be unjust. Speaking to Job, not to the three,[39] Elihu asked him, “Will you condemn the righteous mighty One?” (v. 17). This is significant because Job, not the three, was accusing God of being unjust and biased. To accuse God of injustice is to speak “words without knowledge” and “without wisdom” (vv. 35; 35:16). In defense of God’s justice Elihu asked Job, “Shall He recompense on your terms?” (34:33). Job’s surprising condemnation of the “righteous mighty One” (34:17; cf. 40:8) makes no sense in light of God’s incomparable impartial acts (34:18-20). Elihu and God asked similar questions in 34:17 and 40:8.[40]

Second, Elihu proclaimed that the purity of God’s character and the greatness of His person are present even in times of suffering (34:10; 36:26; 37:23).

Third, Elihu pointed out God’s nonmanipulative nature (35:4-8). Often a sufferer will attempt to “make deals” with God to try to end the suffering. But Elihu maintained (a) that God’s ways are higher than human ways (vv. 5-8); (b) that God’s silence is justified and does not imply that He is uninvolved with humanity’s suffering (vv. 9-11); and (c) that God’s silence does not mean that He did not hear Job (vv. 12-14). Elihu called attention to the heavens and the clouds that are “higher than you” (v. 5). Because of the grandeur of God’s creation, He is beyond accountability to any person. Human beings are God’s creation, and His consummate work, but they are not His equals. Verse 6 (“If you have sinned”) recalls Job’s words in 7:20 (“Have I sinned?”), and 35:7 (“If you are righteous”) recalls Eliphaz’s words in 22:3 (“Is there any pleasure to the Almighty if you are righteous?”). The thought in 35:6-7 is that it is impossible for a person to influence the operation of God’s justice through either sinful actions or righteous deeds. “Elihu uses the image of giving and receiving; what can Job possibly give God, and what can God possibly receive from Job?”[41] Good or bad actions on the part of humanity do not obligate God or allow people to manipulate Him.

Fourth, Elihu exulted in the greatness of God’s person and His omniscience (36:26-33). God is present with the sufferer. The assertion is that God is unquestionably “mighty” and “beyond our comprehension” (v. 26, author’s translation). The way in which God uses His power to bless or afflict, to save or destroy, is beyond human understanding (“we do not know Him” [v. 26], and “we cannot comprehend” the great things He does [37:5]; cf. Ps. 139:6; Eccles. 8:17; Isa. 55:9; 1 Cor. 13:12). Job’s problem was that he was seeking to comprehend the workings of the incomprehensible God (Ps. 102:28). The lesson for Job is that God is worthy of praise and is not subject to scrutiny or a legal claim against Him.[42] Elihu then proceeded to illustrate his assertion about God’s majesty. He speaks of God’s majesty in rain (Job 36:27-28), thunder (v. 29), and lightning (v. 30). God uses these elements to govern His moral order on earth ((vv. 31-33).[43] Verse 23 of chapter 37 does not state that God cannot be contacted and His just ways observed. Instead, this was Elihu’s response to Job’s own statements that he could not find God and present his case before Him (9:11; 23:3-4, 8-9). God is truly incomprehensible, but “Shaddai will never violate justice—He will not oppress the people capriciously. . . . That is, when God reveals himself to Job, Job will be reduced to silence as God will convince him that he has been treated fairly and justly.”[44]

Zuck points out that though Job was aware of God’s sovereignty and power (9:4-12; 10:16; 12:13-25; 23:13-16; 26:5-14; 28:23-28), Job felt God had abandoned him. Job continually accused God of being unjust or exercising that power and sovereignty capriciously (7:20; 9:17, 20-24; 10:2-3; 13:24; 16:9, 12, 17; 19:6-12; 27:2; 30:19-23).[45] The last two lines of 37:23 restate in succinct fashion the two major motifs of Elihu’s speeches: God is omnipotent (“He is exalted in power”) and His justice is exercised perfectly (“He will not do violence to justice”). Primarily 36:21-37:20 focuses on God’s power, and 37:5-21 deals with divine justice. This power is evident in the elements of nature and experienced by humans, but it is always guided by justice (34:17). In 37:24, Elihu’s closing sentence, he gives his “thesis statement,”[46] namely, the fact that man’s response to God’s power and justice, even when he is suffering, is to “fear Him” (cf. Job’s similar statement in 28:28). “Elihu maintains that strength and justice reside within the Creator in harmonious balance; his power does not override the bounds of justice nor violate the demands of true righteousness. Asserting both elements of this equilibrium is the fundamental thrust of his concluding statement in v. 23.”[47]

As Yahweh approached, Elihu focused Job’s attention on God, who then gave the complete and perfect answer, however obscure to the reader, for his suffering and doubts (chaps. 38-42).

Conclusion

Elihu genuinely cared for Job, who had become embittered through his reaction to continued suffering, poor advice, and acceptance of a faulty theology that was not compatible with his current experience (33:6-7, 23-24, 32; 36:6-7, 15-16; 37:19-24). Therefore Elihu was attempting to show to Job that God’s retributive justice is in perfect harmony with His essence, even though Job was suffering, and that God’s ways are beyond human understanding. However, Elihu did not attempt to offer an answer as to why Job experienced undeserved suffering. That answer resides with God, for He alone knows all the facts.

Suffering, Elihu said, is not an enemy; it is a vehicle used by God to clarify and enhance the divine-human relationship. Therefore since God goes to such lengths to consummate this intimate relationship, suffering becomes the supreme opportunity for the human sufferer to represent this relationship with Yahweh to the world. Even though the sufferer may not understand all the ways of God and the whys of life, this relationship is the only place a person will know and experience perfect retributive justice. A life of suffering is more than a series of absurdities and unexplainable pains that must simply be endured; it is a life linked with the unseen purpose and destiny of God Himself. The sufferer may not always know all the facts, nor is that at all necessary for living a life of faith; for suffering can be endured with faith and trust in an all-knowing, loving, and gracious God. As Job finally responded, “I have heard of You by the hearing of the ear; but now my eye has seen You” (Job 42:5).

Notes

1. An example is Bart D. Ehrman, who states that once he was an evangelical but now he no longer considers himself a Christian (God’s Problem: How the Bible Fails to Answer Our Most Important Question—Why We Suffer [New York: HarperCollins, 2008]), 2-3.
2. For a comprehensive study of these and other issues regarding Elihu see Larry J. Waters, The Contribution of Elihu to the Argument about Suffering in the Book of Job: A Study in Narrative Continuity (Lewiston, NY: Edwin Mellen, 2009).
3. See, for example, Robert S. Fyall, Now My Eyes Have Seen You: Images of Creation and Evil in the Book of Job (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2002), 53; E. M. Good, In Turns of Tempest: A Reading of Job with a Translation (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 1990), 321; August H. Konkel, Job, Cornerstone Biblical Commentary (Carol Stream, IL: Tyndale House, 2006), 191; and Samuel E. Balentine, Job, Smyth & Helwys Bible Commentary (Macon, GA: Smyth & Helwys, 2006), 623.
4. Issues regarding the authenticity of Job 32-37, Elihu’s theology in relation to suffering, and a general introduction to Elihu’s views on suffering have been offered by the present writer in previous articles. See Larry J. Waters, “Reflections on Suffering from the Book of Job,” Bibliotheca Sacra 154 (October–December 1997): 436-51; idem, “The Authenticity of the Elihu Speeches in Job 32-37,” Bibliotheca Sacra 156 (January–March 1999): 28-41; and idem, “Elihu’s Theology and His View of Suffering,” Bibliotheca Sacra 156 (April–June 1999): 143-59.
5. Robert Gordis, The Book of Job:Commentary, New Translation and Special Studies (New York: Jewish Theological Seminary of America, 1978), 358.
6. Clyde T. Francisco, “A Teaching Outline of the Book of Job,” Review and Expositor 68 (1971): 518.
7. See Waters, “The Authenticity of the Elihu Speeches in Job 32—37,” 28-41, for a discussion of the importance of chapter 32 to Elihu’s presentation. Charles L. Feinberg also views Elihu’s position as substantially different from that of the three (“The Book of Job,” Bibliotheca Sacra 91 [January–March 1934]: 85; and idem, “Job and the Nation of Israel,” Bibliotheca Sacra 97 [April–June 1940]: 211-12). See also Roy B. Zuck, Job, Everyman’s Bible Commentary (Chicago: Moody, 1978), 141, 148; and Robert V. McCabe Jr., “The Significance of the Elihu Speeches in the Context of the Book of Job” (Th.D. diss., Grace Theological Seminary, 1985), 86-87. Elihu consistently disassociated himself from the theological view of the three—the notion that Job’s suffering was caused by some secret sin—and he claimed affinity with Job (33:31; 37:14).
8. Estes gives thirty-six reasons or purposes for suffering (Joni Eareckson Tada and Steven Estes, When God Weeps: Why Our Sufferings Matter to the Almighty [Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2002], 232-33). And Roy B. Zuck lists thirty-three purposes (“God’s Many Purposes in Suffering” [unpublished notes, Dallas Theological Seminary, n. d.], 1-2).
9. On Elihu’s identification with Job see Henri J. M. Nouwen, “Living the Questions: The Spirituality of the Religion Teacher,” Union Seminary Quarterly Review 32 (fall 1976): 21. He writes, “Elihu appeared on the scene. . . .He confesses that he, too, is involved. He admits that Job’s problem is humanity’s problem and he realizes that Job’s question is basically the same as his own. In contrast to Eliphaz, Bildad, and Zophar, who rejected Job, Elihu identifies with him and speaks to him out of inner solidarity” (ibid.). See also Marvin E. Tate, “The Speeches of Elihu,” Review and Expositor 68 (fall 1971): 490; and Robert Gordis, “Elihu the Intruder,” in Biblical and Other Studies, ed. Alexander Altmann (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1963), 62-63.
10. However, several authors believe Elihu’s view was similar to that of the three, that is, that Job was suffering because of some previous sin (e.g., David Arvid Johns, “The Literary and Theological Function of the Elihu Speeches in the Book of Job” [Ph.D. diss., Saint Louis University, 1983], 2-7; Norman C. Habel, The Book of Job, Cambridge Bible Commentary [London: Cambridge University Press, 1975], 169; Samuel R. Driver and George Buchanan Gray, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Job, International Critical Commentary [Edinburgh: Clark, 1921], 1:xl; Marvin H. Pope, Job, Anchor Bible [New York: Doubleday, 1973], lxxix; and R. A. F. MacKenzie, “Job,” in Jerome Biblical Commentary [Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1968], 528). Other authors say Elihu’s view on suffering was different. For example Edouard Dhorme assesses Elihu’s view of suffering as divine justice at work (A Commentary on the Book of Job [Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1984], liv–lx). H. H. Rowley states that Elihu viewed suffering as disciplinary, to cleanse the sinner (The Book of Job, New Century Bible Commentary [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1983], 206). Francis Andersen views Elihu’s function as adjudication (Job: An Introduction and Commentary, Tyndale Old Testament Commentaries [Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1976], 51); and H. D. Beeby, argues that Elihu was a “mediator” between Job and God (“Elihu—Job’s Mediator?” Southeast Asian Journal of Theology 7 [October 1969]: 42-49). See also D. A. Carson, How Long, O Lord? Reflections on Suffering and Evil (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1990), 170.
11. See Mark Hamilton, “Elite Lives: Job 29—31 and Traditional Authority,” Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 32 (2007): 69-89. Hamilton lists six aspects of Job’s elite life (ibid., 71).
12. Zuck maintains that Elihu did not deal with Job’s past sinful actions but with his present sinful attitudes and that “Elihu viewed suffering as protective, rather than retributive” (Job, 141, 148).
13. Wilhelm Gesenius, Gesenius’ Hebrew and Chaldee Lexicon to the Old Testament Scriptures, trans. Samuel Prideaux Tregelles (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1974), 348.
14. That some suffering is seemingly random and yet purposeful may be noted in Luke 13:1-5 and John 9:2-3.
15. Gordis, The Book of Job, 400; Hartley, The Book of Job, 463; and Rowley, The Book of Job, 224. Habel translates the phrase “I am right against El” (The Book of Job, 486). See also Zuck, Job, 153.
16. Hartley, The Book of Job, 463.
17. Johns, “The Literary and Theological Function of the Elihu Speeches in the Book of Job,” 121.
18. David Allen Diewert, “The Composition of the Elihu Speeches: A Poetic and Structural Analysis” (Ph.D. diss., University of Toronto, 1991), 512.
19. McCabe, “The Significance of the Elihu Speeches in the Context of the Book of Job,” 203.
20. Ibid., 224.
21. Shimon Bakon, “The Enigma of Elihu,” Dor le Dor 12 (1984): 221.
22. Tada and Estes, When God Weeps, 237.
23. Ibid., 232-40; and Zuck, “God’s Many Purposes in Suffering,” 1-2.
24. See Gordis, The Book of Job, 379; and Hartley, The Book of Job, 448.
25. McCabe, “The Significance of the Elihu Speeches in the Context of the Book of Job,” 128.
26. The hiphil second masculine singular of שָׂגָא may be taken as declarative (“magnify”) or as causative (“you cause His work to be magnified”). The adjectival form occurs only twice in the Old Testament (Job 36:26; 37:23), a favorite word of Elihu (Gordis, The Book of Job, 419; and Diewert, “The Composition of the Elihu Speeches: A Poetic and Structural Analysis,” 516).
27. See A. L. Oppenheim, The Interpretation of Dreams in the Ancient Near East (Philadelphia: American Philosophical Society, 1956). See also Diewert, “The Composition of the Elihu Speeches: A Poetic and Structural Analysis,” 183.
28. The classic methods of Old Testament communication included dreams, lots, Urim and Thummim, angels, and prophets.
29. Robert L. Alden, Job, New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 1993), 360.
30. Ibid., 362.
31. Zuck, Job, 160.
32. Zuck, “God’s Many Purposes in Suffering,” 1.
33. Tada and Estes, When God Weeps, 238.
34. Ibid.
35. Zuck, Job, 150.
36. Hartley, The Book of Job, 459.
37. Gordis, The Book of Job, 393. Johns discusses the interpretation of these two verses extensively (“The Literary and Theological Function of the Elihu Speeches in the Book of Job,” 46-50). Dhorme states that the last phrase in 34:30 (מִמֹּקְשֵׁי עָם) is a metaphor that “alludes to those who ensnare others in their nets” (A Commentary on the Book of Job, 525).
38. Gordis, The Book of Job, 393.
39. The verb שָׁמַע (“listen”) in verse 16 is singular and therefore is addressed to Job.
40. Both questions, Elihu’s and God’s, have similar vocabulary (צַדִּיק, πהַאַ,מִשְׁפָּט ,רָשַׁע ) (Diewert, “The Composition of the Elihu Speeches: A Poetic and Structural Analysis,” 292).
41. Johns, “The Literary and Theological Function of the Elihu Speeches in the Book of Job,” 122.
42. Hartley, The Book of Job, 479.
43. Diewert, “The Composition of the Elihu Speeches: A Poetic and Structural Analysis,” 521.
44. Hartley, The Book of Job, 484 (italics his).
45. Zuck, Job, 162.
46. Diewert, “The Composition of the Elihu Speeches: A Poetic and Structural Analysis,” 569.
47. Ibid., 570.

Missio Dei in the Book of Job

By Larry J. Waters

[Larry J. Waters is Associate Professor of Bible Exposition, Dallas Theological Seminary, Dallas, Texas.]

Besides displaying one man’s faith in God in times of suffering, the Book of Job also has a “missionary” purpose. That is, a believer’s suffering should be viewed, as seen in Job’s experience, as a witness not only to God’s sovereignty but also as a witness to His goodness, justice, grace, and love to the nonbelieving world. Yet in studies of Job God’s redemptive purpose and action in relation to missions is rarely addressed.[1]

Often the purpose of the Book of Job is seen simply as concerned with the sovereignty of God and man’s response to His will. But the book is also part of the progressive revelation of God’s purpose and mission, so that the book is, in a sense, missional and evangelistic. That is, as believers undergo undeserved suffering, they are witnesses to nonbelievers of God’s goodness, justice, grace, and love. The purpose of this article is to focus on God’s mission, missio Dei, in relation to the ancient story of Job and his experience of undeserved suffering and the false application of the theological doctrine of retribution.

A Definition of Missio Dei

Missio Dei is Latin for “the sending of God,” usually in the sense of “being sent.” This term was used by Augustine in discussing God the Father sending His Son. But in the 1950s the term came to mean more broadly “the mission of God.”2 Young points out that “this phrase, which comes into English as the ‘mission of God,’ focuses our attention on God’s redemptive purpose and action in human history.”[3]

“Mission is a predicate of God. God is a missionary God . . . Missio Dei is active in the whole of history; it means that God turns to the whole world both inside and outside the Church. Through the events of history, God guides the world.”[4] As Stott wrote, “The living God of the Bible is a missionary God . . . . a global God.”[5] Bosch writes that missio Dei is “God’s self-revelation as the One who loves the world, God’s involvement in and with the world, the nature and activity of God, which embraces both the church and the world, and in which the church is privileged to participate. Missio Dei enunciates the good news that God is a God-for-people.”[6] As Horrell explains, “The term missio Dei was coined at the Willingen missionary conference in 1952 to express [the fact] that mission is based on and reflective of the Triune God’s nature, will and action.”[7]

Since missio Dei can be seen as God on mission, involved in humankind’s existence and eternal destiny, and actively making Himself known for redemptive purposes, Job is one of the first illustrations of individuals used by God to demonstrate that mission. Job’s struggle with suffering and a false theology contrary to grace, Elihu’s corrective measures guiding Job into God’s presence,8 and God’s remarkable and unusual speeches are all a part of the missio Dei in communicating His loving concern for humanity.

The Importance of Job

The reader of the Book of Job is immediately introduced to the integrity and virtue of the main character (chaps. 1-2). Job was considered the greatest of “all the men of the east” (1:1), and God viewed him as a man like no other “on the earth” (v. 8). Job was therefore at this time in history a well-known individual. As a righteous man, could his undeserved suffering be an example of missio Dei? Put another way, does undeserved suffering result in advancing the purpose of God? Is God “on mission” through the suffering of His people?

Before answering these questions it is important to ask, Who is Job? When and where did he live? What was his heritage? Authors differ on these important questions. As Balentine points out, “Job is clearly part of Judaism’s Scripture,”9 but its place in Judaism is unclear. For instance Green suggests that the Book of Job “conforms neither neatly nor fully to the religious structure of Judaism. Rather, it stretches the Levitical framework and sets it on altered footing.”[10] Some have even suggested that Job is not a real character, but simply a representative personality in a didactic parable.[11] However, most evangelical scholars see Job as a real historical character.[12] For instance Konkel states, “There is no reason to doubt that Job was a historical individual whose story was well known. The prophet Ezekiel (Ezek 4:14, [20]) refers to Noah, Daniel, and Job as three historical individuals.”[13] James also recognized Job as a historical person (James 5:11).

Job is also “a heroic figure in the mold of Noah and Adam . . . . patriarchal, or better, prepatriarchal.”[14] He was a citizen of the land of Uz, a place debated by scholars as either south of Damascus, or in Edom, or in northern Arabia.[15] Zuck argues that Uz was in northern Arabia.[16] Rowley states, “Job is presented as a foreigner, and not a Jew.”[17] Andersen writes, “Since Job is given no tribal identification, we do not even know if he was an Israelite of Transjordan. He was certainly a believer in Israel’s God.”[18]

The importance of the name Uz lies not in where such a place is, but in where it is not. Israelites themselves may not have known its precise location, but they will have known, as we do, that it is not in Israel. The name therefore signifies that the action has a horizon that is not peculiarly Israelite. It does not mean that Job necessarily is a foreigner, for most Jews of the exilic period and beyond . . . lived outside the borders of Israel, and the patriarchs themselves—since that is ostensibly the time in which the story is set—were almost as often to be found outside the land as within it. The Book of Job simply does not say whether or not Job is an Israelite; by leaving open the question of his race, the book effectively makes his experience transcend the distinction between Israelite and non-Israelite, Jew and non-Jew. We do not know that the storyteller had such a conscious intention, but such is the effect he has created.[19]

The missiological importance of this is that God was “on mission” through an individual whose life would impact people around him, as well as generations of readers after his death. Job “serves ideally as a setting for the universal spirit and character of the message conveyed by the book of Job.”[20]

Suffering and Missio Dei in the Book of Job

The opening of the book takes the reader into the throne room of God. “Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the Lord, and Satan [הַשָּׂטָ][21] also came among them” (1:6). When God asked Satan, “Have you considered My servant Job?” (v. 8), God took the initiative[22] for the purpose of advancing His redemptive purpose. In a missiological sense God used Job’s experience to reveal Himself to Job’s world.

Satan responded with two questions. “Does Job fear God for nothing? Have You not made a hedge about him and his house and all that he has, on every side?” vv. (9-10).[23] That is, he asked, Does Job worship God because of what he materially gets out of the relationship? Does God “buy” worshipers through prospering them materially? Is man’s relationship with God based on grace or works? Is God so impotent that He must purchase human worship through materialism? Or is God worshiped because He is God? Is worship of God based on a quid pro quo system of theology, like all other ancient Near Eastern religions? Or does He bless humankind on the basis of His grace? Will God’s servant Job serve and worship Him regardless of human and material loss? Was God’s protection the reason Job served Him? Satan wrongly assumed that since God protected and blessed Job, greed was the foundation of his righteousness rather than Job’s personal intimate relationship with God based on love, trust, and faith in Him (1:8-10; 2:3; cf. 1:21-22; 2:10).

Missio Dei in Job therefore began with suffering and God’s initiative (1:8; 2:3), in which He introduced His servant into a contest with the accuser. Satan was allowed to attack the hero of the story with viciousness almost beyond comprehension. “While he was still speaking” (1:16-17) indicates that within minutes several catastrophic things happened vv. (13-21). A Sabean raiding party rustled all of Job’s donkeys and oxen, and murdered all but one of the servants. Fire fell from the heavens and consumed Job’s sheep, and killed all but one of the servants. A Chaldean raiding party rustled all of Job’s camels, killing all but one of the servants. Then a windstorm caused the collapse of the oldest son’s house, killing all ten of Job’s children. Over the next few months (7:3; 29:2) Job’s suffering increased.

The seriousness and variety of Job’s suffering during that period was fourfold. First, physically, Job suffered personal pain and disease that included, as Zuck observes, inflamed, ulcerous boils (2:7), itching (2:8), degenerative changes in facial skin (2:7, 12), loss of appetite (3:24), insomnia (7:4), hardened skin, running sores, worms in the boils (7:5), difficulty breathing (9:18), loss of weight (16:8), eye difficulties (16:16), emaciation (17:7; 19:20), bad breath (19:17), trembling of the limbs (21:6), continual pain in the bones (30:17), restlessness (30:27), blackened, peeling skin (30:28, 30), and fever (30:30).[24]

Second, Job was socially alienated from family and friends and lost his high status in the community. Job’s wife turned against him (2:9), and he was rejected, jeered, and mocked by friends (12:4; 16:10; 17:2, 6) and even by children (30:1, 9-11).25 Several derogatory terms were used to describe Job: fool (5:2, 3); sinful (5:7; 18:5-22; 22:5-11); arrogant (8:2; 11:4, 7; 15:11-16; 18:3); evil (11:13; 15:20; 22:5); idle and useless (11:2); stupid (11:11-12); empty (15:2); unteachable (15:8-9); a “byword” or object of scorn (17:6; 30:9); ugly (19:17-20); dishonest (20:19); a persecutor of widows and orphans (22:9); and a worm or maggot (25:6).

Third, emotionally, Job was grief stricken over the loss of his children (1:20-21), was depressed (3:24-25), lacked a sense of inner tranquility (3:26), experienced troubled thoughts (7:4, 13-14), generally had no taste for life (9:2), felt uncertain (9:20), was without joy (9:25; 30:31), and suffered from loneliness (19:13-19).

Fourth, spiritually, Job was distressed over his conflict with a theology that viewed God as “a capricious despot, who delights in afflicting his servant” (6:4; 7:17-19; 19:25). He was also disturbed by God’s silence (23:8-9, 15).[26]

Few have suffered as broadly and severely as Job, yet many have suffered in one or more of these categories. Job’s experience shows that his suffering was allowed by God, was a reality in the “contest” or conflict with Satan, and opened the question, Is suffering a part of missio Dei? If suffering is allowed by God, and if it is part of the conflict with evil and the evil one, then it would seem that suffering is used by God in dealing with the lies of Satan. The result of the proper response to suffering would then lead to triumph over the enemy’s accusations and would help reach the world with God’s message of grace. Job’s initial response in 1:21-22 exemplifies this thinking. “Naked I came from my mother’s womb, and naked I shall return there. The Lord gave and the Lord has taken away. Blessed be the name of the Lord. Through all this Job did not sin nor did he blame God.”

This is followed by his extraordinary answer to his wife’s urging that he give up and die. His response reveals a clear understanding of God’s grace and the importance of handling suffering in light of that grace. “Shall we indeed accept good from God and not accept adversity? In all this Job did not sin with his lips” (2:10). This seems to imply that God’s blessing and the suffering of life are both instruments of His grace. And so it is with all who face similar circumstances. Job was to be a witness of God’s grace in adversity. Witnessing means presenting the gospel to unbelievers through written or verbal communication. But it also includes living out biblical principles by one’s example. In a believer’s suffering God communicates His purpose to others through conversation, pain management, and attitude. Even though Job did not epitomize or demonstrate this witness consistently, he never let go of his belief that all things come from God and that ultimately it was to God alone that he could turn.

Missio Dei and The False Theology of the Ancient Near East

For Job, as with most ancient peoples,[27] the quintessential doctrine related to life was that God/gods ruled with predictive, moral, and compensatory order. It was generally believed that the sovereign God or the gods ruled His/their world fairly and justly, and that when necessary He/they would intervene into human history to reward the good and righteous and punish the wicked and sinful. The conviction of the Scriptures is that God will ultimately and finally punish the wicked and reward the righteous.[28] It would seem that moral order in the world was and continues to be “one of those requirements of the human mind which God cannot fail to satisfy without appearing unjust.”[29]

Throughout the ancient Near East people believed “that there is an exact correspondence between one’s behavior and one’s destiny,” and this principle “is known as the doctrine of retribution.”[30] Therefore the righteous do not suffer and the wicked are not blessed, at least not for a prolonged period.[31] But is this true? Actually within this belief resides a warped addition to a true biblical and moral maxim central to Job and the rest of Scripture, namely, “that a man always reaps what he sows—in this life.”[32] It is true that what a person reaps he sows (Gal. 6:7). But adding the words “always” and “in this life” makes the statement untrue. The realities of suffering and blessing are the unpredictable parts in the tradition of immediate retribution and are witness to the paradox of experience and traditional doctrine. The Book of Job asks, Is God free to correct the assumptions usually associated with the traditional view of the doctrine of retribution, and is He free to act in contradiction to these assumptions and still be just? Is God bound by tradition to act according to a fixed formula? On the concept of traditional doctrine Tsevat writes, 

Job’s misinterpretation of God and the world was due to his conceptions which were by and large those of Israelite tradition. His argument with the friends rested on this ground common to all of them, and their disagreement was about secondary features and particularly had regard to the application of the philosophy of tradition to his fate. . . . When it was tradition of religious doctrines, and when these doctrines were combined into a comparatively consistent whole, we speak of traditional theology. There is no part of the Old Testament which represents the most common variety of traditional theology better than the talk of Job and the friends.[33]

The effect of this doctrine on missio Dei is significant. As the sovereign God extending grace toward His creation, He is free to act outside of human assumptions regarding the moral order of His world. The traditional wisdom of Job’s day viewed retribution as a fixed systematic formula for judging the condition of a nation or an individual. Therefore, if improperly conceived or applied, this limited God. People “seek an explanation of suffering in cause and effect. They look backwards for a connection between prior sin and present suffering.”[34] But the Bible looks forward “in hope and seeks explanations, not so much in origins as in goals. . . . The purpose of suffering is seen, not in its cause, but in its result.”[35] This is readily observed in the relationship between God and people in the patriarchal period. For instance, God’s grace, longsuffering, and love were continually evident even in the failure of God’s servants, prepatriarchal and patriarchal.

Therefore within the true doctrine of retribution there was room for exceptions to a fixed formula for the working of God’s justice and sovereignty in the lives of His people. “God’s actions can at times suspend all dogmatic statements and theories about God’s own inner workings.”[36] This is not to say that God is capricious or that the doctrine of retribution contradicts His freedom to act, but it does explain why humankind attempted to develop fixed formulas to try to explain or predict God’s actions.[37] Retribution theology remains a tenet of God’s justice and righteousness and does not violate God’s mercy, love, and grace toward His people (Job 37:13). As Rohr says, the “Book of Job proclaims from the beginning that there is no [fixed] correlation between sin and suffering, between virtue and reward. That logic is hard for us to break. This book tries to break it, so that a new logos, called grace can happen.”[38]

The theology of Job’s three friends included the false idea that God is somehow under obligation to exact payment according to a presumptive doctrine that confines Him to the limitations of human interpretation. In fact, Satan, Job’s wife, Job’s three friends, and within the dialogue, Job himself, based their conclusions and suggestions on observation and empirical evidence, not on God’s revelation of who He is and His grace toward humanity, as did Elihu and Yahweh Himself (Job 32-42). Compensation (or “assumption”) theology is a fixed formula that assumes that God’s immediate (within one’s lifetime) blessing and cursing are based on a person’s own judgment or evaluation of God and His actions.

Job’s concept of God and His justice was marred by this false theology. Not only were the three friends at fault, as God clearly stated in the epilogue (42:7-9), but also this compensatory theology was perpetrated by Satan (1:9-10; 2:4-5) and is still believed by many people today. Part of the mission of God is to correct this false thinking regarding Himself and His actions. The Book of Job can serve as a corrective measure, pointing to His grace and love, rather than to a fixed formula invented by humankind to which God must adhere. This is not to say that the true doctrine of retribution is not in operation throughout the history of Israel.[39] But after the loss of everything and Job’s expressions of faith (chaps. 1-2) and his exasperation (chap. 3), lengthy dialogues with the three friends presented the distorted application of retribution theology, namely, that all Job’s suffering was caused by sin. This, in fact, is not retribution theology, but an assumption theology based on human speculation. Job’s undeserved suffering caused his faith in retribution, or more precisely, his confidence in the fixed system of compensation, to waver. For Job this “doctrine failed the test of reality”[40] and experience, while the three friends insisted on holding to the doctrine regardless of the evidence given by Job and by life itself. The grace message of God must be free of the encumbrances of a false theology that does not take suffering into account as part of the missio Dei.

Suffering and Missio Dei

A number of examples in Scripture support the fact that God uses suffering in missio Dei.

Abel’s sacrifice was a testimony of his faith in God, but he was unjustly murdered by his brother Cain. Still his testimony spoke from the grave of his righteousness (Gen. 4:4; Matt. 23:35; Heb. 11:4; 1 John 3:12).

Noah went through years of ridicule from the people around him. Yet he was obedient to the command of God to build the ark, a demonstration of his faith in God (Gen. 6:13-22; Heb. 11:7).

Abraham suffered in the sense of having no direct indication as to where he was to go, and no assurance of security or protection beyond his faith in the command of the Lord. The command of God for him to sacrifice Isaac, the promised descendant, was also a time of great stress (Gen. 12:1-4; 22:1-10; Acts 7:2-4; Heb. 11:8-10).

Joseph was abused by his brothers, sold into slavery, unfairly accused, imprisoned with prejudice, and yet promoted to prominence so that God’s mission would continue for His people (Gen. 37; 39-50).

Moses’ parents experienced great trauma in having to hide their newborn son in the Nile River, but this resulted in the grace of God being extended through Moses to Israel in the Exodus generation (Exod. 2; Heb. 11:23).

Moses endured ill treatment, rejected the treasures of Egypt, was a wanderer for forty years, considered the reproach of the Messiah greater riches than those of the greatest culture of the day, confronted an antagonistic ruler without fear, and led a multitude to freedom, all by faith in God’s mission (Exod. 2-14; Heb. 11:24-29, 37).

David suffered extensively at the hand of Saul, and in consolidating the kingdom of Israel (1 and 2 Sam.; Heb. 11:32, 34). Yet God’s mission for Israel and David continued and will continue through David’s greater Son, Jesus Christ, in the future.

Daniel, Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego suffered in exile at the hands of pagan rulers, Daniel was in the lions’ den, and God delivered the three from the fiery furnace (Dan. 3:23-24; 6:13-28).

Almost without exception God’s prophets suffered at the hands of their own people and others. Yet God’s mission continued, their voice was heard, and their prophecies proved true.

The New Testament is filled with illustrations of God using suffering to move His mission toward its goal. Beginning with the beheading of John the Baptist, the Gospels record the suffering of Jesus Christ, with emphasis on His rejection and passion. Though the promise of the “seed” is a blessing to all the human race, there is no greater example of undeserved suffering than that of the Messiah (Gen. 3:15; cf. 22:18; 26:4; 28:14; Isa. 53; 2 Cor. 5:21; 8:9; Gal. 3:8; 1 Pet. 2:21-24; 3:18).

The Book of Acts highlights the suffering of the apostles in moving the plan of God forward. Shortly after his conversion to Christianity, Paul was told by Christ “how much he must suffer for My name’s sake” (Acts 9:16). Second Corinthians 11-12 enumerates the many kinds of suffering Paul endured for missio Dei. Church history abounds with illustrations of the suffering of people engaged in advancing Christianity throughout the world. God’s mission was and continues to be advanced through the suffering of His people.

This certainly flies in the face of the prosperity message of the three friends, which has been perpetrated throughout history. The “prosperity syndrome leaves suffering people feeling left behind, useless and God-forsaken. . . . It leaves no room for the possibility of the meaningfulness of suffering.”[41]

The book of Job is also a real setback for the modern error known as the “Prosperity Gospel.” . . . To tell Job, “You shouldn’t be suffering, it’s not God’s will for you,” is madness because the first chapter [of Job] makes it obvious that it is God’s will. It is God’s purpose. God does have a good, wise and rational plan in everything. . . . If you told Job, “You have a title deed to prosperity, he would laugh in your face.” If you said to Job, “If you had enough faith you could be healed, you could prosper, you are guaranteed protection, promotion, prosperity and perpetual success,” you would be repeating the same foolish advice given long ago by the prosperity preachers of Job’s day: Eliphaz, Bildad and Zophar.[42]

Even Job was beleaguered with reconciling God’s justice with the tragic paradox of the evil in God’s world and specifically in his own life, as expressed by the statement, “Why do the wicked prosper and the righteous suffer?”[43]

This dilemma hits at the very heart and essence of biblical faith. Job’s dilemma is related to his undeserved suffering and his assumptions about a dogmatic philosophy of the existence of a fixed formula of order in life in which God is obligated by traditional wisdom to do what is expected. Traditional or assumption theology was on trial.[44] Some of the most profound questions of life were not being answered by this theology, and Job was courageously challenging the failure of this theology in his effort to solve these issues. How then is this dilemma to be resolved?

Many people have believed that God sends rain as a reward and that witholding rain is a punishment for wrongdoing. However, “the phenomenon [of rain] is shown not to be a vehicle of morality at all—the moral purpose ascribed to it just does not exist (38:25-27; cf. Mt 5:45).”[45] Rain falls by the grace of God on both the righteous and the wicked. “Also with moisture He loads the thick cloud; He disperses the cloud of His lightning. It changes direction, turning around by His guidance, that it may do whatever He commands it on the face of the inhabited earth. Whether for correction, or for His world, or for lovingkindness,[46] He causes it to happen” (Job 37:11-13).

Clearly God is stating through Elihu that His blessings are based on His grace. Further, if God chooses to use rain for discipline, or simply for the benefit of the planet, that is His business carried out in perfect justice and sovereignty. First Elihu (chaps. 32-37) and then God (chaps. 38-42) stated that the misplaced hope of blessing through works has no place in the divine economy. In fact in his final replies (40:3-5; 42:2-3, 5-6), “Job acknowledges this fact and is now prepared for a pious and moral life uncluttered by false hopes and unfounded claims.”[47] In the restoration epilogue, Job’s brothers, sisters, and “all who had known him before came to him” (v. 11a). They “consoled him and comforted him for all the adversities that the Lord had brought on him” (v. 11b). Job lived for another one hundred forty years, and his influence was “in all the land” (v. 15). Job’s experience served as a catalyst for this message throughout the region and beyond.

Application of Missio Dei to Job and Suffering Saints

How does this apply to missio Dei in Job? First, since the Fall (Gen. 3) the elimination of suffering has never been promised as a reward for believing in the Lord. Blessing is promised and experienced, but suffering is not eliminated. In fact the normal life of a person who follows the Lord involves both blessing and suffering (Job 2:10). Second, suffering is often undeserved in the sense of not being related to any personal sin or bad decision on the part of the sufferer. Job “is concerned with that kind of suffering which bears no relationship to the specific sins of individuals.”[48] Third, God, in His sovereignty, uses suffering for His own glory and purpose, often not immediately made clear to the sufferer, but still effective in advancing missio Dei. Fourth, suffering is part of missio Dei. That is, God’s will and purpose for the redemption of humankind is advanced by the suffering of His own people. As in the case of Job, knowledge of his suffering spread throughout the Near East, brought “wise men” to his side, drew curious onlookers to witness his debates with the three friends, and ultimately resulted in a witness of his relationship with the Lord. Fifth, the biblical evidence shows that like other examples from Scripture, missio Dei is connected to the life and experience of Job. The writer of the book had a twofold purpose: to correct a doctrine that made God “a capricious despot, who delights in afflicting his servant”[49] for no apparent reason (6:4; 7:17-19; 19:25); and to enable God to use His servant’s experience to impact the world with His message of grace. In regard to the first of these purposes van Zyl writes,

The book of Job had missiological implications for its own culture. It addressed a world-view according to which God was made subservient to human actions, and which, by implication, legitimized the position of the prosperous and powerful, and “demonized” the sick, the have-not’s, the working class. . . . The book, through the laborious process of speeches, unmasks . . . this type of theology . . . it brings . . . hope to the poor and suffering that they may understand more of God than the wise do. It unmasks . . . a worldview which, on face value, is infused by lofty religious ideas and values, but which has (been) developed to legitimize power structures and to suppress the masses. It critiques theology which has become ideology.[50]

In regard to the second statement the book is both missional and evangelistic. People are not to approach God on the basis of works or an assumed concept that obligates Him to follow human wisdom. Instead God wants to relate to His people based solely on grace, a lesson finally learned by Job (40:4; 42:5-6). Two observations follow from the famous statement of 42:5. First, “mere hearing in the sense of ‘hearing of [about]’ is not sufficient,” and second, “true hearing and vision belong together. . . to hear God is to see God. It is because Job has listened to God that he now sees God.”[51] “This seeing was spiritual insight, not a physical vision . . . . Having deeper insight into God’s character—His power, purposes, and providence—Job gained a more accurate view of his own finitude.”[52] “Job had ‘seen God,’ which means he had an immediate encounter with God that was unprecedented in its immanence. Job had not been crushed by the arrival of the divine presence as he had feared (9:17), but he had been overcome. He was unable to answer, just as he had anticipated (9:15), but he could not say he had not been heard (9:16). He was not as right as he assumed (9:15), for the questions of justice were more than he knew.”[53]

“God had met him face to face, and in the end that suited Job better than ten thousand answers.”[54] Therefore Job’s prosperity, which was returned (Job 42), is to be understood as a grace gift from a gracious and loving God, rather than a deserved compensation for Job’s works.

What are the implications of missio Dei for suffering believers today? First, God’s desire is to bring the world into faith. Suffering believers can use their experiences as a means for drawing people to Christ. The attitude of suffering believers determines the effect they will have on unbelievers. For example Joni Eareckson Tada’s life and publications have encouraged and challenged others who are suffering, and she has developed a very effective ministry to the disabled.[55] Elisabeth Elliot’s loss of her husband along with four other men in the Ecuadorian jungle resulted not only in the salvation of various tribal peoples, but also influenced many of them to become missionaries.[56] After Larry Crabb lost his brother in a tragic plane crash, he wrote Finding God,[57] in which he recounted his journey in seeking to understand God’s purpose and plan. Martha Snell Nicholson was an invalid for most of her life. She wrote “Dear Lord, illumine with Thy face each sick-room; make it, by Thy grace, an altar and a holy place.”[58] God used her to write poems that were a blessing to many people. An excellent example is “Treasures.”

One by one He took them from me,
All the things I valued most,
Until I was empty-handed;
Every glittering toy was lost.

And I walked earth’s highways, grieving,
In my rags and poverty.
‘Till I heard His voice inviting,
“Lift your empty hands to Me!”

So I held my hands toward heaven,
And He filled them with a store
Of His own transcendent riches,
‘Till they could contain no more.

And at last I comprehended
With my stupid mind and dull,
That God could not pour His riches
Into hands already full.[59]

A second major missiological emphasis is God’s desire to bring faith into the world. Not only is the suffering believer given the opportunity to witness to the unbelieving world and to influence others for Christ, but he or she also has the opportunity to demonstrate faith in God in spite of the suffering. This is especially true during times of undeserved suffering when there is no logical reason to trust God, who seemingly has forgotten the sufferer and offers no explanation for the anguish and agony. Probably the most common criticism of the Christian faith focuses on the relationship between God and suffering. People often ask, “How can a loving and powerful God allow terrible and unjust suffering to exist?” Or as Taylor quips, “What kind of God allows the innocent to suffer while the wicked pop their champagne corks and sing loud songs?”[60] The implication is that God is impotent and unjust. However, the suffering believer who handles the suffering well has the opportunity to make sense of the unexplainable and to demonstrate confidence and faith in God. As Job’s experience with undeserved suffering brought the ultimate example of this to his world, suffering believers can do the same today. A proper relationship with God, based on grace through faith, is all that matters in life.

Notes

1. However, Danie C. van Zyl does address this topic in “Missiological Dimensions in the Book of Job,” International Review of Mission (2002): 24-30. See also James Reitman, Unlocking Wisdom: Forming Agents of God in the House of Mourning (Springfield, MO: 21st Century, 2008).
2. “Missio Dei,” in Evangelical Dictionary of World Missions, ed. A. Scott Moreau, (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2000), 631.
3. Mark Young, “Missio Dei in Evangelicalism” (unpublished manuscript, Dallas Theological Seminary, 2007), 1.
4. Johannes Aagaard, “Trends in Missiological Thinking during the Sixties,” International Review of Missions 62 (1973): 13.
5. John Stott, “The Living God Is a Missionary God,” in Perspectives on the World Christian Movement: A Reader, ed. Ralph D. Winter et al. (Pasadena, CA: William Carey Library, 1999), 9.
6. David Jacobus Bosch, Transforming Mission: Paradigm Shifts in Theology of Mission (Maryknoll, NY: Orbis, 1991), 10.
7. J. Scott Horrell, “The Self-Giving Triune God, the Imago Dei and the Nature of the Local Church: An Ontology of Mission” (unpublished manuscript, Dallas Theological Seminary, n.d.), 16 n. 31.
8. See Larry J. Waters, “Elihu’s Theology and His View of Suffering,” Bibliotheca Sacra 156 (April–June 1999): 143-46.
9. Samuel E. Balentine, Job (Macon, GA: Smyth & Helwys, 2006), 23.
10. William S. Green, “Stretching the Covenant: Job and Judaism,” Review and Expositor 99 (2002): 572-73, quoted in Balentine, Job, 15. See also H. H. Rowley, The Book of Job, New Century Bible Commentary (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1983), 5-6.
11. Green, “Stretching the Covenant: Job and Judaism,” quoted in Balentine, Job, 22.
12. For example Balentine, Job, 3-24; William H. Green, The Argument of the Book of Job Unfolded (reprint, Minneapolis: Klock & Klock, 1979), 1-11; John E. Hartley, The Book of Job, New International Commentary on the Old Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1988), 3-50; Norman C. Habel, The Book of Job: A Commentary, Cambridge Bible Commentary (London: Cambridge University Press, 1975), 39; Gerald H. Wilson, Job, New International Biblical Commentary (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2007), 1, 17; and Francis I. Andersen, Job: An Introduction and Commentary, Tyndale Old Testament Commentaries (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1976), 77-78.
13. August H. Konkel, Job, Cornerstone Biblical Commentary (Carol Stream, IL: Tyndale House, 2006), 30.
14. Habel, The Book of Job: A Commentary, 39. Hartley uses the same term “prepatriarchal” (The Book of Job, 66).
15. Roy B. Zuck, Job (Chicago: Moody, 1978), 13.
16. Roy B. Zuck, “Job,” in The Bible Knowledge Commentary, Old Testament, ed. John F. Walvoord and Roy B. Zuck (Wheaton, IL: Victor, 1985; reprint, Colorado Springs: Cook, 1996), 718-19.
17. Rowley, The Book of Job, 28. Others who hold this view include Hartley, The Book of Job, 66; and Marvin Pope, Job, Anchor Bible (New York: Doubleday, 1973), 5-6.
18. Andersen, Job: An Introduction and Commentary, 27.
19. Clines, Job 1-20, 10 (italics added).
20. Charles W. Carter, “The Book of Job,” in Wesleyan Bible Commentary, ed. Charles W. Carter (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1968), 2:14, quoted in Zuck, Job, 13 (italics added).
21. This term occurs thirteen times in the first two chapters of Job. “In general, . . . ‘the Satan’ here is some kind of opponent or adversary; but that much is obvious from the narrative itself. Further precision about his function can come only from the story. First, is he God’s adversary or Job’s? Later theological development of the figure of Satan preconditions the reader to say, ‘God’s’; but the story here makes it evident that the Satan is Yahweh’s subordinate, presenting himself before him as one of his courtiers, responding to Yahweh’s initiatives, and powerless to act without Yahweh’s authorization. His only undelegated capacity is to ‘allure, incite’ Yahweh (2:3)” (Clines, Job 1-20, 20).
22. This is not to imply that God did not know what Satan had been doing or his intent in accusing Job.
23. A helpful discussion on this passage is found in Susannah Ticciati, “Does Job Fear God for Naught?” Modern Theology 21 (July 2005): 353-66.
24. Roy B. Zuck, “A Theology of the Wisdom Books and Song of Songs,” in A Biblical Theology of the Old Testament, ed. Roy B. Zuck (Chicago: Moody, 1991), 227. In discussing several skin diseases Job may have had, Zuck concludes that the disease was pemphigus foliaceous (Zuck, Job, 18-19; idem, “Job,” 721). Also see A. Rendle Short, The Bible and Modern Medicine (Chicago: Moody, 1953), 6-61; and C. Raimer Smith, The Physician Examines the Bible (New York: Philosophical Library, 1950), 60.
25. Zuck, “A Theology of the Wisdom Books and Song of Songs,” 227.
26. Hartley, The Book of Job, 47-48. Hartley shows that Job’s suffering involved “every dimension of his existence—physical, social, spiritual, and emotional” (ibid., 48).
27. “The idea of retribution [is] an essential aspect of every system of mythological representation . . . it dominates primitive religion” (René Girard, Job, the Victim of His People [Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 1987], 122).
28. Jerome D. Quinn, “The Scriptures on Merit,” in Justification by Faith, ed. H. George Anderson, T. Austin Murphy, and Joseph A. Burgess (Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1985), 84.
29. Édouard Dhorme, A Commentary on the Book of Job (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1984), cxxviii.
30. Clines, Job 1-20, xxxix. This doctrine “was universally accepted throughout the ancient Near East, from the Nile to the Euphrates. The concept of . . . lex talionis (‘measure for measure’) . . . became a cardinal principle in the legal system of the ancient Babylonians, Assyrians, and Hittites” (Robert Gordis, The Book of God and Man: A Study of Job [Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1965], 137).
31. Shimon Bakon, “God and Man on Trial,” Jewish Bible Quarterly 21 (1993): 22.
32. “Put simply, you reap what you sow (Gal. 6:7; Ps. 34:11-22; 1 Pet. 3:10). This is the starting point for much biblical teaching. [However,] life is much more complex than this simple formula. Human suffering is more than a system of rewards and punishments” (Andersen, Job: An Introduction and Commentary, 65, 67).
33. Matitiahu Tsevat, “The Meaning of the Book of Job,” Hebrew Union College Annual 37 (1966): 91-92 (italics added).
34. Andersen, Job: An Introduction and Commentary, 68.
35. Ibid (italics added). As an example of this principle Andersen points to the man who was born blind “so that the works of God could be displayed in him” (John 9:3).
36. Klaus Koch, “Is There a Doctrine of Retribution in the Old Testament?” in Theodicy in the Old Testament, ed. James L. Crenshaw (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1983), 82.
37. “The Book of Job has no objection to a connexion [sic] of deed and consequence, but indeed objects to a doctrine of retribution into which reality is forced” (J. A. Loader, “Relativity in Near Eastern Wisdom,” in Studies in Wisdom Literature, ed. W. C. van Wyk [Hercules, South Africa: N. H. W., 1981], 54 [italics his]).
38. Richard Rohr, Job and the Mystery of Suffering (New York: Crossroad, 1996), 33.
39. For a discussion of the biblical concept of retribution see Larry J. Waters, “Elihu’s View of Suffering in Job 32-37” (Ph.D. diss., Dallas Theological Seminary, 1998), 56-68.
40. Clines, Job 1-20, xl.
41. van Zyl, “Missiological Dimensions in the Book of Job,” 29.
42. Peter Bloomfield, Job (Webster, NY: Evangelical, 2003), 12-13 (italics his).
43. See F. Rachel Magdalene, “The ANE Legal Origins of Impairment as Theological Disability and the Book of Job,” Perspectives in Religious Studies 34 (spring 2007): 23, n 1.
44. Kyle M. Yates, “Understanding the Book of Job,” Review and Expositor 68 (1971): 453.
45. Tsevat, “The Meaning of the Book of Job,” 100.
46. The word for “lovingkindness,” חֶסֶד, refers to God’s attribute of lovingkindness exhibited in His covenant love for His own in faithfulness, mercy, kindness, and loyalty.
47. Tsevat, “The Meaning of the Book of Job,” 100.
48. Robert S. Fyall, Now My Eyes Have Seen You: Images of Creation and Evil in the Book of Job (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2002), 189.
49. Hartley, The Book of Job, 48.
50. van Zyl, “Missiological Dimensions in the Book of Job,” 28.
51. Fyall, My Eyes Have Seen You, 179.
52. Zuck, Job, 184.
53. Konkel, Job, 238.
54. Barbara Brown Taylor, “On Not Being God,” Review and Expositor 99 (fall 2002): 612.
55. Joni Eareckson Tada, The God I Love: A Lifetime of Walking with Jesus (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2003); and Joni Eareckson Tada and Steve Estes, When God Weeps (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1997).
56. Elisabeth Elliot, Through Gates of Splendor (Wheaton, IL: Tyndale House, 1996). Other books of hers demonstrate missio Dei, including Shadow of the Almighty (New York: HarperCollins, 1989); A Path through Suffering: Discovering the Relationship between God’s Mercy and Our Pain (Ventura, CA: Regal, 1990); and The Savage My Kinsman (Ventura, CA: Regal, 1996).
57. Larry Crabb, Finding God (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1995).
58. Martha Snell Nicholson, Threshold of Heaven (Wilmington, CA: Martha Snell Nicholson, 1943), 1.
59. Martha Snell Nicholson, “Treasures,” in Ivory Places (Chicago: Moody, 1949), 67.
60. Taylor, “On Not Being God,” 611.

Elihu’s Theology and His View of Suffering

By Larry J. Waters

[Larry J. Waters is Professor of Bible Exposition, International School of Theology-Asia, Quezon City, Philippines.]

The Book of Job is essentially about God’s relationship with humankind, specifically with a man named Job, and it revolves around two questions. The first question is introduced through the accusations of Satan (1:9–11; 2:4–5): Why do people worship God?[1] Satan suggested that the motivation for Job’s worship and righteousness was “self-focused aggrandizement (Job 1:9–11).”[2] Elihu[3] sought to show that Satan’s thesis-that “all religious interest is ultimately grounded in self-interest, or worse, in mercenary commitment”[4] —is false.

The second question asks, How should people respond or react to God when He is silent and seemingly unconcerned about their problems? Therefore Elihu’s theology is primarily related to Job’s reaction to God, and the misunderstanding of the three antagonists and Job regarding their relationship to Him. Specifically Job questioned the operation of God’s justice and ultimately God’s own integrity, whereas the three questioned Job’s claim of innocence and asserted God’s right to exercise His freedom in the use of retributive justice. These two attributes, God’s justice and sovereignty, were emphatically defended by Elihu.

Elihu’s View of Suffering relative to the Theology of God

In response to these two questions Elihu spoke first of God’s sovereignty. God is greater than man (33:12); He is sovereign in His decisions and actions (34:14–15, 29), in His rule over individuals, nations, and the earth (33:14–18, 29–30; 34:13–15, 21–25; 37:13), and in His greatness (36:22, 26). His sovereignty is demonstrated in His creative work (32:22; 33:4, 6; 34:14) and His control of nature, including the cycles of evaporation (36:27–33), rain (36:28; 37:6), the clouds, lightning, and thunder (36:29–33; 37:2–5, 11–12, 15–16), the cold, snow, and ice (37:6–10), extreme heat (37:16–18), and animals (37:8).

Elihu explained the relationship between the sovereignty of God and suffering by emphasizing that Job’s life was under the control of the sovereign Creator God, who sustains life (34:13–15). Since God’s decisions, actions, and dominion are autonomous, neither Job nor the three had the right to question God or presume on Him. However, Job and the three assumed that everything in God’s universe ought to be explained to them (30:20) or known by them (15:8–10; 20:4). As a result Elihu declared, in essence, “There are some things you [Job and the three] will not understand, for you are not God.”[5] There will always remain some mysteries to suffering; therefore when believers suffer, they must maintain faith in the Lord.

A second attribute Elihu defended is God’s “infinity, for He cannot be understood (36:26; 37:5, 15–16), seen by man (34:29),”[6] or limited by space. A third attribute is God’s eternality (36:26, 29), for He cannot be dated or limited by time. Elihu’s purpose in emphasizing these three attributes was to move Job and the three from a focus on themselves and the problems surrounding underserved suffering to the infinite God whose purposes are eternal and who knows exactly what He is doing. Before Elihu’s intervention the debate had been anthropocentric and not theocentric. Elihu rectified that situation and injected a recognition of the divine into the discussion. Another purpose Elihu had in mind was to get Job and the three to understand that God is not limited in the way He deals with the suffering of humankind. God acts when, where, and how He has sovereignly decreed. This is not to discourage prayer or a humble, submissive, and righteous lifestyle, but rather to encourage a life of faith and trust.

The fourth and fifth attributes defended by Elihu are God’s justice (34:12, 17; 36:3, 23; 37:23) and holiness (34:10; 36:23). He is perfectly just and holy when He judges sin (34:11), punishes sinners (v. 26), destroys the powerful (v. 24), acts impartially (v. 19), summons death (v. 20; 36:6), disciplines oppressive rulers (36:7), judges godless kings (34:30), and censures flattery (32:22). Elihu spent the greater part of his defense in affirming God’s justice. The three antagonists’ faulty theology and Job’s insistence that God was neither exercising justice in the lives of others or in his own life (10:3; 12:6; 19:6–7; 21:7–15, 17–28; 24:12; 27:2) called into question God’s justice and holiness. If Job’s suffering were unjustly allowed by God, or if God’s work could be reduced to a quid pro quo system, then God is no different from the false gods of the ancient Near East. Elihu maintained that God does not punish or reward on the basis of human terms (34:33). Therefore the proposition that God acts unjustly or that He is controlled by human logic is unacceptable. According to Elihu suffering has many purposes, all of which fall under the governance of the justice and holiness of God. To think otherwise diminishes God to “a god” and exaggerates suffering beyond its importance and promotes it to the prime factor of life, with all things revolving around its existence or absence (i.e., compensation theology).[7]

God’s omniscience was also cited by Elihu. This sixth attribute affirms that God is aware of every movement of a person (34:21) and knows all that is in one’s heart (v. 23). God sees the deeds of sinners and they cannot hide from Him (vv. 22, 25; 35:15). He is also cognizant of the righteous and their needs (36:7), for He is “perfect in knowledge” (36:4; 37:16). The silence of God was a major obstacle for Job, because it implied that God was unaware of his suffering or that He was distant and detached (13:24). Elihu demonstrated that God is actively involved in every area of a person’s life and is aware of even inner motivations. Even in suffering, God does not detach Himself from His creation but is at work in that suffering to attract the sufferer to Himself (36:15–16). Since God is omniscient and aware of Job’s suffering, He is also aware that it is undeserved. Therefore any apparent inaction or silence on God’s part did not imply Job’s isolation or God’s ignorance and hostility.

The seventh attribute emphasized by Elihu was omnipotence. God is referred to as the omnipotent Creator (34:19; 35:10; 36:3), the Almighty God[8] (32:8; 33:4; 34:10, 12; 35:13; 37:23), and the “mighty” One (34:17; 36:5). Twice, Elihu declared that God is “exalted in power” (36:22; 37:23). Rabbi Kushner insists that God is unable to prevent human suffering.[9] This idea, however, was unacceptable to Elihu, Job, and the three, because “God’s power was not questioned; only His fairness.”[10] Though Job did not doubt the power of God, he did deny God’s willingness to use it on Job’s behalf, and he even accused God of using His power against him (9:22, 30–31; 13:3; 16:7–12; 19:21; 23:2; 31:35a). For Job, “God’s essence is ‘power’ and not ‘justice;’ he bends justice and rules with raw power (19:6f).”[11] For Elihu, to imply that God’s allowance of Job’s suffering was an action independent of His nature was an attack on God’s justice. Elihu insisted that God’s power was working for Job, not against him, even in his suffering and losses. Elihu wanted Job to put aside his preoccupation with his own vindication and righteousness and to realize that God alone had the power to deliver him (36:22–24; cf. 40:8–14).[12]

The eighth attribute Elihu noted is God’s love and mercy. His provision for His creation, Elihu pointed out, shows that He is gracious and merciful (37:13). He gives life to humanity (34:14–15), He forgives and restores (33:26–30; 36:10), He delivers sufferers in their suffering, speaks during oppression, and seeks intimacy with sufferers during their distress (36:15–16). Elihu also invited Job to consider God’s merciful love, as seen in the actions of nature. When Job’s wife suggested that he “curse God and die,” Job replied, “Shall we indeed accept good from God and not accept adversity?” (2:9–10). Elihu assumed that suffering was as much a gift from God as prosperity. Elihu also recognized that Job’s occupation with his former blessings had clouded his mind to the lessons and intimacies related to hardship and adversity (33:24, 26; 36:15; 37:13b–14). The “fellowship of God is enriching, and. .. that fellowship may be found in adversity no less than in prosperity.”[13] Suffering is therefore the channel through which God dispenses His grace and love in a remarkable way and where His attributes are more clearly manifest to the sufferer.

Elihu’s View of Suffering relative to the Theology of Humanity

Job held traditional views regarding the origin and nature of humans. He acknowledged God as the Creator and Sustainer of life (12:10; 27:3, 8), particularly his own (10:8–11). Job noted that people are by nature frail (6:11–12), impure (14:4), wicked (3:17; 9:22, 24; 10:2; 16:11; 21:7, 16, 28; 24:6; 27:7, 13; 29:17; 31:3), godless (13:16; 27:8), and without hope (6:11; 7:6; 14:19; 17:15; 27:8). Job admitted that sin could occur in one’s heart (1:5; 31:7, 9) or thoughts (31:1). Chapters 29–31 reveal that Job had a healthy respect for the consequences of sin and attempted to live righteously. Generally he agreed with his three verbal opponents that suffering is evidence of sinful behavior, but he also observed that contrary to the claim of compensation theology not all sinners suffer and not all righteous people are exempt from affliction (21:7–15, 17–18; 24:1–17).

Elihu described God’s relationship to people in several ways. First, he depicted this relationship generally. Elihu spoke of God as the Creator of humankind (32:22; 33:4, 6; 34:19; 35:10), and the Authority over and Owner of human beings (33:6). Elihu maintained that human life is sustained by God (33:4; 34:20). He regarded people as formed from clay (33:6), made of flesh and bones (33:21; 34:15), lower than God (33:12; 36:23, 26), and destined to return to dust (34:10). People cannot condemn God (34:17, 29), see God (34:29; 35:14), or understand Him (36:26) or His ways in nature (36:29; 37:15–16).[14] Elihu also said that human beings are spiritual creatures (32:8, 18; 33:3; 34:14; 37:1, 24). Concerning wisdom and spiritual knowledge, Elihu affirmed that wisdom does not come from age (32:4–5, 9) or human nature (32:5, 12–13; 36:29; 37:19), but from God alone (32:8, 19–20; 33:3–4, 15–16, 29–30; 36:10–13; 37:7, 14–15). True wisdom cannot be attained through tradition or effort, but is a gift from God. Therefore Job should entrust his situation to the authority of his Creator.

Second, Elihu said God is intimately involved in the lives of human beings. God did not abandon humans when He created them (34:14–15). He is actively involved in the conduct of His people, and their ways are not hidden from Him (34:21–22). God communicates with people through dreams, visions, pain, and mediators (33:15–22, 26–29; 36:9–10, 15). God opens the ears of people to communicate His will and plan (33:16; 36:10, 16), and draws people to Himself (36:16). Elihu stated that God gives joy in life (35:10) and that He promotes or demotes people justly and fairly (34:30; 36:7, 11). Therefore God was active in Job’s suffering and struggle. The Lord was not Job’s enemy (13:24; 33:10); He desired a deeper relationship with Job (33:26–30).

Third, Elihu described God’s relationship with the righteous. God’s might and power, he said, are involved in carrying out His plans and purposes for the righteous (36:5–7). God’s relationship with them is unparalleled (vv. 5–6), and He is aware of all that happens to them (v. 7a). God does not oppress the righteous or do violence to righteousness (37:23b). Nothing happens to the righteous of which God is unaware; in this the righteous can be secure. God was involved in the life of Job and had a special interest in him as one of His righteous ones. Contrary to Job’s accusations, God was not oppressing him or doing violence to him (37:23). Unlike readers who know the events of the prologue, Elihu accepted this truth by faith and encouraged Job to do the same. In reality the only enemy Job had to fear was himself, and suffering was revealing that to him (34:35, 37; 35:16; cf. 38:2; 40:2, 8). Job’s suffering was more than Satan’s insinuation against him. He was suffering to vindicate more than himself. He was vindicating God’s trust in him. Elihu was saying that when suffering comes undeservedly, one should not react as Job did with accusation and self-defense. Instead the sufferer should “face it with trust [for] if he could know the cause, he too might find that he was serving God and was honored in his very agony.”[15]

Fourth, Elihu described God’s relationship with the wicked. Elihu recognized that people are sinners (33:17, 27; 34:22–27, 30; 35:12–13, 15; 36:9–10, 13–14), and are therefore held accountable to God (32:22; 33:26; 34:11, 30; 35:15; 36:10–12). For Elihu people are unable to deliver themselves and therefore need God’s intervention and involvement (33:23–32; 36:15; 37:13). Even those who are mighty are ultimately subject to God (34:24). He knows their works (v. 25) and will overthrow them (vv. 25–26), because they have turned from following Him and have not regarded His ways (v. 27). They also cause the poor to cry out to God (v. 28). Furthermore God does not value an evil or proud person (35:12–13). Ultimately they are removed from their place (32:22; 34:24) and another is promoted above them (34:24). Especially pertinent to Job was the issue of pride (33:17; 35:12) and his accusation that God does not punish the wicked (21:7–16; cf. 35:12; 36:6).

The point Elihu was making is that God’s retributive justice is still in effect regardless of the charges brought against it by a faulty theology or false accusations. People are accountable to God and are totally dependent on His grace for deliverance.

Elihu’s View of Suffering relative to the Theology of Retribution

For most ancient peoples, the quintessential principle of life was that God (or the gods) rule with predictive, moral, and compensative order.[16] It was generally believed that the sovereign God/gods ruled His/their world, and that when necessary He/they would intervene in human history to reward the good and punish the wicked. Of course the Scriptures teach that God will ultimately punish the wicked and reward the righteous.[17] It would seem that moral order in the world was and continues to be “one of those requirements of the human mind which God cannot fail to satisfy without appearing unjust.”[18]

A belief held generally throughout the ancient world[19] was “that there is an exact correspondence between one’s behavior and one’s destiny,” and this principle “is known as the doctrine of retribution.”[20] Generally in this view there was no room for the suffering of the righteous or the blessing of the wicked.[21]

Eichrodt asserts that a “deeply rooted belief in retribution” was found in Israel.[22] Eichrodt’s theology of the Old Testament was instrumental in popularizing the term “retribution.” The term is so entrenched within present-day Old Testament theology that it seems advisable to retain that term to represent the biblical principle of retribution or retribution theology. The terms “compensation” and “compensation theology,” on the other hand, designate the misconception of the biblical principle of retribution.[23]

Retribution Theology

“Retribution” or “retribution theology” may be defined as deserved reward or punishment that comes to an obedient or offending party when a divine requirement, agreement, verbal promise, or covenant is kept or broken. That there could be verbal requirements or verbal agreements between God and people is clearly indicated by (a) the sacrifices Job offered (Job 1:5 and 42:8); (b) the phrases regarding God’s “path,” “command,” “words of His mouth,” in 23:11–12; (c) Job’s oath of innocence and list of virtues in chapter 31; (d) Elihu’s insistence that God is involved in individual human life (33:14–30; 34:14–15, 21–22, 25, 29; 36:5–12, 31; 37:13); and (e) God’s speeches and the epilogue (chaps. 38–42).

Negatively, retribution is punishment for breaking a contract or covenant (verbal or written) that was relationally or legally binding on two parties. Positively, retribution is reward for keeping the commands and requirements of that same contract or agreement. Retribution resulted from disobedience or obedience, anticipated by the offending or obedient party, when the verbal agreement, command, or covenant was broken or kept. It was therefore fair and just both legally and morally.

However, the traditional wisdom of Job’s day saw the concept of retribution as a fixed systematic formula for judging the condition of a nation or the life of an individual.[24] Therefore it limited God to predetermined actions in dealing with people’s responses to Him. People “seek an explanation of suffering in cause and effect.. .. They look backwards for a connection between prior sin and present suffering.”[25]

However, according to the Scriptures, within the true principle of retribution there is room for exceptions to a fixed formula for the working out of God’s justice in the lives of His people.[26] “God’s actions can at times suspend all dogmatic statements and theories about God’s own inner workings.”[27] This is not to say that He is capricious or that the principle of retribution contradicts His justice and freedom to act, but it does explain why people have attempted to develop fixed formulas by which to try to explain or predict God’s actions.[28] Even so, retribution theology remains a tenet of God’s justice and righteousness and does not violate God’s mercy, love, and grace toward His people (37:13).

Compensation Theology

“Compensation” or “compensation theology” is a belief system based on human observation, presumption, prejudice, and dogmatic traditional wisdom. Compensation is an airtight reward-and-punishment system related to performance of the individual within a set standard of assumed values. While there is evidence that God communicated certain requirements related to the true principle of retribution in the Book of Job, there is no evidence in the book that God followed this concept of compensation. God did not agree to the assumptions of Satan, the three counselors, or Job himself. There is no evidence of mutual agreement between the Lord and Job, nor a verbal or written covenant that promised that the righteous would always prosper and never suffer. That is, Job and his three companions had made an assumption, but God had not validated it. Therefore it was neither legally nor morally binding on the Lord.

The terms “compensation” and “compensation theology” represent the fixed formula that became a distortion of the true principle of retribution. For instance Job’s accusers, holding to compensation theology, communicated the idea that God is somehow under obligation to exact payment according to a principle that confines Him to the limitations of human interpretation of how good or bad a person is or acts.[29]

Therefore compensation theology is presumptuous and prejudicial. It is presumptuous toward the Lord in that it demands that He act in accord with traditional wisdom. It is prejudicial toward human beings in that it classifies their relationship with God and their righteousness on the basis of having or not having material prosperity. Job’s suffering and the prosperity of the wicked provide clear evidence to the contrary.[30] In contrast to compensation theology, the biblical principle of retribution is neither presumptuous (forcing assumptions from human wisdom on the sovereign God) nor prejudicial (favoring one person over another; 34:19). The proper application of retribution theology breaks down when wrong assumptions are placed on it. It then becomes a different theology, namely, compensation theology.

Elihu’s Insights into Suffering Compared with Others’ Views

Ancient Near Eastern View	Elihu’s View
1. Worshipers held a general belief in some form of mechanical compensation: the automatic connection between one’s deeds and state of being. Compensation was governed by the god(s) somewhat capriciously.[31]	1. Elihu held a belief in true retribution that was fairly and justly administered by God. It was not mechanical, nor were one’s deeds necessarily connected to its operation. God does not govern capriciously (34:10–12).
2. This theology became a universal human philosophy of cosmic order for explaining individual destinies, suffering, and prosperity.	2. True retribution is a correction of the distorted views of human philosophy and is explainable only by God Himself (34:12–15; 36:5).
3. As a result of belief in this principle, misfortunes were always the result of sins and misdeeds. Suffers were not therefore truly “innocent” but were ignorant and in need of enlightenment.	3. While the principle of retribution is observable, neither suffering nor prosperity is always predictable. Suffering is not always due to sin, nor prosperity to righteousness (36:6–8, 15; 34:28; 36:27–31).
4. Therefore worshipers could expect reward and protection based on a life dedicated to their deity. Being “righteous” and “innocent,” meant the person was obedient to the human explanations regarding the will of the deity. “Wise men” then became the interpreters of divine will.	4. Reward and protection cannot be guaranteed by dedication of life to God. The righteous suffer undeservedly for purposes known to God. Being “righteous” or “innocent” means a person is obedient to the will of God. “Wise men” were to clarify and announce the will of God but not presume on His prerogatives.
5. When suffering, the person (or sage) would simply acquiesce to the situation, because the god(s) were usually aloof and detached.	5. Elihu agonized with the sufferer over the paradox of undeserved suffering and God’s retributive justice (33:6). Also Elihu said God is personally involved in the lives of sufferers (34:14–15).
6. Since suffering was evidence of sin, the only recourse was to admit guilt, praise the deity, and plead for mercy.	6. Since suffering is not always evidence of sin, sufferers are allowed to ask why, but not to blame God (33:12; 36:22–26).

Satan’s View	Elihu’s View
1. Suffering is a tool to use against both sufferers and God with the ultimate objective being that people curse God (1:9–11; 2:4–5).	1. Suffering is allowed by God for His own purposes and for the benefit of individuals (33:14, 19, 23–24).
2. Suffering is a tool to manipulate sufferers into doubting the goodness and justice of God.	2. Suffering is allowed by God to strengthen sufferers’ faith in the goodness and justice of God (34:12; 37:23).
3. Suffering generally has two objectives: to induce sufferers to blame God for what Satan does, and to motivate sufferers to sin.	3. Suffering has many objectives, all of which are designed to guide sufferers to a closer relationship with God and a better understanding of themselves and God (36:5, 22, 24).
4. Satan’s objectives in his misuse of suffering are reinforced by the false principle of compensation.	4. God’s objectives in His use of suffering are in perfect harmony with His gracious administration of the true principle of retribution (36:2–7).
5. Satan uses undeserved suffering to cause loss of perspective, disillusionment, and discouragement.	5. Suffering is designed by God to sharpen perspective, correct weaknesses, and strengthen one’s faith (33:15; 34:31; 37:13).
6. Satan used undeserved suffering to attempt to frustrate God’s destiny for Job.	6. Suffering solidified a sense of God’s destiny for the life of Job (36:22–37:24).

The View of Eliphaz, Bildad, and Zophar	Elihu’s View
1. Job’s suffering was deserved; only the wicked suffer. Job was suffering; therefore Job was wicked (4:8; 11:6, 11; 18:5–21; 20:25–29; 22:2–11, 21–30).	1. Job’s initial suffering was not deserved (Elihu limited his argument to present faults like pride; 33:17–18, 29–30). Job was not wicked, but he had sinned during the debates and was in a precarious position (32:14; 33:12).
2. Job’s suffering was divine judgment or chastisement for sins committed before his suffering began (chap. 22).	2. Job’s suffering was not due to sins committed before the initial suffering began; rather he sinned in his speeches and attitudes (34:35–37; 35:16).
3. The solution to Job’s suffering was to confess his sin and repent; his prosperity was the motivation for repentance, because prosperity is always assured to the repentant (5:8, 27; 8:5; 11:13–14; 15:20–35; 22:21–23).	3. The solution to Job’s suffering was humble submission to God’s work in his life. He was to return to being occupied with God and with what He was doing in his affliction. Prosperity is not the motivation for true repentance; it is only a possible consequence (36:8–15; 37:14).
4. The three held firmly to a traditional compensation theology that dictated the relationship between God and sufferers and obligated God to administer justice according to its precepts (chaps. 15, 18, 20, 22).	4. Elihu defended the true principle of retribution that was fairly and justly administered by God for Job’s benefit (34:10–15; 36:2–26). God is not obligated by the interpretations of “wise men” or by the precepts of man-made theology (37:15, 19, 23).
5. The certainty of compensation theology was more important to the three than their duty to Job as friends and comforters during his suffering (6:14, 21; 17:1–5).	5. Elihu was concerned for Job, compassionately motivated to help him regardless of Job’s conflict with traditional wisdom (33:4–7, 32).
6. The three drew wrong conclusions from Job’s situation and thus made erroneous applications: (1) Job was sinful and therefore deserved suffering. (2) Job could have previously fallen unknowingly into sin, so suffering was deserved. (3) Job’s suffering was disciplinary because of previous sin; therefore it was deserved.	6.Elihu rejected the premise that all suffering is deserved. He affirmed that the cause for Job’s original suffering was a mystery known only to God. However, Elihu realized that Job had sinned during the debates and that the continued suffering was allowed for several reasons that were irrelevant at the onset of his suffering (33:12; 34:10, 12, 35).

 

Job’s View	Elihu’s View
1. Job viewed his suffering as undeserved and unexplainable by the theology of compensation (9:21; 21:7).	1. Elihu agreed and therefore concentrated on Job’s present situation, offering no explanation for Job’s undeserved initial suffering.
2. Job associated his suffering with his past and related it to his present situation (7:17–20; 9:17–20).	2. Elihu associated Job’s suffering with the present and related it to his future (33:12; 34:10; 37:14).
3. Job observed that the righteous often suffer and the wicked often prosper, contrary to the belief system held by the three friends and to some extent by himself (chap. 21).	3. Elihu agreed, but did not connect this to the false principle of compensation that viewed Job as wicked (view of the three) or that God was unjust (Job’s view; 34:10, 12, 21: 36:5, 26).
4. Job’s suffering caused a dilemma in his thinking with regard to traditional wisdom. He was unable to reconcile his suffering with his exemplary life (7:20; 10:2; chaps. 29–31).	4. Elihu, as a fellow human being, shared in the dilemma, but did not allow it to undermine his belief and trust in God’s retributive justice (33:6–7; 37:23).
5. Though tempted by the offer of return of prosperity and social status, Job rejected this and maintained that, even though prosperity was given by God, it is not the incentive for service to God (he rejected all calls for his repentance).	5. Like Job in the prologue, Elihu recognized that both prosperity and suffering can be gifts from God (2:10). God, not circumstances, is to be the focus of one’s life (36:24; 37:13–14, 24).
6. Suffering caused Job to contend with God and to attempt to explain His actions by human reason (7:17–21; 9:22–24; 33:8–11, 13).	6.Elihu maintained that God’s actions, though inexplicable, are perfectly good, just, and fair (34:10, 12; 37:5, 23).
7. Suffering caused Job to misunderstand God’s plan, accuse God falsely, arrogantly challenge God, and criticize the operation of God’s justice.	7.Elihu saw suffering as preventive, correctional, and educational. It was meant to clarify Job’s misunderstandings, correct his false accusations, reveal his arrogance, and counter his criticism of God’s justice.
8. Job’s suffering made him anthropocentric, focusing on the injustice of his situation and the ramifications of his losses (chaps. 3, 29–31).	8.Elihu presented suffering as glorificational, revelational, organizational, and relational. Job’s suffering was to make him theocentric, focusing on God’s justice and the positive aspects of his situation (35:5, 36:5, 22, 26; 37:14).
9. In Job’s discourse on wisdom he recognized that it is possible to be closer to true wisdom during times of suffering and pain (28:20–22). But it is still God who gives the wisdom necessary to understand and deal with such suffering wisely.	9.Elihu shared this conclusion with Job (32:7–9; 36:16; 37:24).

 

God’s View	Elihu’s View
1. The reason or cause of undeserved suffering is known only to God, but the effect is felt by people, who are allowed to respond or react to their particular circumstances (38:4, 33).	1. Elihu similarly attempted to convince Job to respond properly to his situation rather than react to undeserved suffering (36:25–26; 37:5, 14, 23).
2. Although people cannot fully understand the cause and reason behind suffering, God allows suffering to reveal defects that surface when believers suffer undeservedly (38:2; 40:2; 41:11).	2. Elihu dealt directly with these faults and developed principles that were necessary for Job to comprehend and apply before God appeared (33:8–11; 34:5–6, 9; 35:2–3).
3. God uses elements in nature (e.g., rain) for discipline or punishment, for His own pleasure and enjoyment, and as an expression of His covenant love (38:25–28).	3.Elihu presented the principle of חֶסֶד (“loyal love”) in 37:13. Rain can be viewed as an expression of God’s judgment or of His grace and mercy.
4. God also rejected the inflexible theology of compensation, pointing the three friends and Job to the grace and sovereign operation of His retributive justice (41:10b–11).	4. Elihu did not answer Job according to the arguments of the three (32:14); he upheld the true principle of just retribution (34:10–12; 35:4–8). And he indicated that God provides for all people (36:31).
5. Job’s suffering was important to God, but Job was not the exclusive object of His concern; His purposes often extend beyond the needs of people (38:26–27).	5. Elihu concurred (37:1–18).
6. The divine speeches influenced Job to repent of attitudes and sins developed during the debates mainly by causing him to concentrate on God’s work in creating and sustaining the world (chaps. 38–41).	6. Elihu recommended several actions that Job should take to advance beyond his occupation with his undeserved suffering: ponder and praise God’s work (35:5; 37:14), and revere Him (36:24; 37:24).
7. Without the occurrence of underserved suffering Job would not have known and appreciated the magnitude of God’s greatness (40:2) or recognized his own limitations (38:2).	7. This was one of Elihu’s objectives throughout the discourse: to bring Job to a better understanding of the greatness of God (34:10–12; 36:5; 37:14, 23) and to a humble position before Him (33:6; 37:24).
8. God’s speeches demonstrate that He is the source of everything on earth (38:28), and He has control, ability, power, and knowledge over nature and all life (38:34–38). To understand undeserved suffering fully, one would have to be God.	8. Elihu agreed (37:6, 9–10, 15–16). He had made no pretense of understanding the preexistent reason or cause for Job’s undeserved suffering. That knowledge rests with God alone.

Conclusion

Worshipers of the ancient Near Eastern gods, Satan, Job, and his three antagonists—all these believed that suffering originated from a “tit for tat,”[32] “measure for measure,” compensation theology, which governs the correspondence between righteous behavior and prosperity, and sinful behavior and misery. However, Elihu showed that neither he nor God supported this theory. Under God’s justice, suffering comes to people for several reasons, many of which are unrelated to compensation theology. Therefore Elihu uniquely declared that God’s presence is seen precisely in the one place Job had claimed it was not, namely, suffering.[33] Suffering may be, and often is, God’s voice to His highest creation. This in fact could be one of the most important contributions Elihu made to the theology of suffering: God speaks to humankind through various categories of suffering. And He is not limited to compensation theology.

Something apparently happened to Job while he was listening to Elihu. “With the help of Elihu, Job’s confrontation with God became a revealing and healing experience, and he realizes that it is not only safe, but actually necessary to relinquish his insistence on his loyalty, his purity, his righteousness.”[34] Prepared by Elihu, and then confronted by God (chaps. 38–42), Job refocused on God, recognized who he was in relation to his Creator, and understood the proper function of retributive justice. He ceased his insistence that God had acted with injustice, that he would approach God like a “prince,” and that God had to act in a prescribed manner. Job was no longer overwhelmed by his suffering and the injustice of it; he was no longer verbal and defensive; he was no longer proud of his righteousness, orthodoxy, and purity; instead he was willing to let go of his security in a false theology.[35]

Job’s response to God, recorded in 40:4–5 and 42:5–6, demonstrates this observation. In his response he acknowledged two things. First, Job recognized a basic principle about his sin: “I am unworthy. .. I put my hand over my mouth. .. I will say no more” (40:4, NIV). Second, he recognized the nature of God and responded with a humility, love, and godly fear for God’s sovereignty (42:1–2); he realized God’s inscrutability (42:3); reflected on God’s superiority (42:4); refocused on God’s intimacy (42:5); and repented of serving God from wrong motivations or presumption (42:6).[36] Satan was silenced in chapter 42, because Job’s response (42:1–6) proved that God’s confidence in him was not unfounded (1:8; 2:3). Though God needs no vindication, the Book of Job shows that undeserved suffering, accepted and borne by a child of God, does, in a sense, vindicate God’s gracious plan for His saints.

Crenshaw states that “true wisdom, like God, defies human reason.”[37] Therefore true wisdom defies the wrong concepts of compensation theology, and when properly applied during undeserved suffering, godly wisdom becomes a living demonstration of God’s grace. Job could say, “My ears had heard of you but now my eyes have seen you” (42:5, NIV), partly because of the help of Elihu, who opened the way for Job to have a better understanding of God and His ways.

Notes

1. See Roy B. Zuck, “A Theology of the Wisdom Books and the Song of Songs,” in A Biblical Theology of the Old Testament, ed. Roy B. Zuck (Chicago: Moody, 1991), 219–32. Many observations in this article are drawn from this study, but will not be noted hereafter unless directly quoted.
2. Ibid., 219.
3. For a discussion of the authenticity of Elihu’s speeches, see Larry J. Waters, “The Authenticity of the Elihu Speeches in Job 32–37, ” Bibliotheca Sacra 156 (January-March 1999): 28-41.
4. D. A. Carson, How Long, O Lord? Reflections on Suffering and Evil (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1990), 160.
5. Ibid., 173-74.
6. Zuck, “A Theology of the Wisdom Books and the Song of Songs,” 221.
7. The terms “compensation” and “compensation theology” are defined later.
8. Zuck points out that שַׁדַּי is used thirty-one times in Job (including six times by Elihu) and only seventeen times in the rest of the Old Testament (ibid., 221–22). Also see R. Laird Harris, “The Book of Job and Its Doctrine of God,” in Sitting with Job: Selected Studies on the Book of Job, ed. Roy B. Zuck (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1992), 154–55.
9. Kushner says, “God would like people to get what they deserve in life, but He cannot always arrange it. Forced to choose between a good God who is not totally powerful, or a powerful God who is not totally good, the author of the book of Job chooses to believe in God’s goodness” (Harold S. Kushner, When Bad Things Happen to Good People [New York: Avon, 1983], 42–43).
10. Philip Yancey, “Riddles of Pain: Clues from the Book of Job,” Christianity Today, December 13, 1985, 80.
11. Dorothee Soelle, Suffering (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1975), 114.
12. Elmer B. Smick, “Semeiological Interpretation of the Book of Job,” Westminster Theological Journal 48 (1986): 147.
13. H. H. Rowley, “The Intellectual versus the Spiritual Solution,” in The Dimensions of Job: A Study and Selected Readings (New York: Schocken, 1967), 126.
14. See Zuck, “A Theology of the Wisdom Books and the Song of Songs,” 226–28, 230–31.
15. Rowley, “The Intellectual versus the Spiritual Solution,” 124.
16. René Girard writes, “The idea of retribution [is] an essential aspect of every system of mythological representation [and it] dominates primitive religion” (Job: The Victim of His People [Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 1987], 122).
17. Jerome D. Quinn, “The Scriptures of Merit,” in Justification by Faith, ed. H. George Anderson, T. Austin Murphy, and Joseph A. Burgess (Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1985), 84.
18. Édouard Dhorme, A Commentary on the Book of Job (Nashville: Nelson, 1984), cxxviii.
19. Robert Gordis states that the doctrine “was universally accepted throughout the ancient Near East, from the Nile to the Euphrates. The concept of family solidarity was joined to that of lex talionis (‘measure for measure’) and became a cardinal principle in the legal system of the ancient Babylonians, Assyrians, and Hittites” (The Book of God and Man [Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1965], 137).
20. David J. A. Clines, Job 1–20, Word Biblical Commentary (Dallas: Word, 1989), xxxix. Edward W. Glenny states it this way: “Retribution theology holds that there is an automatic connection between a person’s deeds and state of being” (“How Well Do You Know God? The Dangers of Retribution Theology,” Searching Together 23 [Spring 1995]: 14). Glenny’s use of the word “automatic” would move his definition into the category of compensation theology.
21. Shimon Bakon, “God and Man on Trial,” Jewish Bible Quarterly 21 (1993): 22.
22. Walter Eichrodt considered retribution as one of the characteristic peculiarities that mark the Israelite religion: “Hence in Babylonia. .. we find a terrifying uncertainty about the principle of God’s dealings with men; but the Israelite is certain that God in his turn will act toward him in accordance with those principles of law with which he himself is well acquainted” (Theology of the Old Testament, Old Testament Library, trans. J. A. Baker [Philadelphia: Westminster, 1961], 1:243). The certainty of the Israelite, however, often turned to uncertainty when the formula did not follow the expected course. Koch points out that it may have been Gunkel who first recognized that from the beginning of Israel’s history they held to a belief in retribution (Klaus Koch, “Is There a Doctrine of Retribution in the Old Testament?” in Theodicy in the Old Testament, ed. James L. Crenshaw [Philadelphia: Fortress, 1983], 57).
23. This is done with full awareness that the terms “retribution” and “compensation” could also be used interchangeably. However, it seems preferable to use the term “compensation” to represent the wrong doctrine, the wrong understanding, the misapplication, or the “hyperdoctrine” of retribution, while maintaining that the term “retribution” represents the biblical principles related to reward and punishment from God.
24. Roland E. Murphy states, “The book’s most positive teaching is at the same time negative; the application to Job of the traditional theory of divine retribution is not relevant” (The Tree of Life: An Exploration of Biblical Wisdom Literature, Anchor Bible Reference Library [New York: Doubleday & Co., 1990], 34).
25. Francis I. Andersen, Job: An Introduction and Commentary, Tyndale Old Testament Commentaries (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1976), 68. As an example of this principle Andersen points to the man who was born blind “in order that the works of God might be displayed in him” (John 9:3).
26. This is also true in reverse. Righteous servants of God have suffered undeservedly, such as Joseph, Elijah, David as a fugitive, Jeremiah, Isaiah, and Daniel. The New Testament also gives examples, such as Jesus Himself, the apostle Paul, the apostle Peter, and early-church believers.
27. Koch, “Is There a Doctrine of Retribution in the Old Testament?” 82. Richard Rohr says, “The Book of Job proclaims from the beginning that there is no [fixed] correlation between sin and suffering, between virtue and reward. That logic is hard for us to break. This book tries to break it, so that a new logos, called grace, can happen” (Job and the Mystery of Suffering [New York: Crossroad, 1996], 33).
28. J. A. Loader says, “The Book of Job has no objection to a connexion [sic] of deed and consequence, but indeed objects to a doctrine of retribution into which reality is forced” (“Relativity in Near Eastern Wisdom,” in Studies in Wisdom Literature, ed. W. C. van Wyk [Hercules, S.A.: N.H.W., 1981], 54 [italics his]).
29. This may also be referred to as “the traditional theory of retribution.” J. Clinton McCann says, “By its rejection of the traditional theory of retribution, the Book of Job reveals a God whose essence is love, and thus a God who suffers with, for, and on account of humankind in the world” (“Wisdom’s Dilemma: The Book of Job, the Final Form of the Book of Psalms, the Entire Bible,” in Wisdom You Are My Sister: Studies in Honor of Roland E. Murphy, O. Carm., on the Occasion of His Eightieth Birthday, ed. Michael L. Barré, Catholic Biblical Quarterly Monograph Series 29 [Washington, DC: Catholic Biblical Association of America, 1997], 21).
30. See, for example, Job’s remarks in Job 12 and 21.
31. For a discussion of the capriciousness of ancient Near Eastern gods, see Larry J. Waters, “Elihu’s View of Suffering in Job 32–37” (Ph.D. diss., Dallas Theological Seminary, 1998), 218–63.
32. Tikva Frymer-Kensky, “Tit for Tat: The Principle of Equal Retribution in Near Eastern and Biblical Law,” Biblical Archaeologist 43 (Fall 1980): 230-34.
33. David Arvid Johns, “The Literary and Theological Function of the Elihu Speeches in the Book of Job” (Ph.D. diss., Saint Louis University, 1983), 147.
34. Walter L. Michel, “Job’s Real Friend: Elihu,” Criterion 21 (spring 1982): 32.
35. Ibid.
36. Steven J. Lawson, When All Hell Breaks Loose (Colorado Springs: NavPress, 1994), 245–48.
37. James L. Crenshaw, Old Testament Wisdom: An Introduction (London: SCM, 1982), 123.